Stake Baked

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder how many shirts don't get sold because of that logo on the front? I certainly wouldn't buy a shirt with that on the front.
Yeah, I wonder this, too.

I'd like to buy a souvenir shirt for our last season at Goodison, but I can't do it with that sponsor.

What I am pretty sure of, though, is that the lost sales from people like you and I is almost certainly eclipsed by the amount Stake were willing to pay the club. Shirt sales are small fry compared to sponsorship income.
 
Don't think this makes much difference.

Stake.com - which is what is written on our shirts - is unavailable in the UK, anyway.

View attachment 294476

As others have said, it'll be gone soon, anyway.
I do think this section is relevant though- effectively no operator can never 100% assure that their sites can't be accessed via VPN. So this might potentially be our get-out if we wish to move on, and it probably makes it advisable to do so.

"The Commission will be writing to Everton – along with two other football clubs with unlicensed sponsors - warning of the risks of promoting unlawful gambling websites.

The Commission will seek assurance from the clubs that they have carried out due diligence on their white label partners and that consumers in Great Britain cannot transact with the unlicensed sites.

Clubs will be asked to demonstrate that they have assurance that any steps to geo-block the sites are effective, recognising that some blocking can be easily by-passed by use of tools such as a Virtual Private Network.

Clubs will be expected to carry out sufficient due diligence to assure the Commission that consumers cannot transact with the sites from Great Britain by any means. The Commission will also be taking steps to independently verify effective measures are in place."
 
I thought the same! No way would this be a thing if Liverpool had a big deal with a bookie.
Nah they just have a deal with a financial institution that funds all sorts of dodgy outfits ( just Google Standard Chartered I'm sure you'll find it, they make Barclays look like Mother Teresa).
 
I do think this section is relevant though- effectively no operator can never 100% assure that their sites can't be accessed via VPN. So this might potentially be our get-out if we wish to move on, and it probably makes it advisable to do so.

"The Commission will be writing to Everton – along with two other football clubs with unlicensed sponsors - warning of the risks of promoting unlawful gambling websites.

The Commission will seek assurance from the clubs that they have carried out due diligence on their white label partners and that consumers in Great Britain cannot transact with the unlicensed sites.

Clubs will be asked to demonstrate that they have assurance that any steps to geo-block the sites are effective, recognising that some blocking can be easily by-passed by use of tools such as a Virtual Private Network.

Clubs will be expected to carry out sufficient due diligence to assure the Commission that consumers cannot transact with the sites from Great Britain by any means. The Commission will also be taking steps to independently verify effective measures are in place."
My thoughts exactly. We would be running the risk of punishment by continuing to advertise. Given that there isn't a UK business to advertise anymore, I think it is likely we'll get out of the deal and be able to entertain wealthy, new sponsors who want their logo all over BMD in a few months.
 
What the commission are asking sounds like a lot of hassle for the club for a sponsor that we only have for another year. Will surely just be easier to cut ties all together.
 
Really? Thelwell > Broja sort of gives you an idea of the type of clauses we tend to overlook
I would imagine that competent commercial contract lawyers were employed to draft / review the contract so yes.

I was never an expert in contract law but even I would have included a clause like that.
 
I would imagine that competent commercial contract lawyers were employed to draft / review the contract so yes.

I was never an expert in contract law but even I would have included a clause like that.
Even without such a clause I assume that if the execution of the contract is contrary to UK law (as suggested in the passage below) it will not be in any way enforceable. I imagine that Stake could not provide cast iron certainty that they do not and will not transact with GB consumers.

“The letter will warn that club officers may be liable to prosecution and, if convicted, face a fine, imprisonment or both if they promote unlicensed gambling businesses that transact with consumers in Great Britain.”
 
Only two? Nah! Tonight there’ll be an assumption Liverpool will be awarded a penalty every fifteen minutes unless Everton can demonstrate a reason why not. Note that all reasons must be approved by Richard Masters.
And written in triplicate, seeing as Liverpool are chasing the unprecedented treble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top