New shirt leak / hoax?

[morty]

 

[splutcho]

If it's a hoax, it's a very, very well done one. I think it's legit. Love the shirt too.

 

[Haiglan]

Looks like a nice kit.

 

[morty]

Looks like a nice kit.

Does, doesn't it?

Though I am more interested in the back story as how it came to be leaked, before the club account was deleted!

 

[CanaryNath]

The kit looks alright, but I really don't like the sponsor logo, nor the fact that we are now being backed by an online gambling business. Ho hum, guess I should  'get with the times'.

 

[morty]

The kit looks alright, but I really don't like the sponsor logo, nor the fact that we are now being backed by an online gambling business. Ho hum, guess I should  'get with the times'.

I see what you are saying, but it is, unfortunately, where we are, and the Barclay stand has been sponsored by Coral for a while now too.

I see it just as a business transaction, and like to think that our shirt advertising won't encourage anyone who didn't gamble anyway, to suddenly take it up.

I would definitely have been opposed to being sponsored by someone like Wonga, who Newcastle were though.

 

[Din]

Have to say, I really don't like it Think it's too well done to be a hoax but I'm sort of hoping it is.

Might look better when it's properly unveiled I guess but I don't know what it is but I just really am not keen.

 

[CanaryNath]

Morty, I kind of agree with you in the sense that it might not directly encourage someone to start gambling, however the idea of young kids running around in the park, playing football with their mates, advertising gambling websites after school has finished is just a tad odd in my opinion. Same reason we don't see tobacco sponsors on football shirts, surely?

It's not  a Norwich-centric gripe.......I don't like it on any team's shirt. It's just a shame we've 'succumbed'. I was always rather proud of our 'local' sponsors in Norwich Union/Aviva, Coleman's, or N&P Building Soc. Somehow added something to the community strength of the club......to me, at least.

Maybe I'm just a bit odd.

 

[morty]

Morty, I kind of agree with you in the sense that it might not directly encourage someone to start gambling, however the idea of young kids running around in the park, playing football with their mates, advertising gambling websites after school has finished is just a tad odd in my opinion. Same reason we don't see tobacco sponsors on football shirts, surely?

It's not  a Norwich-centric gripe.......I don't like it on any team's shirt. It's just a shame we've 'succumbed'. I was always rather proud of our 'local' sponsors in Norwich Union/Aviva, Coleman's, or N&P Building Soc. Somehow added something to the community strength of the club......to me, at least.

Maybe I'm just a bit odd.

No I completely get where you're coming from, it seems like we we held out for so long, and you're right, it is a shame we have succumbed. I wonder why Aviva gave it up?

 

[CanaryNath]

No I completely get where you're coming from, it seems like we we held out for so long, and you're right, it is a shame we have succumbed. I wonder why Aviva gave it up?

It's an odd one, because I would have thought they would have been in a pretty strong position, what with us not achieving promotion.

Something that really surprised me was the viewing figures for Championship football on Sky Sports last season.........WAY lower than I had realised. I guess Aviva just didn't   feel they were getting the exposure that any deal might be worth.

 

[Din]

To be fair I think policy is that if a football kit has a gambling company on it then the kids shirts have a different sponsor. I imagine it'd be a charity that the football club supports.

I'm not overly mad about having betting companies as our sponsor, however it doesn't really bother me too much. If it was Wonga or another short-term loan company that'd be a disappointing. My main gripe is how ugly the sponsor logo is aha.

 

[Canaryboy]

I think the four teams sponsored by 888 Bet last season just had no sponsor on the kids shirt, that was definitely the case with Birmingham. 

It would be a bit odd having an 8 year old wearing a gambling advert wouldn't it, ha. 

I'd rather wear a shirt sponsored by an internet gambling company than a payday loan company, any day of the week.... I'd probably have to suspend my support if we ever signed a deal with Wonga. I'm not exactly a leftie, but council estate loan sharks is where I draw the line. 

