I wish Bolton had done this.

americantrotter · Post by **americantrotter** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:48 pm

http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/94644 ... ting-deal/

"The Red Sox — twice winners of the World Series in the past 10 years — are one of the major teams in world baseball while Fulham are a relatively small Premiership team. Yet Kennedy said there were a number of links between the two, including heritage and strong local ties.
The Fulham-Red Sox deal is not the first promotional tie-in between a football and baseball club. In 2001 Manchester United and the New York Yankees signed a deal to develop sponsorship and joint promotional programs and sell each other's licensed goods. "

I would have been in Heaven had Bolton jumped at a chance like this. Reebok is a big sponsor in the MLB and even has several bir named Red Sox players along with an ad at Fenway.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:24 pm

americantrotter wrote:I would have been in Heaven had Bolton jumped at a chance like this.

Yes, you would. You though, are a class A American prick with no sense of value. Which is exactly why you'd have been a whoopin' an' a hollerin' (or whatever it is that you lot do) whilst we'd have been busy being crushed by the moral shame of it all.

malcd1 · Post by **malcd1** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:44 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
americantrotter wrote:I would have been in Heaven had Bolton jumped at a chance like this.
Yes, you would. You though, are a class A American prick with no sense of value. Which is exactly why you'd have been a whoopin' an' a hollerin' (or whatever it is that you lot do) whilst we'd have been busy being crushed by the moral shame of it all.

You really are a tosser sometimes Bruce

boltonboris · Post by **boltonboris** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:47 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
americantrotter wrote:I would have been in Heaven had Bolton jumped at a chance like this.
Yes, you would. You though, are a class A American prick with no sense of value. Which is exactly why you'd have been a whoopin' an' a hollerin' (or whatever it is that you lot do) whilst we'd have been busy being crushed by the moral shame of it all.

Harsh calling him a prick, but I agree with you on the merchandising issue, I wouldn't put it down to 'moral shame' but I agree with you in a way that cashing in on a 'brand' devalues the clubs history, it's more than just just a badge on a cap, it's a living, breathing pillar of it's community and is the hopes, dreams and aspirations to many. Manchester United love to tell the world that the club badge is one of the most recognised 'logo's' in the world, when really it's a wee bit inpersonal

Bruno · Post by **Bruno** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:48 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
americantrotter wrote:I would have been in Heaven had Bolton jumped at a chance like this.
Yes, you would. You though, are a class A American prick with no sense of value. Which is exactly why you'd have been a whoopin' an' a hollerin' (or whatever it is that you lot do) whilst we'd have been busy being crushed by the moral shame of it all.

I like him, and the deal has obvious benefits

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:48 pm

malcd1 wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
americantrotter wrote:I would have been in Heaven had Bolton jumped at a chance like this.
Yes, you would. You though, are a class A American prick with no sense of value. Which is exactly why you'd have been a whoopin' an' a hollerin' (or whatever it is that you lot do) whilst we'd have been busy being crushed by the moral shame of it all.
You really are a tosser sometimes Bruce

Coming from the likes of you that doesn't hurt!

Prufrock · Post by **Prufrock** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:00 am

Twere a bit OTT in tone Brucie. I agree with the points behind what you are saying, but AT seems pretty level headed amongst our American contingent. Not sure he deserved 'prick'.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:40 am

True, and I apologise accordingly, but I stand by my points regardless and this whole franchise idea just further points to the fact that America never has and never will understand the true value of a football club to the supporter.

Puskas · Post by **Puskas** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:48 am

I was about to come in on this, and wonder what the problem was - it could have generated more money for the club in a time when we're struggling to compete with even the mid-table teams, never mind the top ones.

Then I looked at the comment in the linked article from the Fulham fan, in which, rather than talking about his club, he started wittering on about "brand exposure". And I realised we were best out of it...

seanworth · Post by **seanworth** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:01 am

At the end of the day it comes down to how to make money. You can go on for days and days talking about football and it's culture. I come from a hockey background and to be honest for many years figured there was nothing lower than a sports team having a sponsor on the front of their shirt. The Toronto maple leafs have had their emblem on the front of their jersey for over eighty years and it was sacrilege to remove or change that. Oh yes and hockey means everything to most Canadians, and the Stanley Cup is a national treasure even though it spends nearly all of it's time in the U.S.A.

A few years later I realized that I had better take my head out of my ass. In fact the emblem has been modified several times. With selling of jersey's etc the emblem has altered even more frequently. Why? Obviously because it generates more money. I couldn't stand the Europeans putting advertising on their boards, well the NHL now does it. We still haven't stooped to having the Logos replace the emblems but I am sure it is only a matter of time. I understand the desire to keep traditional, but America didn't tell you to pay the players outrageous salaries. America didn't tell you to place complete greedy wanks like Blatter and Platini in charge of your football bodies. The way the sport is presently run, you need to market and get as much money as possible to offset your expenses. Does it cheapen the game, yeah it probably does but that is the path football especiallly in England has taken.

Moral shame? Get real, can you really say moral shame with a straight face, and support a corporate sponsor as the most predominant feature on the front of your shirt?

