Fuzzar 1,701 Posted June 10, 2021 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57424206 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sonyc 5,447 Posted June 10, 2021 Just now, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said: Will prospective new sponsors offer less after this debacle as we have been tainted a bit and/or they see us as being desperate at the last minute? Or will they realise that there will be a little extra attention for our new sponsor so we may be more attractive? I suspect the former but I reckon having a moral compass costs a bit more but has more value....if you know what I mean. A small £5m hole at the moment. Sure to be others lined up however. The PL is a global market isn't it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,520 Posted June 10, 2021 1 minute ago, ......and Smith must score. said: 3 minutes ago, canarydan23 said: The whole thing was a grand plan to get an even better deal out of Quorn or Ecotricity! Sounds a bit too close to **** for my liking Good grief I hope not. I'm a veggy and can't stand the stuff. 🤢 2 minutes ago, sonyc said: 7 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said: And respect to you, Lakey, for standing your ground on the issue. It's not about Mary Whitehouse prudishness, it's about protecting the reputation of the club and the brand we've built around it. That's fair enough. But...am I the only poster that needs to be told something once and not twenty times. I can read and understand an issue and a poster's views. I'm reasonable enough and have am fair minded even to accept a view too I disagree with (like this issue) but I've found the constant barrage of views (not just by this poster) reminding me of the saying "methinks you do protest too much". I think it's incumbent to fight back strongly when people are starting numerous threads belittling or rubbishing an important issue. If we don't do that, this board can look like a lads only place - and it shouldn't. 3 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Feedthewolf 4,790 Posted June 10, 2021 3 minutes ago, sonyc said: That's fair enough. But...am I the only poster that needs to be told something once and not twenty times. I can read and understand an issue and a poster's views. I'm reasonable enough and have am fair minded even to accept a view too I disagree with (like this issue) but I've found the constant barrage of views (not just by this poster) reminding me of the saying "methinks you do protest too much". We all have morals and I suspect they are similar with each others concerning decency etc. If all posters behaved with the decorum that you do, you wouldn't have to be posting that. Sadly, though, there's been a fair amount of bigoted vitriol on here over the past few days, and no small amount of righteous ire from people who care about the reputation the club has built for inclusivity. I'm all for listening to both sides of an argument, educating myself and changing my position where necessary; the more of us that feel capable of doing that, the better place this forum will be (as a microcosm of wider society and the world at large, of course). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fuzzar 1,701 Posted June 10, 2021 1 minute ago, lake district canary said: Good grief I hope not. I'm a veggy and can't stand the stuff. 🤢 I think it's incumbent to fight back strongly when people are starting numerous threads belittling or rubbishing an important issue. If we don't do that, this board can look like a lads only place - and it shouldn't. I suspect this was the real reason for your frankfurter outrage. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TeemuVanBasten 3,327 Posted June 10, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, horsefly said: Great news! Would love us to now to offer a free deal to a charity (up until January?) to support a good cause. How about "Support the NHS" emblazoned on our shirts? Could end up bringing us a lot more sponsorship interest in the long run. Why not rent out our sponsorship by the game. Sell the fans a sponsorless shirt, but also produce a limited number of each of the designs. Lotus might take the shirt for Man Utd at home, and there could be 1000 Lotus shirts available on a first come first serve. Could be innovative! Or we could write Farke Life! On the front of the shirt and stick our fingers up to the corporate machine. Edited June 10, 2021 by TeemuVanBasten 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mello Yello 2,265 Posted June 10, 2021 I bet other gambling sites are quaking in their boots..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fuzzar 1,701 Posted June 10, 2021 We could have "PRINCIPLED" on the front; "RELEGATED" on the back. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,455 Posted June 10, 2021 Great news, sensible by the club. Time to draw a line under it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
horsefly 4,263 Posted June 10, 2021 1 minute ago, TeemuVanBasten said: Why not rent out our sponsorship by the game. Sell the fans a sponsorless shirt, but also produce a limited number of each of the Lotus might take the shirt for Man Utd at home, and there could be 1000 Lotus shirts available on a first come first serve. Could be innovative! Or we could write Farke Life! On the front of the shirt and stick our fingers up to the corporate machine. Indeed! It could be a genuine opportunity to think more radically about how to progress this side of football manangement. We've undergone a very impressive change of much of what we do as a club in recent years, now might be a perfect opportunity forge a new direction in sponsorship. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
East Rider 538 Posted June 10, 2021 15 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said: Keeping them would have lost us other partners by the sounds of it. Club has lots of sponsors who would not want to be associated with this tacky nonsense. Nail hit firmly on the head I suspect. Secondly, it was obvious that had the season (or next) started to unravel, the murkiness of this sponsor would have been highlighted by others, to our embarrassment.  1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
