Sciatika Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 Maybe, the question CST proposed should have been: "Would you be prepared to pay significantly higher ticket prices to ensure that gambling companies are not used as the main shirt sponsor in the 2023-24 season?" I used the word "significantly" because if the deal were worth £40m (the annual amount from 3 according to Statista), then that is about £1000 per seat or £30 per ticket assuming 30 games. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thevelourfog Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Sciatika said: Maybe, the question CST proposed should have been: "Would you be prepared to pay significantly higher ticket prices to ensure that gambling companies are not used as the main shirt sponsor in the 2023-24 season?" I used the word "significantly" because if the deal were worth £40m (the annual amount from 3 according to Statista), then that is about £1000 per seat or £30 per ticket assuming 30 games. Sigh, maybe the extremely well-paid "President of Business" should have just done his bloody job? Edit: a job, btw, funded by things like season tickets. Edited July 12, 2023 by thevelourfog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sciatika Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 Maybe, he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thevelourfog Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 He very, very demonstrably didn't. Not competently or successfully, at least. The best mitigation for him is that he was far from alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sciatika Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 I wasn't party to what Glick was asked to do. It is reported that he was required to find a sponsor for a single year to give the club time to find a long-term replacement for Three. Gambling is legal. A gambling company appeared to abide by the regulatory frameworks, and similar (or in one case, identical) to other clubs. Meanwhile, the Foundation put in place a program designed to encourage awareness among young people of the harms of gambling. I doubt my personal concerns entered into it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boratsbrother Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 On 10/07/2023 at 20:07, 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. What strikes me about that list of sponsors names is how few of them are big, well known brands. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 (edited) 30 minutes ago, boratsbrother said: What strikes me about that list of sponsors names is how few of them are big, well known brands. I suppose the likes of Apple, Tesla, Microsoft and Amazon simply don't NEED brand awareness. Edited July 12, 2023 by Ham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, thevelourfog said: Sigh, maybe the extremely well-paid "President of Business" should have just done his bloody job? Edit: a job, btw, funded by things like season tickets. Sigh..... He did. Would have been superb business on behalf of the other PL clubs with gambling sponsors including all of the others, Man City and Arsenal amongst them, who have significant (and suspect) sponsorships in this area. Our CST and Twitter morality crusaders ultimately either convinced us or Stake to walk. My money is on the latter. Ironic that you of all people should complain about the potential income whilst in the same week complaining about an unexpected hike in WSL season tickets. The timing tells me the reduced anticipated shirt sponsorship at £25 - £28m as opposed to £40m might have been the kicker here. Let's not forget the ladies wear the same shirt sponsor and would have lost a huge percentage of their limited income streams. Edited July 12, 2023 by Ham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boratsbrother Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 29 minutes ago, Ham said: I suppose the likes of Apple, Tesla, Microsoft and Amazon simply don't NEED brand awareness. Big companies to sponsor clubs though, so I don't quite get that point. Nike pay us a ot of money to wear their kit, yet outside of Chelsea fans, how many people know that? I can't understand why Nike wouldn't pay us to have their name on our shirt as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 9 minutes ago, boratsbrother said: Big companies to sponsor clubs though, so I don't quite get that point. Nike pay us a ot of money to wear their kit, yet outside of Chelsea fans, how many people know that? I can't understand why Nike wouldn't pay us to have their name on our shirt as well. But they also SELL the same Nike shirt in its millions whilst at the same time stopping their rivals from selling our shirts. Plus, their name is already on the shirt. What's the biggest name in shirt sponsorship really? Spotify maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chara Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 Ok...what blew my mind was the "offer" of a free bet after laying out 5000 pounds in a week on gambling......without entering into the debate too much seems to me that answers any doubts about the extreme social "benefits> of gambling. Free speech is a thing easily throttled and whilst my feelings are somewhat anti the gambling giants as long as it is still legal there should be no official... as in HMG,,,, censorship. Personal and corporate censorship by not being involved for "moral" reasons are choices. I can assure you from experience the suppression of free speech is not all jackboots and snarling dogs. . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 18 minutes ago, chara said: Ok...what blew my mind was the "offer" of a free bet after laying out 5000 pounds in a week on gambling......without entering into the debate too much seems to me that answers any doubts about the extreme social "benefits> of gambling. Free speech is a thing easily throttled and whilst my feelings are somewhat anti the gambling giants as long as it is still legal there should be no official... as in HMG,,,, censorship. Personal and corporate censorship by not being involved for "moral" reasons are choices. I can assure you from experience the suppression of free speech is not all jackboots and snarling dogs. . If that alleged offer was on the front of the shirt I'd have an issue. