I'm not buying the shirt because the template is ****ing terrible, I said even before it was leaked that this template wouldn't work for us because with the incomplete stripes it would either be too amber for my liking, or we'd have had amber shorts. As far as the sponsor goes, I'm not going to wear anything bearing their name on principle. As well as the previously mentioned issue of them almost certainly knowing they're selling stolen goods, the nature of their business is to prey on the vulnerable, no in fact further than that, to prey on the most desperate people in society. There's nothing snobby about thinking the vulnerable shouldn't be preyed on like that and not wanting to support a company that does that. Compare them to Wonga.com and say Wonga are worse because of their interest rates all you want. You're making a few key mistakes with that though: The rates aren't the unethical part of it. The rates need to be high for them to make profits because by the very nature of the loans they're more likely to be defaulted than those from respectable lenders, and due to the size of the loans being made it's not worth them pursuing every case where there's a default. Even if they succeed it is likely to be difficult to actually get the money back. The overheads are also far higher relative to the size of the loan. Someone arranges a mortgage for you and in the space of about half an hour they've made the bank several thousand pounds a year for however long your mortgage is. I think when I got mine the projected figures were that I would pay back around double what I borrowed over the 25 years. It takes just as long to arrange that as it does to arrange a 5 year loan for £15k, and equally the same time is taken to arrange a payday loan. If you've got someone borrowing £200 for a week and it takes half an hour, the interest rate needs to be about 115% just to pay the wages of the person arranging the loan if you pay them minimum wage. Given the requirements for loans to be regulated I don't think you're going to find many of the people responsible for arranging them earning minimum wage. The moral issue with these loans is that they're preying on desperation, and in the vast majority of cases the people going for these loans aren't educated enough to understand that far from helping them as is claimed they just make them worse. And I don't necessarily mean they're thick, the fact they're in a position where they're considering one of these loans in the first place shows that (we're talking majority of cases remember) they've not been sufficiently educated about money and debt issues during their life. It's unfortunately the way in this country that we accept debts are a way of life, but don't educate people as standard about how to determine whether a debt is a good debt or a bad debt and so we create the situatioons where these firms can thrive. If you borrow £20 off your mate and then the next week buy him a pint as a thank you when you repay him nobody says it's extortionate. On the basis of £2.80 a pint if you take the same "interest rate" over a year you'd owe your mate £18,000 by the end of the year. Not an awful lot of difference other than the perception that buying your mate a pint is a fair thing to do. But the biggest mistake you've made is to suggest that Wonga.com are worse than our sponsors for charging those rates. Our sponsors also offer the same kind of loans, although perhaps worryingly for anyone using them their website has a guide to them which doesn't mention the rate they charge, generally that's a sign that your prices/rates aren't competitive. With regards the plastic fan claims, it's more the way of plastic fans to try to prove their faux loyalty is real by blindly supporting the club and their sponsors by buying every piece of crap bit of merchandise they produce than it is for them to boycott products which they feel detract from the club's image and/or responsibility to the community. This sponsorship deal has come about because our sponsors see Hull as a deprived area full of financially desperate people who are potential customers for them to exploit and are looking to use the club's status to make themselves seem more respectable than they really are. I bet they couldn't believe their luck, here they are trying to grow their payday loans business and they get to associate themselves with a club that's just gone through a cash flow crisis, and which following a takeover is owned by a successful businessman and where the most high profile director is a man who's business sense is highly respected by everyone who follows the club (I think even Percy has said his issues are to do with football decisions he took rather than general business acumen, and he hates AP). It's really disappointing that the owners/MM decided to accept the deal to allow the firm to trade on their respectability and that of AP, who I suspect doesn't have any involvement now he's basically DoF but who's status amongst fans will be associated with the acceptance of our sponsors as a company we can morally trade with. Frankly I think it's a betrayal by the club to the fans who haven't been given the financial foundations to know to avoid them.
