Sponsorship

[Munzie]

Well can someone e mail the club and tell them they've been falsely advertising the kit on the official site? As Ultra's post pointed out.

They can't say that then stick Pukka Pies on the shirt.

But it's not false advertising. There were always going to be changes made to the shirt during the 2nd year of Joma's contract given the 125th anniversary logo. Yes, it's a two year change cycle, but that's just the manufacturer and shirt design.

To miss out on a potential seven figure sum for a shirt sponsor two years running is financial suicide.

If (and it's an unlikey if) we were achieve back to back promotions, things like the Championsip badges will need to be changed. Fundementally, the shirt design stays the same.

The consumer has ultimate choice. Either buy a new one or don't. Many fans turn up week in week out with old shirts. It's down to personal preference.

[Matt]

But it's not false advertising. There were always going to be changes made to the shirt during the 2nd year of Joma's contract given the 125th anniversary logo. Yes, it's a two year change cycle, but that's just the manufacturer and shirt design.

To miss out on a potential seven figure sum for a shirt sponsor two years running is financial suicide.

If (and it's an unlikey if) we were achieve back to back promotions, things like the Championsip badges will need to be changed. Fundementally, the shirt design stays the same.

The consumer has ultimate choice. Either buy a new one or don't. Many fans turn up week in week out with old shirts. It's down to personal preference.

TBF it is;

The shirt will then feature the regular club badge for the following season and will be sponsor-less for both seasons,

That is what they have said, It's not going to happen though is it?

And also as for things like the Championship badge changing that isn't already on the shirt anyway, that is optional just like having a name printed on the shirt.

Not that i'm overly bothered, I have already said i'll probably buy another one in the 2nd year anyway, as I feel after a year the shirts go abit 'tatty' with the odd pull thread hear and there due to how much wear they get from me, which again is why I prefer a new shirt every season not every 2 years.

[Cobbo]

But it's not false advertising. There were always going to be changes made to the shirt during the 2nd year of Joma's contract given the 125th anniversary logo. Yes, it's a two year change cycle, but that's just the manufacturer and shirt design.

To miss out on a potential seven figure sum for a shirt sponsor two years running is financial suicide.

If (and it's an unlikey if) we were achieve back to back promotions, things like the Championsip badges will need to be changed. Fundementally, the shirt design stays the same.

The consumer has ultimate choice. Either buy a new one or don't. Many fans turn up week in week out with old shirts. It's down to personal preference.

It is, as Matt has pointed out.

[Munzie]

That is what they have said, It's not going to happen though is it?

That's a bold statement to make from the club (if that's where it came from - not seen it myself).

If that's the case, a quick u-turn has been made according to your recent response from the club.

As you say, regardless of sponsor or not, many fans will purchase every year for various reasons including the slight badge change required.

If it were my decision, I would be more than happy to run with an anniversary shirt without a sponsor, if that is what the fan base wanted, but would state clearly that a return to generating increased revenue the following is imperative.

[Fez of Mahrez]

Bit of an error on the club's part but hardly worth bothering with in the grand scheme of things is it? It's only a shirt. We've got a walking tile man on the current shirt but it didn't stop us winning the league.

[Matt]

That's a bold statement to make from the club (if that's where it came from - not seen it myself).

If that's the case, a quick u-turn has been made according to your recent response from the club.

As you say, regardless of sponsor or not, many fans will purchase every year for various reasons including the slight badge change required.

If it were my decision, I would be more than happy to run with an anniversary shirt without a sponsor, if that is what the fan base wanted, but would state clearly that a return to generating increased revenue the following is imperative.

http://www.lcfc.com/page/LatestNews/0,,10274~1633243,00.html

[Munzie]

http://www.lcfc.com/page/LatestNews/0,,10274~1633243,00.html

[Ultra]

If you think about it, it makes sense. Celebrate the anniversary with some input from the fans (and a charity) and get back to business (financially) the following. If we are to believe that there are green shoots to our economic recovery, the loss of not carrying a sponsor next season won't be as heavy.

The shirt has to be changed for 2010/11 so an addition of a paying sponsor is irrelevant, just financial sense.

The current marketing clearly states that the new shirt is for TWO seasons.

I can't see a sponsor forking out for a year-old design.

[Munzie]

The current marketing clearly states that the new shirt is for TWO seasons.

I can't see a sponsor forking out for a year-old design.

What does the design have to do with the sponsor? Marketing is all about exposure of your brand/product/service, not how old a shirt is.

[BrockwellFox]

Personally I don't have a problem with there being a sponsor next year as it's what I expected to happen anyway, and I'll just stick with the 09/10 for the 10/11 season seeing as it's the same design and I can't see it looking better with the sponsor than without.

What will really annoy me though is if the sponsor cycle gets out of sync with the kit cycle again, probably leading to another "one year only" kit to get it back into sync

[Mickey O'Neil]

Personally I don't have a problem with there being a sponsor next year as it's what I expected to happen anyway, and I'll just stick with the 09/10 for the 10/11 season seeing as it's the same design and I can't see it looking better with the sponsor than without.

What will really annoy me though is if the sponsor cycle gets out of sync with the kit cycle again, probably leading to another "one year only" kit to get it back into sync

+1

It's a win-win situation for the moaning feckers fans.

• We get a sponsorless shirt this year.
  
• When we get the perceived "fcuking sh!t tinpot sponsor" in 10/11, we can all keep our sponsorless shirts and be happy!
  
• If a company that is 'acceptable' like Walkers or A+L comes onboard, then we all can buy the 'new' shirt.
  

[Anish]

Personally I don't have a problem with there being a sponsor next year as it's what I expected to happen anyway, and I'll just stick with the 09/10 for the 10/11 season seeing as it's the same design and I can't see it looking better with the sponsor than without.

What will really annoy me though is if the sponsor cycle gets out of sync with the kit cycle again, probably leading to another "one year only" kit to get it back into sync

It's a ploy by the club most of the time to make it go out of sync so they can keep releasing 1 year kits. The club know that if they use the same shirt design for 2 years but have 2 different sponsors, then there are people who will buy both shirts. I'd prefer it if they came out clean (like Man U/Barcelona etc) and just said, "we're having 1 year kit cycles from now on".

How many times have we had 1 year kits in the last 10 years? It's quite a few I reckon. I remember the LG shirt back in the days of Dennis Wise was 1 year, then we've had a one year shirt with Alliance and Leicester, this year's 1 year shirt and next season's 1 year shirt.