Chelsea kits

[Ham]

18 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

FYI - Other PL Shirt Sponsors

AFC Bournemouth	Defabet	Gambling
Arsenal	Emirates	Air Travel
Aston Villa	Bk8	Gambling
Brentford	Hollywood Bets	Gambling
Brighton	American Express	Banking
Burnley	W88	Gambling
Chelsea
Crystal Palace	Cinch	Car Dealer
Everton	Stake	Gambling
Fulham	SBOTop	Gambling
Liverpool	Std Chartered	Banking
Luton	Utilita	Energy
Man City	Etihad	Air Travel*
Man Utd	Team Viewer	Remote Control
Newcastle	Sela	Saudi Events Company*
Nottingham Forest	E-On	Energy
Tottenham	AIA	Insurance
West Ham	Betway	Gambling
Wolves	AstroPay	Financial

 

The CST poll was answered by just over 3000 people and of those 3000, 60 odd percent strongly disagreed with a gambling sponsor.

Everyone knows that people only really respond to polls when they have strong views against something.   Otherwise, you ignore.

Even so, only about 1700 fans voted to veto the deal. 

The club should have simply gone ahead with the Stake deal, regardless of the loud morally-outraged few. 

A £40m hit on this season's budget (plus delays on shirt sales) could hurt us. 

As can be seen from the list above, fans and clubs throughout the country aren't quite as outraged.

 

 

[Bob Singleton]

5 minutes ago, Ham said:

The CST poll was answered by just over 3000 people and of those 3000, 60 odd percent strongly disagreed with a gambling sponsor.

Everyone knows that people only really respond to polls when they have strong views against something.   Otherwise, you ignore.

Even so, only about 1700 fans voted to veto the deal. 

The club should have simply gone ahead with the Stake deal, regardless of the loud morally-outraged few. 

A £40m hit on this season's budget (plus delays on shirt sales) could hurt us. 

As can be seen from the list above, fans and clubs throughout the country aren't quite as outraged.

 

 

Or maybe the club's decision in not going ahead with Stake had nothing to do with the CST

 

[McCreadie]

Laughing at 3. Spent a shed load of money and by way of being spineless, virtue-signalling scumbags, have managed to totally alienate the entire fan-base they were attempting to appeal to.  Great marketing ploy! In years past I have actually bought 2 Samsung fridge freezers, drunk Coors and got Autoglass to change my windscreen. I have however, never bought a Yokohama tyre or an Amiga computer.

[Ham]

1 hour ago, Bob Singleton said:

Or maybe the club's decision in not going ahead with Stake had nothing to do with the CST

 

The CST credit themselves with the club's change of heart. The club cited "fan reaction" after consultation. 

At least the virtuous supporters trust will sleep well. It was the same with the Ricketts family. 

Faux outrage for likes. 

[Bones]

1 hour ago, Ham said:

The CST poll was answered by just over 3000 people and of those 3000, 60 odd percent strongly disagreed with a gambling sponsor.

Everyone knows that people only really respond to polls when they have strong views against something.   Otherwise, you ignore.

Even so, only about 1700 fans voted to veto the deal. 

The club should have simply gone ahead with the Stake deal, regardless of the loud morally-outraged few. 

A £40m hit on this season's budget (plus delays on shirt sales) could hurt us. 

As can be seen from the list above, fans and clubs throughout the country aren't quite as outraged.

 

 

Its nice that we didnt go ahead with Stake.

But the media paints as if its a problem for Chelsea, but sooo many other team have betting sponsors

3 minutes ago, Ham said:

The CST credit themselves with the club's change of heart. The club cited "fan reaction" after consultation. 

At least the virtuous supporters trust will sleep well. It was the same with the Ricketts family. 

Faux outrage for likes. 

