Increasing Club Revenue

[bobzy]

12 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

why though? why should i care?

is it because they made a misogynistic advert like 3 years ago (which i'm not condoning btw)? or because people just don't want gambling companies to be used full stop?

even when we don't have betting companies on front of shirts we still have official betting partners, with adverts shown around the ground. maybe i'm missing something, but i don't get the outrage

More the latter for me, personally.

 

I just find the whole "I don't give a shit as long as we get more money" thing a bit... I don't know, shitty?  Obviously, it's just personal opinion.

 

"Outrage" is way too strong, but that's the internet eh?

[tomav84]

6 minutes ago, bobzy said:

More the latter for me, personally.

 

I just find the whole "I don't give a shit as long as we get more money" thing a bit... I don't know, shitty?  Obviously, it's just personal opinion.

 

"Outrage" is way too strong, but that's the internet eh?

i think regarding this i do agree with this bit and we should call out where money is coming from questionable sources. i'm just yet to see a valid argument where BK8 is one of these questionable sources aside from them just being another betting firm

[bobzy]

1 minute ago, tomav84 said:

i think regarding this i do agree with this bit and we should call out where money is coming from questionable sources. i'm just yet to see a valid argument where BK8 is one of these questionable sources aside from them just being another betting firm

It's not really the sources for me.  We shouldn't be promoting something that **** up a lot of people just because others do it or just because they pay more money.

 

(To be honest, I think gambling sponsors will be banned soon enough anyway - and rightly so)

[CVByrne]

13 minutes ago, bobzy said:

More the latter for me, personally.

 

I just find the whole "I don't give a shit as long as we get more money" thing a bit... I don't know, shitty?  Obviously, it's just personal opinion.

 

"Outrage" is way too strong, but that's the internet eh?

The thing that is confusing me the most is what are we supposed to be outraged against? 

I know a small section of very loud people like to advocate / protest / attack to stop certain things they don't agree with. They are a loud minority who force companies to do what they want. The topics are endless. 

I have many issues with betting companies but all of those issues are due to lack of regulation of these companies. They want rid of winning bettors and they only want people who lose money and unlike other countries (who have good regulations) they are legally allowed operate in this way.

I have absolutely no problem with the concept of betting firms. Like I've no issue with the concept of social media. The ways these two things make profit at the damaging expense of a portion of their customers is wrong and regulations should be the way of stopping that. 

[VillaChris]

8 hours ago, Farlz said:

It’ll just be one of those where everyone throws a fit when first officially announced and then about a couple weeks later it will all be forgotten. 

Honestly, I don’t care who sponsors the club as long as they give us lots and lots of money. Football is long gone of being morally correct. 

If people want to take a moral stand....don't buy the kit. Think last time I got a home kit was actually in the Acorns era so around 2008 and that was getting a free shirt of your choice when subscribing to FourFourTwo Magazine for a year.

If you want to put something into the club then just purchase a retro shirt from 90/80s from club shop.

The kids kit won't have a gambling sponsor on it either.

Edited February 1, 2023 by VillaChris

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, spiezels said:

According to Forbes…

Our commercial is $58 mill theirs is $125

our match day is $1 mill theirs is $10

This might be about when Forbes reported and which accounts we're looking at - they might have taken the numbers for us from the season where we only had one match with supporters during Covid and then taken the figure from Leeds from the next (full) season with supporters - Leeds and us won't publish our accounts at the same time so they might have had a new set for Leeds and an old set for us on the date they published their article.

[MrBlack]

There's a link on our official site to this website, who are named as one of our three principal partners (along with Cazoo and Castore)...

http://www.kaiyun5.com/

The website doesn't even load for me. It's an incredibly dodgy world, and we're well involved already. 

[Tomaszk]

1 hour ago, MrBlack said:

There's a link on our official site to this website, who are named as one of our three principal partners (along with Cazoo and Castore)...

http://www.kaiyun5.com/

The website doesn't even load for me. It's an incredibly dodgy world, and we're well involved already. 

Best highlight to the fans particularly unhappy about this new sponsor.

Stop watching football if you're really upset by dodgy ethics. It's deeply embedded.

[Stevo985]

37 minutes ago, Tomaszk said:

Stop watching football if you're really upset by dodgy ethics. It's deeply embedded.

This is a piss poor answer to be honest.

I'm not outraged by this deal. Slightly disappointed I guess but I understand the commercial benefits.
But it's possible to like something and still be upset by it's entanglement with dodgy ethics. 

It's not one or the other

[Tomaszk]

10 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

This is a piss poor answer to be honest.

