To all you moaners

Wizaard said:
No betting
No alcohol
No unethical businesses
No junk food
No sugary drinks
Nothing damaging to the environment

Who is an acceptable sponsor that will put £500,000 into the club each year?
Click to expand...

Wiz

At one of them funny handshake meetings, somebody did ask Bullsh1t Ben whether the club would never consider a betting sponsor and to be fair he said that he could not give that guarantee as deals with betting firms could make commercial sense.

As you suggest, it's alright clubs saying we won't have a sponsor from this area or we won't have a sponsor from within this industry but in doing so they would be driving revenues down.

BST encourage gambling by using sweepstakes to raise revenue rather than donations, I can only think that they do so because the gambling generates greater revenues but nobody seems to get their knickers in a twist over that.
 
Greennutmegsmoore said:
The club don't have a choice about who sponsors the league. They do have a choice about who they promote on their shirts. It is a fairly obvious distinction.
Click to expand...

That is very true Green.

So let's look at Bolton for a second, they decided to do away with any association with gambling because they believed that it was ethically correct to do so.

So they explained to supporters that they would never agree any sponsorship deals with gambling companies, they would not have any on site gambling, they also explained that there was nothing that they could do regarding the sponsorship of the league that they compete in - Skybet League One.

They continue to offer various lotteries to supporters as a method of generating funds.

If taking monies from supporters and then paying out some of the monies received as prizes and retaining the surplus isn't gambling then I don't know what is ?

They were happy to continue with gambling as it suits, they all make the rules up as they go along.
 
Greennutmegsmoore said:
The club don't have a choice about who sponsors the league. They do have a choice about who they promote on their shirts. It is a fairly obvious distinction.
Click to expand...
They don't have a choice in who pays them the most money to sponsor their shirts though.

And at the end of the day any loss in revenue must be made up via sadlers pocket.

So it makes sense to go with whoever gives them the most money really.

I quite like the fact that the sponsor actually sought us out though, due to our similar colour schemes.
 
An easy solution to all this if it really affects your thinking .
www.watfordobserver.co.uk

Home kits available to order for delivery this week

The new Watford home shirt, both outfield and goalkeeper, is now available to pre-order, with or without the Mr Q logo.
www.watfordobserver.co.uk www.watfordobserver.co.uk

Watford FC Home Kit 23/24 | Buy Online Now | The Hornets Shop

Show your support for Watford this season with the latest Watford FC home kit to wear proudly in the stands, streets or around your local park. Browse our new 23/24 kit here.
www.thehornetsshop.co.uk www.thehornetsshop.co.uk

£60 gulp.
 
Not sure why all the angst, the club needs money, sponsorship provides that so we take the highest bid. Moral high ground is fine but this is simple economics.
Some people will object to the sponsor, some will dislike the logo, the shade of tangerine, the collar or the length of the sleeves. It's all individual taste and it matters not a jot.
If it buys us better players or facilities, I don't care whose name is on the shirt (my opinion only).
 
It's a.company who want to put money into the club and a big company at that .
By having a gambling shirt sponsor on the front of our shirt won't encourage me to put an extra 25p e/w on us winning the league by 10 points.
People are the problem here nothing else .
The only problem I have with it is we should all be getting £10 bet credits with every purchase . 🤑
 
I suppose it’s fanciful to expect BFC to take any moral leadership when its owner has made his fortune from a hedge fund.

What I do find puzzling is that the BFC Community Trust has recently been running courses to help locals that want to “change their relationship with betting” and within a few weeks the club announces it will be actively promoting a betting company that has recently been heavily fined for social responsibility failures 🤔.
 
No problem with the sponsorship, but how basic is the shirt . Not an ounce of thought gone into it . When Oyscum was in charge there was one season that they put a number of shirts forward and the fans voted on the one they wanted . Maybe they should have done that ,then at least the fans would have got basic if that's what they wanted. I can't see these selling at all well.
 