Can cfcnet have a seat at our support trust? Hehe

Edited July 10, 2023 by Bones

[Sciatika]

I don't really understand CST's position. There is an agreement already in place to limit gambling sponsorship in the Premier League.  I am unclear about what is to be gained by trying to achieve an extra ban a year early. It seems to me that this will hurt Chelsea FC at a time when the club needs income as a result of last year's poor performance even if only to help keep ticket prices down - as campaigned for by CST. Will they also be campaigning against Pairmatch - another CFC sponsor with a gambling background? Will they be trying to get rid of all betting kiosks/outlets on matchday around the stadium? But it goes further. How do they feel about having Cadbury as a sponsor given the obesity crisis? Looking at some of the supporters in the stands on match day, this may be more of an issue. Singha sells beer. There is a lot of alcoholism in our society. Maybe we should get rid of them as well. Does Nike still run sweatshops and employ children? I haven't checked the books Oman Airlines, but there might be something dodgy there to object to.

I am not saying that anything goes. Clearly, advertising works or people would not pay for it. I suspect it might work in influencing the choice of supply, but I doubt it influences whether or not people choose to bet or the amount they bet. That's a cultural issue. Some people are brought up to think betting is for idiots and will have nothing to do with it. For others, betting is something they enjoy but they are able to keep it under control. Inevitably, some people become addicted to it, reeking huge damage to them and their loved ones. Moreover, there are connections to organised crime much like drugs and prostitution. However, the idea that stopping one football club from displaying a logo on their shirts would make a difference to an addict seems overly optimistic to me. I am cautiously in favour of bans where they are done fairly and equally such as that already agreed by the League. Having said that, I am biased. I am not a great fan of small vociferous lobbying groups trying to adjust society to fit their own moral outlook. That can end very badly.

[Mark Kelly]

Having had a couple of days to mull it over I have to say I'm not keen looks more like a T shirt than a football shirt , too tight and really doesn't resemble the nineties kit at all having no collar , the sponsorship is going to be very important regarding the shirts aesthetic.

[paulw66]

15 hours ago, Blue Moon said:

 

 

So I guess you could say shirt advertising is a giant confidence trick. At least it is from my personal perspective. But if they want to keep giving us money, I'll not complain.

The sponsor isn't there to get you and I to use their product, it is more about brand awareness and having millions of viewers globally seeing their name across the shirts week after week

13 hours ago, Bob Singleton said:

Or maybe the club's decision in not going ahead with Stake had nothing to do with the CST

 

Pretty sure it did. 

[Thiago97]

13 hours ago, Ham said:

The CST poll was answered by just over 3000 people and of those 3000, 60 odd percent strongly disagreed with a gambling sponsor.

Everyone knows that people only really respond to polls when they have strong views against something.   Otherwise, you ignore.

Even so, only about 1700 fans voted to veto the deal. 

The club should have simply gone ahead with the Stake deal, regardless of the loud morally-outraged few. 

A £40m hit on this season's budget (plus delays on shirt sales) could hurt us. 

As can be seen from the list above, fans and clubs throughout the country aren't quite as outraged.

 

 

This whole anti gambling is media driven nonsense, that the government have now latched onto and are starting to have influence over.

My personal view on Stake as a sponsor would be I am not keen. Not because of what they are, but because I think its a bit naff for a club of our stature. However, if that is the best offer on the table, then we should go ahead with it.

As for betting and betting companies. Without doubt, betting companies have behaved appallingly at times over the last 20 years since the rise of the digital betting landscape. Sanctions have taken place and huge fines handed out. They have taken advantage of individuals and with terrible consequences. However, we are talking a small minority of people here. We are also talking a incredibly small minority of people with gambling addiction, who whilst they need help and protection, they also need to take some responsibility for their own decision making as adults.

The other problem with all this is all we hear in the media is the negative stories, often blurted out by the likes of Paul Merson and Peter Shilton etc. We don't actually ever hear from people who enjoy a bet and are in complete control of what they do, frankly cos its all rather boring and will not grab sensational headlines (in this case, the vast majority)

As you pointed out, the outraged few will be the people who vote in these polls and it does skew results. We should just go ahead with it as a short term sponsor and ignore this nonsense noise around it........even if it does look completely naff and has the look of the type of sponsor who should be on the Fulham or Bournemouth shirt!

