New back-of-shirt sponsor

[Phileas Fogg]

44 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Club has just confirmed on X (formerly Twitter) that Banks is no longer involved with the company.

It’s strange of them to comment on that really it’s unusual they reply to people.

The club is so predictable that it’s clear to see what’s happened, as per they didn’t do their research so were panicking. 

[Davefevs]

Funny how this went down the Arron Babks route.

My initial comment was more to do with the link to Soares and Bermuda, than Banks…and the 2+2 with JL and Bermuda.

The fact that the company was Arron Banks’s at some point is another 2+2.  A company that prospered under him and is now sponsoring us isn’t a good look.

What is it about Re-Insurance and Bermuda?  Many companies seem to operate their “Re” business there.  Tax?

33 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

It’s strange of them to comment on that really it’s unusual they reply to people.

The club is so predictable that it’s clear to see what’s happened, as per they didn’t do their research so we’re panicking. 

The club will probably be sued by Banks now.  He has form doesn’t he.

[Barrs Court Red]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

The club will probably be sued by Banks now.  He has form doesn’t he.

I know your being flippant, but no. Still, this doesn’t take away from it being a hugely unprofessional tweet imo. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

17 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

What is it about Re-Insurance and Bermuda?  Many companies seem to operate their “Re” business there.  Tax?

https://www.legalandgeneralre.com/news-and-insights/articles/article-1/

Not particularly read it myself yet but my best guess would be a mix of tax, secrecy confidentiality and other such favourable items for that sector.

[zippycar]

Searching for: why are reinsurers based in Bermuda

Generating answers for you…

Bermuda is often referred to as the “world’s risk capital” due to its innovative and entrepreneurial insurance sector. The country emerged as a leader in the development and regulation of captive insurers over 40 years ago and is now home to underwriting operations for more than 30 major international insurance and reinsurance firms1.

Bermuda has led the reinsurance industry in developing a scientific approach to catastrophe underwriting, innovating to better serve customers, and establishing highly regarded enterprise risk management programs1. This has helped major reinsurers maintain their important credit ratings, meet shareholder expectations, and demonstrate resilience to global customers1.

For the United States, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners has designated Bermuda as a “qualified jurisdiction,” and as a “reciprocal jurisdiction” for reinsurance purposes. This means that U.S. insurance regulators can look at reinsurance from a Bermuda-based company about the same way they might look at reinsurance from a U.S.-based company2.

In addition, European regulators have approved Bermuda for Solvency II equivalency, which puts Bermuda on par with European peers when competing for business in the European Union2.

Bermuda’s location also makes it an ideal base for companies working with both U.S. and European insurers2. These factors have contributed to Bermuda becoming the largest supplier of catastrophe reinsurance to US insurers1.

Oh and it’s Jon Lansdown’s favourite place and a total coincidence with any connection between him and any back of shirt sponsors.
 

[Phileas Fogg]

8 hours ago, Barrs Court Red said:

I know your being flippant, but no. Still, this doesn’t take away from it being a hugely unprofessional tweet imo. 

It’s a terribly worded tweet - who’s ‘we’ in that instance? Also ‘inflammatory remarks’ is, Banks could argue, hugely subjective. 

What’s funny is the reply has clearly been agreed by a few people given the 4 hour time lag. Just no need to reply at all, so naive.

 

Edited December 29, 2023 by Phileas Fogg

[Olé]

11 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Club has just confirmed on X (formerly Twitter) that Banks is no longer involved with the company.

  We are proud to announce Fred West Building Services as our new back of shirt sponsor!

..

EDIT: Fred West is no longer involved in Fred West Building Services following his death in 1995.

The club would nonetheless condemn any prior inappropriate actions or behaviour by Mr West.

[Silvio Dante]

3 minutes ago, Olé said:

  We are proud to announce Fred West Building Services as our new back of shirt sponsor!

..

EDIT: Fred West is no longer involved in Fred West Building Services following his death in 1995.

The club would nonetheless condemn any prior inappropriate actions or behaviour by Mr West.

