Amongst the moral cesspit that are modern crypto/gambling companies, Stake is one of the most morally bereft.I don't get it. What's the hate against Stake?
Amongst the moral cesspit that are modern crypto/gambling companies, Stake is one of the most morally bereft.I don't get it. What's the hate against Stake?
Logo looks crap an' all.Amongst the moral cesspit that are modern crypto/gambling companies, Stake is one of the most morally bereft.
I don't get it. What's the hate against Stake?
So good, it came up twice…
The problem with Stake is, theyve got a bad reputation, so none of the 'Big 6' would entertain them, so we in essence were their primary football sponsor, and the annual fee demonstrated that.
Bit concerned for next year, as with no Gambling deals, outside of the "Big 6", the majority of teams were sponsored by Gambling firms.
Last season, only Brighton and Ipswich had sponsorships which weren't and at £10m, ours represented the 10th highest.
With those off the table, and less competitiveness, what are we realistically expecting for 26/27? Hopefully TFG can use their resources and Roma connections to keep that figure high enough.
Wouldn’t even need to change the current shirts. Just throw ‘bake’ underneath.Greggs?
Kick, our sleeve sponsor, are also owned by Stake.I honestly think if Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City, etc wanted to be sponsored by booze, cigarettes and gambling, it would all be fine, the social impact would be minimised in the media. When we were sponsored by Chang I had some RS tell me that is was morally wrong for us to be sponsored by them. Forgetting that his own beloved team had Carlsberg on their kits for 18 years!
The ban on gambling advertising on Premier league shirts is only about trying to restrict the earnings of the 14 and nothing to do with what is right form a moral perspective. Also how the likes of Sky and Talksport can comment on the morals of advertising and then cut to and advert for Skybet is just hilarious to me.
Thankfully City have already fought the case for 3rd party transactions, which covers club owners sponsoring their own teams, so we should be OK. If TFG cant get a better or comparable sponsor to Stake, they can choose to sponsor us through one of their businesses
Not lived in Liverpool for about 20 years now. Is "708 7080, if you need a cab, just let us know, phone Davy Liver caaaaaabs" still a thing ?would love a shirt without a sponsor but just don’t see it being financially viable
can’t wait for us to get Delta Taxis on the front
Not everything is a conspiracy to keep us down.I honestly think if Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City, etc wanted to be sponsored by booze, cigarettes and gambling, it would all be fine, the social impact would be minimised in the media. When we were sponsored by Chang I had some RS tell me that is was morally wrong for us to be sponsored by them. Forgetting that his own beloved team had Carlsberg on their kits for 18 years!
The ban on gambling advertising on Premier league shirts is only about trying to restrict the earnings of the 14 and nothing to do with what is right form a moral perspective. Also how the likes of Sky and Talksport can comment on the morals of advertising and then cut to and advert for Skybet is just hilarious to me.
Thankfully City have already fought the case for 3rd party transactions, which covers club owners sponsoring their own teams, so we should be OK. If TFG cant get a better or comparable sponsor to Stake, they can choose to sponsor us through one of their businesses
I think so mate haNot lived in Liverpool for about 20 years now. Is "708 7080, if you need a cab, just let us know, phone Davy Liver caaaaaabs" still a thing ?