[ROTG]

4 minutes ago, Thiago97 said:

We don't actually ever hear from people who enjoy a bet and are in complete control of what they do,

You obviously don't listen to talksh1t

[Thiago97]

35 minutes ago, ROTG said:

You obviously don't listen to talksh1t

Now and then. This isn't really the point I am making though, the discussions on there are not people who enjoy a bet. They are talking to betting companies purely because they are a commercial radio station, and they are being paid to promote such events.

If Talksport drop commercial deals involving bookmakers, you would hear no such talk about people betting , markets etc etc

[Miguelito07]

So the new kit  (with sponsor) isnt available till after the Liverpool game? So will Chelsea roll with "3" for that match?

[Bert19]

4 minutes ago, Miguelito07 said:

So the new kit  (with sponsor) isnt available till after the Liverpool game? So will Chelsea roll with "3" for that match?

Doubt it - that deal has expired and 3 wanted out anyway. 

[thevelourfog]

18 hours ago, Ham said:

The CST poll was answered by just over 3000 people and of those 3000, 60 odd percent strongly disagreed with a gambling sponsor.

Everyone knows that people only really respond to polls when they have strong views against something.   Otherwise, you ignore.

Even so, only about 1700 fans voted to veto the deal. 

The club should have simply gone ahead with the Stake deal, regardless of the loud morally-outraged few. 

A £40m hit on this season's budget (plus delays on shirt sales) could hurt us. 

As can be seen from the list above, fans and clubs throughout the country aren't quite as outraged.

 

 

https://chelseasupporterstrust.com/17061-cst-letter-on-chelsea-football-club-shirt-sponsorship/

Link for anyone that wants to read it.

The poll was answered by a relatively small number of people because it was an urgent question. Respondents had just one day to reply. I don't know how many voting members CST has, and what a realistic response rate could have been with more time to respond. Of those who did respond, 77% disagreed or strongly disagreed with a betting or casino shirt sponsor. So the overwhelming majority of those responding. They did not vote to "veto the deal". The CST holds no power of veto. This was, more simply, several thousand people expressing their view. Any attempt to silence people expressing their view has, in my experience, been met with a certain kind of response here ...

By contrast, just over 8% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the use of a betting or casino shirt sponsor. This was very clearly a minority position. If we accept that people take part in polls only when they have a strong view (I'd agree with that, but not the idea they only vote when they have a strong position of disagreement), we can extrapolate that a vanishingly small number of Chelsea supporters would find a betting shirt sponsor agreeable.

There is no evidence of opposition to Stake being an extreme fringe position amongst Chelsea supporters. What evidence there is very clearly indicates the exact opposite.

That other clubs have gambling/casino sponsors says absolutely nothing about the views of supporters of those clubs. I'd be surprised if you found a significantly different response, if you spoke to their supporter trusts or groups. What it might say is something about how those clubs consult those fans, or more likely what profile those clubs have and what sponsorship deals they can attract.

As @Bob Singleton said, we have no evidence a deal with Stake was not pursued as a result of the CST's letter. My guess is that the letter was just part of a broader response they received. Let's not forget a one year deal is not desirable from a forward planning perspective, either. The owners would not have briefed the press on the negotiations if it was a done deal.

I've no relationship with the CST, don't hugely care about them. It is just bizarre to lay this at their feet, and especially to twist the available facts to do it.

 

[Bob Singleton]

@thevelourfog And let's not forget that it wasn't all that long ago that one of the founders of Stake dot com was suing the other two founders for $500m+. Nor should we forget that Stake (amongst others) had a partner who was recently jailed for being involved in organised crime.

There are many reasons why CFC would have walked away from the deal;  including believing that they could possibly get a better deal elsewhere.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11661895/MPs-want-investigation-links-jailed-Chinese-billionaire-clubs-betting-partners.html

[Ham]

2 hours ago, Bob Singleton said:

@thevelourfog.

Nor should we forget that Stake (amongst others) had a partner who was recently jailed for being involved in organised crime.

There are many reasons why CFC would have walked away from the deal;  including believing that they could possibly get a better deal elsewhere.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11661895/MPs-want-investigation-links-jailed-Chinese-billionaire-clubs-betting-partners.html

That's a stretch and you know it.

