We might need a new kit sponsor next season

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Happy Tiger said:
I'm not one of the needy whiners who think their opinion matters so no, I didn't make a long rambling post complaining about them. I just didn't buy anything with them on.

Posting a whiny rant about it online would achieve exactly **** all.

I didn't say you'd bleated about flamingo land. I pointed out you just made up **** about me while ignoring people who would take ANY sponsor as long as the money was good. I'll assume that stance doesn't bother you as much as making up hillocks about what I do or don't do.
Click to expand...

I've seen you whine plenty on here, my suspicion is you didn't say anything because you'd never take a pop at your beloved Mr Allam.

Personally, I am happy to praise him for the good things he has done and point out when he is being a tosser. I think it's best to take a balanced approach like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fez, originallambrettaman and bobby ace
originallambrettaman said:
'Just a bit naff' is hardly the most damning of criticisms is it?

I think Dalt's summed it up very well '[HASHTAG]#hcafc[/HASHTAG] sponsor is a bit naff, but not too vexed/surprised - marketing people who think Hull Tigers is a good idea would hardly land Apple...'
Click to expand...

I think your announcing post, followed by your subsequent slight back-track made your contempt very clear. I think Dalt sums it up badly, as it simply takes a Championship team's commercial deal and places it out of context simply to make an unnecessary dig at the club - it would be far better if things can be kept in perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Davies Headband
Fez said:
I think your announcing post, followed by your subsequent slight back-track made your contempt very clear. I think Dalt sums it up badly, as it simply takes a Championship team's commercial deal and places it out of context simply to make an unnecessary dig at the club - it would be far better if things can be kept in perspective.
Click to expand...

I think it's a fairly poor sponsorship deal, you don't, it's no biggie.
 
Sterling Archer said:
That's just one zoo in Indonesia and tbf it is pretty horrendous. I wouldn't say all zoo's are bad, though.
Click to expand...


animals should be allowed to roam free in their natural habitat - not caged up for human amusement - I was giving an alternative view point to those posters who were going on about the ethics of gambling - there's also the ethics of whether it's right to capture a wild animal, ship it half way around the world and bung it in a cage for the rest of its life - it's actually quite nasty irrespective whether they get a cup of ovaltine before they go to sleep at night
 
Hull City AFC (GLP) said:
Nothing embarrasses me about it at all. I just think with football awash with money, the Allams being Philanthropic it would have been better used by putting a charity on the front and donating some money from each shirt sale as per Filey. The money from the Sponsorship will probably not have been huge and as a percentage of our turnover probably pretty insignificant. Sometimes it's good to give back. I'd imagine this charity suggestion would probably have been well supported by our fanbase.
Click to expand...

As Filey pointed out, the owners do give to charity; as a business I would not call Hull City as awash with dosh (look at our level of indebtedness) so taking something is really quite responsible. If some have an ethical issue with the zoo element then sobeit, but I haven't (unless it is a badly ran one) as zoos do a great deal of good.
 
Last edited:
I don't mind Flamingo Land too much as a sponsor, prefer that to Cash Converters and shady far East gambling firms. Zoos serve their purpose protecting endangered species, they are not all about putting animals on display to be gawped at, in fact mortality rates for animals in Zoos are nearly always lower than those faced by species in the wild, and Brucey seems happy enough in that photo with the news
You must log in or register to see images
 
Sterling Archer said:
Not at all, I just think that there isn't much room for morality if you're running a football club, especially one that's just taken a massive hit financially.
Click to expand...

Then I wish you well in the future, but doubt we would ever do business if your morals have a price.
 
Last edited:
charon-the-ferryman said:
animals should be allowed to roam free in their natural habitat - not caged up for human amusement - I was giving an alternative view point to those posters who were going on about the ethics of gambling - there's also the ethics of whether it's right to capture a wild animal, ship it half way around the world and bung it in a cage for the rest of its life - it's actually quite nasty irrespective whether they get a cup of ovaltine before they go to sleep at night
Click to expand...

I think most zoo owners would agree with you.

How many animals are captured specifically to be displayed in zoos? The sad fact is, there are less and less places animals can roam safely. Zoos now tend to focus on conservation, an are involved in releasing animals back to the wild where possible.

It'd be less ethical to close zoos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fez and BOJACKHCAFCMAN
Hull City AFC (DMD) said:
I think most zoo owners would agree with you.

How many animals are captured specifically to be displayed in zoos? The sad fact is, there are less and less places animals can roam safely. Zoos now tend to focus on conservation, an are involved in releasing animals back to the wild where possible.

It'd be less ethical to close zoos.
Click to expand...
Exactly, people are people and have anthropomorphic views of animals but without them (Zoos) we would lose so many species now, there are always going to be scumbags somewhere abusing animals and usually they are not connected with Zoos
 
PLT said:
Are you for ****ing real?

We can't even sneer at the ****s now? You make out like it's the fans who are being really nasty to those nice Allams.

The silly bastards have made it their top priority to antagonise us with everything they do. They're driving long term fans away from their own club just for the sake of their mission to show they won't ever back down. It's a big part of people's lives they've ****ed with. Of course people are gonna ****ing sneer.
Click to expand...

You are really missing the point and that is sad.
 
I have no firm evidence, but I reckon zoos inspire plenty of young kids into a career in animal welfare. To say that they are all bad is a bit simplistic.

Dammit, this thread will now be shut down for lurching into zoo politics. I apologise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PLT and BOJACKHCAFCMAN
Jimmy Graham's bald head said:
It's not a bad sponsor by any stretch, it's just not a global, or even national brand. I think that's part of the reason for the reaction, those local know Flamingo Land and recognise that while not a big brand it's not too bad. Most of the country and the media will never have heard of Flamingo land and therefore I can see why it's a pretty funny option if you don't know what it is.

If some South Coast club started getting sponsored by 'Monkey World' we'd probably think it was hilarious whereas it would probably be acceptable to them
Click to expand...

Perhaps if we put it in context with the City of Culture, the Tour de Yourshire and anything else (liners?) it might start to develop a thought.
 
Fez said:
I don't know what the deal is, do you? I agre it is no biggie, but it would appear it is big enough to use as a stick when it really shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

The deal is, that they pay us and we put their crap logo on all our shirts, that's why I don't think it's a great one. To be honest, if they had a decent logo, I wouldn't be all that bothered.
 
BojackHCAFCman said:
I don't mind Flamingo Land too much as a sponsor, prefer that to Cash Converters and shady far East gambling firms. Zoos serve their purpose protecting endangered species, they are not all about putting animals on display to be gawped at, in fact mortality rates for animals in Zoos are nearly always lower than those faced by species in the wild, and Brucey seems happy enough in that photo with the news
You must log in or register to see images
Click to expand...

It's good to see he's lost some weight ....

& I've stopped laughing now ( & yes only just above twydale turkeys ..)
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhittlingStick and BOJACKHCAFCMAN
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back