Jump to content

Shirt sponsor

angelman

By angelman
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Toadhall Saint

Toadhall Saint

Posted
Posted
France banned all alcohol advertising (at one stage, not sure about now) so when Liverpool were playing there (vs Marseille Sept 2008 Champions League), they couldn't have Carlsberg emblazoned across their chests.

 

I know that adverts for alcohol cannot have anyone in that appears to be under 25, so no doubt there is something about it on kids shirts. Guess you could look at Everton and see what their junior shirts look like.

 

EDIT - Here it is: http://evertondirect.evertonfc.com/stores/everton/en/products/kitselector/everton-home-kit-2015-16/261 Junior is blank, as is WBA's kids one http://www.wbashop.co.uk/WBA-HOME-SHIRT-CHILD-1516

 

The same should be applied to betting firms then as I'm sure the legal age is 16 - but I could be wrong

Daft Kerplunk

Daft Kerplunk

Posted
Posted

Seems to be a lot of thoughts about a betting company being the next sponsor for some reason. Are many betting companies left who don't sponsor already? Guess there could be some in countries we just don't know about.

JonnyOldBoy

JonnyOldBoy

Posted
Posted
Beer companies, betting companies etc. Absolutely true. Anything that U18s can't participate in, basically.

 

which is totally pointless because 14-17 year olds wear adult size small to medium usually.... Gambling should not appear on football shirts that are marketed to U18s and since adult shirts are , then it should not be allowed... in my most humble of opinions....

The9

The9

Posted
Posted
France banned all alcohol advertising (at one stage, not sure about now) so when Liverpool were playing there (vs Marseille Sept 2008 Champions League), they couldn't have Carlsberg emblazoned across their chests.

 

I know that adverts for alcohol cannot have anyone in that appears to be under 25, so no doubt there is something about it on kids shirts. Guess you could look at Everton and see what their junior shirts look like.

 

EDIT - Here it is: http://evertondirect.evertonfc.com/stores/everton/en/products/kitselector/everton-home-kit-2015-16/261 Junior is blank, as is WBA's kids one http://www.wbashop.co.uk/WBA-HOME-SHIRT-CHILD-1516

 

Newcastle also couldn't have the Newcastle Brown logo on their shirts when they played Metz (Ginola scored a screamer).

 

Everton's kids' shirts have been blank since Chang took over. I recall Newport's kids' shirts didn't have Bet365 on them a couple of years ago, they had a local kids' charity on them instead. More a matter of avoiding faux parental outrage than anything, I think.

The9

The9

Posted
Posted
The same should be applied to betting firms then as I'm sure the legal age is 16 - but I could be wrong

 

There are laws about directly advertising alcohol to kids, not sure the same regulations apply to gambling as it's different legislation - the clubs don't want the bad publicity anyway and self-regulate on the matter.

 

While we're on the subject, Saints haven't had a sponsor on the Academy kit since Cortese was rumoured to have swiftly renegotiated the one-year deal with aap3 for a second year, which suddenly didn't include shirt sponsorship of the academy kit on the adidas plain red kit, even though it had with the Umbro aap3 shirts.

Verbal Kint

Verbal Kint

Posted
Posted
The money from shirt sponsorship is so small compared to the TV deal it would be great if we had a charity on our shirts.

 

If we go corporate no gambling and no Wonga types.

 

Why no gambling?

nta786

nta786

Posted
Posted
Weird obsession with no gambling on the shirt

 

Not weird at all- gambling, alcohol, cigarettes, Wonga type etc.. All social norms that ruin/kills lives and I wouldn't want us to be associated with it.

 

In addition, seeing as our shirt sponsor will barely be part of our overall revenue I would more than be happy to have a charity, local company representing us, heck, I wouldn't complain if Veho continued sponsoring us.

However- maybe a shirt sponsor is important for us to reach other parts of the world- read the other day that Leicester's shirts all sold out in Thaliand- ofc having Thai owners and Thai sponsors on shirt helps- but would also be potentially good if we had for example, a US sponsor, and that in turn leads to increased revenue from America- for me a growing fan base more important than the revenue from it anyway- but I guess both go hand in hand.

