Baladabadi wrote:

County-at-the-races wrote:Well fair enough I stand corrected, if you say that the accounts will show that we have been paid up in full then I accept that.
Bloody weird way to run a business though, if you are handing over large amounts of money without a 'shop front' to sell yourself to the very people you are hoping to attract on the back of it.
Might just get in touch and ask if he wants to sponsor my business!

Kevin Ward wrote:Afternoon all
Yes, we have issued an invoice to Interbet. Yes, it has been paid.
I checked with the management of Chepstow Racecourse prior to the sponsorship being announced as they have worked with the owner of Interbet over a number of years as a race meeting sponsor at Chepstow and other courses. The information I received was that all sponsorships have always been paid promptly.
How a sponsor operates their business is a matter for them.
Hope that helps.
Cheers
Kev Ward

Your research prompted this clarification, so good work.

Better late than never from the directors I suppose.

A clarification that the company that has their names on our shirts has paid to have their names on the shirts. Yeah, this is really vital use of the club management's time. Jesus, so much flapping about nothing on here. Please note, this is not criticism of Kevin for taking the time to respond, but he really shouldn't, and shouldn't have to.

newgroundrodney wrote:

Willthiswork wrote:

Kevin Ward wrote:Afternoon all
Yes, we have issued an invoice to Interbet. Yes, it has been paid.
I checked with the management of Chepstow Racecourse prior to the sponsorship being announced as they have worked with the owner of Interbet over a number of years as a race meeting sponsor at Chepstow and other courses. The information I received was that all sponsorships have always been paid promptly.
How a sponsor operates their business is a matter for them.
Hope that helps.
Cheers
Kev Ward

Phew! Another rumour dispelled!

it's not a rumour dispelled, it's a genuine concern addressed in a proper manner. There is a big difference.

It's a bunch of internet forum nonsense wasting directors' time responding to something that is frankly insulting to the club and the sponsors. Some of the rubbish being spouted about company statuses on here shows how little actual knowledge people have and how little it takes for people to get their knickers in a twist, and it is incredibly wearing just watching it. I can only imagine how tedious those running the club must think it is, being expected to respond to every half-witted rumour that spins out of these pages.

SJG99 wrote: It's a bunch of internet forum nonsense wasting directors' time responding to something that is frankly insulting to the club and the sponsors. Some of the rubbish being spouted about company statuses on here shows how little actual knowledge people have and how little it takes for people to get their knickers in a twist, and it is incredibly wearing just watching it. I can only imagine how tedious those running the club must think it is, being expected to respond to every half-witted rumour that spins out of these pages.

I totally agree although the bits in bold now can't be erased from anyone's mind! :D

Willthiswork wrote:

SJG99 wrote: It's a bunch of internet forum nonsense wasting directors' time responding to something that is frankly insulting to the club and the sponsors. Some of the rubbish being spouted about company statuses on here shows how little actual knowledge people have and how little it takes for people to get their knickers in a twist, and it is incredibly wearing just watching it. I can only imagine how tedious those running the club must think it is, being expected to respond to every half-witted rumour that spins out of these pages.

I totally agree although the bits in bold now can't be erased from anyone's mind! :D

depends on who you are thinking about regards the words in bold?

SJG99 wrote:
It's a bunch of internet forum nonsense wasting directors' time responding to something that is frankly insulting to the club and the sponsors. Some of the rubbish being spouted about company statuses on here shows how little actual knowledge people have and how little it takes for people to get their knickers in a twist, and it is incredibly wearing just watching it. I can only imagine how tedious those running the club must think it is, being expected to respond to every half-witted rumour that spins out of these pages.

Internet nonsense?

Depends what moral/ethical values you have I suppose - betting firms are all over football now, they don't have a moral compass - other than the one imposed on them by regulators and the begrudging acknowledgment of Gamble Aware. To say you don't care if they go pop after paying is naive - if you are as company savvy as you make out you will know that the sponsorship deal, however contracted, will not pay in full up front. As another posted said, to have invoiced them is not confirmation that we have received full payment.

And as a season ticket holder at West Ham during the XL Holidays and Alpari debacles I can tell you that watching your team play with a blank vinyl patch over a failed sponsorship logo is embarrassing, unprofessional and an insult to those anoraks that wear replica shirts.

whoareya wrote:

SJG99 wrote:
It's a bunch of internet forum nonsense wasting directors' time responding to something that is frankly insulting to the club and the sponsors. Some of the rubbish being spouted about company statuses on here shows how little actual knowledge people have and how little it takes for people to get their knickers in a twist, and it is incredibly wearing just watching it. I can only imagine how tedious those running the club must think it is, being expected to respond to every half-witted rumour that spins out of these pages.

Internet nonsense?

Depends what moral/ethical values you have I suppose - betting firms are all over football now, they don't have a moral compass - other than the one imposed on them by regulators and the begrudging acknowledgment of Gamble Aware. To say you don't care if they go pop after paying is naive - if you are as company savvy as you make out you will know that the sponsorship deal, however contracted, will not pay in full up front. As another posted said, to have invoiced them is not confirmation that we have received full payment.

