Just trying to think what the shorts looked like last season, was it Charlton badge on one side and number on the other? Where does the sponsor go, surely not replacing the badge, maybe above/below the badge? How do other teams have the shorts?
Why do people get excited about 'extra revenue' from sponsorship when it either gets pooled into the network or popped in the back pocket of the Belgian?
Why do people get excited about 'extra revenue' from sponsorship when it either gets pooled into the network or popped in the back pocket of the Belgian?
Because it gets spent on the pitch etc etc
The negativity is unbelievable. Who would people rather owned this club (bearing in mind no fucker else wanted to) ?
Why do people get excited about 'extra revenue' from sponsorship when it either gets pooled into the network or popped in the back pocket of the Belgian?
Just trying to think what the shorts looked like last season, was it Charlton badge on one side and number on the other? Where does the sponsor go, surely not replacing the badge, maybe above/below the badge? How do other teams have the shorts?
Ok, so people are not allowed to have an opinion that multiple sponsors look rubbish on a kit because it brings in extra coffers, yet if we were to have a payday loan company paying even more money, that would be against the 'charlton way' and they can stuff their cash?
University of Greenwich, Andrew Sykes, Mitsubishi Electrical, Andrews Heat for Hire......just so very dull. I would rather RD pulled in a few favours from his Flemmish mates and seen Godiva, Ageas and SPA mineral water as sponsors....I see that SL get BASE as their sponsor - arguable one of the biggest brands in Belgium. Their new shirts look the nuts.
University of Greenwich, Andrews Air Conditioning, Andrews Heat for Hire and Mitsubishi Electric. Was is not possible to find 4 companies with longer names?
Apparently, we're bringing Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink back as well...just to fit all that across the backside!!
As I said previously, we have sold out to the European (and palace) style of multiple sponsors. If you're unhappy now, wait until you see the kit designs.
As I said previously, we have sold out to the European (and palace) style of multiple sponsors. If you're unhappy now, wait until you see the kit designs.
?
I sincerely hope that what Macronate has posted is not what the shirts look like.... I know people say "it's only a shirt" but it's what my 11 year old is going to be wearing almost non-stop for the next 12 months!!
Am I understanding it right, that University of Greenwich is the sponsor on the front for both home and away, or is Andrew's Heat for Hire on the front on the away? :^s
I think I'm reading it like this: - Uni of G on stomach of both home and away - Andrew's Airconditioning on the back of the home kit - Andrew's Heat for Hire on the back of the away kit - Mitsubishi Electrical on the back of both home and away shorts
Ok, so people are not allowed to have an opinion that multiple sponsors look rubbish on a kit because it brings in extra coffers, yet if we were to have a payday loan company paying even more money, that would be against the 'charlton way' and they can stuff their cash?
No, the kit would look better if we put "South East London and Proud" on the back at the bottom and if we could start singing and creating more of an atmosphere without needing a goal to kickstart it and get promoted and stay up in the Premier League against the odds then everything would be better
So no different to virtually everyone in the Championship then, instead people are going for little digs at the ownership
Strange.
Not one person had made even a subtle dig at the ownership because of these sponsorship deals before you posted this. Even since, there has only been one comment to have done so, and that appears to either be tongue in cheek or a wind-up.
Sure, a couple of people have commented it may look ugly, but that doesn't exactly equate to a criticism of the owner. The near-universal consensus seems to be that even if it doesn't look good, it could be a good thing for the club.
Personally, I'm a bit of a romantic and in an ideal world I wouldn't like a kit littered with adverts. Unfortunately it's not an ideal world, and I'm sure this is a decision that makes good money for a club that could do with it.
So no different to virtually everyone in the Championship then, instead people are going for little digs at the ownership
Strange.
Not one person had made even a subtle dig at the ownership because of these sponsorship deals before you posted this. Even since, there has only been one comment to have done so, and that appears to either be tongue in cheek or a wind-up.
Sure, a couple of people have commented it may look ugly, but that doesn't exactly equate to a criticism of the owner. The near-universal consensus seems to be that even if it doesn't look good, it could be a good thing for the club.
