or to join or start a new Discussion

Articles/all comments
These 22 comments are related to an article called:

New sponser

Page 1 of 1

posted on 3/8/11

Good news... TG it wasnt Durex, weve been phucked enough already...

posted on 3/8/11

And the club is still offering shirts with or without the sponsor. Great news all round. The match by match sponsor idea could have been a huge success or a huge failure. I suppose guaranteed money is for the best.

comment by JK1875 (U5154)

posted on 3/8/11

They transfer money internationally. The irony.

So the match by match thing turns out to be more bull...quelle surprise.

KRO

posted on 3/8/11

JK

You beat me to it

But good news, hope CH gets a sniff of the money.

Over to our good friend Mr Banjo, who will now tell us that we only have to accept 1.5m for Scotty Dann to make ends meet (only jesting banjo)

KRO

posted on 3/8/11

BZ... many a true word is spoken in jest...

posted on 3/8/11

"So the match by match thing turns out to be more bull...quelle surprise."

If you'd read the article you'd have seen that they originally started negotiting with Blues for match by match sponsorship opportunities.
Stop trying to use everything to have a dig at the board.

posted on 3/8/11

How much money is this deal worth to Blues?

Are there any addons???

comment by JK1875 (U5154)

posted on 3/8/11

So what then Hoggy? During the negotiations the fat idiot Pann-who? decided to abandon the much more lucrative week by week plan? MUG.

They lied, you swallowed it; most didn't.

I will post what I choose. Don't like it? Don't read it. T:t.

KRO

posted on 3/8/11

"So what then Hoggy? During the negotiations the fat idiot Pann-who? decided to abandon the much more lucrative week by week plan?"

How do you know that the week by week plan was much more lucrative?
Seems to me that the Blues couldn't find a sponsor willing to offer what they wanted for the whole season and so hatched the week-by-week plan, but now they have so they've gone with them.
Don't see much wrong their myself.

posted on 3/8/11

Comment deleted by Article Creator

posted on 3/8/11

Has someone lifted a stone in the last 10 minutes, the wuss is back

posted on 4/8/11

Is it raining in Dinglehampton,doesn't that usually bring out the cockroaches?

posted on 4/8/11

Is this deal for real,it seems a bit too tongue in cheek for me with all of Carson Yeung's woes,that we are to be sponsored by international Foreign Exchange dealers!
It's almost like they're sticking two fingers up at the Hong Kong authorities and saying "This is who's been shifting our dirty laundry around for us,see if you can find it now"!

comment by bcfc83 (U7811)

posted on 4/8/11

I sent an email to the club lats night, asking for answers on this one.

The words out of the club were "A new innovative idea is being used this seaosn of a match-by-match sponsor that will enhance the clubs reputation with local and national businsses"

A week later we sign a 12 month contract with a new sponsor.

It's just more lie's from the club and I am getting feed up with having crap upon crap thrown at us.

If fans are happy to take Pannu's work, then fair play to you but I for one can't take any more of his rubbish, I have taken enough and I think as time goes by more and more will start to realise that this board is no good for the club.

comment by JK1875 (U5154)

posted on 4/8/11

BINGO! Not for the first time bcfc83 nails the problem for those too dense to see it.

I am glad that the shirt sponsorship will bring cash into the club (unfortunately it will go straight back out again too) but a matter of days ago we were told that the decision to offer sponsorship on a match by match basis was a commercial decision to maximise revenues. Yet now a u-turn.

Lies & spin have become de rigueur at St Andrews under Pannu, it is demonstrably disrespectful and not the way a football club should be run. We are not here to be fooled and deceived, ffs!

KRO

posted on 4/8/11

"I am glad that the shirt sponsorship will bring cash into the club (unfortunately it will go straight back out again too) but a matter of days ago we were told that the decision to offer sponsorship on a match by match basis was a commercial decision to maximise revenues."

I haven't seen any statement from the club saying that match by match sponsorship was conceived in order to maximise revenue, or even that it would raise more revenue than season long sponsorship. Maybe I missed it.
All I've seen is explanations that they adopted the match by match sponsorship plan because they couldn't, at the time, find a sponsor willing to pay what Blues wanted for the whole season.
It seems that they now have.

posted on 4/8/11

OOPS
I'll hold my hands up.
Just re-read the statements coming from the club and you were right JK.

comment by bcfc83 (U7811)

posted on 4/8/11

Its just about time that we got some answers from the club.

I read a lot of comments on here about staying positive and yes a agree at the games saty positive, the players we have now don't dersevre any stick its not their fault, and Huaghton was a good appiontment and agin deserves the full backing off the crowd.

BUT away from matches we need to be seeking answers from or owners, nstead of them feeding us lie's after lie's come out and tell us the truth. We are big boys now, wecan handle it.

The £6M investment, again comes from the virgin Islands were 95% of Yeungs companies are based?

Who are the new investors? Are they intersted in BCFC or just the holding company?

With this board new questions seem to come everyday, and we get no straight answers from the board just more spin!

posted on 4/8/11

All the board seemingly did was broadcast the fact that they were open to the possibility of trying something different with regard to sponsors ie match-by-match.
This was probably to make clear to the new sponsors who were negotiating at the time, that they were going to have to 'up their offer'.
If that is the case i see no harm in it.
It is another box ticked with regard to getting things back on track so let's look on the positive side of it, ok?
KRO

posted on 4/8/11

I don't read the club statements anymore. Pannu is just a spin doctor. A bad one at that.

If match by match sponsers maximises revenue, why doesn't every team do it? Because it doesn't maximise revenue.

The proof? The U-Turn to get a permanent sponsor. Pannu must think we're stupid. I don't mean that lightly, the man must literally think we are too stupid to realise most of what he says is utter shi...

posted on 4/8/11

To be fair Brummer, when they said that the match-by-match plan would allow them to maximise revenue they probably meant that it would allow them to bring in more revenue than they were being offered for season long sponsorship at that time.
Obviously they've now been offered more for the season long sponsorship.

posted on 8/8/11

Foreign exchange and money transfer specialists

Wonder what kinds of service, maybe not the money washy service that Yeung may

use

Good to see us get a Sponsor mind

The KiD

Page 1 of 1

Sign in if you want to comment