I'm really not sure why you've got such a Bee in your bonett over this Yorkie! Isn't the EFL sponsored by SKY Bet?
It is and I don't like it, but I don't think there is any more powerful way to get your brand into someone's head than to sponsor their team (that's why companies pay a fortune for it). Who are the most impressionable? Kids. Modern gambling is so manipulative - SOME people have an app in their hand at all times and access on the internet at all times. Figures like Ant & Dec are used to make it feel like a party. But most people playing don't understand probability. Most people do not understand that you have to be incredibly lucky not to lose your money, that collectively we cannot take money from a gambling firm. I have no problem with people having a flutter any more than I do someone enjoying a beer, but I do object to the gambling and alcohol companies targeting children in this way. Alcohol companies at least do not advertise on shirts anymore. Given that, neither should gambling firms. Even if gambling firms don't take responsibility for themselves our owner is ultimately responsible for taking this dirty money. So many people object to this and many are not going to buy these shirts because of the sponsor, they may even end up with a net loss in the long term as a result.
No different from promoting alcohol is it? Just an excuse for moral posturing imo.........almost half the clubs in the premier and over half in the championship are sponsored by gambling firms so it’s not a new thing on show.
That's exactly what we've lost. In the past we had pride in doing things better at Town. Now there is nothing special about Ipswich. It could be any club.
I can’t see an issue seeing the words ‘magical vegas’ on a shirt is not going to convince someone to gamble if they don’t already all it does if give an different option to those that do........in the past we have advertised alcohol so I can’t see your point really.
Why don't we advertise Durex on our shirts..! Mind you on second thoughts it might just p1ss off the Pope!
Weighty. Clearly it does convince people to gamble or they wouldn't spend their money on it. Your mindset is different to mine. Because somebody has done something bad it doesn't make me think it's fine.
No it is to try to convince current gamblers to do it with them and not the other firms. What have I said that makes you think I am okay with ‘something bad’ if someone has already done it.....I’ve said I don’t see a problem with a gambling firm sponsoring us. My mindset is that I’ll make my own mind up and not try to pass myself off as the moral compass that everyone should look to without question.
I think Keane's football was worse than Mick's. I guess the only reason why Micks was less entertaining than Keanes in the last 2 years was we looked organised and had a good shape under Mick which meant we often made the opposition look poor also which never made for an entertaining game. Our team under Keane was both poor on the ball and off it. Re: the Rhodes, Wickham debate, I still don't really get this. Does this mean we have to sell 3 of Dozzell, Bishop, Nydam and Downes for a pittance despite them showing potential and keep 1? If Keane wasn't sure on Rhodes put him out on loan again so at least he's in the building.
Jim left us with a half decent team with a strong spine of players. Keane took over, had the support of the majority of the fans, a good squad, millions to spend, good backroom staff and completely mucked it up. He spent millions and put us back years. When Jewell took over he had a poor overpaid squad without good backroom staff, he brought a bit of light initially but he had a difficult job. Mick had a very difficult job, and with no money has left us in a far better state than Keane did after wasting millions. I think neither Keane or Mick had the best relationship with the fans but at least Mick has the respect of his staff, Keane didn't have that either. He may have had passion and drive but you have to have the character to take the club with you.
Agree with you here (anything to not be called a bell end). I guess it poses the question why do these companies spend millions of pounds sponsoring football clubs? The answer is they are clever and clearly want to get people hooked from a young age.
Yeah Weighty, that just isn't how advertising and marketing works. Sure you can get people to choose your brand over another, but you can also very easily get people to try or buy something they wouldn't have. That's why cigarette firms are not allowed to advertise, packets are behind a screen in shops and unbranded and guess what, not so many people buy cigarettes.
When Keane took over Wright, Campo and Counago were at the end of their careers, we had Balkestein and Thatcher in the back line and Kevin Lisbie was regularly in the first team. We did have some decent players but there were gaping holes all over the first team. Mick did a great job in keeping us up, but he never had it in him to take us up and he has left us in much the same situation that Keane left the club, not having spent money of course, but having made no progress in a long time and having failed to nurture home grown or young talent. My original post was to say that given that much time under Keane I believe we would be in a much stronger position on the basis that he would have learned from some of those early mistakes.