Personally, I'm a bit of a romantic and in an ideal world I wouldn't like a kit littered with adverts. Unfortunately it's not an ideal world, and I'm sure this is a decision that makes good money for a club that could do with it.
It's not just in here. It's the Facebook page (which happens to be manned largely by the dregs of society) and a couple of other threads. Twitter is filled with negativity too.
Everything is a chance to have a pop at the owners at the moment.
Cardiff fans protested about the colour of their shorts when they revealed their kit last summer and the club changed them to black. If we do have red shorts, I wonder if there would be the same backlash from our fans that would make the club change their mind back to white.
Whether mutliple sponsors look "naff" is a matter of taste.
I'd prefer no sponsor or manufacturers name at all but that's not going to happen if for no other reason that the money matters.
That doesn't mean the designers and layout can't be done in the least ugly way possible.
As long as we play in red (all red it seems and Mummy'slittlesoldier seems to agree and he was right on UofG) then OK. I don't buy the shirts and I couldn't give a F*** what fans of other clubs think.
The money matters.
As for why only one shirt sponsor before companies prefer to have exclusive deals and will pay more to be the only sponsor.
So the £180k paid last season by Andrews was for an exclusive sponsorship.
And as long as the fee paid by UofG, Andrews and Mitsabishi combined is more than that then the Commercial Dept have sweated the asset well. I guess we'll have to wait for the figure to leak or for someone who understands freedom of information requests to ask UofG before we know how the figures stack up.
last years Andrew's deal was down 40k on the first year of the deal but was still one of the top four in the Championship. No mean feat when the economy is in a mess and we're not on the TV much and not in the Premier League.
The all white away kits sounds good but not sure about that third kit.
Comments
Never mind QATAR, with our sponsors Charlton should perhaps become the first club with air conditioned stands!
Where does the sponsor go, surely not replacing the badge, maybe above/below the badge?
How do other teams have the shorts?
The negativity is unbelievable. Who would people rather owned this club (bearing in mind no fucker else wanted to) ?
Where did you go so you are entitled to call GU out? So unnecessary and it isnt even funny.
Im guessing concrete, dull, featureless campus studying Basket Weaving
white shorts and r & w hoops on socks.
I'll still buy it for my kick abouts and football training...
;-)
I think I'm reading it like this:
- Uni of G on stomach of both home and away
- Andrew's Airconditioning on the back of the home kit
- Andrew's Heat for Hire on the back of the away kit
- Mitsubishi Electrical on the back of both home and away shorts
Not one person had made even a subtle dig at the ownership because of these sponsorship deals before you posted this. Even since, there has only been one comment to have done so, and that appears to either be tongue in cheek or a wind-up.
Sure, a couple of people have commented it may look ugly, but that doesn't exactly equate to a criticism of the owner. The near-universal consensus seems to be that even if it doesn't look good, it could be a good thing for the club.
Personally, I'm a bit of a romantic and in an ideal world I wouldn't like a kit littered with adverts. Unfortunately it's not an ideal world, and I'm sure this is a decision that makes good money for a club that could do with it.
Everything is a chance to have a pop at the owners at the moment.
So this template then?
I'd prefer no sponsor or manufacturers name at all but that's not going to happen if for no other reason that the money matters.
That doesn't mean the designers and layout can't be done in the least ugly way possible.
As long as we play in red (all red it seems and Mummy'slittlesoldier seems to agree and he was right on UofG) then OK. I don't buy the shirts and I couldn't give a F*** what fans of other clubs think.
The money matters.
As for why only one shirt sponsor before companies prefer to have exclusive deals and will pay more to be the only sponsor.
So the £180k paid last season by Andrews was for an exclusive sponsorship.
And as long as the fee paid by UofG, Andrews and Mitsabishi combined is more than that then the Commercial Dept have sweated the asset well. I guess we'll have to wait for the figure to leak or for someone who understands freedom of information requests to ask UofG before we know how the figures stack up.
last years Andrew's deal was down 40k on the first year of the deal but was still one of the top four in the Championship. No mean feat when the economy is in a mess and we're not on the TV much and not in the Premier League.
The all white away kits sounds good but not sure about that third kit.
When it's on the OS though.