I'm not outraged by this deal. Slightly disappointed I guess but I understand the commercial benefits.
But it's possible to like something and still be upset by it's entanglement with dodgy ethics. 

It's not one or the other

So you're not "really upset" as I said then. Continue to watch.

Agree with most of your post.

[S-Platt]

17 minutes ago, villabromsgrove said:

Gambling is a real problem for many individuals and by extension many families are blighted by the consequences of gambling addiction. Legislation has to brought in to ban all forms of gambling promotion including all forms of coercive advertising.

To say that individual football clubs should refuse gambling sponsorship is simplistic. It is currently a legal source of income that needs to be banned, so that no clubs can use it as a revenue stream. Precarious finances mean that no individual club is in a position to opt out on their own. 

Most of these far east gambling companies are aimed at that market who live and breath the Premier League.

Betting companies in this country are all over adverts on live footy be it TV or commercial radio giving you live odds.

Its not going anywhere anytime soon.  All our betting sponsors over the years have never made me think oooh I better use them to bet with and I never bought a Mita Copier.

It would be nice to have Acorns or the like every year but as Football is now a business we do or die it seems.

NWSE want us to be self sufficient so it's always going to go to the highest bidder.

North Stand will have a sponsor no doubt when that is done its just the way Football is these days.

[CVByrne]

4 hours ago, bobzy said:

It's not really the sources for me.  We shouldn't be promoting something that **** up a lot of people just because others do it or just because they pay more money.

 

(To be honest, I think gambling sponsors will be banned soon enough anyway - and rightly so)

Instagram does damage to kids. Alcohol does damage to people. Gambling does damage to people addicted to it. Fossil fuels damage the environment. Lots of things companies make money from are harmful to people 

There are clearly ways to stop betting firms from profiting from people with gambling addiction. The government just won't create the regulations to do that. 

 

[d821mc]

I talk at length about betting and the various issues surrounding it at length on my Twitter feed and blog. I think the main issues are these;

1. Do Aston Villa as a brand want to be associated with not just a betting company but one that is incredibly shady at best.

The answer from my POV is no. I can understand why the club feels pressure to go down the betting route and has done for a while now. If you are going to do it, at least do something where the company involved is a pioneer in the space (ie Fulham and Betfair a few years ago). The company Villa are getting into bed with are so incredibly shady it is untrue. It has zero credibility within the space. It is clearly just a desperate money grab.

2. Do you want Aston Villa to be associated with betting companies fullstop?

I think you have to look at the different aspects. Shirt Sponsorship, Ground Hoarding Sponsorships, Betting Partners. The problem with the first two aree the fact that it exposes children to betting. Constantly and utterly unrelentingly. I can see a case for a betting partner with kiosks in the stands. I can live with that but think the others are seriously flawed given the collateral damage for children. There is no way for them to avoid it. Yes the kids shirts dont have betting sponsors on them but they will see the brand names constantly on adult shirts. 

3. What should Villa do about it?

This is a chance for Villa to take the right stance and actually adopt a no betting sponsorship policy. Make yourself stand out in the PL. Be a forerunner in driving the issues. It would make the club appear very classy imo. Hopefully, it would help attract other quality brands to the club.

4. What the future holds?

Point 3 is thinking ahead of the curve because betting sponsorships will eventually be banned at football clubs imo. When it happens so many clubs will be desperate for new sponsors to fill the void. You want to do it first. 

I talk a lot about the morals of gambling etc on my feed. As a pro punter I obviously have no real issues with it apart from the behaviours the bookies demonstrate. Its a very morally questionable industry and the predatory nature of those involved has to be seen to be believed. I just dont think it shines Aston Villa in the light it should. 

[CVByrne]

8 minutes ago, d821mc said:

I talk at length about betting and the various issues surrounding it at length on my Twitter feed and blog. I think the main issues are these;

1. Do Aston Villa as a brand want to be associated with not just a betting company but one that is incredibly shady at best.

The answer from my POV is no. I can understand why the club feels pressure to go down the betting route and has done for a while now. If you are going to do it, at least do something where the company involved is a pioneer in the space (ie Fulham and Betfair a few years ago). The company Villa are getting into bed with are so incredibly shady it is untrue. It has zero credibility within the space. It is clearly just a desperate money grab.

