23/24 kit; is a new sponsor needed?

[K-Hod]

Main problem I have with the Totally Wicked sponsorship is their logo- it looks absolutely toss.

[sharpysharps86]

38 minutes ago, Ben-2000 said:

Nobody complained when we had other local sponsors such as Crown Paints.

Well I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't complain about Crown Paints because they aren't a vaping company.

Like Gambling, having a Vaping Company on the front of the shirt just feels morally wrong. That is my issue with it. It also doesn't help that the Totally Wicked logo is absolutely terrible.

I wasn't a fan of last seasons home shirt so I decided to pass on it anyway, but if this season's is decent the I'll be looking at getting the women's team version providing they have a different sponsor, as they had Watson Ramsbottom Solicitors on the front last year.

Another misstep on the commercial side of things to go alongside the ridiculously expensive season ticket prices.

[Mattyblue]

Likes a good vape does our Ben, I reckon…

[chaddyrovers]

no surprise that Totally Wicked will be our main sponsor this season. we don't know what others offers were on the table. People might think we should do better but is there no better offer on the table we can't take the offer. 

The totally Wicked logo will not stop buying a Rovers shirt or 2 for the season. I am looking forward to them coming out.  

[unsall]

2 minutes ago, sharpysharps86 said:

Well I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't complain about Crown Paints because they aren't a vaping company.

Like Gambling, having a Vaping Company on the front of the shirt just feels morally wrong. That is my issue with it. It also doesn't help that the Totally Wicked logo is absolutely terrible.

I wasn't a fan of last seasons home shirt so I decided to pass on it anyway, but if this season's is decent the I'll be looking at getting the women's team version providing they have a different sponsor, as they had Watson Ramsbottom Solicitors on the front last year.

Another misstep on the commercial side of things to go alongside the ridiculously expensive season ticket prices.

So what about the booze sponsors, all the betting companies, did you complain then or is it just the usual gripe re the present owners/ management.

[Ossydave]

Couldn't really give a monkeys who sponsor us, although agree the logo is shocking. It does seem lazy/convenient on Waggotts part mind.

[JHRover]

10 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

no surprise that Totally Wicked will be our main sponsor this season. we don't know what others offers were on the table. People might think we should do better but is there no better offer on the table we can't take the offer. 

The totally Wicked logo will not stop buying a Rovers shirt or 2 for the season. I am looking forward to them coming out.  

Defeatism again. If Waggott or whoever is unable to get better than perhaps we need to be replacing them with someone who has the skills and contacts to do so.

You like to keep reminding me that FFP is a big problem. Well shirt sponsorship and shirt sales are two important ways around that. It seems you are content to accept whatever comes along and shrug your shoulders. Again, if the Club was proactive and serious about getting past FFP issues then it would ensure there was adequate stock of kits and ensure there was a lucrative sponsor in place.

 

[K-Hod]

17 minutes ago, unsall said:

So what about the booze sponsors, all the betting companies, did you complain then or is it just the usual gripe re the present owners/ management.

Waggott is on record as saying the owners won’t have a gambling sponsor on moral grounds. (He was about 10 feet away from me when he said that). But, they’ve no problem with a vaping firm. I can see both sides of the argument re vaping tbh, so I’m not touching that one. I don’t know how much we’re getting from the sponsorship, but I can understand concerns from people about it being lazy on Waggott’s part, given how local they are. After all, we’ve taken the easy route with the catering by outsourcing it. So who’s to say we have or haven’t done the same with Totally Wicked?

As long as they’re paying the same as (or even more than) other sponsors would be, I’m not bothered really. I’d hate to see us lose out on more sponsorship money, just because someone at the club was feeling lazy.

 

[JBiz]

22 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

no surprise that Totally Wicked will be our main sponsor this season. we don't know what others offers were on the table. People might think we should do better but is there no better offer on the table we can't take the offer. 

The totally Wicked logo will not stop buying a Rovers shirt or 2 for the season. I am looking forward to them coming out.  

