Jump to content
IGNORED

New Shirt Sponsor to be announced


Red Army 75

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Red_Wizard said:

Haven't read all the replies on here. Definitely seems though we're throwing away that local club image, and going for a more larger corporate image, like most of the big clubs. Wouldn't surprise if we next sold the naming rights to Ashton Gate. 

Surely only a matter of time.  Wouldn't be too bad if it was the Thatcher's Gold stadium though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, fishy said:

Surely only a matter of time.  Wouldn't be too bad if it was the Thatcher's Gold stadium though.

I’m probably in the minority but I don’t particularly have an issue with the naming of the stadium. To any City fan it’ll be always be Ashton Gate, regardless of any official title.

If it weren’t for one man being prepared to personally underwrite the club for so long then it’d probably have happened years ago. 

If we’re content with our historic achievements and accepting that it’s our future to be mediocre then I can see why you wouldn’t. If we’re serious about ambitions of promotion to and survivals/establishment in the Premier League then fans need to accept that this sort of commercial opportunity will probably need to be taken to compete with clubs that are coming down from the Premier League with a £100m headstart. 

The gap is only widening between clubs who have been in the Premier League recently and clubs that haven’t, and it shows no sign of stopping. It’s not a level playing field and smaller clubs need to adapt to the situation and gain advantage where they can. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

I’m probably in the minority but I don’t particularly have an issue with the naming of the stadium. To any City fan it’ll be always be Ashton Gate, regardless of any official title.

If it weren’t for one man being prepared to personally underwrite the club for so long then it’d probably have happened years ago. 

If we’re content with our historic achievements and accepting that it’s our future to be mediocre then I can see why you wouldn’t. If we’re serious about ambitions of promotion to and survivals/establishment in the Premier League then fans need to accept that this sort of commercial opportunity will probably need to be taken to compete with clubs that are coming down from the Premier League with £100m in failure money. 

Yep. I'd agree with all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

I’m probably in the minority but I don’t particularly have an issue with the naming of the stadium. To any City fan it’ll be always be Ashton Gate, regardless of any official title.

 

I still go down Broadmead rather than Cabot Circus. So I'm with you all the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

I can answer these for you from my perspective or to confirm your correct assumption:- 

Absolutely and if we go down this route of social responsibilities, I guess these same posters are boycotting:

1) The World Cup and any FIFA activity - thousands evicted in Brazil and dead in Qatar. - The next world cup is 2026

2) Nestle products like Kit-kats, felix cat food, Nescafé or Haagen Daas - historical child labour - i have never knowingly touched a Nestle product since they bought Rowntree Mac and got Colombian babies hooked on their powder milk. 

3) Shell petrol stations - genocide in Africa for oil land. - Sold my last car in 2012

4) HSBC - money laundering in drug trade - I do still have a small account in HK. so guilty on this one.

5) H and M, Gap, Adidas, Primark and many more - slave labour. - Never bought from Adidas or Gap. H & M and Primark I have but rare

1 bad out of 5 ... pretty good effort.

Just to name a few examples of everyday world issues we turn a blind eye to, often for the sake of money. - not me sir. :) 

But I just have a feeling if Carling or HSBC sponsored us, there would be no problem.

Except for with the same people that criticise everything the club does.

 

2 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I still go down Broadmead rather than Cabot Circus. So I'm with you all the way.

Never heard of Cabot Circus; what is that a Fair in the centre of Bristol?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Pretty much. Not to make light of anyone with serious addiction but gambling very much seems to be the new ‘everyone else’s fault but mine’ vogue in the media. 

How long before the adverts are for ‘did you bet your house on black and it was somebody else’s fault?!’ 

I don’t see anybody making those points in this debate to be fair and it’s also not something I recognise from outside OTIB.  Betting is a choice. PPR etc sometimes wasn’t.   

This debate is to do with peoples taste I guess and what they want to have representing our club.  Some are happy some not so much. But it’s just debate.  I don’t see anybody slagging the club per se. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Xiled said:

That page (https://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/article/lancer-scott-confirmed-as-new-city-sponsor-3074119.aspx) has definitely been taken down.

It's linked from a Twitter post so was definitely there in the past.  I'm not a big fan of the club rewriting it's previous commercial decisions by selectively deleting news articles.

Anyway, here's an archived version:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160809093817/https://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/article/lancer-scott-confirmed-as-new-city-sponsor-3074119.aspx

Nothing very controversial to warrant removing the page from the official site.

Those are URLs from the old Football League interactive based site (the new site doesn't use the .aspx extension). 

Based on trying to find stuff before, they didn't transfer every news article when they moved site platforms so it would appear slightly unfair to call it a rewriting of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 i cannot be arsed to read all seven pages so forgive me if I duplicate others opinions.  It seems to me that the huge number of on-line betting companies indicates that this is a very, very profitable business.  The CEO of BET365 last year was the highest CEO of any British company and trousered an eye-watering £200,000,000.  I feel punters should seriously consider where this ludicrous amount of money comes from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, lenred said:

I don’t see anybody making those points in this debate to be fair and it’s also not something I recognise from outside OTIB.  Betting is a choice. PPR etc sometimes wasn’t.   