Fred West Building Services - “All Killer, No Filler”

[22A]

Back of shirt sponsor names began in rugby so it could be seen during scrums and when a player dived over to score. For City, every time a [layer is tripped or celebrates wildly after scoring, that name will be seen.

[Harry]

13 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Which is good - but again, I’d question why they didn’t know that questions like this would be coming. Several people on here made the link between Banks and GoSkippy (understandable as local), and although you and I will see that disclaimer those not on social media won’t.

I can’t see it will be a big deal. But it won’t sell any more shirts and also puts the club in a negative light. It just looks horribly naive.

 

13 hours ago, Phileas Fogg said:

It’s strange of them to comment on that really it’s unusual they reply to people.

The club is so predictable that it’s clear to see what’s happened, as per they didn’t do their research so were panicking. 

To be honest chaps I think this thread is mostly overreacting to this. 
 

I don’t think the football club need to apologise or have to backtrack. Banks doesn’t own the company any more. Why should City have to have done their research on someone who doesn’t work there any more? 
 

Banks is an odious little character, for sure. But he has had absolutely zero part in this deal, so why should City have been careful about him? 
 

Re the financial penalties the company have had, well, Liverpool are sponsored by Standard Chartered Bank who had a £46.5m fine 2 years ago!! Should Liverpool have to apologise to its fans for engaging with such a company? 
And I am sure there are many more examples of unscrupulous companies ran by unscrupulous individuals where the football club has zero input. 
 

End of the day, a company, a legitimate company, has agreed to give us some money. Are we suggesting that the club should have turned them down? 
 

We shouldn’t have to turn away sponsorship because someone who once owned the company isn’t very well liked. 
 

All a bit of an overreaction here for me. 

[Phileas Fogg]

10 minutes ago, Harry said:

 

To be honest chaps I think this thread is mostly overreacting to this. 
 

I don’t think the football club need to apologise or have to backtrack. Banks doesn’t own the company any more. Why should City have to have done their research on someone who doesn’t work there any more? 
 

Banks is an odious little character, for sure. But he has had absolutely zero part in this deal, so why should City have been careful about him? 
 

Re the financial penalties the company have had, well, Liverpool are sponsored by Standard Chartered Bank who had a £46.5m fine 2 years ago!! Should Liverpool have to apologise to its fans for engaging with such a company? 
And I am sure there are many more examples of unscrupulous companies ran by unscrupulous individuals where the football club has zero input. 
 

End of the day, a company, a legitimate company, has agreed to give us some money. Are we suggesting that the club should have turned them down? 
 

We shouldn’t have to turn away sponsorship because someone who once owned the company isn’t very well liked. 
 

All a bit of an overreaction here for me. 

What I meant by ‘hadn’t done their research’ is I doubt they (the media dept) even knew of the association. 

[TDarwall]

32 minutes ago, Harry said:

 

 

All a bit of an overreaction here for me. 

I'm with Harry on this one. Go Skippy are part of Somerset Bridge. The latter are regulated by the FCA; if they're happy, I don't think BCFC need to be doing enhanced due diligence.

 

Bermuda is a reinsurance hub, to be honest I don't know why, but I'd guess a combo of;

- Favourable tax regime 

- Proximity to North America

- Head honchos in European ins firms like to holiday there!

 

[Harry]

53 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

What I meant by ‘hadn’t done their research’ is I doubt they (the media dept) even knew of the association. 

Yep and I suppose what I meant was that it shouldn’t even matter that they don’t know the association as it’s history and Banks is no longer part of the company. So City don’t need to have known anything about Banks and shouldn’t have anything to apologies for or backtrack on. 
I think if we started to go down that route we’d be turning away a lot of sponsors. 
I know for a fact that some of the sponsors you see on the side of the pitch are companies owned by blokes who are ex hooligans or have criminal convictions. I won’t mention any names as it’s not relevant to do so but did City have to do their due diligence on all of those minor sponsors too? I’d say not. 
 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

I know for a fact that some of the sponsors you see on the side of the pitch are companies owned by blokes who are ex hooligans or have criminal convictions. I won’t mention any names as it’s not relevant

Peter and Steve

[Mr Popodopolous]

Wasn't there some coded advertisement years ago for 'City Sandwich Firm' or something similar.

