Winmau Has A 20 Million Pounds Problem (Blade X)

📖I launched my first book: THE DARK SIDE OF DARTS — 192 pages on every conviction, every match-fixing ban, every doping case, every scandal the broadcasters won't touch. Sourced from court records and tribunal rulings. 🔥 LAUNCH PRICE €9.99 (€5 off €14.99, this week only) 👉 https://hollywoodfiles.gumroad.com/l/... A dart hits the board and drops straight to the floor. At the top level of darts, that single moment can end a leg, cost a player a match, and crush a dream that took years to build. Winmau promised their new board would end bounce-outs for good. Within weeks, professionals were saying the opposite on live television. Winmau signed a record ten-year deal as the PDC's exclusive board supplier in January 2026, put the Blade X on every major stage, called it the most advanced dartboard ever built, and priced it at around £120 — fifty percent more than the board it replaced. Then Gabriel Clemens called it "an absolute disaster" on a podcast. Gary Anderson told Dartsnews the boards were "absolutely rank" and "the worst dartboards ever," said players had been raising it for months, and invited the PDC and dart manufacturers to confirm it. Nodor CEO Tom Brown came back with data. Independent statistics from the PDC's official performance partner, he said, showed the Blade X produced fewer bounce-outs than the Blade 6 Triple Core. His argument: fans misread what they see, because a dart hitting a flight or another dart looks identical to a board failure on camera. Both sides can sound convincing. Neither is backing down. This video covers the full story — who Winmau actually is, the real verified numbers, how the Nodor Group got here, the private equity deal, the ten-year contract, what went wrong, and what the actual problem is. RIGHT NOTICE: The Copyright Laws of the United States recognize a "fair use" of copyrighted content. Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act states: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." This video and our YouTube channel, in general, may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for one or more of the reasons noted above. Fair Dealing: Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 (UK) section 30 states "Fair dealing" with a work for the purposes of criticism or review, of that or another work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement. Copyright in a work is not infringed by the use of a quotation from the work (whether for criticism or review or otherwise).----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contact: [email protected]