Gambling companies are clearly just those who benefit most from football shirt sponsorship and therefore they are willing to pay more? Makes sense to me.... and we need every penny we can get. 

 

[morty]

LeoVegas announced as new main sponsor, new kit released this Saturday, don't they normally coincide it with the Norfolk Show?

Looks like that leaked shirt could be true then....

*Edit* Says kit is available for purchase as of Saturday, so assume it will be unveiled at the Norfolk Show.

 

[morty]

I think the four teams sponsored by 888 Bet last season just had no sponsor on the kids shirt, that was definitely the case with Birmingham. 

It would be a bit odd having an 8 year old wearing a gambling advert wouldn't it, ha. 

I'd rather wear a shirt sponsored by an internet gambling company than a payday loan company, any day of the week.... I'd probably have to suspend my support if we ever signed a deal with Wonga. I'm not exactly a leftie, but council estate loan sharks is where I draw the line. 

Gambling companies are clearly just those who benefit most from football shirt sponsorship and therefore they are willing to pay more? Makes sense to me.... and we need every penny we can get. 

Fair bit of moral fuss going on, on twitter about this actually.

 

[Canaryboy]

My stance is....

1). In an ideal world the FA would ban sponsorship by gambling companies in English football.

But....

2). They haven't yet, and if we ignore that huge pool of potential sponsors we lose out to rivals. 

Fosters Lager wasn't exactly an appropriate sponsor was it, don't think we claim alcohol is any better than Gambling.

 

[CanaryNath]

My stance is....

1). In an ideal world the FA would ban sponsorship by gambling companies in English football.

But....

2). They haven't yet, and if we ignore that huge pool of potential sponsors we lose out to rivals. 

Fosters Lager wasn't exactly an appropriate sponsor was it, don't think we claim alcohol is any better than Gambling.

Fosters Lager was our sponsor some time ago........thankfully the sport has moved on. I

t's a shame (in my opinion) that gambling advertising isn't viewed in the same light as Alcohol or tobacco advertising by the FA, or indeed the government.

 

[morty]

Fosters Lager was our sponsor some time ago........thankfully the sport has moved on. I

t's a shame (in my opinion) that gambling advertising isn't viewed in the same light as Alcohol or tobacco advertising by the FA, or indeed the government.

I think the main issue here is that we don't hold a lot of cards at the minute. I'm confident that if a more ethical sponsor had offered the same money, we would have gone with them.

 

[CanaryNath]

^ This

Highest TV viewing figures for a Championship game last season was well under 1m people.

Norwich didn't feature in the top dozen (meaning no game we played got more than 370,000 viewers. Very low, and clearly a reason why Aviva felt the value for money just isn't there.

 

[ZLF]

Aviva walked away (as they also have from Athletics) last season to concentrate on the rugby exposure which is available for far less money.  They only stepped back in as another sponsor couldnt be found and on far worse terms for the club.   That tells its own story about the availability of any sponsor,  let alone local ethical ones.

I would rather ban all gambling, alcohol, smoking advertising,  but in the meantime take the money and spend it.  Fosters had a far better brand awareness when we sponsored them and rampant alocoholism didnt spike.   likewise LeoVegas are not a name youngsters will associate with betting anyway.  

 

[morty]

Aviva walked away (as they also have from Athletics) last season to concentrate on the rugby exposure which is available for far less money.  They only stepped back in as another sponsor couldnt be found and on far worse terms for the club.   That tells its own story about the availability of any sponsor,  let alone local ethical ones.

I would rather ban all gambling, alcohol, smoking advertising,  but in the meantime take the money and spend it.  Fosters had a far better brand awareness when we sponsored them and rampant alocoholism didnt spike.   likewise LeoVegas are not a name youngsters will associate with betting anyway.  

I can see the reasoning behind both sides of opinion on this, but, for me, its starting to feel like sticking, unilaterally, to old fashioned principals could start to be damaging to Norwich City. We need to get a whole lot more streetwise.