Kit supplier and sponsor from 21/22

[chaddyrovers]

5 hours ago, alex l said:

A company isn't going to want to pay sponsorship for their logo not to be on the prime position. Any time a crowd shot or picture is shown, it's potentially dozens of ads for your brand. The sale of a few hundred more shirts wouldn't likely make up the difference in lost or reduced sponsorship funds if we went with no sponsor or negotiated to not have them on replica shirts. 

exactly

45 minutes ago, AspRover said:

Could the league/fa/whomever just give an ffp break of whatever the average shirt sponsor deal is to clubs that have non gambling/booze/tobacco sponsorship? Maybe a bit more for a charity?

How are the EFL and FA going to afford it? 

 

[AspRover]

28 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

How are the EFL and FA going to afford it? 

I didn't mean they'd pay the clubs to have alternative sponsors. Under current FFP regs clubs are allowed to make losses of £13m a year (effectively, I know it's averaged over three) - so I was suggesting that they give a slight break to clubs that don't want gambling etc. - those clubs would be allowed to make a slightly larger loss per year to offset the lower sponsorship. It wouldn't cost the EFL/FA a penny.

Of course it advantages those clubs with owners who want to put money in, if you aren't being restricted by ffp it doesn't help you much.

I don't know how much shirt sponsorship deals are worth these days so I'll invent some wildly inaccurate figures, but if you gave clubs the option of eg. £100k to have a betting company on your shirt OR £50k for a local sponsor and write off £100k of your ffp loss that year OR a charity (free) shirt sponsor and write off £150k of your ffp loss that year I think it would incentivise a lot of clubs to move away from the online casinos. Scale as appropriate.

Probably wouldn't work, I'm just throwing ideas out.

[chaddyrovers]

59 minutes ago, AspRover said:

I didn't mean they'd pay the clubs to have alternative sponsors. Under current FFP regs clubs are allowed to make losses of £13m a year (effectively, I know it's averaged over three) - so I was suggesting that they give a slight break to clubs that don't want gambling etc. - those clubs would be allowed to make a slightly larger loss per year to offset the lower sponsorship. It wouldn't cost the EFL/FA a penny.

Of course it advantages those clubs with owners who want to put money in, if you aren't being restricted by ffp it doesn't help you much.

I don't know how much shirt sponsorship deals are worth these days so I'll invent some wildly inaccurate figures, but if you gave clubs the option of eg. £100k to have a betting company on your shirt OR £50k for a local sponsor and write off £100k of your ffp loss that year OR a charity (free) shirt sponsor and write off £150k of your ffp loss that year I think it would incentivise a lot of clubs to move away from the online casinos. Scale as appropriate.

Probably wouldn't work, I'm just throwing ideas out.

But you still lose than income on the financial balance sheet and lets forget its a Business aswell as Football club.

I don't know how much the Totally Wicked deal is but its a local business who is owned by Blackburn Rovers fan and employed local people.

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

But you still lose than income on the financial balance sheet and lets forget its a Business aswell as Football club.

I don't know how much the Totally Wicked deal is but its a local business who is owned by Blackburn Rovers fan and employed local people.

Why does the fact that its a local business with local people (sounds very League of Gentlemen) seemingly in your head outrank and dismiss questions people have about the morals of advertising what Totally Wicked sell?

[alex l]

A local sponsor is nice, although I actually see it as a sign of a club's declining appeal. Generally speaking, the lower down the league you go, the more likely you're to have local companies be your main sponsors. 

Vaping isn't an ideal sponsor, but I see it above gambling firms. Vaping can be positive, if it stops people smoking tobacco. But at the same time it could easily be a gateway to cigarettes. 

We've seemingly taken a financial hit by moving away from gambling firms. For those against Totally Wicked, would you accept a smaller budget and less competitive team if we had got another sponsor?

[Mattyblue]

Indeed, it’s all very ‘Scunthorpe Skip Hire’

“Think Big”… to “That place next to the Havelock, Rovers fans, aren’t they? Yeah they’ll do”

Edited June 19, 2022 by Mattyblue

[DeeCee]

I don't really get the anti betting stance. We are a business as well as a football club (as Chaddy has said) if that company pays more than a "moral" sponsor, surely the club should weigh up the balance between financial gain and public opinion.

I can't remember buying Crown Paint, Perspex or McEwans lager.  The fact that people can be influenced by advertising is down to their own mindset imo. Should we be the moral police?

[HowieFive0]

Any company doing their research ie ..even visiting  this Forum ...which they will do ...and read all the comments ...will realise that Rovers  commercially at this point in time are  a spent force .

[Upside Down]

4 hours ago, alex l said:

A local sponsor is nice, although I actually see it as a sign of a club's declining appeal. Generally speaking, the lower down the league you go, the more likely you're to have local companies be your main sponsors. 

Vaping isn't an ideal sponsor, but I see it above gambling firms. Vaping can be positive, if it stops people smoking tobacco. But at the same time it could easily be a gateway to cigarettes. 