H. Pedersen · Post by **H. Pedersen** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:04 am

Well said seanworth, and the last line has particular relevance for Bolton given that we've got a GAMBLING COMPANY as the most prominent feature on our shirts.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:08 am

seanworth wrote:Moral shame? Get real, can you really say moral shame with a straight face, and support a corporate sponsor as the most predominant feature on the front of your shirt?

So you assume that all Bolton fans have engaged with our shirt sponsors as a direct result of their sponsorship? I know that I haven't and furthermore don't know of anyone that has.

H. Pedersen · Post by **H. Pedersen** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:17 am

Bruce Rioja wrote:
seanworth wrote:Moral shame? Get real, can you really say moral shame with a straight face, and support a corporate sponsor as the most predominant feature on the front of your shirt?
So you assume that all Bolton fans have engaged with our shirt sponsors as a direct result of their sponsorship? I know that I haven't and furthermore don't know of anyone that has.

I think he means supporting the CONCEPT of a corporate sponsor as the main symbol on a shirt, rather than financially supporting the sponsor in question.

And to be fair, I did by a pair of Reebok sandals pretty much solely because of their links with Bolton.

seanworth · Post by **seanworth** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:17 am

Bruce Rioja wrote:
seanworth wrote:Moral shame? Get real, can you really say moral shame with a straight face, and support a corporate sponsor as the most predominant feature on the front of your shirt?
So you assume that all Bolton fans have engaged with our shirt sponsors as a direct result of their sponsorship? I know that I haven't and furthermore don't know of anyone that has.

Sorry I will edit my last statement.

Moral shame? Get real, can you really say moral shame with a straight face, and support EPL teams having a corporate sponsor as the most predominant feature on the front of their shirt?

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:22 am

seanworth wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
seanworth wrote:Moral shame? Get real, can you really say moral shame with a straight face, and support a corporate sponsor as the most predominant feature on the front of your shirt?
So you assume that all Bolton fans have engaged with our shirt sponsors as a direct result of their sponsorship? I know that I haven't and furthermore don't know of anyone that has.
Sorry I will edit my last statement.

Moral shame? Get real, can you really say moral shame with a straight face, and support EPL teams having a corporate sponsor as the most predominant feature on the front of their shirt?

Ah, understood, cheers. I can tell you that there are plenty that aren't best pleased about it, Sean.

Puskas · Post by **Puskas** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:27 am

seanworth wrote:The Toronto maple leafs have had their emblem on the front of their jersey for over eighty years and it was sacrilege to remove or change that. Oh yes and hockey means everything to most Canadians, and the Stanley Cup is a national treasure even though it spends nearly all of it's time in the U.S.A.

A few years later I realized that I had better take my head out of my ass. In fact the emblem has been modified several times.

What I am pleased about is that no one would tinker with our club's marvellous badge.

Imagine if some marketing company thought, "I don't like this splendid traditional design with streamers - let's replace it with some crap with elephants on it".

There'd be uproar. At least from me.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:32 am

Puskas wrote: What I am pleased about is that no one would tinker with our club's marvellous badge.

We don't actually have a badge at all now - it's a registered trade mark. Something else that I'm not at all happy about.

seanworth · Post by **seanworth** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:59 am

Bruce Rioja wrote:
seanworth wrote:
Bruce Rioja wrote:
seanworth wrote:Moral shame? Get real, can you really say moral shame with a straight face, and support a corporate sponsor as the most predominant feature on the front of your shirt?
So you assume that all Bolton fans have engaged with our shirt sponsors as a direct result of their sponsorship? I know that I haven't and furthermore don't know of anyone that has.
Sorry I will edit my last statement.

Moral shame? Get real, can you really say moral shame with a straight face, and support EPL teams having a corporate sponsor as the most predominant feature on the front of their shirt?
Ah, understood, cheers. I can tell you that there are plenty that aren't best pleased about it, Sean.

Bruce I know there aren't, which was my point.

americantrotter · Post by **americantrotter** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:43 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:True, and I apologise accordingly, but I stand by my points regardless and this whole franchise idea just further points to the fact that America never has and never will understand the true value of a football club to the supporter.

Prick? Are you serious? You don't get off easy from apologizing before I can get back on to reply. Exactly what makes me a Class A prick? You don't even know me, and I certainly don't post a lot of shite in the Banter forums. Well not often anyways. I never even engage in the flame wars here.

You are aware that I was born in Bolton? That all my family save my sister and parents live in Bolton and the UK? Although with folk like you around I have no idea why I am so proud of that fact.

Value of the club to the supporter? That is the Boston Red Sox. It's a badge of honor for all of New England. Sorry I wanted BWFC to get more exposure from the best supporters in American sport. Maybe you'd be happier in the Conference with 2,000 other miserable bastards convincing yourself you're better off and the real fans of Bolton.

Eurocentric doesn't even do it justice. You're just an American hater and it's pathetic.

americantrotter · Post by **americantrotter** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:50 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
seanworth wrote:Moral shame? Get real, can you really say moral shame with a straight face, and support a corporate sponsor as the most predominant feature on the front of your shirt?
So you assume that all Bolton fans have engaged with our shirt sponsors as a direct result of their sponsorship? I know that I haven't and furthermore don't know of anyone that has.

I do. In fact I know many lowly Americans who have chosen Reebok apparel because they know how proud I am of the brand. Call them silly, but I put the thought in their head. Sponsorship may be a corrupting thing (no argument from me there) but it works.