2. Do you want Aston Villa to be associated with betting companies fullstop?

I think you have to look at the different aspects. Shirt Sponsorship, Ground Hoarding Sponsorships, Betting Partners. The problem with the first two aree the fact that it exposes children to betting. Constantly and utterly unrelentingly. I can see a case for a betting partner with kiosks in the stands. I can live with that but think the others are seriously flawed given the collateral damage for children. There is no way for them to avoid it. Yes the kids shirts dont have betting sponsors on them but they will see the brand names constantly on adult shirts. 

3. What should Villa do about it?

This is a chance for Villa to take the right stance and actually adopt a no betting sponsorship policy. Make yourself stand out in the PL. Be a forerunner in driving the issues. It would make the club appear very classy imo. Hopefully, it would help attract other quality brands to the club.

4. What the future holds?

Point 3 is thinking ahead of the curve because betting sponsorships will eventually be banned at football clubs imo. When it happens so many clubs will be desperate for new sponsors to fill the void. You want to do it first. 

I talk a lot about the morals of gambling etc on my feed. As a pro punter I obviously have no real issues with it apart from the behaviours the bookies demonstrate. Its a very morally questionable industry and the predatory nature of those involved has to be seen to be believed. I just dont think it shines Aston Villa in the light it should. 

The massive piece of information that is missing here. The choice of having a gambling company as sponsor is weighed up against the other sponsor options. How much are they offering in terms of sponsorship money. Without knowing that information there's no way to understand a decision.

The club primary purpose is to be successful at football and to do that is highly linked to income. So the decision that is to be made is gambling sponsor will pay us X and non gambling sponsor will pay us Y. There are sections of our fans who will be upset by having a gambling sponsor. Is the gap in money worth that trade off. 

I think the club has clearly decided the answer to that is yes. 

 

 

[d821mc]

28 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

The massive piece of information that is missing here. The choice of having a gambling company as sponsor is weighed up against the other sponsor options. How much are they offering in terms of sponsorship money. Without knowing that information there's no way to understand a decision.

The club primary purpose is to be successful at football and to do that is highly linked to income. So the decision that is to be made is gambling sponsor will pay us X and non gambling sponsor will pay us Y. There are sections of our fans who will be upset by having a gambling sponsor. Is the gap in money worth that trade off. 

I think the club has clearly decided the answer to that is yes. 

 

 

As you say we have no idea what commercial deals are on the table. There are plenty of other questionable ones at other clubs. The Arsenal and Rwanda one seems particularly odd. It is very short term thinking to always take the biggest money on offer now. Lets say Villa had taken sponsorship with a company such as Football Index. It collapsed causing a lot of people to be seriously out of pocket, If that happens to Villa fans they wont be so happy. By partnering with Villa these companies are being given credibility they dont deserve. It can never simply by about X v Y. If Purslow cannot find other brands and sponsors then maybe its time to find someone who can. 

[WallisFrizz]

1 hour ago, d821mc said:

I talk at length about betting and the various issues surrounding it at length on my Twitter feed and blog. I think the main issues are these;

1. Do Aston Villa as a brand want to be associated with not just a betting company but one that is incredibly shady at best.

The answer from my POV is no. I can understand why the club feels pressure to go down the betting route and has done for a while now. If you are going to do it, at least do something where the company involved is a pioneer in the space (ie Fulham and Betfair a few years ago). The company Villa are getting into bed with are so incredibly shady it is untrue. It has zero credibility within the space. It is clearly just a desperate money grab.

2. Do you want Aston Villa to be associated with betting companies fullstop?

I think you have to look at the different aspects. Shirt Sponsorship, Ground Hoarding Sponsorships, Betting Partners. The problem with the first two aree the fact that it exposes children to betting. Constantly and utterly unrelentingly. I can see a case for a betting partner with kiosks in the stands. I can live with that but think the others are seriously flawed given the collateral damage for children. There is no way for them to avoid it. Yes the kids shirts dont have betting sponsors on them but they will see the brand names constantly on adult shirts. 

3. What should Villa do about it?

This is a chance for Villa to take the right stance and actually adopt a no betting sponsorship policy. Make yourself stand out in the PL. Be a forerunner in driving the issues. It would make the club appear very classy imo. Hopefully, it would help attract other quality brands to the club.

4. What the future holds?

Point 3 is thinking ahead of the curve because betting sponsorships will eventually be banned at football clubs imo. When it happens so many clubs will be desperate for new sponsors to fill the void. You want to do it first. 

I talk a lot about the morals of gambling etc on my feed. As a pro punter I obviously have no real issues with it apart from the behaviours the bookies demonstrate. Its a very morally questionable industry and the predatory nature of those involved has to be seen to be believed. I just dont think it shines Aston Villa in the light it should. 