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelsea_Matt Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 8 hours ago, Sciatika said: I wasn't party to what Glick was asked to do. It is reported that he was required to find a sponsor for a single year to give the club time to find a long-term replacement for Three. Gambling is legal. A gambling company appeared to abide by the regulatory frameworks, and similar (or in one case, identical) to other clubs. Meanwhile, the Foundation put in place a program designed to encourage awareness among young people of the harms of gambling. I doubt my personal concerns entered into it. And what about personal responsibility? And that problem gamblers are only a tiny fraction of overall gamblers? And Sky Sport the ad breaks are dominated by gambling companies? And that having Stake sponsor us wouldn’t make any difference. But as always the screeching leftist Twitter mob (“it’s ok when we do it”) get their way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 13 minutes ago, Chelsea_Matt said: And what about personal responsibility? And that problem gamblers are only a tiny fraction of overall gamblers? And Sky Sport the ad breaks are dominated by gambling companies? And that having Stake sponsor us wouldn’t make any difference. But as always the screeching leftist Twitter mob (“it’s ok when we do it”) get their way. Sky Sports don't just advertise gambling, they push their own betting company, Sky Bet FFS. Not sure what discussion they had with Merse on it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiago97 Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 1 hour ago, Ham said: Sky Sports don't just advertise gambling, they push their own betting company, Sky Bet FFS. Not sure what discussion they had with Merse on it. Merse even appeared in the advert 😂 now maybe he was contractually obliged due to his work with Sky. However, I find that hard to believe and I am sure Sky would have understandably excused him on that one. Probably a little insensitive to have him in the advert. Yet when that advert came out, it was Skybet who got the stick for having Merson involved. There was no mention of why is Merson taking the cash to advertise a bookmaker. Let’s ignore the person in question actually taking responsibility of the situation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 They'll be asking for 20m by Monday and 10m at the start of August. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 35 minutes ago, Bison said: They'll be asking for 20m by Monday and 10m at the start of August. A lot of the most liked comments on this and many other posts from twitterati refer to the loss of the Stake deal being a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROTG Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 I don’t think there are many companies around with the exception of PL teams who have a spare £25m floating around, therefore why doesn’t the club try to get another PL team as the shirt sponsor 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Mark Kelly Posted July 13, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2023 10 hours ago, ROTG said: I don’t think there are many companies around with the exception of PL teams who have a spare £25m floating around, therefore why doesn’t the club try to get another PL team as the shirt sponsor We could always "do a City" and have "Lake clear" on our shirts , a totally unrelated company to "Clearlake" . 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChelseaJambo Posted July 13, 2023 Share Posted July 13, 2023 Whilst I thought the Stake logo ruined our kit a bit in the photos...£15m is a big price to pay and a lot of shirts sold to bridge the gap 😂🤦🏻♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROTG Posted July 13, 2023 Share Posted July 13, 2023 39 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said: We could always "do a City" and have "Lake clear" on our shirts , a totally unrelated company to "Clearlake" . Epiphany time : How about part of the Caicedo negotiation are we pay you xxxx for the player and xxxx to have your name on your shirts next season. Simular to the Cucurella / Colwil deal? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xceleryx Posted July 14, 2023 Share Posted July 14, 2023 16 hours ago, ChelseaJambo said: Whilst I thought the Stake logo ruined our kit a bit in the photos...£15m is a big price to pay and a lot of shirts sold to bridge the gap 😂🤦🏻♂️ Clubs don't actually make much from kit sales, it's a bit of a myth really that's gone on to be debunked on several occasions over the years. Most of the revenue clubs make through kits is from the sponsorship and manufacturer deals they agree upon, with clubs generally only receiving a fairly low percentage of commission from actual sales. There's exceptions, but that's the general rule. This one of the few write ups covering it from a few years ago if interested. https://www.goal.com/en/news/how-much-money-do-football-clubs-make-from-shirt-sales/gv14e9wc0vny1vtyr0rxqqan5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChelseaJambo Posted July 14, 2023 Share Posted July 14, 2023 5 hours ago, xceleryx said: Clubs don't actually make much from kit sales, it's a bit of a myth really that's gone on to be debunked on several occasions over the years. Most of the revenue clubs make through kits is from the sponsorship and manufacturer deals they agree upon, with clubs generally only receiving a fairly low percentage of commission from actual sales. There's exceptions, but that's the general rule. This one of the few write ups covering it from a few years ago if interested. https://www.goal.com/en/news/how-much-money-do-football-clubs-make-from-shirt-sales/gv14e9wc0vny1vtyr0rxqqan5 Which is precisely why losing £15m in commercial sponsorship is bad. I was being flippant, I know we won't be selling £15m worth of additional shirts despite it's aesthetics being improved sans-Stake. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xceleryx Posted July 14, 2023 Share Posted July 14, 2023 40 minutes ago, ChelseaJambo said: Which is precisely why losing £15m in commercial sponsorship is bad. I was being flippant, I know we won't be selling £15m worth of additional shirts despite it's aesthetics being improved sans-Stake. I'd rather see us lose £15m for a one off season than promote a gambling company that goes against the work of The Chelsea Foundation, that's operated in a shady manner with another Premier League club, is being banned from football sponsorship, continuously destroys lives from all walks of life, and whatever else on top. That's just me though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChelseaJambo Posted July 14, 2023 Share Posted July 14, 2023 3 minutes ago, xceleryx said: I'd rather see us lose £15m for a one off season than promote a gambling company that goes against the work of The Chelsea Foundation, that's operated in a shady manner with another Premier League club, is being banned from football sponsorship, continuously destroys lives from all walks of life, and whatever else on top. That's just me though. Fair. I wouldn't, I'd rather the money. Most commercial sponsors have a shady background in all honesty. Were you okay with Samsung and Emirates? Both contribute far more damage than a gambling firm...even to those who aren't choosing to use them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now