Kit supplier and sponsor from 21/22

[SBlue]

Gambling destroys lives.

Smoking cessation devices don't.

[chaddyrovers]

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

@J*B said similar, there should be two considerations. Firstly, decide what types of companies we would not be willing to advertise. I personally don't why betting companies are not considered (especially if they offer more money as has been I think said by Waggott previously) yet vaping companies are, but it is a conundrum either way. Then pick the best financial deal ignoring any that are not seen as ethically acceptable.

I am similar to you in that I don't have any issue personally with vaping companies or indeed betting companies, I don't buy a shirt regardless of sponsor, you seemingly do either way. But many do so the club must consider potential reaction not only because it cannot afford to upset any fans but also because any increased income from advertising deals may be offset by less people willing

Whether any sponsor is from down the road or indeed from Timbuktu is totally irrelevant, everything should revert back to generating the most possible money within the moral framework to which we have deemed acceptable.

Betting companies are being banned from sponsoring Clubs shirts in the coming months. Parliament has been discussing this for years now. I have no problems myself with betting companies sponsoring football. I have bet every weekend and enjoy doing it. If they want to sponsor a club then they should be allow to do so in my opinion. 

I am also surprised that given Venkys businesses world wide then can't find us a better sponsor for last few years. 

Its seems that Totally Wicked was the best deal we could get out there. 

Yes I do buy a shirt every/most seasons plus a number of other clothing items from the club shop each season. 

 

[Mattyblue]

There’s nothing wrong with local firms getting involved with club sponsorship, indeed it’s obviously a very good thing as it binds together two important civic strands of any town with a professional team - the local business community and the football club. Nothing better than seeing the lounges full of local companies supporting the club.

My question is more (I’m not getting into the moral part of it), is a local e-cig firm, that is so close to Ewood the pub next door is a pre game fan favourite, really the best principal sponsor that a club that was chasing promotion to the Premier League at the same time a sponsor search was presumably taking place, could’ve have got? 

As they were already in the tent, it certainly made sense as a short term stopgap when the other lot went bust, but as a long term principal club sponsor? 
 

Edited June 20, 2022 by Mattyblue

[SBlue]

6 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

There’s nothing wrong with local firms getting involved with club sponsorship, indeed it’s obviously a very good thing as it binds together two important civic strands of any town with a professional team - the local business and the football club. Nothing better than seeing the lounges full of local companies supporting the club.

My question is more (I’m not getting into the moral part of it), is a local e-cig firm, that is so close to Ewood next is a pre game fan favourite, really the best principal sponsor that that was chasing to the Premier League at the same time a sponsor search was presumably taking place, could’ve have got? 

As they were in , it made sense as a short term stopgap when the other lot went bust, but as a long term principal club sponsor? 
 

Yeah, my (positive) views on vaping notwithstanding - I honestly thought we could get someone bigger and/or better.

No slight on TW, but I didn't think they'd have the kind of money we should be looking for.

Perhaps I'm wrong, just seems convenient if not lazy.

[Dreams of 1995]

I hate Totally Wicked because the brand is cheap, tacky and the logo a red devil. It isn't in the spirit of Rovers.

But they are a national company now - they have shops in Scotland, London, Brum, Sheffield, Leeds etc. I even saw one in Shrewsbury the other day. They are expanding quite quickly

[GHR]

Out of interest has anything ever been said or implied about whether we'd sell the naming rights to Ewood? Totally Wicked do - or did - sponsor St Helens RFC's ground, which got me thinking!

Another point which got me thinking, with all the (very admirable) outreach work the club have been doing amongst the South Asian community, how does having a vaping sponsor sit with our appeal to them? By my understanding, vaping is disapproved of in Islam much in the same way tobacco is. Not having our main piece or merch sit comfortably with a demographic we are trying to capture isn't great. 

[Herbie6590]

5 hours ago, Mike E said:

Imagine the buzz it'd create. Announce ahead of time for next season.

I’d love a sponsor-free shirt but if it’s worth even just £100k p.a. to us, we’d probably need to sell at least 10k more to close the income gap though…

[Mike E]

55 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

I’d love a sponsor-free shirt but if it’s worth even just £100k p.a. to us, we’d probably need to sell at least 10k more to close the income gap though…

That's where the club could do with using it's wits.

Sponsors are more for the playing team (on TV) than for replicas.

Get a sponsor in on 100k (or whatever) and offer fans £40 shirts, with a £50 price to go sponsorless.