This debate is to do with peoples taste I guess and what they want to have representing our club.  Some are happy some not so much. But it’s just debate.  I don’t see anybody slagging the club per se. 

That wasn’t aimed at anyone in here to be clear. 

But for example the recent media campaign sensationalising fixed odds machines and maximum stakes etc....spun very much as the ‘nasty bookies who con people out of their money’...(even though there’s no con, odds have to be publicised and if you don’t understand those odds you probably have no business being be in a bookmakers). They’re a business who are in business purely for profit. What’s new. 

It’s never spun as ‘fool who can’t even afford to buy dinner feeds all spare cash into optional game’

The media is full of stories like ‘poor Trevor put all his council tax money in a fruity and is now being evicted thanks to despicable bookmaker’. It’s never ‘Trevor’s a ******* idiot who was woefully irresponsible’

(Yes I know gambling is a real and serious addiction to a minority of people in the country but I’m talking about people who don’t have a genuine addiction)

I just struggle to understand the distinction between that and say an outlet that will sell you enough booze to do you serious damage for £20. 

Whetherspoons and William Hill are both places where an addict can feed an addiction. What’s the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Those are URLs from the old Football League interactive based site (the new site doesn't use the .aspx extension). 

Based on trying to find stuff before, they didn't transfer every news article when they moved site platforms so it would appear slightly unfair to call it a rewriting of history.

Fair enough.  I haven't checked any other articles from that time or before.  Different issue but that's a heck of an oversight not to bring over the historic news articles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

That wasn’t aimed at anyone in here to be clear. 

But for example the recent media campaign sensationalising fixed odds machines and maximum stakes etc....spun very much as the ‘nasty bookies who con people out of their money’...(even though there’s no con, odds have to be publicised and if you don’t understand those odds you probably have no business being be in a bookmakers). They’re a business who are in business purely for profit. What’s new. 

It’s never spun as ‘fool who can’t even afford to buy dinner feeds all spare cash into optional game’

(Yes I know gambling is a real and serious addiction to a minority of people in the country but I’m talking about people who don’t have a genuine addiction)

I just struggle to understand the distinction between that and say an outlet that will sell you enough booze to do you serious damage for £20. 

Whetherspoons and William Hill are both places where an addict can feed an addiction. What’s the difference?

Alcohol is far more widely used and in my experience is far more socially acceptable as a result. Booze has been around since the beginning of time and as a result society accepts it.  Alcohol is also a far more open and visible vice.  Online gambling is a new phenomenon and is far far easier to hide and therefore the results can materialise too late for people to get help.  But the effects of both are devastating if the addiction ever gets that far. But I would wager (!) that there are far far far more issues per user with gambling than there is with alcohol. And it’ll only get worse imho. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, lenred said:

Alcohol is far more widely used and in my experience is far more socially acceptable as a result. Booze has been around since the beginning of time and as a result society accepts it.  Alcohol is also a far more open and visible vice.  Online gambling is a new phenomenon and is far far easier to hide and therefore the results can materialise too late for people to get help.  But the effects of both are devastating if the addiction ever gets that far. But I would wager (!) that there are far far far more issues per user with gambling than there is with alcohol. And it’ll only get worse imho. 

A fair point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, soultrader said:

Agree ... but without having the 5 pillars at hand to read.  I dont think BCFC ever mentioned ethical business?  

I could be wrong, just saying.

 

 

 

Bristol City model themselves as a family club ... Come on City families put on a score on the score at half time, full time, bet, bet, bet ... Its questionable. 

I deliberately made a link and parallel to the Community trust. It is a charity. Charities have guidelines to adhere to and frequently their own guiding moral principles.

The charity I work for could not be linked to any businesses with such overtly obvious negative association as gambling.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Red_Wizard said:

Haven't read all the replies on here. Definitely seems though we're throwing away that local club image, and going for a more larger corporate image, like most of the big clubs. Wouldn't surprise if we next sold the naming rights to Ashton Gate. 

That would be a step too far for me, fortunately pretty sure SL is on record as saying it will never happen under his ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, havanatopia said:

I am finding it hard to get my head around the combination of Steve Lansdown and betting sponsorship; it just sounds anathema. Would be extremely disappointed if SL capitulates to the horrific gambling sector and would bury any idea I ever have of buying a shirt although the price usually buries any thoughts of that from hovering.

And KiddieBet for the youngsters then? Yes lets ram it down everyone's throat. BabyBet, GrannyBet, EnterTheGateOnlyIfYouBet, WedontgiveashitBet, GetAddictedbet, SuicideBet. .. all are Asian based i believe. 

