New sponsor needed

732
 

It’s more likely Everton would sue Stake than the other way round.

Under UK contract law, if an event makes performance of a contract illegal or impossible, the contract will be deemed “frustrated.”

The loss of the licence would likely be seen as Stake’s failure, not Everton’s. If anything, Everton could potentially sue Stake for Reputational harm. Lost sponsorship revenue. Legal costs from regulatory inquiries.

Most sponsorship contracts, especially in regulated sectors like gambling include “compliance with law” clauses.

Stake likely breached a core term of the contract, giving Everton the right to terminate.
Contract would only be frustrated if the inability to perform was outside of control of both parties.

Looks like Stake took the decision to remove themselves from the UK market so, on the face of it, that wouldn't give rise to frustration due to it being Stake's decision.

Vis-a-vis the other points, pretty difficult to opine without having sight of the contract (for e.g. if there was a compliance with laws provision). Also appears that Everton can perform their own side of the contract anyway so probably moot.

I really want to have a gander at that contract now!
 
Contract would only be frustrated if the inability to perform was outside of control of both parties.

Looks like Stake took the decision to remove themselves from the UK market so, on the face of it, that wouldn't give rise to frustration due to it being Stake's decision.

Vis-a-vis the other points, pretty difficult to opine without having sight of the contract (for e.g. if there was a compliance with laws provision). Also appears that Everton can perform their own side of the contract anyway so probably moot.

I really want to have a gander at that contract now!
Hasn’t our sponsor always been stake.com rather than the uk based stake site which was technically separate? Thats why I thought the club had just ignored the warning.
 

It’s more likely Everton would sue Stake than the other way round.

Under UK contract law, if an event makes performance of a contract illegal or impossible, the contract will be deemed “frustrated.”

The loss of the licence would likely be seen as Stake’s failure, not Everton’s. If anything, Everton could potentially sue Stake for Reputational harm. Lost sponsorship revenue. Legal costs from regulatory inquiries.

Most sponsorship contracts, especially in regulated sectors like gambling include “compliance with law” clauses.

Stake likely breached a core term of the contract, giving Everton the right to terminate.
Only worry I`d have is this is an Everton sponsorship contract that was agreed when we were being run like a clown show.
 

Didn't Barcelona used to pay UNICEF to use their name on their shirts, in other words they sponsored UNICEF but paid them. I might be wrong but I thought that was the case.
Would love us to do something similar with Alder Hey, pay them to put their name on our shirt, a proper peoples club.

We built this City, so we might as well sponsor the local kids hospital too.
They did but I'm not sure their reasoning was completely altruistic.

Barcelona had a long tradition of not sullying their iconic shirt with a sponsors logo stained across the front of it. Obviously this admirable statement didn't sit too well with those who see football as something to syphon money from or as a form of sports washing murderous regimes so a way around it became highly desirable.

Hence the strategy of handing that prestigious space over to a worldwide established children's charity. This was not crass commercialisation sullying the shirt - this was a selfless gesture as two world famous institutions came together and did it for the benefit of humanity. It certainly wasn't a longer term plan to make having another organisations logo on the front of the shirt the 'new normal'.

Nothing lasts forever though and the deal with Unicef deal reached an end. But the desire to help others remained so Barca sold that empty space to Qatar Foundation. A wholesome non-profit whose only aim was to educate and help those less fortunate than the Qatari Royal Family and definitely nothing else.

This agreement also had a bit of a quirky clause which meant that after 2 years the sponsorship changed to Qatar Airways which sounds a bit like the kind of crass commercialisation that would have seemed unthinkable a few years before....until they did it for the kids.

Rakuten, Beko and Spotify have since followed. That iconic shirt is just another advertising space now.
 


Just seen this on Instagram. Noticeably, the photograph of Ndiaye does not include the Stake logo on the shirt.

Could this be due to the post promoting a training camp for young people, or is it because we are switching sponsors? More likely the former, but we cannot rule out a change in sponsorship.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top