Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
NFT sponsorship
Comments
-
This sponsorship is simply wrong.
It's wrong for the integrity and reputation of our Club. It's a very bad move.2 -
Yeah sorry I meant the chap from the robot place.PragueAddick said:@Huskaris who is Billy? Do you mean Russian “Tim”?It’s not exactly a game- changer but I am struggling to think of a Russian male’s name that abbreviates to Tim. He’s as dodgy as they come, is our Tim.1 -
Pork bellies and frozen orange juice remains my portfolio and has been that way since the mid 80s
13 -
A dollar. One dollar.cabbles said:Pork bellies and frozen orange juice remains my portfolio and has been that way since the mid 80s4 -
I suspect that if we were still able to be sponsored by ‘FADS’ some would have an issue with the hair used in ithe paint brushes or the risk of glue sniffing by our younger fans 😂2
-
Right onvalleynick66 said:I suspect that if we were still able to be sponsored by ‘FADS’ some would have an issue with the hair used in ithe paint brushes or the risk of glue sniffing by our younger fans 😂
Wallpaper is cultural appropriation.
All that lead in the paint too.
1 -
i'm not even sure many people would have even noticed it to be honest. I very rarely look at the players bottoms/shorts when I watch a game, let alone decide i'm going to use that as an endorsement to put my money into.lardiman said:This sponsorship is simply wrong.
It's wrong for the integrity and reputation of our Club. It's a very bad move.
If i was involved in this "company" i'd be questioning why advertise on the back of a league one club's shorts1 -
" so I was staring at George Dobson's arse the other day... and I saw a phrase that I just NEED to google"4
- Sponsored links:
-
It's all over the new electronic advertising.Manic_mania said:
i'm not even sure many people would have even noticed it to be honest. I very rarely look at the players bottoms/shorts when I watch a game, let alone decide i'm going to use that as an endorsement to put my money into.lardiman said:This sponsorship is simply wrong.
It's wrong for the integrity and reputation of our Club. It's a very bad move.
If i was involved in this "company" i'd be questioning why advertise on the back of a league one club's shorts2 -
Are you saying you didn’t hire any air conditioning units from Andrew’s Sykes in the past or Invest in Llanera Spanish property ?!!😂Manic_mania said:
i'm not even sure many people would have even noticed it to be honest. I very rarely look at the players bottoms/shorts when I watch a game, let alone decide i'm going to use that as an endorsement to put my money into.lardiman said:This sponsorship is simply wrong.
It's wrong for the integrity and reputation of our Club. It's a very bad move.
If i was involved in this "company" i'd be questioning why advertise on the back of a league one club's shorts2 -
Literally losing a whales worth of veneareal each time the advert plays…Talal said:
It's all over the new electronic advertising.Manic_mania said:
i'm not even sure many people would have even noticed it to be honest. I very rarely look at the players bottoms/shorts when I watch a game, let alone decide i'm going to use that as an endorsement to put my money into.lardiman said:This sponsorship is simply wrong.
It's wrong for the integrity and reputation of our Club. It's a very bad move.
If i was involved in this "company" i'd be questioning why advertise on the back of a league one club's shorts1 -
It wasn't on Yann's arse so i must have missed itvalleynick66 said:
Are you saying you didn’t hire any air conditioning units from Andrew’s Sykes in the past or Invest in Llanera Spanish property ?!!😂Manic_mania said:
i'm not even sure many people would have even noticed it to be honest. I very rarely look at the players bottoms/shorts when I watch a game, let alone decide i'm going to use that as an endorsement to put my money into.lardiman said:This sponsorship is simply wrong.
It's wrong for the integrity and reputation of our Club. It's a very bad move.
If i was involved in this "company" i'd be questioning why advertise on the back of a league one club's shorts2 -
Charlton’s new sock sponsors spokesman to be at the Valley this week
4 -
Maybe it's a cunning ruse to draw the attention of the opposition to the shorts' area & away from the ball ....
( NOT the balls !)
I always said that there's more to TS than just dollars. :-)0 -
Fanny Fanackapan said:Maybe it's a cunning ruse to draw the attention of the opposition to the shorts' area & away from the ball ....
( NOT the balls !)
I always said that there's more to TS than just dollars. :-)
absolute filth i'm shocked and appalled
2 -
Putim?PragueAddick said:@Huskaris who is Billy? Do you mean Russian “Tim”?It’s not exactly a game- changer but I am struggling to think of a Russian male’s name that abbreviates to Tim. He’s as dodgy as they come, is our Tim.5 -
Which is why I’ve no interest in digital art as a display piece.shine166 said:
On a screen, just like digital Art has been for years.AddicksAddict said:
How do you display an NFT?kentaddick said:
What exactly is the difference between owning some art and owning an artist’s NFT? Art is a respectable, but can be risky investment. Nft art is similar.SELR_addicks said:If you want to support an artist by buying a JPG and computer code be my guest.