[chaddyrovers]

2 hours ago, Mike E said:

That's where the club could do with using it's wits.

Sponsors are more for the playing team (on TV) than for replicas.

Get a sponsor in on 100k (or whatever) and offer fans £40 shirts, with a £50 price to go sponsorless.

and what sponsor would allow Rovers to sell sponsor less shirts? 

 

[Mike E]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

and what sponsor would allow Rovers to sell sponsor less shirts? 

 

Doesn't matter. We can sell sponsorless shirts without a sponsor being in place. They'd sell like hotcakes.

What we'd need is ANY sponsor that is willing to go with that (even at a reduced price). The unique situation would plaster the sponsor's name all over the sports news for a while, and they'd still be on TV every time Rovers are.

The money recouped in extra revenue from virtually every fan buying one (the market research is there, fans prefer a sponsorless look) would be worth a reasonable shortfall.

Edited June 20, 2022 by Mike E

[DeeCee]

3 hours ago, Mike E said:

Doesn't matter. We can sell sponsorless shirts without a sponsor being in place. They'd sell like hotcakes.

What we'd need is ANY sponsor that is willing to go with that (even at a reduced price). The unique situation would plaster the sponsor's name all over the sports news for a while, and they'd still be on TV every time Rovers are.

The money recouped in extra revenue from virtually every fan buying one (the market research is there, fans prefer a sponsorless look) would be worth a reasonable shortfall.

Brave strategy, well worth a try 👍

[Iceman]

Bring back the blue shorts and socks, oh and Kappa 🔥🥰

[Gordon Ottershaw]

I'm certainly not in favour of going cap in hand to the Issa Brothers as some on Social Media seem to be. My understanding is that the limit of their football interest does not extend beyond occasionally watching Liverpool on the Box. However, surely it would not be beyond the wit of the club to approach them on the basis of two locally high profile entities entering into a mutually beneficial collaboration?  I wonder if this has been done? For me 'Euro Garages' would look much better on our shirts than the lamentable and embarrassing Totally Wicked.

[Gordon Ottershaw]

13 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Bring back the blue shorts and socks, oh and Kappa 🔥🥰

No, no and no. If anything Rovers traditionally wear white shorts and socks which, in my opinion, looks much better.

[J*B]

1 minute ago, Gordon Ottershaw said:

I'm certainly not in favour of going cap in hand to the Issa Brothers as some on Social Media seem to be. My understanding is that the limit of their football interest does not extend beyond occasionally watching Liverpool on the Box. However, surely it would not be beyond the wit of the club to approach them on the basis of two locally high profile entities entering into a mutually beneficial collaboration?  I wonder if this has been done? For me 'Euro Garages' would look much better on our shirts than the lamentable and embarrassing Totally Wicked.

Seems like they’ve got a box at every club in the North West! 

[Gordon Ottershaw]

3 minutes ago, J*B said:

Seems like they’ve got a box at every club in the North West! 

Yes, I doubt that they're Rovers fans but surely we get a bit of extra consideration as their company is headquartered in Blackburn?

Edited June 20, 2022 by Gordon Ottershaw

[chaddyrovers]

5 hours ago, Mike E said:

Doesn't matter. We can sell sponsorless shirts without a sponsor being in place. They'd sell like hotcakes.

What we'd need is ANY sponsor that is willing to go with that (even at a reduced price). The unique situation would plaster the sponsor's name all over the sports news for a while, and they'd still be on TV every time Rovers are.

The money recouped in extra revenue from virtually every fan buying one (the market research is there, fans prefer a sponsorless look) would be worth a reasonable shortfall.

Surely we need to increase the income not decrease it? 

 

[Upside Down]

2 hours ago, DeeCee said:

Brave strategy, well worth a try 👍

We don't do proactive strategies at this outfit.

[Mike E]

31 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Surely we need to increase the income not decrease it? 

It's give and take. Incentives to get fans buying AND in the ground are the only ways to grow income.

If we want sponsors of higher value than we have now, we need to fill Ewood. No sponsor worth their salt wants to associate with a half empty ground.

Seeing as we're stuck in the bargain bucket of sponsorships at the moment, I'm just trying to think of something unique to keep our club generating buzz.

One of the best years for shirt sales we've had this century was the Prince's Trust year. Because we had the option of no logo.

The only better years were 01-02, 02-03, and the red/black halves.

