[Archived] Sponsor

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

http://www.rovers.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10303~2417249,00.html

It appears people in power at Ewood are starting to listen to the fans.

[Amo]

http://www.rovers.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10303~2417249,00.html

Great news.

I'll probably end up buying a sponsorless shirt. Nothing against the Prince's Trust, it's a just and worthy cause, and full credit to the club for choosing them. But I've had my heart set on a sponsorless one this summer.

[Mercer]

Just been born

That's no excuse !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[imy9]

Even better!

I want a logo free shirt, you are right SG194, I think they heard the fans... now about that star striker

[rog of the rovers]

Delighted with the partnership.

Already linked with a new striker!

[Mercer]

Completely off topic, but there were a few, although not many. In the 80s we were in the old second division and crowds were more like 6K+. The last home game of the 82-83 season was 3,797 home to Shrewsbury. Going back to the 70s, the first season in the third division in 73-74 we had 3,520 for the last game at home to Wrexham. I was probably at both.

Think you will find our first season in the 'old Third' was 1971/72 where we stayed for at least 3 seasons only to return again for the 1979/80 season.

[broadsword]

3 seasons in Division 3?

Doesn't sound right to me.

[Mercer]

As for why they have gone down the charity route, its 'an investment in brand strength' - the sponsor either pays what we want, or they dont get it - simple! It should also help get us some positive PR from it.

I think it's a case that our brand is not an attractive proposition !!!!

Each of us could put pur house up for sale and add a premium of £100k - result, none of us would sell.

The other point from all of this is if our fortunes don't improve then the value of our brand to any would be sponsor declines and as we haven't 'locked' anyone in, we are goosed in that respect. Sensible option would have been to take a decent offer for two or three years but to include a variable value reward scheme - in other words, lock-in your base case and should we reach the 'promised land', lots more pours into the coffers.

[Mercer]

3 seasons in Division 3?

Doesn't sound right to me.

Didn't Ken Furphy have a couple of seasons or so at it before buggering-off to Sheff. United and then we recruited a certain Gordon Lee from Port Vale who proved to have the 'midas' touch with signings such as Hawkins, Oates, Beamish, Mullen and Hickman ? Who can ever forget Argyle @ Ewood where we were 2-0 down and came back to win 5-2 !!!

[Tony Diamond Inc]

I think it's a case that our brand is not an attractive proposition !!!!

Each of us could put pur house up for sale and add a premium of £100k - result, none of us would sell.

The other point from all of this is if our fortunes don't improve then the value of our brand to any would be sponsor declines and as we haven't 'locked' anyone in, we are goosed in that respect. Sensible option would have been to take a decent offer for two or three years but to include a variable value reward scheme - in other words, lock-in your base case and should we reach the 'promised land', lots more pours into the coffers.

The exposure any team in the Premier League now gets commands a decent sponsorship deal.

Good on the shrewd Indians!

[chris]

Just been born

really I was really sure you were in your late 50's early 60's

Well done you folled me into thinking you were older.

[Hughesy]

We have just come off a relegation battle.

Rovers go to India in October and create a buzz, they have a decent season and then go back to India for a few games in summer + somewhere like HK again - bigger buzz should get bigger companies looking at us - surely locking in a low fee now when it could possibly command much more in 12 months would be a daft thing to do?

[only2garners]

Think you will find our first season in the 'old Third' was 1971/72 where we stayed for at least 3 seasons only to return again for the 1979/80 season.

You're right Mercerman - I turned a few pages together in my trusty Jackman.

[RibbleValleyRover]

Ideally I would have liked to see us being sponsored by a company, obviously the main benefit of that is the revenue that would generate. By the looks of it, it was clear that we couldn't find a suitable deal out there that provided a decent financial deal for us but at the same time aligned with Venky's moral compass.

Venky's therefore had two choices:

1- Sponsor the club themselves (which would have led to some flack heading their way)

2- Let a charity sponsor the club.

