The Club and BC.Game Group have this evening released statements in relation to the former’s Global Compliance Strategy and the financial standing for its international operations.
Trust members and other supporters will recall that the Trust considered it a bad move for Leicester City to have a gambling company emblazoned across our shirts when announcing BC.Game as a key partner.
The first of our two articles published in July said that we felt a gambling partner wasn’t the right fit for our club and we set out the harm gambling can do.
We then followed that up with a second article explaining why being associated with BC.Game raised further concerns in relation to gaming secured by crypto-assets.
The Trust understands that due diligence on BC.Game was carried out by agents appointed by the Club before sealing the deal, and the Club’s statement implies this will continue as the situation develops.
In November, rumours began to spread across the media that BC.Game were in trouble and our members and LCFC supporters were concerned that it could lead to reputational damage for Leicester City.
This evening’s statements attempt to counter these rumours and media articles, for example:
- BC.Game’s two parent companies had been issued with a bankruptcy order by a court in Curaçao where BC.Game were licensed for gambling. The order allegedly stemmed from failing to pay out more than £1.5 million to a group of five gamblers. In its statement, BC.Game state that this situation arose due to Curaçao’s bankruptcy law that could ‘easily be exploited by malicious actors and used against legitimate operators’.
- Media reports claim Curaçao’s regulator revoked BC.Game’s gaming licence. In its statement, BC.Game claims it withdrew its license, and that its wider international operations remain unaffected.
Other media articles have pointed to other complications, which may be unfounded, but cause some uncertainty:
- BC.Game platforms that remain accessible claim to be licensed and regulated by a ‘Gaming Control Board’ but under whose jurisdiction? This may be the Cyprus National Betting Authority, with whom Small House B.V. (one of the companies owning BC.Game) once held a gaming license?
- The Dutch Gambling Regulator it is alleged has been pursuing BC.Game since 2022 for operating online slots that Dutch gamblers could access through the BC.Game Luxembourg website. Are there other national regulators that have had issues with BC.Game?
- The BC.Game logo features a ‘B’ that appears to imitate the symbol used by Bitcoin. Could this be construed as BC.Game promoting gaming secured by crypto-assets? Is BC.Game registered with the UK Financial Conduct Authority to be able to promote such crypto-assets?
Whether all this information is accurate remains to be seen. What we do know is that clicking on any link for BC.Game on the Club’s website, presents in a pop-up a screen that directs you to use a link to bcgame.uk where you will then see this page:
In its statement, the Club maintains that it will continue to monitor the situation with regard to ongoing contractual rights and obligations. If that alludes to the security of the sponsorship money, BC.Game states that its ‘financial position remains in good health’.
The Trust has this week been seeking reassurances from the Club, and has had some dialogue prior to the release of the statements. We will continue to ask questions as the situation develops. No one involved with Leicester City wishes to see its name dragged through the mud in every article written about the situation BC.Game now finds itself in.
Links to:
LCFC Club statement 5 December
BC.Game Group statement 5 December
Foxes Trust article 7 July 2024
Foxes Trust article 23 July 2024