Yeah Duffen was there on Saturday, wanted to see if the could ring the Premier League bell again....funny I always remember him as a bell end from the Premier League past.
Met Duffen in Club Wembley on last promo day. Shook his hand, if I knew what was going to happen i'd have shook his neck and saved us the hassle!!!!
I suspect they will be a clause in the contract that if hull are to be promoted one or two clauses will come in to affect; - Hull City have the right to find a new sponsor or; - If an agreement is in place for an extra year there will be an increase in % (based on what Hull City want to charge) this is the clause that I think will get us away from them as we can out price them of the extra contracted year. In affect bully them out of the agreement, if they are daft enough to accept a ridiculous counter offer then happy day's we make even more money for the club. Although I would rather not have them on our shirt next season. Lewis
What CC could do if we started covering their adverts and things is get an injunction preventing us from selling something that they own, ie the advertising space. We'd get rid of them by force, but we wouldn't be able to replace them. You go and say to CC "You're paying us £500k for this year. How much profit do you expect to make from your business as a result?". If they say an extra £1.1M (so £600k after paying us) you ask them to forget sponsoring us and we'll just give them the £600k. Then you find a new sponsor who'll give us more than £1.1M (so that we replace the money we've given CC and the money they're no longer giving us in sponsorship). The figures are for illustration, but you get the idea. CC don't lose out and we can get a better sponsor. The reason NT said he'll see whether something can be done is that he needs to know 1) What CC value the sponsorship at for their business, and 2) what other companies are prepared to pay. It's not the size of the company that's the issue, it's the nature of it's business.
All football clubs should be sponsored by nice companies, like Apple, Starbucks and Google. They should only have nice supporters who are either rich, vegetarian and who drive electric cars or are teachers and doctors. How dare companies that exploit the banker led economic downturn advertise their brands on a clubs shirt. It's totally reckless that any company that causes people to lose their homes, destroys families and makes profit from lending money should be allowed to have their branding on any Barclays Premier League shirt.
Sometimes you can be a tit Sunn. Relevance to us as rewind back 2 years many on here were up in arms at such a poorly received sponsor.
ive never understood why people are frothing at the bit over the Cash Converters thing . Is it any worse than a gambling company ? or an alcoholic drinks company ? For those on their high horses there shouldnt be much difference but we dont scream about the image BWIN had on Madrid and Milan :/
People obviously do think there's a difference, as nobody had an issue with Totesport. I agree with them, it perpetuates the myth about Hull being full of dole scrounging crackheads and the sooner it's gone, the better. Which, unfortunately, won't be until next season.
Are you putting your tongue firmly in cheek, Mel? Apple/Starbucks/Google - all tax avoiders; Barclays - LIBOR riggers
I tend to agree with whittler. CC are no worse than a lot of companies. When we had totesport on our shirts nobody thought we were all gambling addicts, when we had university of hull on our shirts they won't have thought we were all academics either. I've never experienced anyone suggesting that people of hull are dole scrounging crack heads because of the company that paid the most to our club to have their name on the shirt. Even if they did take the piss I couldn't care less what they think
I think it's daft if people judge a club or its fans by the sponsor in all honesty. I don't agree with everything Cash Converters stands for but they have been quite a pro-active sponsor for us, I follow them on Facebook and they are always doing stuff to involve the fans. There will always be their kind of shops about whatever the economic climate is, there's no real point in taking a high moral stance about it.
I seem to recall something along the lines of they got it cheap & only paid serious coin if we went up. I think £1 mill was mentioned.
Which would you rather have out of the two....CC or Bolton's Quickquid on the shirt? http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/may/29/bolton-wanderers-new-sponsor-quickquid Sorry, never saw the above link
That's a different issue, but a significant one. They paid us £1m for three years and even that was dependant on us reaching the Premier League. We probably dropped much of that in lost shirt sales and we should be getting far more than we are now for a Premier League season. It really was a **** deal. Mind you, at least the bloke who arranged it got the sack.
It may not be the most prestigious name on the shirt but I think they've been our best sponsor in recent years, as someone else said they're pro active doing bits and bobs involving the club and fans, the half time games and stuff, putting the **** financial aspect aside, I'd sooner have cash converters being an active sponsor than someone like Armani or Apple or whatever who pay their money for the name on the shirt and do **** all else. I also like how they agreed to change their colour scheme so it matches the shirt, makes it blend in a lot better and actually look part of the shirt rather than a big logo plastered across the front, how many other companies would be willing to do that?
Let's be honest, at the end of the day we as a collective will have a percentage who would complain about just about any sponsor - be it booze, betting, payday loan companies (I am resisting the urge to do a thesis on Bolton and their idiot board for allowing that sponsorship on this thread), or even Papa's own company (which i presume would be allowed by FA rules). Correct me if I'm wrong (which I have been on too many times - Oakley instead of Oxley being my most recent doh moment), but growing up in the 80s I was probably not fully aware of the ins and outs of football and the evils it can bring - but wasn't the exact reasoning behind allowing shirt sponsorship was to give the clubs back then another source of income. If my vague recollection is correct, why does any PL club need to prostitute (sorry if that is banned word) itself with a naff company on its shirts - can't we go to a different plane where there are 20 clubs on MOTD playing in non-sponsored kits.