Rather than just the normal platitudes - why not answer the following;

1. is a company that sells addictive toys to children an appropriate sponsor

2. Do we want a tacky and badly designed logo on the front of our shirts?

 

 

[sharpysharps86]

38 minutes ago, unsall said:

So what about the booze sponsors, all the betting companies, did you complain then or is it just the usual gripe re the present owners/ management.

Read my post again and you'll see that I state gambling as well. I have fought a gambling addiction for nearly 10 years now so I feel very strongly about betting companies not being given exposure in any way, whether that be on the front of a footy shirt or on a giant billboard. Very easy to sit behind a keyboard and make a judgment about someone without knowing their reasons for their opinion isn't it.

As for booze companies...yeah, in this day and age I don't particularly like the idea of that either. As a kid I obviously have had a fair few Rovers tops with gambling companies and of course McEwans Lager on the front, but this was when I was young and didn't know any better. My feelings are that football clubs generally shouldn't be parading around with company logos of things that can cause mental or physical health problems and addiction. Am I wrong for thinking that? I don't know, it's just my opinion.

Call it what you want; moaning for the sake of moaning or whatever but that is simply how I feel about the situation. I understand the business and financial side of things in regards to shirt sponsors, but I don't have to like it either!

Edited June 19, 2023 by sharpysharps86

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

Waggott is on record as saying the owners won’t have a gambling sponsor on moral grounds. (He was about 10 feet away from me when he said that).

Did he tell you what they said when he reminded them that they own a team in the SkyBet Championship?

To be honest, I don't really mind what the sponsor is. You can have a moral, and then fall over as a hypocrite with something else. I tell my wife to stop smoking. She tells me to stop drinking every day. 🤷‍♂️ I can't really get hung up on a local and successful vaping company with an eccentric logo sponsoring us.

[chaddyrovers]

7 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Defeatism again. If Waggott or whoever is unable to get better than perhaps we need to be replacing them with someone who has the skills and contacts to do so.

bollocks! You think we should be able to attract a better and bigger sponsor which is fair argument but the unknown factor in this argument, is we aren't in the know what other offers were on the table. 

7 minutes ago, JHRover said:

You like to keep reminding me that FFP is a big problem. Well shirt sponsorship and shirt sales are two important ways around that. It seems you are content to accept whatever comes along and shrug your shoulders. Again, if the Club was proactive and serious about getting past FFP issues then it would ensure there was adequate stock of kits and ensure there was a lucrative sponsor in place.

No its yourself who doesn't understand the FFP situation and you ask me a simple question about our budget has decreased and I said the answer was simple that we need to start becoming trading clubs and selling players at the right time and get profit from those sales. That's how you get around FFP. 

Stock of kits? The club has increase its order of kits cos they get sold very quickly when they come out. There is a few kits from last season in the club shop. 

you mention a lucrative sponsor? who could this be then? 

[Mattyblue]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

 

Stock of kits? The club has increase its order of kits cos they get sold very quickly when they come out. There is a few kits from last season in the club shop. 

 

Excellent, so we won’t run out in October this time and have none for the rest of the season?

[unsall]

29 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

Waggott is on record as saying the owners won’t have a gambling sponsor on moral grounds. (He was about 10 feet away from me when he said that). But, they’ve no problem with a vaping firm. I can see both sides of the argument re vaping tbh, so I’m not touching that one. I don’t know how much we’re getting from the sponsorship, but I can understand concerns from people about it being lazy on Waggott’s part, given how local they are. After all, we’ve taken the easy route with the catering by outsourcing it. So who’s to say we have or haven’t done the same with Totally Wicked?

As long as they’re paying the same as (or even more than) other sponsors would be, I’m not bothered really. I’d hate to see us lose out on more sponsorship money, just because someone at the club was feeling lazy.

 

Yeah pretty well agree with that, and like you the main problem is the logo, but if they think it’s the best deal, without going down the gambling route,so be it. Love to know how much the deal is..

