Who would have been acceptable?

[Hairy Canary 696]

It''s all about balancing the amount of cash we can get with promoting a brand that has no association with the club.

Clubs would no doubt have happily displayed Marlboro or Guinness and stating how good those products were for you if the attitudes of yesteryear had prevailed. We''ve come a long way and times will continue to change and I wouldn''t be surprised to see gambling join the list of banned products eventually.

Like most I would love to see our shirts without any company name other than NCFC. However football long ago sold it''s soul to the devil so if it''s a given that we are going to help sell someone else''s product by showing it on our shirts we may as well go the whole hog and get as much as we can from a legal source. In for a penny........

[SwindonCanary 455]

We started on this downward spiral when we put Coral in blue and white on the Barclay stand, down, down, deeper and down !

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="Mr Apples"]I take it those opposed to betting will petition for us to hand back the Sky Bet Championship trophy if we win it then?

Apples
[/quote]

It depends whether I''d have to carry the trophy around with me every time I go to watch City...

[Mr Apples 1,320]

ICF, you''ll just have to wear your old Barcelona unicef shirt to feel better about yourself then won''t you?Apples

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Making football sponsorship a moral arbiter is a flawed argument.

If Club ownership can be franchised to the highest cash bidder with limited oversight as to the origin of such wealth, then the issue of shirt sponsorship is long hence a dead canard.

Anyone lamenting LeoVegas should daily rejoice at the very presence of Delia.

Parma

[andyc24_uk 59]

So many people claiming the moral high ground in opposition to our new sponsor... Please tell me you are aware that Aviva, our lovely sponsor for the last 9 years who so many people seem to be looking back on so fondly,

1) Are an insurance company and therefore involved in what is essentially a form of gambling themselves, which the vast majority of society are strongly encouraged if not legally obliged to participate in;

2) Have multiple offshore subsidiary companies based in tax havens around the world for the purposes of tax avoidance

3) Have a track record of investing in companies with extremely dubious ethical standards, including arms manufacturing.

None of that stopped people from buying the shirt; and yet sponsorship from a second-tier gambling company is apparently selling the club''s soul. If you want to take a moral stand against companies you see as disreputable, that''s fine - but please have some consistency!

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Making football sponsorship a moral arbiter is a flawed argument. If Club ownership can be franchised to the highest cash bidder with limited oversight as to the origin of such wealth, then the issue of shirt sponsorship is long hence a dead canard. Anyone lamenting LeoVegas should daily rejoice at the very presence of Delia. Parma[/quote]

 

A dead canard ?  Is that similar to a dead parrot ?

 

To repeat ... the issue for me is what I''m walking around advertising when I buy a City shirt.  If it''s a company I''m not keen on, then I''ll decide not to buy the shirt (which is what I''m going to do next season).  Simples and not at all "flawed".  I''d prefer that we don''t have a gambling company as our sponsor (but it''s not my decision and I don''t have to pay the bills).  Others are free to make their own decisions on whatever basis they like.

 

This is different from who owns the club or what names are on the stands or on the trophies we''re competing for.  Because I''m not going to be wearing any of them....  So there''s no need for me to "daily rejoice at the very presence of Delia", although what I do in private is my own affair I think.  Although to be clear, the only time I''ve been in Delia''s presence was when she was in with the away fans when we went to Wigan one year and she was about 20 seats along from me, a couple of rows back. 

 

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="Mr Apples"]ICF, you''ll just have to wear your old Barcelona unicef shirt to feel better about yourself then won''t you?

Apples
[/quote]

Or indeed my Aviva Community Fund shirt from last year will do nicely.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="andyc24_uk"]So many people claiming the moral high ground in opposition to our new sponsor... Please tell me you are aware that Aviva, our lovely sponsor for the last 9 years who so many people seem to be looking back on so fondly, 1) Are an insurance company and therefore involved in what is essentially a form of gambling themselves, which the vast majority of society are strongly encouraged if not legally obliged to participate in; 2) Have multiple offshore subsidiary companies based in tax havens around the world for the purposes of tax avoidance 3) Have a track record of investing in companies with extremely dubious ethical standards, including arms manufacturing. None of that stopped people from buying the shirt; and yet sponsorship from a second-tier gambling company is apparently selling the club''s soul. If you want to take a moral stand against companies you see as disreputable, that''s fine - but please have some consistency![/quote]

 

I think this is a bit weakfrankly.

 

1   Insurance and gambling are the opposite sides of the same coin - they''re completely different.  When you gamble, you hope to turn your stake into a larger amount if your bet comes off, which is (part of) what makes it addictive and why people can end up in trouble by gambling money they can''t afford to lose.  When you pay for insurance, you''re covering the risk of a catastrophic loss such as your house burning down or your car getting written off.  You''d prefer it not to happen (unless you''re trying to defraud the insurance company0, which is why no-one ever gets addicted to taking out insurance policies....

2  What''s your evidence for saying Aviva has multiple subsidiaries in offshore tax havens for tax avoidance purposes ?  It''s a multinational group so it''s going to have subsidiaries all over the place, that doesn''t show they are being used for tax avoidance...

3  what''s your source for saying Aviva has a "track record" of investing in companies with dubious ethical standards ?  I''ve never seen any suggestion of this. 

 

Basically you''ve just come up with some spurious reasons to try to knock Aviva.  The difference is that the core products of Aviva (Insurance, Pensions, Savings etc) are socially useful.  An on-line gambling company is not, in my opinion.  Hence I have no problem wearing a City shirt featuring Aviva but won''t be wearing one with a gambling company''s name on it.  That''s consistent.