And as a season ticket holder at West Ham during the XL Holidays and Alpari debacles I can tell you that watching your team play with a blank vinyl patch over a failed sponsorship logo is embarrassing, unprofessional and an insult to those anoraks that wear replica shirts.

Clearly two very different opinions exist on this thread. I'm happy to accept Kevin's statement as it appears, ie, that we've been paid. Other posters also state that we've been paid, but it's unclear whether they mean in FULL. Other posters are very clear that we would NOT have been paid in full. I wonder which is correct?

Some on here are still trying to find dry ground after splashing about for days on end - you must be exhausted ... now breathe, relax, think about the things you could actually impact and those things that you can't - right what have you in each 'box'. Now just throw away the 'can't' box - go on I know it's difficult, just let it go. If you still can't do it just try and visualise what you are doing - imagine you are chundering away in a dark room and about 50 at best would be catching what you are saying - billions more won't be of course. Of those 50 or so people none really care about you; about your wellbeing or your state of health or any such thing. Go and have some fun with real people who do care.

Too much drama digging going on - more like Eastenders than a football club.

They paid what does it matter if they don't have a website as yet

Couldn't give a flying one

UPTHEPORT wrote:They paid what does it matter if they don't have a website as yet

Couldn't give a flying one

Me neither. Even companies who are seen as being of a better moral standing, and long established,than betting sites can go bust also. Therefore we could have been in the same position as being without a shirt sponser whoever they were.

whoareya wrote:

SJG99 wrote:
It's a bunch of internet forum nonsense wasting directors' time responding to something that is frankly insulting to the club and the sponsors. Some of the rubbish being spouted about company statuses on here shows how little actual knowledge people have and how little it takes for people to get their knickers in a twist, and it is incredibly wearing just watching it. I can only imagine how tedious those running the club must think it is, being expected to respond to every half-witted rumour that spins out of these pages.

Internet nonsense?

Depends what moral/ethical values you have I suppose - betting firms are all over football now, they don't have a moral compass - other than the one imposed on them by regulators and the begrudging acknowledgment of Gamble Aware. To say you don't care if they go pop after paying is naive - if you are as company savvy as you make out you will know that the sponsorship deal, however contracted, will not pay in full up front. As another posted said, to have invoiced them is not confirmation that we have received full payment.

And as a season ticket holder at West Ham during the XL Holidays and Alpari debacles I can tell you that watching your team play with a blank vinyl patch over a failed sponsorship logo is embarrassing, unprofessional and an insult to those anoraks that wear replica shirts.

There's nothing naive about it, it's absolutely not worth caring about. Also you must have missed the bit where a director clarified the invoice has been paid. Yes, internet nonsense, like the hand-wringers who think their club is a laughing stock every time something doesn't go perfectly, when in fact precisely zero fans of other clubs are even likely to know about things never mind spend their time thinking about them. Even twitter trolls cba to mock County.

As for West Ham, not their fault the companies that paid them money went bankrupt. I'm sure they were gutted when they banked their second sponsorship deals of the season.

newgroundrodney wrote:

whoareya wrote:

SJG99 wrote:
It's a bunch of internet forum nonsense wasting directors' time responding to something that is frankly insulting to the club and the sponsors. Some of the rubbish being spouted about company statuses on here shows how little actual knowledge people have and how little it takes for people to get their knickers in a twist, and it is incredibly wearing just watching it. I can only imagine how tedious those running the club must think it is, being expected to respond to every half-witted rumour that spins out of these pages.

Internet nonsense?

Depends what moral/ethical values you have I suppose - betting firms are all over football now, they don't have a moral compass - other than the one imposed on them by regulators and the begrudging acknowledgment of Gamble Aware. To say you don't care if they go pop after paying is naive - if you are as company savvy as you make out you will know that the sponsorship deal, however contracted, will not pay in full up front. As another posted said, to have invoiced them is not confirmation that we have received full payment.

And as a season ticket holder at West Ham during the XL Holidays and Alpari debacles I can tell you that watching your team play with a blank vinyl patch over a failed sponsorship logo is embarrassing, unprofessional and an insult to those anoraks that wear replica shirts.

Clearly two very different opinions exist on this thread. I'm happy to accept Kevin's statement as it appears, ie, that we've been paid. Other posters also state that we've been paid, but it's unclear whether they mean in FULL. Other posters are very clear that we would NOT have been paid in full. I wonder which is correct?

That's a fair question. All we know is that an invoice has been paid, we don't know how the deal has been structured or how much of the deal has been paid with this invoice. But to be honest, I'm happy to leave that to the club.

This is all based on the fairly spurious premise that someone has decided to pay to promote a non-existent brand on the front of a football shirt without attempting to capitalise on the five football club deals they've already got, which seems pretty unlikely, as does any kind of partial-payment scam to get cheap publicity.

It doesn't take long to put up a website which will put people off - takes a bit longer to create one that'll keep people coming back, and they'll want to launch it properly. There's also a bit of an assumption here that the business will align with the football season because they're sponsoring football clubs, which may not be true either. And even if the Interbet.com site never hosts anything, it will still get traffic which can be redirected to other businesses. Now there's a moral dilemma to flap about.