Edited June 20, 2022 by Mike E

[chaddyrovers]

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

It's give and take. Incentives to get fans buying AND in the ground are the only ways to grow income.

If we want sponsors of higher value than we have now, we need to fill Ewood. No sponsor worth their salt wants to associate with a half empty ground.

Seeing as we're stuck in the bargain bucket of sponsorships at the moment, I'm just trying to think of something unique to keep our club generating buzz.

One of the best years for shirt sales we've had this century was the Prince's Trust year. Because we had the option of no logo.

The only better years were 01-02, 02-03, and the red/black halves.

What was sales last season compare to the Prince trust sponsor shirt?

[SuperBrfc]

3 hours ago, Iceman said:

Bring back the blue shorts and socks, oh and Kappa 🔥🥰

Bring back that team as well 😞.

I did like our blue shorts and blue socks look back then. From what I remember, we went with that quite often in away games from the early to mid 00's. Wouldn't mind seeing us do that again.

[SuperBrfc]

9 hours ago, Mike E said:

Doesn't matter. We can sell sponsorless shirts without a sponsor being in place. They'd sell like hotcakes.

What we'd need is ANY sponsor that is willing to go with that (even at a reduced price). The unique situation would plaster the sponsor's name all over the sports news for a while, and they'd still be on TV every time Rovers are.

The money recouped in extra revenue from virtually every fan buying one (the market research is there, fans prefer a sponsorless look) would be worth a reasonable shortfall.

I would love for this to happen and would buy a sponsorless shirt in a flash. I haven't bought a Rovers shirt in years due to what the sponsors at the time have represented and won't be getting the Totally Wicked ones either.

The last sponsorless shirt I got hold of was in 2013, just before the '13/14 season started. I can't remember what the deal was with RFS at the time, but I remember walking into JD one day and seeing the brand new Rovers shirt without a sponsor. Done deal straight away for me.

Did the club release a batch of sponsorless ones first that year, with the option to have the RFS logo etc put on it at a later date? It kind of rings a bell, though I'm not entirely sure.

Edit: Just realised I have a sponsorless shirt from 2015/16, posted below. That's the last Rovers shirt I bought. I'm guessing that was released plain with the option to get the sponsor on it later too.

Edited June 21, 2022 by SuperBrfc

[nbdrovers]

10 hours ago, Gordon Ottershaw said:

I'm certainly not in favour of going cap in hand to the Issa Brothers as some on Social Media seem to be. My understanding is that the limit of their football interest does not extend beyond occasionally watching Liverpool on the Box. However, surely it would not be beyond the wit of the club to approach them on the basis of two locally high profile entities entering into a mutually beneficial collaboration?  I wonder if this has been done? For me 'Euro Garages' would look much better on our shirts than the lamentable and embarrassing Totally Wicked.

tbh, with the shopping spree eg group have been going on, you could have a pick of pretty sizable businesses on the kits if that relationship was there and well-maintained. could even have a different one for each kit! e.g. leon on the third, asda on the home, boots on the away! take your pick! 

[DaveyB]

16 hours ago, Mike E said:

Doesn't matter. We can sell sponsorless shirts without a sponsor being in place. They'd sell like hotcakes.

What we'd need is ANY sponsor that is willing to go with that (even at a reduced price). The unique situation would plaster the sponsor's name all over the sports news for a while, and they'd still be on TV every time Rovers are.

The money recouped in extra revenue from virtually every fan buying one (the market research is there, fans prefer a sponsorless look) would be worth a reasonable shortfall.

If we used your estimated figure (which I think is too low, but anyway) then say it’s a case of £200k for the ‘normal’ sponsorship deal, or £100k for your suggestion - we’d have to sell an extra 10,000 sponsorless shirts just to break even.
I don’t know how many shirts we sell per year, but I’d be surprised if it’s much more than that anyway, so effectively you’d be gambling on trying to double your shirt sales 

[Mike E]

4 minutes ago, DaveyB said:

If we used your estimated figure (which I think is too low, but anyway) then say it’s a case of £200k for the ‘normal’ sponsorship deal, or £100k for your suggestion - we’d have to sell an extra 10,000 sponsorless shirts just to break even.
I don’t know how many shirts we sell per year, but I’d be surprised if it’s much more than that anyway, so effectively you’d be gambling on trying to double your shirt sales 

I'm trying use it as a 'loss leader' of sorts. Use it to generate buzz and sales in other areas. We certainly need to start trying something different.

Prices of virtually everything needs to come down so that we can sell more imo.