[chaddyrovers]

27 minutes ago, JBiz said:

Rather than just the normal platitudes - why not answer the following;

1. is a company that sells addictive toys to children an appropriate sponsor

they don't. You have to be 18 years to buy them legally and use them. 

27 minutes ago, JBiz said:

2. Do we want a tacky and badly designed logo on the front of our shirts?

well if you find it tacky and badly designed logo then don't buy it then. very simple answer. 

Yet again far too many people focus on this instead of this is Blackburn Rovers shirt. 

[JHRover]

14 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

bollocks! You think we should be able to attract a better and bigger sponsor which is fair argument but the unknown factor in this argument, is we aren't in the know what other offers were on the table. 

No its yourself who doesn't understand the FFP situation and you ask me a simple question about our budget has decreased and I said the answer was simple that we need to start becoming trading clubs and selling players at the right time and get profit from those sales. That's how you get around FFP. 

Stock of kits? The club has increase its order of kits cos they get sold very quickly when they come out. There is a few kits from last season in the club shop. 

you mention a lucrative sponsor? who could this be then? 

I have explained two ways of addressing the 'FFP problem' which are more reliable steps than hoping to sell players - increase revenues through commercial income. Two fundamental steps to doing this are increasing sponsorship income and increasing shirt sales. 

We've totally failed on that front. No shirts available to buy from November onwards would be laughable if it wasn't the same club bemoaning income limitations.

You're right. Just because I can't name a company definitely interested in sponsoring Rovers' shirts means there is absolutely nobody in the world who would do it. We've scoured the globe and it just so happens the best option is one up the road already in Waggott's contact list.

Same argument about alternative owners to the wretched Venkys. Try to convince yourselves that there is no other option but the one we have. It might make you feel better but there is a big world out there.

[RoversClitheroe]

5 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

they don't. You have to be 18 years to buy them legally and use them. 

well if you find it tacky and badly designed logo then don't buy it then. very simple answer. 

Yet again far too many people focus on this instead of this is Blackburn Rovers shirt. 

But its such a bad look for the club?

Vaping is so extremely bad for you.

Waggot said he was happy we weren't advertising gambling anymore, but have now moved onto vaping? 

Not sure if you're on the wind up or not? 

[JBiz]

5 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

they don't. You have to be 18 years to buy them legally and use them. 

well if you find it tacky and badly designed logo then don't buy it then. very simple answer. 

Yet again far too many people focus on this instead of this is Blackburn Rovers shirt. 

They don’t …. So you’re saying there isn’t one kid in Blackburn with sweet flavoured nicotine vaporisers from them? Also what about the streets littered with them?

The shirt is ruined by a tacky logo in the middle of it. How on Earth is anyone supposed to look at the shirt without seeing it?

[chaddyrovers]

10 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I have explained two ways of addressing the 'FFP problem' which are more reliable steps than hoping to sell players - increase revenues through commercial income. Two fundamental steps to doing this are increasing sponsorship income and increasing shirt sales. 

You might increase revenue that way by a couple of millions but nothing like trading players and improve the squad that way.  Other championship teams like Boro for example are good at selling players at the right time and generate massive revenue for the club. 

10 minutes ago, JHRover said:

We've totally failed on that front. No shirts available to buy from November onwards would be laughable if it wasn't the same club bemoaning income limitations.

Rovers have increase the amount of shirts they have purchase by 20 or 25%(can't remember the exactly figure) 

10 minutes ago, JHRover said:

You're right. Just because I can't name a company definitely interested in sponsoring Rovers' shirts means there is absolutely nobody in the world who would do it. We've scoured the globe and it just so happens the best option is one up the road already in Waggott's contact list.

and what happens if that Totally Wicked is the best financial option after exploring all the options? 

10 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Same argument about alternative owners to the wretched Venkys. Try to convince yourselves that there is no other option but the one we have. It might make you feel better but there is a big world out there.

I don't know if they are other people interesting in buying Rovers but you need a willing seller and we appear to not have one in our current owners. 

[chaddyrovers]

20 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

But its such a bad look for the club?

yet again that your opinion. 

