Not sure how the club can answer this - it's a question for each of the individual sponsors who will have their own processes.
Eg A small, local, fan owned business probably doesn't do any DD, the larger ones like Nationwide may do although I'd be surprised if it's anything more than a look at experian tbh.
Tbf, I do mention the first part. The club would know or should have logged/have record of any requests relating to due diligence. IF they are as transparent as they say they are or aspiring to be, something like this should be pretty much bread and butter. Not asking for a comprehensive and detailed list but their {expected} lack of answer or evidence will be very telling {for me}.
RE: Small/local business. On the contrary. Any brand/business investing into a company probably should be making these types of request. Even if just as a matter of good practice. It goes without saying that if the company you invest in/sponsor/offer services to and they are seemingly dodgy, incompetent or have nefarious activities surrounding them - this can also impact negatively on the brand/business that is supporting said company. I would say locally that might have a more larger impact on your brand from a trust perspective. People will ask questions {like they are with Coe Capital currently} about said brand/businesses own integrity if they maintain support.
As we saw with the end of the Lee Power era, several sponsors withdrew as they clearly didn't want to be associated with the club {or least, the owner of the club}.
Alas, I expect nothing of substance but this will actually give quite a big answer in itself. The equivalent of when someone under the cosh gives a 'no comment'. I'm actually expecting a 'we don't know' type of answer with lots of deflecting sentences wrapped around it.
You're ambitious. I'd ask for a breakdown of admin fees first.
You'll get neither answered seriously.
I know bud, but that's almost kind of the point of me asking it. Them not answering questions, just shows them up even more and disproves their supposedly unflinching stance on ''transparency''