horsefly 4,263 Posted June 10, 2021 3 minutes ago, Fuzzar said: We could have "PRINCIPLED" on the front; "RELEGATED" on the back. Do you honestly believe that the money raised from BK8 would have been the difference between survival and relegation? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BroadstairsR 2,093 Posted June 10, 2021 (edited) Cynical view here. The previously "unknown" gambling site BK8 are now firmly 'on the map.' City have an alternative already lined up. Perhaps the club's moral stance will be an attraction for more wholesome sponsors who will see it as a plus and that we are a club that it will be beneficial to be associated with. Astra-Zeneca anyone? Edited June 10, 2021 by BroadstairsR Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fuzzar 1,701 Posted June 10, 2021 1 minute ago, horsefly said: Do you honestly believe that the money raised from BK8 would have been the difference between survival and relegation? No, it was a (not very funny) joke. 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,455 Posted June 10, 2021 Just now, horsefly said: Do you honestly believe that the money raised from BK8 would have been the difference between survival and relegation? Was about to ask the same. Say we manage to sort out a new sponsor, even if its only worth £1m the £4m difference won't be sending us down. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanaryNath 30 Posted June 10, 2021 Should never have gotten to this point, but happy the club have announced this decision. let’s see who the club bring in as principle sponsor now.  I for one would be delighted if the club offered a sponsorless shirt for sale,  regardless of who it is. Many teams in Spain do this as standard, you simply add the sponsor if you want it, just like you would a name and number, when you purchase it.  Best of both worlds then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Graham Paddons Beard 2,352 Posted June 10, 2021 1 minute ago, CanaryNath said: Should never have gotten to this point, but happy the club have announced this decision. let’s see who the club bring in as principle sponsor now.  I for one would be delighted if the club offered a sponsorless shirt for sale,  regardless of who it is. Many teams in Spain do this as standard, you simply add the sponsor if you want it, just like you would a name and number, when you purchase it.  Best of both worlds then. All of the shirts are printed. You can probably get a mega deal on a BK8 one ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fuzzar 1,701 Posted June 10, 2021 I'm going to suggest to Bill Kensell that each season ticket holder pays an extra £200 for the upcoming season - 22,000 x £200 = £4.4m. Covers the sponsorship shortfall and won't cost me a penny.  2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
East Rider 538 Posted June 10, 2021 (edited) Have no doubt there will be a queue of potential main sponsors now for NCFC. The exposure would be huge and mentioned at every City PL game shown on TV. We could come out of this in a good place indeed. Edited June 10, 2021 by East Rider 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Graham Paddons Beard 2,352 Posted June 10, 2021 4 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said: Cynical view here. The previously "unknown" gambling site BK8 are now firmly 'on the map.' City have an alternative already lined up. Perhaps the club's moral stance will be an attraction for more wholesome sponsors who will see it as a plus and that we are a club that it will be beneficial to be associated with. Astra-Zeneca anyone? They certainly haven’t got an alternative lined up. And they have thrown Dafabet in the bin. And they have had all the shirts printed .  Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWC 231 Posted June 10, 2021 Good news for the termination - I'm pleased that the club has worked swiftly to end this partnership. BUT - Why TF was this not looked into correctly in the first place??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sonyc 5,447 Posted June 10, 2021 I am still finding it quite a thing that the club have cancelled this, not because it's the wrong thing to do but because of the principle. I'm wondering how many other clubs might act on this way. They've made a mistake and then rectified it, actually with great speed. An expensive mistake, but at least a principled one? Perhaps too, shirt sales would have been badly affected this year...so the cynic in me says it's also a financial decision. Anyway, fair play at the speed of response. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WD40 720 Posted June 10, 2021 Well done to the club. Now let’s get back to the football. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FatCanary 249 Posted June 10, 2021 Can we leave Ben Kensell alone now? He listened, you got your pound of flesh, your problem has been solved. Â 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kenny Foggo 1,105 Posted June 10, 2021 May I remind people whilst they slap each other on the back, this was nothing but a complete cxck up of the highest order and if it hits the already lowest player budget in the league it will be disasterous. We are a professional football club not some left wing charity run to make others look nasty. Its the only decision the board could make and we have to hope it doesn't stop Webber strengthening as planned. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WD40 720 Posted June 10, 2021 7 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said: Cynical view here. The previously "unknown" gambling site BK8 are now firmly 'on the map.' City have an alternative already lined up. Perhaps the club's moral stance will be an attraction for more wholesome sponsors who will see it as a plus and that we are a club that it will be beneficial to be associated with. Astra-Zeneca anyone? The more likely cynical view is ‘the perfect way to distract from selling Emi’. It’s totally sucked the oxygen out of that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheGunnShow 5,807 Posted June 10, 2021 1 minute ago, Graham Paddons Beard said: They certainly haven’t got an alternative lined up. And they have thrown Dafabet in the bin. And they have had all the shirts printed .  "A spokesperson for the club confirmed no shirts had yet been printed with the BK8 logo, meaning no new kits had to go to waste."Norwich City cuts ties with BK8 after Canaries fans' outcry | Eastern Daily Press (edp24.co.uk) 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sonyc 5,447 Posted June 10, 2021 3 minutes ago, East Rider said: Have no doubt there will be a queue of potential main sponsors now for NCFC. The exposure would be huge and mentioned at every City PL game shown on TV. We could come out of this in a good place indeed. It would be ironic wouldn't it! Often a bad PR move ends up an excellent one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Monty13 2,173 Posted June 10, 2021 37 minutes ago, ......and Smith must score. said: The only sensible solution. I suspect there’ll be a lot more due diligence with the next lot. It’s a big move, I’m impressed but depends who the next sponsor is. A slightly less shifty betting company and this is all just PR and nothing to do with values. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
canarydan23 4,060 Posted June 10, 2021 3 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said: They certainly haven’t got an alternative lined up. And they have thrown Dafabet in the bin. And they have had all the shirts printed .  How do you know the bit about the shirts being printed? And if so, why didn't they use one in the media launch? It was quite clearly this season's shirt with BK8 on the back, seems a little odd that they would do that if the shirts were already printed. Wouldn't you just launch the new kit and the sponsor at the same time? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites