BETDAQ New Principal Partner (Shirt Sponsor) - Confirmed

palarsehater said:

just checked on sunderland website @Sir Chrissy and you can only purchase a plain sunderland shirt for kids so no sponsor at all on it, would imagine this is the rule with betting companies as there sponsered by dafabet.

Same with Blackburn

I thought we sold ourselves as a family club now we a pushing on line gambling! Surely the two don't go together! :-(

ShootersHillGuru said:

Well all I can say is well done CARD and the protests. Seems the fan protests might have put off some other more natural Charlton partners and perhaps BETDAQ and their ilk was the easiest (only) best option.

I think it's pretty much the only options they have left. The club doesn't currently employ a Commercial Manager to build these commercial partnerships (they keep resigning for some reason), they've seen a large withdrawal from traditional fan-influenced companies who want nothing to do with this regime or provide support and backing to it (other than Swisdom and ITRM it seems), and the wider knowledge throughout the game that this is a toxic club would naturally put off most national companies.

So they are left with commissioning an agency to find a partner for a nice fee / percentage, which more than likely will be a gambling or money lending company as those companies are keen to buy up the exposure, not really worried about fan opinion (and potentially gain access to a large amount of potential customers, whether that is through the sharing of contact details / mailing list, or driven by offers on club output to its mailing list)

Be careful when returning anything to club this year / making online entries that there's no small print box about sharing with official partners

what's there twitter handle ...

Ha, ha here we go again, it wouldn't matter if the Pope was sponsoring our shirts, you'd still find something to moan about or spin it to your advantage!

SHG, I'm surprised at you, you are one of the more sensible posters on here, but we only have BETDAQ as a sponsor because of CARD and the protests, that's laughable!

I very rarely gamble, but this company are sponsoring us for three years which in L1 is probably better than most. Thanks BETDAQ for the money and yes, lets hope it does help us get back to the Championship!

sam3110 said:

kentaddick said:

kinveachyaddick said:

Betdaq are a pretty high-profile company to be sponsoring a League One club so this is reasonably impressive from the commercial team

Or most clubs (quite rightly) wouldn't touch a betting company with a barge pole.

Yet another own goal by the regime.

You say most clubs but half the Premier League has a betting company/online casino as a sponsor now.

Bournemouth, Palarse have Mansion
Burnley and Sunderland have Dafabet
Leicester have King Power
Stoke have bet365
Swansea have BetEast
Watford have 138.com
West Brom have uk-k8.com
West Ham have Betway

It's where the money is, clearly.

had and deleted accounts with all of them, only got netbet left now if I want to play

Essex_Al said:

Ha, ha here we go again, it wouldn't matter if the Pope was sponsoring our shirts, you'd still find something to moan about or spin it to your advantage!

SHG, I'm surprised at you, you are one of the more sensible posters on here, but we only have BETDAQ as a sponsor because of CARD and the protests, that's laughable!

I very rarely gamble, but this company are sponsoring us for three years which in L1 is probably better than most. Thanks BETDAQ for the money and yes, lets hope it does help us get back to the Championship!

You obviously don't support the protests.

palarsehater said:

doesn't bother me in the slightest who we have, would rather have a betting company than flamingo land.

Rather have flamingoland and be in the Prem than anything and be in Div 3

Curbishley now 12/1, apparently.

letthegoodtimesroll said:

even more reason not to buy an official shirt in my opinion. Personally, I have always despised those clubs that have gambling site names on their shirts because they are effectively promoting gambling to kids and getting kids who wear the shirts to promote gambling for the betting companies. Fortunately in our case we have the perfect scapegoats to focus the blame on and be able to still love the team and club. I guess every cloud has a silver lining as they say.

Of course nobody is holding a gun to people's head to have a bet.

I should imagine we are pretty limited as to getting a company to want there name across the front of our shirt.

Are we now moaning about shirt sponsors lol

ricky_otto said:

letthegoodtimesroll said:

even more reason not to buy an official shirt in my opinion. Personally, I have always despised those clubs that have gambling site names on their shirts because they are effectively promoting gambling to kids and getting kids who wear the shirts to promote gambling for the betting companies. Fortunately in our case we have the perfect scapegoats to focus the blame on and be able to still love the team and club. I guess every cloud has a silver lining as they say.

Of course nobody is holding a gun to people's head to have a bet.

I should imagine we are pretty limited as to getting a company to want there name across the front of our shirt.

I like the occasional bet. I still do the pools, albeit only because I've got a standing direct debt and can't be arsed to cancel it, so it would be hypocritical of me to object if it's not for the fact that the club and those shirts are promoting gambling to kids and are selling shirts to kids to wear that promote gambling. If they want use the shirt to promote gambling then they should also add a disclaimer and a warning on the shirt in the same sized type face.

AFKABartram said:

Always remember Richard Murray at a Bromley Q&A when chairman saying he wouldn't embrace gambling sponsorship as football clubs have a social responsibility....

Hey ho, Richard

Yes, and that was always the way despite the money available being very decent.

Those firms didn't align with Charlton's values. What are Charlton's values these days?