A "partner" of Stake?  Did you even read the story you provided a link to? 

A person connected to a company twice removed at least from Stake.com? Come on! 

 

 

 

[Ham]

3 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

https://chelseasupporterstrust.com/17061-cst-letter-on-chelsea-football-club-shirt-sponsorship/

Link for anyone that wants to read it.

The poll was answered by a relatively small number of people because it was an urgent question. Respondents had just one day to reply. I don't know how many voting members CST has, and what a realistic response rate could have been with more time to respond. Of those who did respond, 77% disagreed or strongly disagreed with a betting or casino shirt sponsor. So the overwhelming majority of those responding. They did not vote to "veto the deal". The CST holds no power of veto. This was, more simply, several thousand people expressing their view. Any attempt to silence people expressing their view has, in my experience, been met with a certain kind of response here ...

By contrast, just over 8% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the use of a betting or casino shirt sponsor. This was very clearly a minority position. If we accept that people take part in polls only when they have a strong view (I'd agree with that, but not the idea they only vote when they have a strong position of disagreement), we can extrapolate that a vanishingly small number of Chelsea supporters would find a betting shirt sponsor agreeable.

There is no evidence of opposition to Stake being an extreme fringe position amongst Chelsea supporters. What evidence there is very clearly indicates the exact opposite.

That other clubs have gambling/casino sponsors says absolutely nothing about the views of supporters of those clubs. I'd be surprised if you found a significantly different response, if you spoke to their supporter trusts or groups. What it might say is something about how those clubs consult those fans, or more likely what profile those clubs have and what sponsorship deals they can attract.

As @Bob Singleton said, we have no evidence a deal with Stake was not pursued as a result of the CST's letter. My guess is that the letter was just part of a broader response they received. Let's not forget a one year deal is not desirable from a forward planning perspective, either. The owners would not have briefed the press on the negotiations if it was a done deal.

I've no relationship with the CST, don't hugely care about them. It is just bizarre to lay this at their feet, and especially to twist the available facts to do it.

 

On the two highlighted parts;

I disagree that the opposition to the Stake deal "clearly indicates" anything of the sort. There are millions upon millions of Chelsea fans worldwide and a noisy group of twitterati types have had a very mixed response to their posts on the subject. 

I would wager good money on the majority of Chelsea fans NOT being actively against a one year deal with Stake for £40m before gambling sponsorships are outlawed.  

Regarding the second bolded section, completely wrong. A one year deal was perfect for the club's forward planning. Absolutely perfect.

We need a year to get back into the CL before we can negotiate at the top table of potential blue chip long term sponsors. 

I'll repeat the question on morality..... Should the club stop serving alcohol at the ground? Should they ban the burger vans from the concourse?

Where does the nanny state nonsense end?

 

[Bison]

3 hours ago, Bob Singleton said:

@thevelourfog And let's not forget that it wasn't all that long ago that one of the founders of Stake dot com was suing the other two founders for $500m+. Nor should we forget that Stake (amongst others) had a partner who was recently jailed for being involved in organised crime.

There are many reasons why CFC would have walked away from the deal;  including believing that they could possibly get a better deal elsewhere.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11661895/MPs-want-investigation-links-jailed-Chinese-billionaire-clubs-betting-partners.html

We shouldn't forget this either:

Quote

Everton FC has told its sponsor Stake.com to stop using its imagery in an international promotion offering a $10 free bet to anyone who wagers $5,000 in the space of a week.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/29/stakecom-told-not-to-use-everton-branding-in-5000-betting-offer

If they're using Everton's imagery to run disgusting promotions like that what would they have in store for a club like Chelsea that has a far bigger reach and audience?

[Mark Kelly]

37 minutes ago, Bison said:

We shouldn't forget this either:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/29/stakecom-told-not-to-use-everton-branding-in-5000-betting-offer

If they're using Everton's imagery to run disgusting promotions like that what would they have in store for a club like Chelsea that has a far bigger reach and audience?

Wow. That's truly disgusting. You've convinced me. 