We've seemingly taken a financial hit by moving away from gambling firms. For those against Totally Wicked, would you accept a smaller budget and less competitive team if we had got another sponsor?

Yes.

Not accepting money from betting firms while accepting money from a vape company shows just how thick the people in charge really are. 

Edited June 19, 2022 by Upside Down

[chaddyrovers]

5 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Why does the fact that its a local business with local people (sounds very League of Gentlemen) seemingly in your head outrank and dismiss questions people have about the morals of advertising what Totally Wicked sell?

If people have a problem with what Totally Wicked sell fine(I don't) but This is guy who owned this business and wants to sponsor his team he supports so what is wrong with that to be honest? Just like some of match day sponsors are Rovers fans like Mark Farrimond who owns the Envelope works company who have sponsor Rovers on match days. 

was they any better offers on the front of the shirt sponsor this summer? 

 

[J*B]

28 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

was they any better offers on the front of the shirt sponsor this summer? 

That is literally the debate everyone is having, Chaddy. 

[rigger]

Personnally I don't give a damn who sponsors us.

[J*B]

12 minutes ago, rigger said:

Personnally I don't give a damn who sponsors us.

I hope we’re sponsored by whoever will pay us the most money… subject to any questionable morale compasses. 

[chaddyrovers]

26 minutes ago, J*B said:

That is literally the debate everyone is having, Chaddy. 

I would have thought that Venkys could line up a company from India or Switzerland to sponsor us 

[J*B]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

I would have thought that Venkys could line up a company from India or Switzerland to sponsor us 

If Venkys are as rich as is rumoured it blows my mind that they can’t bring a partner company to the table that will pay more than the rumoured 250K / season. 

[chaddyrovers]

1 minute ago, J*B said:

If Venkys are as rich as is rumoured it blows my mind that they can’t bring a partner company to the table that will pay more than the rumoured 250K / season. 

I thought about Tiger Beer or someone like Tata Steel would have ideal

[glen9mullan]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

I thought about Tiger Beer or someone like Tata Steel would have ideal

The same Tata steel that needed public money to bail them out? Mind blown 

Steel incidentally is at its largest rate per ton ever, the steel industry is in a mess, we are losing companies weekly, with Cleveland bridge going bump last year.

Steel price increases are seriously killing infrastructure with contracts not being able to be renegotiated whilst the labour shortage is a massive threat to our long term economy.

I'm currently part of the team delivering HS2, the deficit in numbers with public money are scary

[roversfan99]

4 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

If people have a problem with what Totally Wicked sell fine(I don't) but This is guy who owned this business and wants to sponsor his team he supports so what is wrong with that to be honest? Just like some of match day sponsors are Rovers fans like Mark Farrimond who owns the Envelope works company who have sponsor Rovers on match days. 

was they any better offers on the front of the shirt sponsor this summer? 

 

Who they support is ultimately irrelevant as far as I concerned. But the envelope works is not a valid comparison as there is no moral question there.

[Mattyblue]

8 hours ago, glen9mullan said:

The same Tata steel that needed public money to bail them out? Mind blown 

Steel incidentally is at its largest rate per ton ever, the steel industry is in a mess, we are losing companies weekly, with Cleveland bridge going bump last year.

Steel price increases are seriously killing infrastructure with contracts not being able to be renegotiated whilst the labour shortage is a massive threat to our long term economy.

I'm currently part of the team delivering HS2, the deficit in numbers with public money are scary

Ha, I wouldn’t look too deeply into it Glen, the Chadster has obviously just googled ‘famous Indian companies’.

[Herbie6590]

15 hours ago, DeeCee said:

I don't really get the anti betting stance. We are a business as well as a football club (as Chaddy has said) if that company pays more than a "moral" sponsor, surely the club should weigh up the balance between financial gain and public opinion.

 

The expectation is that they will be banned, so rather than having to unpick a deal & find a new sponsor, it appears the club has acted pre-emptively.

[Upside Down]

Get the sponsorship off the shirts all together. It totally devalues them.

[Mike E]

1 hour ago, Upside Down said:

Get the sponsorship off the shirts all together. It totally devalues them.

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

[Cuppliance]

1 hour ago, Upside Down said:

Get the sponsorship off the shirts all together. It totally devalues them.

I agree, the silver line of that period of time where the club couldn't get a sponsor sorted in time, was that we could buy a shirt without the sponsor on it at the start of the season.

[chaddyrovers]

9 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Who they support is ultimately irrelevant as far as I concerned. But the envelope works is not a valid comparison as there is no moral question there.

but that's the reasons why these 2 companies wanted to sponsor Blackburn Rovers. Both have sponsor Rovers for a number of seasons now

[roversfan99]

17 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

but that's the reasons why these 2 companies wanted to sponsor Blackburn Rovers. Both have sponsor Rovers for a number of seasons now

@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.