'Selling out'

[dickdarlington]

Seen a few comments on twitter tonight about Sutton selling out for a fast buck. Advertising boards, a one off sponsorship deal. Etc. On Saturday Lincoln were sponsored by vanarama and not their usual sponsors too. They're not the first clubs to do it. I can think back as far as Stevenage v Newcastle in the late 90s as the first example. And I assume there will be clauses in each agreement which says that specific matches could be an open house.

Just wondering what people think in regard to should it ever happen to us (if we ever win a cup match or two) and we get a plum draw, would anyone have issue in the club maximising revenue, or would you prefer us to keep the integrity and loyalty to those who have supported us financially from day one?

[BUSHEAD]

If we sold out like Sutton did with the scum newspaper and its betting site i would be seriously pissed off.

[shawry]

Didn't we sell out on our trip to Wembley?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[BUSHEAD]

No

[dickdarlington]

We were fleeced by a loophole for our first trip to Wembley, and it cost us the association with the most influential employer the town has seen for three generations.

I suppose integrity is the key word. I couldn't imagine virgin being too pleased with it. But I can see some local companies seeing the bigger picture. Would they need to be compensated?

[Beano]

No

What actually happened with the Soccerdome/Orange sponsorships?

[BUSHEAD]

We wore the Soccerdome kit in the Hereford play off game at feethams .
Sure it was a bit of a custom back then through out the leagues to show 'next seasons' kit in the final home game of a season .

[Darlo_Pete]

Sutton United will not have another opportunity to make the sort of dough they made last night ever again. You can't blame them for doing that. Personally I think they should have stayed loyal to their normal sponsors.

[lo36789]

You can't blame them for doing that. Personally I think they should have stayed loyal to their normal sponsors.

[Neil Johnson]

I suppose the Sutton's main sponsors made the most of the occasion with extra corporate hospitality.

I would hope that the club's usual signboard advertisers get the benefit of National TV exposure, if this sort of cup run ever happened with Darlo.

It's a big incentive for signboard advertisers if their signs are seen on National or even local TV, so a few cup runs may see their interest grow and get their prices up.

Having a neutral ground for a play-off final is a dis-incentive for such matchday advertising.

[BUSHEAD]

Having a neutral ground for a play-off final is a dis-incentive for such matchday advertising.

Wow, new levels with every post.

[feethams]

There will be sponsorship clauses that televised FA Cup games have to have specific advertising boards around the ground. That why Sutton suddenly had those flashy boards up.

As for the shirt sponsorship changing for one cup game - it would be a bitter pill to take for the current sponsors, but lets face it, if The Sun or whoever offered you a huge amount for a one off, you'd have to be stupid to turn it down for the long term stability of the club - Sutton probably made from one game, the same as they make from 10 seasons sponsorship.

I seem to remember this all started a few years ago when a non-league club made it to the 3rd round and didn't have a sponsor, so The Sun came in and paid for them to have a whole new kit or something.

[TFDM]

Sutton have probably made around £462,000 before kicking a ball last night from prize money and the fact that they were television last night. Also that doesn't even take into account gate recipets.

I can understand the pitch side advertising. The FA have this clause in their FA Cup regulations: "The Clubs acknowledge that The Association may issue more detailed rules and regulations regarding the provisions of the Commercial Contracts (including, but not limited to in relation to, broadcasting, perimeter board advertising, interview backdrops, centre circle banners, side of goal mats, substitute/added time boards, tickets and match programmes) and the Clubs agree that they shall be bound by such rules and regulations as amended from time to time by The Association."

There is probably the potential, as Feethams says, for the FA to dictate terms around this sort of thing.

As for the shirt sponsorship, I'm not too sure. When you've already netted close to half a million quid from your cup run I'd be tempted to simply not get greedy. I know thats easy to say but why piss off a loyal shirt sponsor? Thats potentially one less shirt sponsor next season.

But thats just me.

And lets not even get started on the betting / eating a pie nonsesne.

[AndyPark]

Having a neutral ground for a play-off final is a dis-incentive for such matchday advertising.

What the fuck are you rhyming on about now?

[al_quaker]

I can understand why clubs do it, but it wouldn't sit comfortably for me if we dumped our main sponsor for a big cup game, let alone if it was a company with a reputation of the Suns

[Spyman]

I'd have absolutely no objection to us, or any other club, making the most of the opportunity. In fact I'd be disappointed if we didn't.

If there is a clause in the contract with existing sponsors to override existing agreements, then that's sensible planning. If the existing sponsors aren't happy with that, it's up to them not to enter an agreement with that clause in place.

We're lucky enough to have a national business as our shirt sponsor, and hopefully we'd give them first refusal, and they'd be able to take up the opportunity - but if they didn't see it as worthwhile then I'd hope we'd go for the best alternative.

Part of being successful in all walks of life is to take opportunity when it comes, and if we want to progress without a sole 'owner' subsidising us, then exploiting commercial opportunity is the best way.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[bga]

I'd have absolutely no objection to us, or any other club, making the most of the opportunity. In fact I'd be disappointed if we didn't.