[thevelourfog]

39 minutes ago, Ham said:

On the two highlighted parts;

I disagree that the opposition to the Stake deal "clearly indicates" anything of the sort. There are millions upon millions of Chelsea fans worldwide and a noisy group of twitterati types have had a very mixed response to their posts on the subject. 

I would wager good money on the majority of Chelsea fans NOT being actively against a one year deal with Stake for £40m before gambling sponsorships are outlawed.  

Regarding the second bolded section, completely wrong. A one year deal was perfect for the club's forward planning. Absolutely perfect.

We need a year to get back into the CL before we can negotiate at the top table of potential blue chip long term sponsors. 

I'll repeat the question on morality..... Should the club stop serving alcohol at the ground? Should they ban the burger vans from the concourse?

Where does the nanny state nonsense end?

 

If you start with the "nanny state" opinion, the rest follows. And this "nanny state" stuff is politics, so best left off the forum.

First bolded bit, you aren't disagreeing with anything I'm saying. I wouldn't claim to know what a majority/consensus position of Chelsea fans think. I don't know how you'd go about even asking. I do know, though, that if you're really bothered about having the club hear your view on anything, you do stuff like joining the CST and voting on urgent question. So the "available evidence" really does indicate a small minority of Chelsea supporters are in favour of any shirt sponsor, so long as it brings in money. The "available evidence" of course has its limitations.

If you want to believe a one year sponsorship deal is "perfect" (rather than the result of f**king up to the degree that it was the only offer on the table), I don't know there's much more you or I can say to each other on the subject. It's so far away from what these owners boasted they could achieve when they took over. 

[Bison]

20 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Wow. That's truly disgusting. You've convinced me. 

Utterly disgusting isn't it.

Bet (or rather lose) 5k with us in a week and we'll give you a tenner on the house to bet again. Anybody who thinks we should be promoting garbage like this on the very front of our shirt doesn't have our club's best interest at heart.

[Bob Singleton]

31 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

If you start with the "nanny state" opinion, the rest follows. And this "nanny state" stuff is politics, so best left off the forum.

 

Actually, politics is allowed on this forum... so long as it's the right sort of politics. What gets you told off is calling it out!

[Ham]

46 minutes ago, Bob Singleton said:

Actually, politics is allowed on this forum... so long as it's the right sort of politics. What gets you told off is calling it out!

Total BS.

I call out what I don't agree with and you (and invariably TVF) do the same in reverse.

I've not seen any politics discussed today. 

[Thiago97]

2 hours ago, Bison said:

We shouldn't forget this either:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/29/stakecom-told-not-to-use-everton-branding-in-5000-betting-offer

If they're using Everton's imagery to run disgusting promotions like that what would they have in store for a club like Chelsea that has a far bigger reach and audience?

Whilst that is such a scummy offer, and you are right that we should not want anything to do with it………the reality is no-one us going take that offer up.  It’s a bit like Chelsea saying buy 10 season tickets upfront and get one match day programme free…….no-one would take this offer up. Which makes me think it surely cannot be a legit offer they are promoting. Which does come back to one of my original posts. People should have some level of personal responsibility to have zero interest in offers like this too. 
Somewhat off track, but that offer is so ridiculous it has me astounded. 

 

[Sciatika]

The question to CST members was not whether Stake should be the shirt sponsor of Chelsea, but rather whether any online casino should have that position. "Which of the following statements comes closer(sic) to your thinking about the use of an online casino and betting company as a primary shirt sponsor?". Personally, I doubt very much either story fed very much into the vote itself. Moreover, It seems Everton did not decide to abandon the sponsorship deal though I am sure the contract would have had a termination clause they could have invoked. The other story appears to be trial-by-association in the media. There may be some truth to it, or not. As I said, it is well understood that there are links between organised crime and some gambling companies, but let's be clear until you can prove the link, what gambling companies do is not illegal. If people want to ban gambling, then we have a democratic process for doing that. Of course, that should apply to all forms of gambling (without fear or favour). Some will see that as an increasing involvement of the state in the private affairs of citizens. Others as an unnecessary loss of income. Or you could restrict advertising. The PL have already decided to do this, anyway. So, I repeat the question, what is the CST trying to achieve?