Chelsea kits

[paulw66]

On 19/06/2023 at 12:50, Holymoly said:

So apparently the league told us we can't use Paramount+ as shirt sponsors as it would "upset" other streaming services. But they're fine with us advertising online betting and upsetting people's lives. There's 21st century priorities right there.

It shows the priorities of the PL. As long as they are ok, they don't give a t*ss.

Accept billions from gambling sponsors, then ban any player who dares gamble. 

Want to do a deal with Paramount, a harmless broadcaster, no that's not allowed as it could upset Sky etc, and negatively impact the financials for the PL 

Zero moral compass. 

[Ham]

6 hours ago, paulw66 said:

It shows the priorities of the PL. As long as they are ok, they don't give a t*ss.

Accept billions from gambling sponsors, then ban any player who dares gamble. 

Want to do a deal with Paramount, a harmless broadcaster, no that's not allowed as it could upset Sky etc, and negatively impact the financials for the PL 

Zero moral compass. 

Want to hear something really upsetting?

I read that Paramount had agreed on £75m a year over 3 years. £225m in total FFS.

 

[Bob Singleton]

7 hours ago, paulw66 said:

It shows the priorities of the PL. As long as they are ok, they don't give a t*ss.

Accept billions from gambling sponsors, then ban any player who dares gamble. 

Want to do a deal with Paramount, a harmless broadcaster, no that's not allowed as it could upset Sky etc, and negatively impact the financials for the PL 

Zero moral compass. 

From CityAM a week ago...

https://www.cityam.com/qa-why-premier-league-gave-chelseas-paramount-plus-sponsorship-the-red-card/

 

Chelsea’s hopes of replacing 3 as shirt sponsor with Paramount Plus fell foul of Premier League rules

Chelsea’s hunt for a new main shirt sponsor hit the news this week when it emerged that the Premier League had refused to sanction a potential deal with Paramount Plus.

Here’s why the agreement was not allowed, why this situation isn’t unique to Chelsea or the top division of English football, and what it means for the club’s search for a new sponsor.

Why was Chelsea’s Paramount Plus deal blocked?

The first thing to make clear is that the Premier League did not have a decision to make – such agreements are simply prohibited by their rules. 

All clubs in the division sign up to a Deed of Licence, which covers a range of matters relating to broadcasters and media.

This contract is confidential so the exact wording is not known, but Premier League sources confirmed that Chelsea’s proposed deal with Paramount Plus was always going to infringe it.

For context, it’s worth remembering that the Premier League’s chief source of income is the sale of its media rights to domestic and overseas broadcasters, so it is logical that there would be some protections for those important rights holders.

“The Premier League is a company limited by shares as each club is a shareholder and bound by the rules,” says Stephen Taylor Heath, head of sports law at JMW Solicitors.

“A further layer might be what is being referred to as the ‘Deed of Licence’ between the Premier League and the clubs and this is ultimately a legally binding agreement and a licence which sets out the legal basis on which one party’s legal rights may be utilised by another party. 

“It is anticipated the broadcaster deals will contain extensive provisions designed to preserve the integrity of the rights acquired including restrictions on ‘ambush marketing’ and the exposure of any competitor.

“I would anticipate that Premier League clubs will be obliged to collectively adhere to that contract as if they were each a party to it.”

Has this situation arisen before?

While it is not known to what degree other clubs might have explored similar deals, the fact that none has another media company as their shirt sponsor tells its own story.

And similar rules apply elsewhere, says Taylor Heath. “This framework is not unique to the Premier League as broadcast partners of several sporting events will impose restrictions on the sporting governing bodies and event organisers with regards to exposure of other broadcasters.”

So what now for Chelsea’s sponsor search?

Blues chiefs have been searching for a new front-of-shirt sponsor since mobile network Three decided not to renew its £40m-a-year deal, which expired at the end of the season, and their task has not been made easier by the team’s failure to qualify for European competition, robbing it of valuable international exposure, next term.

Having failed to land the Paramount Plus deal, Chelsea is now in talks with online cryptocurrency casino Stake.com. The company appeared on the front of Everton’s shirts last season and has previously partnered with Watford. 

But it has caused controversy due to the collective pledge from Premier League clubs to phase out gambling sponsors by 2026, and the Chelsea Supporters’ Trust has voiced its opposition to the mooted deal.




It would seem that all PL clubs have agreed to these rules (regarding broadcast sponsors) so either Boehly etc., somehow forget they existed when discussing sponsorship with Paramount, or the club deliberately decided to poke the viper's nest?

[Box of Tricks]

15 hours ago, Bob Singleton said:

Having failed to land the Paramount Plus deal, Chelsea is now in talks with online cryptocurrency casino Stake.com. The company appeared on the front of Everton’s shirts last season and has previously partnered with Watford. 

 

Absolutely no recollection of this. 

I also watched Haaland's Manchester City goal compilation last week and it was like I was watching everything for the first time.

This is what last season and hiding from MOTD every week does to you.

[Mark Kelly]

Here's the new Stake shirt for one season only 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Mark Kelly

[ChelseaJambo]

10 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

Here's the new Stake shirt for one season only 

 

Yeh, not going to be buying that. Not a moral reason; the sponsor just looks guff.

[Ham]

21 minutes ago, ChelseaJambo said:

 

Yeh, not going to be buying that. Not a moral reason; the sponsor just looks guff.