Sour Mash

Sour Mash

Posted
Posted
Not weird at all- gambling, alcohol, cigarettes, Wonga type etc.. All social norms that ruin/kills lives and I wouldn't want us to be associated with it.

 

In addition, seeing as our shirt sponsor will barely be part of our overall revenue I would more than be happy to have a charity, local company representing us, heck, I wouldn't complain if Veho continued sponsoring us.

However- maybe a shirt sponsor is important for us to reach other parts of the world- read the other day that Leicester's shirts all sold out in Thaliand- ofc having Thai owners and Thai sponsors on shirt helps- but would also be potentially good if we had for example, a US sponsor, and that in turn leads to increased revenue from America- for me a growing fan base more important than the revenue from it anyway- but I guess both go hand in hand.

Loads of things can kill and ruin people's lives, on that basis you wouldn't have cars or food sponsoring us either. Gambling ads are non-stop on every single live game coverage on tv, not going to make any difference if they're on our shirt.
angelman

angelman

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I can't understand the argument that some are bringing out about it being so small compared to TV money. If that is your argument, why then charge for tickets (although I personally would have advocated a reduction on all already over priced tickets). Seems that some have little idea how business works!!

 

But say that it is inconsequential, rather than not having a fee paying shirt sponsor, why not have a paying shirt sponsor and subsidise tickets with that. 19 x 32,000 = 608000. Say you get £5m, that's the equivalent of £8.22 off every ticket or £156 off a season ticket. Or about 8.5% of the wage bill (2014/15 excluding the cost of cancelling contracts)

The9

The9

Posted
Posted
I can't understand the argument that some are bringing out about it being so small compared to TV money. If that is your argument, why then charge for tickets (although I personally would have advocated a reduction on all already over priced tickets). Seems that some have little idea how business works!!

 

But say that it is inconsequential, rather than not having a fee paying shirt sponsor, why not have a paying shirt sponsor and subsidise tickets with that. 19 x 32,000 = 608000. Say you get £5m, that's the equivalent of £8.22 off every ticket or £156 off a season ticket. Or about 8.5% of the wage bill (2014/15 excluding the cost of cancelling contracts)

 

The long and short of it is that the tv money levels the playing field a fair bit because it gives £100m to pretty much everyone and previously the only way to get that kind of money was to win the Champions League, but there's still some benefit in trying to get a financial edge on all the teams with similar income, and frankly as long as it's not exploitative I'm all in favour of the club trying to maximise their revenue.

Red

Red

Posted
Posted
I'd be surprised if it wasn't a US company. The whole push for the club with the academy and Under Armour deal has been around the US market.

 

Also I suspect (actually hope) the value of the Veho deal included a tie up for revenue and growth share.

 

Why not Under Armour as shirt sponsors as well as kit suppliers? Is that allowed? If we are getting cira £50M for the kit deal, sure we could get £5M for sponsorship on top? I have recently made a modest share investment in UA and the bumf I got as a result seems to suggest they what to up their image in European "soccer" big time and particularly PL. Right now they only have Spurs I believe but they hope to announce 10 to 15 more deals in Europe for next season - us being one of them (for the kit deal).

Daft Kerplunk

Daft Kerplunk

Posted
Posted
Why not Under Armour as shirt sponsors as well as kit suppliers? Is that allowed? If we are getting cira £50M for the kit deal, sure we could get £5M for sponsorship on top? I have recently made a modest share investment in UA and the bumf I got as a result seems to suggest they what to up their image in European "soccer" big time and particularly PL. Right now they only have Spurs I believe but they hope to announce 10 to 15 more deals in Europe for next season - us being one of them (for the kit deal).

 

Not likely to happen as a shirt sponsor is additional money. As for the size of the new kit deal, we were making our own shirts a season ago so a £50m shirt deal for us might be a little bit ambitious.

The9

The9

Posted
Posted
Why not Under Armour as shirt sponsors as well as kit suppliers? Is that allowed?

 

Bolton had Reebok on their Reebok shirts in the Reebok Stadium for ages.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...