If there is a clause in the contract with existing sponsors to override existing agreements, then that's sensible planning. If the existing sponsors aren't happy with that, it's up to them not to enter an agreement with that clause in place.

We're lucky enough to have a national business as our shirt sponsor, and hopefully we'd give them first refusal, and they'd be able to take up the opportunity - but if they didn't see it as worthwhile then I'd hope we'd go for the best alternative.

Part of being successful in all walks of life is to take opportunity when it comes, and if we want to progress without a sole 'owner' subsidising us, then exploiting commercial opportunity is the best way.

Spyman talks a lot of sense here. As you say it boils down to what is included/not included in existing agreements. The point about giving say your existing shirt Sponsor first refusal is interesting. They may only be prepared to offer a small amount compared to someone else. It then becomes a bidding war I guess when not just price, but image etc. come into play.

None of us know all the facts, but Sutton are no mugs, and would not in my opinion have sold their soul to the Devil.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[darlo reborn]

We have to win a few cup games first for any of this to mean anything which lately seems a long way off

[BUSHEAD]

"None of us know all the facts, but Sutton are no mugs, and would not in my opinion have sold their soul to the Devil. "

BGA , The Scum Paper (betting part) sponsored them last night.
If they aren't the devil, unless Harold Shipman, Fred West & Ian Huntley decided to make a consortium to sponsor Sutton , then who is ?

[Spyman]

"None of us know all the facts, but Sutton are no mugs, and would not in my opinion have sold their soul to the Devil. "

BGA , The Scum Paper (betting part) sponsored them last night.
If they aren't the devil, unless Harold Shipman, Fred West & Ian Huntley decided to make a consortium to sponsor Sutton , then who is ?

I bet 'the scum newspaper', as you put it, has a higher circulation in Darlington than the Northern Echo.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[dickdarlington]

The sun sponsorship is inconsequential in this. For example, I'm vehemently against gambling websites on shirts. But if they were going to give us vast quantities of cash I'd probably just not buy the shirts. Whilst. Living my disdain on here.

There's a big whiff of agent interfering here. A "Hi, I'm Bertie Bucksworth. I understand you're about to host one of the big boys. Sign here, give me 10%, and I'll bet you a wedge. Give me a look at your existing sponsorship contracts". Easy money, but at what long term cost.

On a side note, why don't we have sponsors on the back of our shirts and shirts. Wasted space surely?

[lo36789]

I bet 'the scum newspaper', as you put it, has a higher circulation in Darlington than the Northern Echo.

Kind of agree - living in a part of the country where that is the commonly held opinion on that particular publication.

Just don't buy it. Take their money and give them nothing in return.

[don'tbuythesun]

It's the Scum and I totally agree with Bushead. Selling your soul and dumping a loyal shirt sponsor? Some of their fans aren't happy. https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... ip-the-sun

[BUSHEAD]

"None of us know all the facts, but Sutton are no mugs, and would not in my opinion have sold their soul to the Devil. "

BGA , The Scum Paper (betting part) sponsored them last night.
If they aren't the devil, unless Harold Shipman, Fred West & Ian Huntley decided to make a consortium to sponsor Sutton , then who is ?

I bet 'the scum newspaper', as you put it, has a higher circulation in Darlington than the Northern Echo.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Just goes to prove just how many knobheads are out there assuming you are correct .

[BUSHEAD]

I bet 'the scum newspaper', as you put it, has a higher circulation in Darlington than the Northern Echo.

Kind of agree - living in a part of the country where that is the commonly held opinion on that particular publication.

Just don't buy it. Take their money and give them nothing in return.

Thing is Lo, Pie gate has gave them huge exposure .
No doubt they'll of signed up 1000's of new customers from it .

[Darlo_Pete]

What an idiot Sutton's back up keeper was, looks like it wasn't the first pie he had yesterday.

[Spyman]

What an idiot Sutton's back up keeper was, looks like it wasn't the first pie he had yesterday.

An idiot who looks like he's been exploited a little by SunBet.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Darlo_Pete]

What an idiot Sutton's back up keeper was, looks like it wasn't the first pie he had yesterday.

An idiot who looks like he's been exploited a little by SunBet.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

See he's resigned, at the age of 46 I don't think he had much of a future in footie.

[AndyPark]

What an idiot Sutton's back up keeper was, looks like it wasn't the first pie he had yesterday.

An idiot who looks like he's been exploited a little by SunBet.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

See he's resigned, at the age of 46 I don't think he had much of a future in footie.

[theoriginalfatcat]

It's a strange thing this "Piegate"

Allowing people to place bets on a happening that is under the control of one person is just asking for trouble. It has nothing to do with the game (whether or not there is a red card/penalty etc) and has virtually nothing to do with chance.

Wayne's carrying the can here, his pie eating antics may have been daft but the real villains in this story are the people who set up the bet, and the rules/laws that allowed them to do so.