Hearts have done it right sponsor-wise.  A very good cause 👏👏👏

[Bison]

This seems to be the away kit:

[Mark Kelly]

2 hours ago, Bison said:

This seems to be the away kit:

As in hidden "away"one would hope 

[xceleryx]

11 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

As in hidden "away"one would hope 

Horrendous, isn't it. 

[Bert19]

5 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

Horrendous, isn't it. 

Hard disagree. I really like it.

 

Though i suspect that will reduce a lot if it has St*ke.com plastered across it.

[xceleryx]

5 minutes ago, Bert19 said:

Hard disagree. I really like it.

 

Though i suspect that will reduce a lot if it has St*ke.com plastered across it.

What do you like about it out of curiosity? 

[Bison]

37 minutes ago, Bert19 said:

Hard disagree. I really like it.

 

Though i suspect that will reduce a lot if it has St*ke.com plastered across it.

Don't think it's that bad either. The colourway reminds me of the 11/12 away kit:

Edited July 2, 2023 by Bison

[Bert19]

30 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

What do you like about it out of curiosity? 

So i am a big supporter of the following plan: home kit blue, away kit light colour, 3rd kit dark colour.

(As opposed to last season’s blue home, ‘2 light coloured rubbish kits we never wore anyway’ approach)

But mainly, i quite like the design, i like the colours used and i can see it being good with black shorts & black socks. 

[Ham]

3 hours ago, Bison said:

This seems to be the away kit:

I'm with Bert.  I like it.  These shirts always look 100 times better on the players on a football pitch. 

I'm guessing black shorts. 

It's a "yes" from me. 

 

 

[xceleryx]

1 hour ago, Bert19 said:

So i am a big supporter of the following plan: home kit blue, away kit light colour, 3rd kit dark colour.

(As opposed to last season’s blue home, ‘2 light coloured rubbish kits we never wore anyway’ approach)

But mainly, i quite like the design, i like the colours used and i can see it being good with black shorts & black socks. 

That's fair I suppose, not my cup of tea in the slightest and it ranks up there with the consistently bad kids Nike have produced for us, but maybe it'll look better on the players. 

I don't mind the colour palette used, the pattern design though feels lazy to say the least. 

[Bert19]

16 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

That's fair I suppose, not my cup of tea in the slightest and it ranks up there with the consistently bad kids Nike have produced for us, but maybe it'll look better on the players. 

I don't mind the colour palette used, the pattern design though feels lazy to say the least. 

I’ll agree on that. The last couple of years of Adidas were a bit poor, but Nike have definitely been underwhelming since the 17/18 home kit (and they launched that on the same day as the Spurs kit).

[Mark Kelly]

To clarify, not keen on black kits however if they teemed it with light blue shorts and stripey blue and black socks it would be alright I suppose. 

Anything is better than that horrendous gold monstrosity to be fair. 

[Holymoly]

1 hour ago, xceleryx said:

That's fair I suppose, not my cup of tea in the slightest and it ranks up there with the consistently bad kids Nike have produced for us, but maybe it'll look better on the players. 

I don't mind the colour palette used, the pattern design though feels lazy to say the least. 

"This is just a map of how Chelsea is interconnected to PIF, Putin and any other organization that harms the world in any way and shape" linked from Twitter.

Seriously however I would imagine this is the third kit as it's still effectively blue. Personally I think they should all wear a hi-viz kit so they can spot each other to pass to for a change.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Holymoly

[Bison]

Wouldn't be surprised if they play the pre season games in last season's kit. 

[Mark Kelly]

Apparently we have decided against Stake as a sponsor , presumably due to the furore that it provoked which means we are still looking for a new shirt sponsor and until we get one we can't announce the new shirt . Another "hilarious" misstep by Clearlake .

[Mark Kelly]

[Ham]

54 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Apparently we have decided against Stake as a sponsor , presumably due to the furore that it provoked which means we are still looking for a new shirt sponsor and until we get one we can't announce the new shirt . Another "hilarious" misstep by Clearlake .

Sometimes the Chelsea Supporter Trust would be better off just shutting up.  

That one year deal was perfect whilst we got our ducks in a row, but no. We had to fuck it up over pointless virtue signalling. 

The club should have just gone with it despite the protests. 

[Bison]

20 minutes ago, Ham said:

Sometimes the Chelsea Supporter Trust would be better off just shutting up.  

That one year deal was perfect whilst we got our ducks in a row, but no. We had to fuck it up over pointless virtue signalling. 

The club should have just gone with it despite the protests. 

So the club should have gone against the wishes of their own fans? The same fans they have told will be consulted with listened to etc. Why burn that relationship for the sake of one season? 

It might be 'virtue signalling' to you but there are people who have legitimate concerns about the message a gambling sponsor on the front of our shirt sends out and they do not want our club promoting something that genuinely ruins lives. 

I'm proud of both the CST for their quick work and for the club for listening. This is exactly how things should work. 

[thevelourfog]

5 minutes ago, Bison said:

So the club should have gone against the wishes of their own fans? 

We should know our place, really. Cough up your grand a year for a ST, couple of hundred quid for new kits (although maybe not this year, huh!) and £50 a month TV subscriptions and then piss off, if you ask me.

We are the club. The people making up the organisation have been here 5 minutes.