El-Barninho, you show a very blinkered view in your opinions. You indicate that we should accept what ever decisions are made by the club. The club made a decision for whatever reasons to get into bed with CC. This as fans we cannot do much about, some fans may have no issue with it which is their right, some as we know do have issues with the decision. Although we will always support the team, we do not have to agree with every decision the club makes. We cannot as individuals controll who the club get into bed with, but we can controll whether we wish to spend our own money on that decision, that my freind is the right of the indidual. I myself will not be buying a shirt as I dont wish to associated with that brand of sponsor, that is my right. I also will not think any less of those 1000,s who will buy the shirt, that is their right. There are many topics of peoples disagreemant of club decisions ranging from choice of manager, stewerding, catering faciliteis prices/queing, smoking in toilets, ticket allocation and countless others I suspect on this and other boards, you may have even contributed to several of them, but to call fans "Plastic" for thinking for themselves is quite frankly very "Juvenile"
Gamblers generally don't have a problem until after they've been gambling, and for the majority it is controlled as a bit of fun. Credit cards are a useful tool to use to both build up a credit history ahead of wanting to obtain a mortgage, and to secure greater protection on your purchases (Section 75 cover). They also don't charge you interest if you pay your bill off each month. Again problems only occur when they are misused by the customer due to a weakness in their education/personality which prevents their self control from stopping them. Both are good products aimed at the majority who should be able to take advantage of them with protection put in place for those who aren't able to do that correctly. Something which the government has started to do by pushing through the changes to the payment orders/minimum payments on credit cards. Pawnbrokers/payday loan lenders set out to target the people who are vulnerable due to having those weaknesses. There is no target for the loans or provision of stock that comes from a stable section of society.
That's impossible I'm afraid. I am already "Mr Super Plastic" being from Sweden and all, so I really can't get the award already being the person which the award is named after
We won't lose fans because of the sponsor but it will affect shirt sales a little bit, I aint buying a a shirt advertising a pawnshop but might get something else without the logo maybe if I feel like it.
I think El Barinho has a valid point. What makes a betting company or a loan shark any better than a pawn chain? Nothing. The ethical argument doesn't hold true, it's about perception, people don't like the idea of wearing the shirt with CC on it as it makes them feel "cheap".. why not the others then? it must be either psychological or bandwagon-jumping. People who bet have money to spend clearly, people who borrow money at huge rates are in dire straits and people who sell stuff at cash convertors obviously need money. There is the perception that some merchandise is "stolen", I don't know if this is the case. I haven't been to a Cash Convertors but surely they take some ID of a seller? That's what they do in my record shop when you sell a second hand CD/DVD, they ask for my driving licence number or ID. Ricardo - ALL these firms target people and in all cases it's up to the potential client to decide what's best. You want a nanny state?
my dad fought the germans so you could have the freedom of choice of wether you buy the new shirt or not: as for "druggies" selling stolen goods to cashconverters.......eerrrmmm could you give me directions to the shop
At the end of the day it comes down to personal choice, im certainly not gonna chastise someone for wearing a City shirt with Cash Convertors on, wether i agree with it or not (for the record i dont agree with it) , as has been previously said though there are some decent training tops or t shirts you can buy. Wether you wear a bin liner or a full City kit for matchdays, the main thing is going to the ground, listening on the radio or TV and supporting our team.
I won't be buying the shirt, the design isn't great and like most people i don't want to associate myself with the sponser. There's no point spending 40 quid on something i don't really like. I can show my support for the club in many other ways than wearing the replica shirt, christ there's plenty of people at home and away matches who don't wear the replica shirt. When i was younger i'd probably have bought it, but now i'm older and in control of my own money and aware of the sponser's connotations i'll refrain from buying it.
i wont be buying the shirt, but hope attending all 46 games will get me a step closer to being a good supporter...
The city of Hull gets a bad rap, one it doesn't deserve and our new sponsor merely enforces the stereotype of Hull being full of skagheads on benefits. It was poor decision by the club, shirt sales will drop and the value of the sponsorship will diminish and it's hard to replace a down market sponsor with a better one, so it was a poor commercial decision too(though promotion would probably eliminate that problem). If people decide they don't want a shirt because they're embarrassed about what it says on the front of it, then that's entirely their prerogative, it certainly doesn't make them less of a fan. I do pretty much every game, home and away, along with pre-seasons and the odd reserve/youth game, but I would never wear a top with Cash Converters on the front of it. If that makes me a plastic, then so be it, not that it will make any difference to the club, as my matchday attire is limited to a scarf nowadays anyway.
Apart from the OP, I've not read or heard anyone mention Leeds fans opinion of the shirt. I suppose I could be forgiven for pondering where the OP's loyalties really lie.