Probably worth an extra £500k to the clubs bottom line. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

I don’t understand how this differs from the Moretti lounge, or the Heineken lounge? Alcohol a bigger problem in this town than gambling.

A lot of sheep in our fan base. See a few moaning, jump on the band wagon. You’d think we were wearing Preston kits from the reaction.
 
SEASIDE2020 said:
Wiz

At one of them funny handshake meetings, somebody did ask Bullsh1t Ben whether the club would never consider a betting sponsor and to be fair he said that he could not give that guarantee as deals with betting firms could make commercial sense.

As you suggest, it's alright clubs saying we won't have a sponsor from this area or we won't have a sponsor from within this industry but in doing so they would be driving revenues down.

BST encourage gambling by using sweepstakes to raise revenue rather than donations, I can only think that they do so because the gambling generates greater revenues but nobody seems to get their knickers in a twist over that.
Click to expand...
What about golden gamble, I wonder how many against this sponser liked to get involved with things like that?

People have levels they deem acceptable, but it's still 'gambling'.
 
We have some strange fans. The comments on Twitter slagging this is unbelievable. One saying get out of our club! I'm not fussed either way nobody is forcing you to buy the shirt.
 
JJpool said:
What about golden gamble, I wonder how many against this sponser liked to get involved with things like that?

People have levels they deem acceptable, but it's still 'gambling'.
Click to expand...

JJ

Yes, the Golden Gamble is nothing other than gambling.

I've mentioned elsewhere on this thread about Bolton disassociating themselves with gambling - no betting sponsor or on site bookmakers - but retaining their lotteries.

Closer to home, you have BST who have chosen to raise monies via gambling - monthly sweepstakes - rather than via donations.

I have no problem with a betting sponsor myself but I also have no problem if supporters want to object, what I find funny is the hypocrisy of Bolton and BST - I'm sure plenty of their members won't object but their mouthpiece will - who object to the club having a betting firm on their shirts but are happy to profit/raise revenues from gambling themselves.
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
So on that maybe some of our strong principled fans should boycott the club and the league and maybe support a local non league club who aren't burdened by a gambling company
Click to expand...

If we'd had a betting sponsor in say 1985, no fecker would have said a word.

Folk are now deciding that a betting sponsor is not right because it's cool to hold such an opinion.

It's as if they are unable to think for themselves.
 
SEASIDE2020 said:
JJ

Yes, the Golden Gamble is nothing other than gambling.

I've mentioned elsewhere on this thread about Bolton disassociating themselves with gambling - no betting sponsor or on site bookmakers - but retaining their lotteries.

Closer to home, you have BST who have chosen to raise monies via gambling - monthly sweepstakes - rather than via donations.

I have no problem with a betting sponsor myself but I also have no problem if supporters want to object, what I find funny is the hypocrisy of Bolton and BST - I'm sure plenty of their members won't object but their mouthpiece will - who object to the club having a betting firm on their shirts but are happy to profit/raise revenues from gambling themselves.
Click to expand...
Sweepstakes are different, in that no one is joining in the expectation of winning. Its a funding stream, and if you get a prize, that's just a bonus. I'd be willing to bet (see what I've done there), that no one joined so they could win something.
 
Wizaard said:
Sweepstakes are different, in that no one is joining in the expectation of winning. Its a funding stream, and if you get a prize, that's just a bonus. I'd be willing to bet (see what I've done there), that no one joined so they could win something.
Click to expand...

All good and fair points Wiz but I'd have to ask why - given that nobody joined so they could win anything - they don't just raise funds via donations ?
 
Wizaard said:
It's a slight incentive to those who need the prompt.
Click to expand...


Exactly Wiz.

It's the gambling element that attracts people so they are effectively using gambling to increase revenues.

Please don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with that, I just find it hypocritical to use gambling to generate funds and criticise the club for doing the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top