Venky's went with option 2 and I think in the present climate they made the correct decision.

[True Blue & White]

Firstly Villa sponsored Acorn BEFORE Barca as far as I am aware.

Secondly we dont know how much money the owners, however as a few posters have said they seem to be putting money into hiring quality backroom personnel, which in my eyes is just as important as any funds given to the manager to spend.

Slightly off topic but Petrovic cost over £3 million according to most sources, yet you've put him down as £2 million on your sig, the lost million wasnt an agents fee was it

Firstly you're wrong, Barcelona signed up with Unicef in 2006, two years before Villa signed a deal with Acorn in July 2008.

Secondly we know they spend very little in January and we now have a net transfer budget of MINUS £19m. Bank loans of a few million don't effect genuine billionaires, they certainly wouldn't change their financial plans for the club as they would EASILY be able to absorb it. Do you know what a billionaire is, it someone who has at least 1000 million pounds at their disposal. Until Forbes recognizes them as billionaires I will continue to believe they are simply millionaires.

As for your last point Sky <> "most". Daily Mail say £2m, and so does your best mate nicko. If it is £3m then it will be the infamous add-ons which I'm not counting else I'd have said we got £20m for Phil Jones.

[cruz]

Petrovic £2, Kalinic £6m both undisclosed sum. Yet Goodwillie was £2.8m but you put it as £2m. I reckon I could make up some figures to fit my opinion too

[True Blue & White]

Petrovic £2, Kalinic £6m both undisclosed sum. Yet Goodwillie was £2.8m but you put it as £2m. I reckon I could make up some figures to fit my opinion too

The 0.8 is add-ons, I'm only counting up front fees as add-ons may never materialise. If you want me to include add-ons I will but it would make the net figure worse as the Jones money would go from £16.5m up to £20.5m.

[cruz]

If you want me to include add-ons I will but it would make the net figure worse as the Jones money would go from £16.5m up to £20.5m.

Do it, go on I dare you

Did you have a transfer signature when the trust were selling £50m of players and spending less than Venkeys? Or were you a little more mature then?

[mikeyliu]

being Welsh means that Rovers + 3 feathers = the most amazing piece of clothing ever.

Except that I've already bought the logoless version, so wearing that around will make me look like I hate charity or something

[True Blue & White]

Do it, go on I dare you

Did you have a transfer signature when the trust were selling £50m of players and spending less than Venkeys? Or were you a little more mature then?

What is immature about my signature? Please tell me because I'm at a loss here. Apparently facts are figures are immature in your world. Is the cheif accountant at Barclays acting like a 14 year old when he draws up their balance sheet for example?

[ada2020]

To be honest True Blue there seems little point to it, we all know how much cash has been spent/recouped.

We also all have a fair idea where most of it has gone too, it does seem like a shallow protest to have it there.

However, obviously I respect your right to have it there and the above is mearly my opinion, I am sure you have your reasons for displaying it.

[ada2020]

Just a quick post about the poll, while it is highly commendable that they have handed out the sponsorship to the charity it does seem like another anti climax for the Venkys regime.

We were after lucrative deals, high profile sponsorship was promised.

Dont feel they really hit the mark on either of the above.

I just dont really see what the partnership does for Rovers, it may raise our profile a tad, maybe.....

Hmmm

[Flopsy]

Delighted with the partnership.

Already linked with a new striker!

Thats actually quite good technique from HRH

[rogerjonesgloves]

Thats actually quite good technique from HRH

Not easy getting a ball to balance on your toe like that!

[XLM]

What is immature about my signature? Please tell me because I'm at a loss here. Apparently facts are figures are immature in your world. Is the cheif accountant at Barclays acting like a 14 year old when he draws up their balance sheet for example?

No he's getting paid for it.

If you were to do things fairly you'd at least put the cleared debt on that balance sheet. But that wouldn't fit in with your petty point scoring would it?

Oh and the sponsor looks good, is good for our reputation and it is a very good cause. Can't complain.