I don’t disagree with the morals argument generally but I do think you are perhaps, with good intent, over egging the pudding re the damage and influence done to children by having the logo on the shirts and around the grounds. 
 

I have children, one has his own phone, no way is he getting into betting for a good few years yet (and obviously hopefully never but I place the odd bet occasionally and play the lottery infrequently so I presume he will probably follow suit at some point). Having a betting sponsor isn’t going to make kids bet, the point is to entice people who already bet to use their firm. You can’t and won’t stop people from doing risky things from alcohol  to gambling by hiding brand names you can just educate them to make the right choices. 

It won’t be a shirt sponsor to be proud of but until the government does more to crack down on gambling or the FA does more to hold clubs accountable to test the integrity of their sponsors, clubs are most likely to go with the most lucrative deal. If those deals bring investment and on pitch success, most fans will forget their moral outrage pretty quick. 

[MrBlack]

I think Purslow is sensing a shift coming from the very top of the league that means we have to be in a position of strength within the next few years or face being on the outside looking when it comes. To go back on what Purslow said we wouldn't do must have a severe driving force. Money alone isn't just it, there's a time sensitivity to it as well.

Maybe the shift is that these sponsors will be banned soon, and it's a further income source that gets cut off so we're doing a short term take advantage while everyone else does the same?

Edited February 1, 2023 by MrBlack

[The_Steve]

1 hour ago, d821mc said:

I talk at length about betting and the various issues surrounding it at length on my Twitter feed and blog. I think the main issues are these;

1. Do Aston Villa as a brand want to be associated with not just a betting company but one that is incredibly shady at best.

The answer from my POV is no. I can understand why the club feels pressure to go down the betting route and has done for a while now. If you are going to do it, at least do something where the company involved is a pioneer in the space (ie Fulham and Betfair a few years ago). The company Villa are getting into bed with are so incredibly shady it is untrue. It has zero credibility within the space. It is clearly just a desperate money grab.

2. Do you want Aston Villa to be associated with betting companies fullstop?

I think you have to look at the different aspects. Shirt Sponsorship, Ground Hoarding Sponsorships, Betting Partners. The problem with the first two aree the fact that it exposes children to betting. Constantly and utterly unrelentingly. I can see a case for a betting partner with kiosks in the stands. I can live with that but think the others are seriously flawed given the collateral damage for children. There is no way for them to avoid it. Yes the kids shirts dont have betting sponsors on them but they will see the brand names constantly on adult shirts. 

3. What should Villa do about it?

This is a chance for Villa to take the right stance and actually adopt a no betting sponsorship policy. Make yourself stand out in the PL. Be a forerunner in driving the issues. It would make the club appear very classy imo. Hopefully, it would help attract other quality brands to the club.

4. What the future holds?

Point 3 is thinking ahead of the curve because betting sponsorships will eventually be banned at football clubs imo. When it happens so many clubs will be desperate for new sponsors to fill the void. You want to do it first. 

I talk a lot about the morals of gambling etc on my feed. As a pro punter I obviously have no real issues with it apart from the behaviours the bookies demonstrate. Its a very morally questionable industry and the predatory nature of those involved has to be seen to be believed. I just dont think it shines Aston Villa in the light it should. 

Thanks for taking the time to articulate this on here and elsewhere. 
 

There’s a lot I agree with. Regarding these white label companies, if you can even call them that, it just baffles me that we continue to give credence to them. I’d challenge anyone who says it’s a not “big deal” to google some of the names involved. Like, I’ve tried looking into some of the brands for sleeve sponsors and the only record of these names exist solely in our press releases. Shouldn’t that be cause for concern? There’s no accountability or transparency. The fact this isn’t in isolation undermines the credibility of the due diligence we carry out. It looks small time and just reeks of a cynical cash grab. 
 

It also sucks for the children who cannot wear the shirts of their idols when other clubs don’t always do the same. More than ever, people associate with their favourite players over club identity. We’ve spent months trying to capture the “spirit” of what makes us so special, and I get the commercial necessity in a playing field so unequal, but there has to be other options?! There’s something deeply unpleasant about a new era of the club with our new crest having one of the most tackiest, unethical gambling brands around. Take 5 minutes to google them and you’d know the issues. That the club turns a blind eye to it is disconcerting. 
 

Nor would I say it’s a zero sum game - there’s a huge middle ground between Acorns and white label gambling firms. This money won’t go away anytime soon but it shouldn’t mean we are complicit in it either. If the club is so keen to have higher paying gambling firms do they find the worst of the bunch? I don’t think they’ve been able to answer that. 
 