20 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

Vaping is so extremely bad for you.

most things in life are bad for you like drinking alcohol or eating cakes or Mcdonalds/KFC but the vast majority of us do it don't we?  

20 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

Not sure if you're on the wind up or not? 

same old line posted by people cos people don't agree with them. 

20 minutes ago, JBiz said:

They don’t …. So you’re saying there isn’t one kid in Blackburn with sweet flavoured nicotine vaporisers from them?

that is different debate and not one I am interested in debating either. 

20 minutes ago, JBiz said:

Also what about the streets littered with them?

Your streets might be littered with them but not where I live but yet again I don't look out for them when I walk to the shop in car park at the supermarket. 

20 minutes ago, JBiz said:

The shirt is ruined by a tacky logo in the middle of it. How on Earth is anyone supposed to look at the shirt without seeing it?

well that's your opinion and your focus. 

[Dreams of 1995]

37 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I have explained two ways of addressing the 'FFP problem' which are more reliable steps than hoping to sell players - increase revenues through commercial income. Two fundamental steps to doing this are increasing sponsorship income and increasing shirt sales. 

We've totally failed on that front. No shirts available to buy from November onwards would be laughable if it wasn't the same club bemoaning income limitations.

You're right. Just because I can't name a company definitely interested in sponsoring Rovers' shirts means there is absolutely nobody in the world who would do it. We've scoured the globe and it just so happens the best option is one up the road already in Waggott's contact list.

Same argument about alternative owners to the wretched Venkys. Try to convince yourselves that there is no other option but the one we have. It might make you feel better but there is a big world out there.

How many shirts do you reckon we have to sell to solve our FFP problem?

[imy9]

44 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

they don't. You have to be 18 years to buy them legally and use them. 

well if you find it tacky and badly designed logo then don't buy it then. very simple answer. 

Yet again far too many people focus on this instead of this is Blackburn Rovers shirt. 

Yet I found 60+ in school lockers the other day. You have your opinion Chaddy but vaping is a massive issue for kids atm and I don’t feel comfortable with us advertising them on the front of our shirts.

[JBiz]

7 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

yet again that your opinion. 
 

Yea and yours is just ignoring it.

7 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

most things in life are bad for you like drinking alcohol or eating cakes or Mcdonalds/KFC but the vast majority of us do it don't we?  
 

You’re once again (classic style) moving the goalposts.

Were not advertising those things, because of “morals” yet these addictive things are ok?

 

7 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

same old line posted by people cos people don't agree with them. 

that is different debate and not one I am interested in debating either. 
 

Because you know that there is no positive side to this - you either ignore reality and accept whatever the club does “as the best it could’ve” or you ask the question, “why are we helping advertise this shit?” 
 

If it was any of those examples, beer, betting etc - you’d say exactly the same “it’s probably the best the could’ve got” with no evidence.

7 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Your streets might be littered with them but not where I live but yet again I don't look out for them when I walk to the shop in car park at the supermarket. 
 

Nice attempt at taking the piss there btw, I’m sure in the castle you live in, the nearby town is full of the detritus this crap creates.

Just because you don’t care, doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter!

7 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

well that's your opinion and your focus. 

It’s not, it’s called reality.

If you asked a decorator to paint your landing, and they wrote FUCK OFF in the centre of it, would you thank and congratulate them for professional cutting in?

 

[JBiz]

2 minutes ago, imy9 said:

Yet I found 60+ in school lockers the other day. You have your opinion Chaddy but vaping is a massive issue for kids atm and I don’t feel comfortable with us advertising them on the front of our shirts.

As a secondary school teacher I couldn’t agree anymore unequivocally.

Weve managed to make nicotine more appealing to kids, for short term gain and long term health and environmental damage…

and people like Chaddy think this is fine to advertise…

[Ossydave]

I think people who vape look like twats, almost like adult dummies hanging out their mouth.

Do we really think having a vaping company on our shirt is going to inspire kids to take up the rotten habit though? Is it hell, they'd do it anyway.