[andy cousins 9]

should have got MacDonalds, many doom and gloom merchants are in need of a happy meal

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

There''s an interesting article on this link

https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/6/8544303/casino-slot-machine-gambling-addiction-psychology-mobile-games

 

It is mainly about Casinos and the way they''ve revamped slot machines to make them more addictive.

 

It also discusses (lower down) the fact that casinos are conscious of the competition they face from mobile entertainment devices (aka "phones") hence the move to online gambling.  As one of the interviewees says "You know how you get people younger to gamble? Hand them a f*****g telephone."  Which is why I''m not keen on our new sponsor and why I disagree with those trying to denigrate my concerns.

 

Apparently online game designers are looking to try to use the same techniques to make their games addictive.  So if we got sponsorship from World of Warcraft or whatever, I''d have to have a think about whether I''d be happy to buy that shirt...

 

[BroadstairsR 2,159]

You''ve convinced me ICC and I now fully intend wrapping myself up in cotton wool for the entirety of this coming week-end.

I shall use the next few days to waste a bob or two or more on the LeoVegas site, fuel my alcohol addiction to the point of a complete blackout or two and eat nothing but burgers and chips.

The fact is there is such a thing as the ''original sin'' and people seem to need these sinny things in their lives in order to get by. Some more than others.

Prohibition leads to crime.

Now I am not suggesting that you want gaming prohibited but perhaps restrictions on advertising it might be construed as the thin end of the wedge.

There are always those in society for whom "ban" is the first word of choice when confronted with anything they disagree with or morally object to.

There is also the tendency for rules to be implemented because of the actions of the lowest common denominator. You can''t even get a decent drink on a long haul nowadays, even in Business, because some screwed up actress might start swearing at a hostess or threaten to open a cabin door.

(Then of course we will always have the extreme forces of repression such as the Taliban and even Isis, but we won''t go there as it is a bit of a stretch from adverts on football shirts to banning music or executing people at the half-time of a football match.)

[andyc24_uk 59]

I have no problem with Aviva whatsoever, nor with LeoVegas - I just think the handwringing about the new sponsorship deal is pretty ridiculous and people are being very selective about their moral outrage.

Yes of course insurance companies operate in a different way to gambling firms; but they are still essentially taking customers'' money based on a statistical likelihood that a certain event will or won''t occur; and their advertising tactics play up the risk factor and manipulate people''s fears of loss just as much as any gambling company plays on people''s hopes of a big win. That''s not necessarily a problem, it''s just how advertising works - but it''s a bit hypocritical IMHO to condemn one while having no problem with the other.

In terms of offshore subsidiaries in tax havens, this article is a start

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/12/ftse-100-use-tax-havens-full-list

And this is also relevant

http://theconversation.com/luxembourg-a-tax-haven-by-any-other-name-33919

And this summary mentions both their investment in Siemens and GE, both of which have strong ties to arms manufacturing, and further mentions of their overseas subsidiaries

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/default.aspx?TabId=836&CompanyId=14857&CategoryId=288176

As I said before, I have no problem with Aviva and have bought several shirts with their logos on; and will likely do the same with the Leovegas one if the design is any good. For the record, I''ve never used either companies'' services, so I really don''t have a dog in this fight whatsoever.

My point is not to knock Aviva but to point out the contradiction in attacking the new sponsorship deal on moral grounds given the previous sponsor isn''t exactly squeaky clean and nobody has any problem with them.

[Lessingham Canary 99]

Personally have no problem with who the main sponsor is, was quite happy with Aviva, big employer locally, strong brand, i use their products partly because of the association, partly because they make sense. Hope the LeoVegas logo does not cheapen the shirt ! the only real shame is them being  on the shirts of another championship club (that tells me that we were struggling to get a new sponsor at the right price).Sanders coaches would have been nice, could have paid for it with free travel for fans to all away games[:D]

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

[quote user="Lessingham Canary"]Personally have no problem with who the main sponsor is, was quite happy with Aviva, big employer locally, strong brand, i use their products partly because of the association, partly because they make sense. Hope the LeoVegas logo does not cheapen the shirt ! the only real shame is them being  on the shirts of another championship club (that tells me that we were struggling to get a new sponsor at the right price).Sanders coaches would have been nice, could have paid for it with free travel for fans to all away games[:D][/quote]

Could have had a lovely big cabbage in the middle of the shirt. At least it would still be yellow and green.

[Lessingham Canary 99]

@Duncan EdwardsCould have had a lovely big cabbage in the middle of the shirt. At least it would still be yellow and green.I hear that as you enter the Carra next season, instead of the usual swipe machines for your season ticket, they will have slot machines, and you can have a chance to win a free bovril, or a pie ,or a refund on the cost of a match ticket, all we have to do is put £50 credit on your season ticket at the start of the season to be included.

[norfolkngood 1,086]

If a gambling company set up 2 more shops in Norwich nobody would really Notice

every high street has them so i can see no real problem with the sponsor the club as you have a choice if you walk past a betting shop or go in

what i would have a problem with and a huge NO NO is if the company offered City fans special bonus or free bets on their site as i see this as a way of trying hook our fans into the betting world

what i am trying to say is this is ok if we keep them at arms length and take their money its when they start to involve our club it matters

[Salford 0]

I see Cardiff have stuck with their "Visit Malaysia" sponsorship.

Since we are a family club, maybe we should have gone for something along the lines of "Visit North Korea"