[Olé]

2 hours ago, Harry said:

To be honest chaps I think this thread is mostly overreacting to this.

I'm actually not that bothered I just like to take the piss out of clumsy stuff the club do - however for the sake of an argument (since I haven't seen you all season!) here's another perspective.

Banks may have sold it but it's the same company led by people who were happy with an owner saying daft stuff he said.

The current CEO was appointed a year before Banks sold it. No doubt there are  plenty of senior management remaining who were happy to take his pound.

I understand call centre staff don't have a choice but the senior management do, they can vote with their feet, so they don't get to just airbrush it now.

If I'm in a well paid management job in Bristol for an owner calling our city little Somalia I'd choose a different employer. And I don't just move on and slap my logo on our shirt like it never happened.

Perhaps they should also make a further donation to Robins Foundation to help inner city projects to show they really do want to turn the page on all that crap.

[Phileas Fogg]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

Yep and I suppose what I meant was that it shouldn’t even matter that they don’t know the association as it’s history and Banks is no longer part of the company. So City don’t need to have known anything about Banks and shouldn’t have anything to apologies for or backtrack on. 
I think if we started to go down that route we’d be turning away a lot of sponsors. 
I know for a fact that some of the sponsors you see on the side of the pitch are companies owned by blokes who are ex hooligans or have criminal convictions. I won’t mention any names as it’s not relevant to do so but did City have to do their due diligence on all of those minor sponsors too? I’d say not. 
 

I agree - but my comments on this thread are about the tweet they chose to put out when there really was no need. Just draws attention to it - hence the thread and replies to their announcement tweet.

They should’ve said nothing and it would’ve fizzled out. The club is so obsessed with being politically correct that it definitely spooked them.

[Tim Monaghan]

3 hours ago, Harry said:

 

To be honest chaps I think this thread is mostly overreacting to this. 
 

I don’t think the football club need to apologise or have to backtrack. Banks doesn’t own the company any more. Why should City have to have done their research on someone who doesn’t work there any more? 
 

Banks is an odious little character, for sure. But he has had absolutely zero part in this deal, so why should City have been careful about him? 
 

Re the financial penalties the company have had, well, Liverpool are sponsored by Standard Chartered Bank who had a £46.5m fine 2 years ago!! Should Liverpool have to apologise to its fans for engaging with such a company? 
And I am sure there are many more examples of unscrupulous companies ran by unscrupulous individuals where the football club has zero input. 
 

End of the day, a company, a legitimate company, has agreed to give us some money. Are we suggesting that the club should have turned them down? 
 

We shouldn’t have to turn away sponsorship because someone who once owned the company isn’t very well liked. 
 

All a bit of an overreaction here for me. 

But you and I know that it doesn't fit the narrative, Harry. Come on, play the game...... 

[transfer reader]

5 hours ago, Harry said:

 

To be honest chaps I think this thread is mostly overreacting to this. 
 

I don’t think the football club need to apologise or have to backtrack. Banks doesn’t own the company any more. Why should City have to have done their research on someone who doesn’t work there any more? 
 

Banks is an odious little character, for sure. But he has had absolutely zero part in this deal, so why should City have been careful about him? 
 

Re the financial penalties the company have had, well, Liverpool are sponsored by Standard Chartered Bank who had a £46.5m fine 2 years ago!! Should Liverpool have to apologise to its fans for engaging with such a company? 
And I am sure there are many more examples of unscrupulous companies ran by unscrupulous individuals where the football club has zero input. 
 

End of the day, a company, a legitimate company, has agreed to give us some money. Are we suggesting that the club should have turned them down? 
 

We shouldn’t have to turn away sponsorship because someone who once owned the company isn’t very well liked. 
 

All a bit of an overreaction here for me. 

An overreaction, on OTIB? Dont be ridiculous!

[kiwicolin]

I'm a New Zealander.  Nothing to do with me.