Jump to content

Chelsea kits


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bison said:

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. 

I doubt it had anything to do with the fans, more likely something to do with the T&C’s

Also I cannot remember Clearlake consulting the fans on the removal of TT or GP and if the fans did have a say, surely they would have objected to hiring an ex-spuds Manager

Edited by ROTG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Bison said:

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. 

 

10 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

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.

I just see it as nanny-state nonsense that people should get so het up about such things as advertising a gambling site. 

People will still gamble if we don't have Stake on our shirts. Maybe a different company. Maybe they'll find Stake through other means.

There are things I'd like the CST to get militant over. This isn't one.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ham said:

 

I just see it as nanny-state nonsense that people should get so het up about such things as advertising a gambling site. 

People will still gamble if we don't have Stake on our shirts. Maybe a different company. Maybe they'll find Stake through other means.

There are things I'd like the CST to get militant over. This isn't one.

 

Stake should do themselves a favour and not spend millions on advertising if it doesn't really make any difference, then. 

Some things are more important than money. 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

image.jpeg
 

My guess is the teaser is going to be around the style of the kit being based on a kit from the 90s rather than Nintendo being the sponsor.

Always loved that 90s Fiorentina kit so I'd take it! Seems unlikely, mind.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everton have released their home kit today with Stake.com as their sponsor...has the same company sponsored two clubs at the same time before? Genuinely can't bring it to mind.

Edited by Dale86
Ignore me, missed Mark's earlier post about the club deciding not to go with Stake!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Dale86 said:

Everton have released their home kit today with Stake.com as their sponsor...has the same company sponsored two clubs at the same time before? Genuinely can't bring it to mind.

Fly Emirates? They've sponsored half of Europe by this point.  

I think Rangers & Celtic had the same sponsor a few times over the years and I remember Sheff Weds & Southampton having the same sponsor at one point? Sanderson??

I'm also guessing the gambling companies have had more than one interest in the Prem at once before - Stake had Watford right? Did that cross over with Everton at all? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see little "influence" regarding the sponsor issue/decision with Stake.... given the forth coming ban any such deal would be short term and whatever else is blamed on Todd and Co I  believe a straight business deal is well within their capabilities and a longer term sponsor makes far more "business" sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, chara said:

I see little "influence" regarding the sponsor issue/decision with Stake.... given the forth coming ban any such deal would be short term and whatever else is blamed on Todd and Co I  believe a straight business deal is well within their capabilities and a longer term sponsor makes far more "business" sense.

Because of the where the club is located

Range Rover or Land Rover would be an ideal sponsor. 

I’ll get my coat


Cannot remember any PL club having a car manufacturer  on the front of there shirt  

 

Edited by ROTG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ROTG said:

Because of the where the club is located

Range Rover or Land Rover would be an ideal sponsor. 

I’ll get my coat


Cannot remember any PL club having a car manufacturer  on the front of there shirt  

 

Norwich City had Lotus as a sponsor not long ago.

norwich-city-home-football-shirt-2021-2022-s_81771_1.jpg

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ham said:

Shambles. 

 

It really is , as was mentioned before , the one thing that the Yanks were supposed to be good on was the corporate side of things , revenue by sponsorship ect and they have failed monumentally.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mark Kelly said:

It really is , as was mentioned before , the one thing that the Yanks were supposed to be good on was the corporate side of things , revenue by sponsorship ect and they have failed monumentally.  

The CST of course shares some of the blame. 

As was commented by someone on here the other day, the club sell alcohol at the ground and that's very bad for you. 

Why block a gambling sponsor who was going to pay a fortune for just one year whilst we built for success and a CL-worthy sponsor the year after?

Nobody can convince me that this was a good move. 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Disagree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

United had Chevrolet stinking up the front of their kit for a few years.

I struggle to accept the stance on Stake because I don't remember an uproar about Parimatch. I've always felt you have to be all in on these things, otherwise it's just hollow grandstanding.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ham said:

The CST of course shares some of the blame. 

As was commented by someone on here the other day, the club sell alcohol at the ground and that's very bad for you. 

Why block a gambling sponsor who was going to pay a fortune for just one year whilst we built for success and a CL-worthy sponsor the year after?

Nobody can convince me that this was a good move. 

 

I'm wondering if it's a Premier league directive that clubs must reveal their new kits by date X ,  because nobody is going to buy one if two weeks later there's going to be a new sponsor added. Seems most odd to me and will just be used by the media as yet another stick to beat us with and just fuels the "thick Yanks" narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

I'm wondering if it's a Premier league directive that clubs must reveal their new kits by date X ,  because nobody is going to buy one if two weeks later there's going to be a new sponsor added. Seems most odd to me and will just be used by the media as yet another stick to beat us with and just fuels the "thick Yanks" narrative.

I understand it's a manufacturing thing... Nike factory needs to start making the shirts (with or without sponsor logo)  by a certain date in order to have them available for sale.  If a sponsor is announced, say two weeks later, the logo gets added and those who bought 'sponsorless' shirts get option to swap (just like when a player changes shirt numbers)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

It might be quite nice to have a shirt without a sponsor... haven't had a new Chelsea shirt for years and years, but one clean without a sponsor could be tempting.

Nice idea, however the club cannot continue to keep losing revenue. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CST are so obviously not even remotely responsible for these owners not being able to negotiate a deal with a viable sponsor by mid-July. Such a bizarre take. The idea that adults being allowed to buy beer inside the ground is at all comparable to, for example, hundreds of thousands of kids running round with gambling branding on was so daft it didn't warrant response.

Sponsors would be lining up if we had the desired product to sell (CL football, jfc top half football). Maybe we should have tried some of the CST up front last season? Or in the dugout? Maybe even in the director's box?

This is on the club, 100%.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

The CST are so obviously not even remotely responsible for these owners not being able to negotiate a deal with a viable sponsor by mid-July. Such a bizarre take. The idea that adults being allowed to buy beer inside the ground is at all comparable to, for example, hundreds of thousands of kids running round with gambling branding on was so daft it didn't warrant response.

Sponsors would be lining up if we had the desired product to sell (CL football, jfc top half football). Maybe we should have tried some of the CST up front last season? Or in the dugout? Maybe even in the director's box?

This is on the club, 100%.

But they HAD negotiated a good deal with a viable sponsor.  That's the point.

Good enough for many other clubs and motor racing teams around the world but an issue for a percentage of the ever so virtuous CST. 

If it's not a gambling company sponsor it's a family whose grandad wasn't acceptable. 

CST doesn't speak for me or many other Chelsea fans. 

Edited by Ham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sleeve sponsor either.

So that's no replacement for Three's 40m a year shirt sponsor or Whalefin who were paying 20m a year for the sleeve. 

Surely these guys should be fighting off the sponsors. They made it sound so easy. 

Quote

Eghbali: "We thought Chelsea was frankly an asset, a business that was not terribly well managed on the football side, sporting side or promotional side." 

All they could come up with was the low hanging fruit of a gambling sponsor. Pretty embarrassing all things considered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...