Anyway, i don't believe it. Mr Lansdown is better than that. I have every confidence. 

HSBC, Hutchison Wampoa, Dai Ichi, Toyota ... they sound better. 

Until five minutes ago, I thought that was a Welsh bloke with the clap...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, havanatopia said:

 

Never heard of Cabot Circus; what is that a Fair in the centre of Bristol?

You're getting confused with the Circus in Horfield Hav.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Northern Red said:

Yep. They portray gambling as some kind of fundamental component of the Top LAD lifestyle, basically claiming that there's no way you can be a top, top bloke unless you're chucking half your pay packet on Liverpool 3-1 / Salah to score first. It's clever, dangerous shit, and it definitely has an influence on people, particularly young males who are the obvious target for these firms.

The worst was that Ladbrokes Life one a couple of years ago, with "Mr. Stats" and "The Chancer" and all these stupid caricatures having a bantz-filled Saturday pissing their wages away and drinking crap lager. For some reason they didn't show Mr. Degenerate who's just done his kids' pocket money in betting on Swedish basketball, or Mr Payday Loan who's sleeping on his Mum's sofa at 40 years of age after his Mrs finally chucked him out.

:clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BRISTOL86 said:

It’s funny how many are against betting when all I heard last year when we took a lead was ‘I bet we **** this up’ ;) 

And unfortunately we were right on more than one occasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, downendcity said:

You're getting confused with the Circus in Horfield Hav.

That’s the one with no acrobats,no tight rope walking,just loads of clowns and a few bearded ladies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, lenred said:

Alcohol is far more widely used and in my experience is far more socially acceptable as a result. Booze has been around since the beginning of time and as a result society accepts it.  Alcohol is also a far more open and visible vice.  Online gambling is a new phenomenon and is far far easier to hide and therefore the results can materialise too late for people to get help.  But the effects of both are devastating if the addiction ever gets that far. But I would wager (!) that there are far far far more issues per user with gambling than there is with alcohol. And it’ll only get worse imho. 

I'm not sure that's the case - just as there are millions who only drink a glass or two of wine a week, there are millions whose gambling is the odd accumulator or Grand National bet.

Either way it's irrelevant, in my opinion. 

The "human" cost of alcohol vs. gambling doesn't even compare. 

As i've already said, some surveys have over 1 million alcohol related hospital incidents a year (cost to the NHS and tax payer?) and over 7000 alcohol related deaths last year. What about the 85,000 drink driving convictions every year or the average yearly 1000 drink driving deaths in the UK?

I'll say again, i'm not belittling the very real problem of gambling addictions, but in my opinion, the negative effects of alcohol have a far wider and deeper impact on society than gambling, yet seems more socially acceptable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Northern Red said:

Yep. They portray gambling as some kind of fundamental component of the Top LAD lifestyle, basically claiming that there's no way you can be a top, top bloke unless you're chucking half your pay packet on Liverpool 3-1 / Salah to score first. It's clever, dangerous shit, and it definitely has an influence on people, particularly young males who are the obvious target for these firms.

The worst was that Ladbrokes Life one a couple of years ago, with "Mr. Stats" and "The Chancer" and all these stupid caricatures having a bantz-filled Saturday pissing their wages away and drinking crap lager. For some reason they didn't show Mr. Degenerate who's just done his kids' pocket money in betting on Swedish basketball, or Mr Payday Loan who's sleeping on his Mum's sofa at 40 years of age after his Mrs finally chucked him out.

See I’ve always absolutely detested that ‘lads/bantz’ cringe culture. And so I don’t partake in it. It’s that easy.   

Frankly if you’re that easily led that an advert on the telly makes you go out and do something that you don’t already want to do that’s a wider issue that actually has nothing to do with gambling per se. 

If you see that advert and it actually encourages you to go out and spaff your rent money on the football, what else do you do because you see it on the telly? 

Big Dave the bricky sat shaving his legs with a Venus razor scoffing a box of Tofiffee whilst filing a personal injury claim and sponsoring a blind donkey because the TV made it look so good?! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, havanatopia said:

I am finding it hard to get my head around the combination of Steve Lansdown and betting sponsorship; it just sounds anathema. Would be extremely disappointed if SL capitulates to the horrific gambling sector and would bury any idea I ever have of buying a shirt although the price usually buries any thoughts of that from hovering.

And KiddieBet for the youngsters then? Yes lets ram it down everyone's throat. BabyBet, GrannyBet, EnterTheGateOnlyIfYouBet, WedontgiveashitBet, GetAddictedbet, SuicideBet. .. all are Asian based i believe. 

Anyway, i don't believe it. Mr Lansdown is better than that. I have every confidence. 

HSBC, Hutchison Wampoa, Dai Ichi, Toyota ... they sound better.

Dai Ichi = Welshman with crabs , no class . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...