The club gains much goodwill from gestures that make us stand out. And I’m not a fan of whataboutery. Nation states like Rwanda with their horrid human rights abuses should be sponsoring Arsenal either. But what is our government more likely to legislate on? Betting. If clubs like ours joined campaigns I’d agree that we’d gain more credibility for standing up against it. It won’t change without pushback. 
 

Football is about profit yes, but it should aspire to be so much more. Just because there’s so much corruption and injustice in the game shouldn’t mean we ignore where we can do better. I’m glad our fan groups and others are pushing back against it. Especially where the ethics of these firms go far beyond just having a punt or flutter and seek out those to snare into vicious addictive cycles. 
 

I don’t have a lot of love for modern football as an institution and it just hurts to see us taking the cynical cash grab. We shouldn’t be passive and accept the status quo no matter how utterly immoral it is. We can and should do better. 

Edited February 1, 2023 by The_Steve

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, d821mc said:

Point 3 is thinking ahead of the curve because betting sponsorships will eventually be banned at football clubs imo. When it happens so many clubs will be desperate for new sponsors to fill the void. You want to do it first. 

The weird thing is that the value is currently in the betting companies because they're expecting a ban - they're all desperately trying to get a name in front of their target market before the chance is snatched away from them - that's making them even more lucrative at the moment. 

My understanding is that the offer was more than twice that of the nearest non-gambling offer. 

Purslow believes that the league will phase out gambling sponsorship over a longer period of time in order to prevent competitive advantages whereby one team can sign a gambling deal or maintain one while another team can't sign a new one.

It's one of the reasons why the Premier league is terrified of the idea of government oversight, which brings with it the spectre of an immediate ban on gambling advertising.

For Villa, the argument is that if we don't take this deal then we risk not being able to make any progress in terms of catching the big six or seven teams, and then if we don't do that, when the ban comes in we won't be in a position to negotiate a competitive deal in a market which be much tougher for clubs to operate in. Without gambling sponsorships, you're looking at the blue chip finance companies maintaining those £40m a year deals while for everyone else, the market goes from £15m a season to £5m a season - once betting is gone, there won't be enough sponsors to go round and if you want a good one, you best be front and centre - it's an arms race.

The whole sport is designed to ensure that each team is doing absolutely everything they can to wring absolutely every penny out of their fans, sponsors and anyone that passes their door - fans would rather we had an electronics company or a tyre manufacturer, the club would rather we had an electronics company or a tyre manufacturer, but the game demands you take the highest bid or you drop away - it's an ugly but successful league. I'd say government intervention would be welcome, but given the state of British politics, I suspect we're stuck with the devil we know.

 

[The_Steve]

5 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

The weird thing is that the value is currently in the betting companies because they're expecting a ban - they're all desperately trying to get a name in front of their target market before the chance is snatched away from them - that's making them even more lucrative at the moment. 

My understanding is that the offer was more than twice that of the nearest non-gambling offer. 

Purslow believes that the league will phase out gambling sponsorship over a longer period of time in order to prevent competitive advantages whereby one team can sign a gambling deal or maintain one while another team can't sign a new one.

It's one of the reasons why the Premier league is terrified of the idea of government oversight, which brings with it the spectre of an immediate ban on gambling advertising.

For Villa, the argument is that if we don't take this deal then we risk not being able to make any progress in terms of catching the big six or seven teams, and then if we don't do that, when the ban comes in we won't be in a position to negotiate a competitive deal in a market which be much tougher for clubs to operate in. Without gambling sponsorships, you're looking at the blue chip finance companies maintaining those £40m a year deals while for everyone else, the market goes from £15m a season to £5m a season - once betting is gone, there won't be enough sponsors to go round and if you want a good one, you best be front and centre - it's an arms race.

The whole sport is designed to ensure that each team is doing absolutely everything they can to wring absolutely every penny out of their fans, sponsors and anyone that passes their door - fans would rather we had an electronics company or a tyre manufacturer, the club would rather we had an electronics company or a tyre manufacturer, but the game demands you take the highest bid or you drop away - it's an ugly but successful league. I'd say government intervention would be welcome, but given the state of British politics, I suspect we're stuck with the devil we know.

 

Either the league steps in and sets clear rules to level the playing field somewhat or we will have a vast black hole that will punish clubs not owned by the Saudis or Gulf states. 
 

Look have Newcastle are currently circumventing stuff with their sleeve sponsor which is a Saudi state institution in all but name to flood more income in. Yes, it’s not exactly new but they could ban such sponsors, including Rwanda sportswashing much easier