The idea that they hold value and are an 'investment' is a con.
the technology and ideas behind NFT’s are very much the future. We will buy tickets as NFT’s, the deeds to our homes will be NFT’s.0 - Sponsored links:
-
A couple of articles about NFT, Blockchain and digital art that people may find interesting
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/apr/03/non-fungible-tokens-digital-art-artists
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/apr/26/bored-ape-yacht-club-nft-hack-theft-art-simian-oblivion
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/jan/04/bored-ape-nft-art-eminem0 -
So did Gary Lineker.NorthheathAddick said:I’m really not down with all this NFT stuff,all I know is they have ruined a good set of shorts…🤨2 -
Kentaddick, what is your view now?kentaddick said:
Why did I expect anything other than sea lioning and dog piling from this hellsite?Leroy Ambrose said:
Well, I'm not sure I had 'tears for a cryptobro' on the cards for today - but 2022 has been a wild ride for surekentaddick said:
It’s unacceptable. Web3 and NFT companies rely heavily on their community. Congratulations to all those scaring away commercial business from the club. It’s to the point I wouldn’t be surprised at some point some one contacts the club to complain about what’s going on here.stop_shouting said:
Fair enough. As I said, I don’t know enough about NFT’s but I can’t see how we’re in a position to turn down sponsorship based upon peoples moral compass. And I found the pile on of the NFT fella this morning pretty poor.Henry Irving said:
They can turn down any deal.stop_shouting said:
Are you suggesting that the club should pull the deal then? The stark reality is that money talks and whether we’re sponsored by a betting company, crypto exchange or NFT peeps, the club simply cannot turn this down. They do have value as digital Pokémon cards if people are prepared to buy them.Leroy Ambrose said:There are NO useful applications for NFTs yet. They are ALL, without fail, a way for cryptobros to cash out. You might make some money in the short term, but as soon as they've managed to get what they can out, you'll lose everything - if you're holding the non-existent cards when that happens, you're fucked. It's no better than penny stock pump & dumps (worse, because regulators haven't caught up it yet - unlike with boiler rooms)
NFTs have some promise in future potential legitimate applications (gig tickets, for instance, as there's a practical application there) - but not as digital pokemon cards - and anyone who can't see the con is being obtuse, in on the scam, or delusional.
They have done so with betting firms in the recent past.
Whether they should is a different debate.
I respect Leroy's expertise and take on this.We’ve gone from “NFT’s are terrible for the environment” (debunked) “NFT’s are just jpegs” (debunked) “all NFT’s are run by scammers” (debunked) in the space of like 7 pages, so forgive me for being hesitant to say a club sponsor are scammers.0 -
I honestly don't get why everyone is losing their shit over this, wanting meetings with the club and saying we should get rid of this sponsor.
Say for example i buy a signed Miles Leaburn shirt online for 100 quid. If he goes on to have a great career there's a chance in a few years the shirt might be worth a bit more. If he ends up playing in non league in a few years then i've probably lost 100 quid.
Now say i buy an NFT of his header on Saturday for 100 quid. In a few years it might be worth something, but equally there's a strong chance it won't be.
So what's the difference and why is everyone up in arms about being scammed? Any investment is a risk, you might make money, you might lose money. So what's the issue and what am i missing?3 -
Everyone isn't "losing their shit"
Not everyone is demanding a meeting. Only one organisation is.
Some fans think it is all fine, others have serious doubts.
Some doubt the whole current NFT model, some just doubt this particular sponsor, some doubt both.
The key difference in the example you give, for me at least, is you have bought a shirt that you can wear, frame or otherwise enjoy it for 10 years.
No one is telling you it's an investment when you buy it. You're buying a shirt. A tangible object.
You can then sell the shirt if you wish or you can donate it to the museum.
If you buy an NFT of a shirt you don't have a tangible object to enjoy other than as a digital image.
It may or may not increase in value but you're not comparing similar commodities.
One has a function, the other is only and is described by its creators only as, an investment.
And that investment is in an unregulated, fraud riddled market and from a "firm" with hidden ownership which is six months old and whose owner appears on a video in dark glasses, a mask and a hoodie.
17 -
THISHenry Irving said:Everyone isn't "losing their shit"
Not everyone is demanding a meeting. Only one organisation is.
Some fans think it is all fine, others have serious doubts.
Some doubt the whole current NFT model, some just doubt this particular sponsor, some doubt both.
The key difference in the example you give, for me at least, is you have bought a shirt that you can wear, frame or otherwise enjoy it for 10 years.
No one is telling you it's an investment when you buy it. You're buying a shirt. A tangible object.
You can then sell the shirt if you wish or you can donate it to the museum.
If you buy an NFT of a shirt you don't have a tangible object to enjoy other than as a digital image.
It may or may not increase in value but you're not comparing similar commodities.
One has a function, the other is only and is described by its creators only as, an investment.
And that investment is in an unregulated, fraud riddled market and from a "firm" with hidden ownership which is six months old and whose owner appears on a video in dark glasses, a mask and a hoodie.4 -
I think the difference is that at the very least you have a shirt at the end of it.Chris_from_Sidcup said:I honestly don't get why everyone is losing their shit over this, wanting meetings with the club and saying we should get rid of this sponsor.
Say for example i buy a signed Miles Leaburn shirt online for 100 quid. If he goes on to have a great career there's a chance in a few years the shirt might be worth a bit more. If he ends up playing in non league in a few years then i've probably lost 100 quid.
Now say i buy an NFT of his header on Saturday for 100 quid. In a few years it might be worth something, but equally there's a strong chance it won't be.
So what's the difference and why is everyone up in arms about being scammed? Any investment is a risk, you might make money, you might lose money. So what's the issue and what am i missing?
That's like the difference between buying a house, and buying a picture of a house. You only win with the NFT if the picture goes up in value, but at least you get utility out of the house if it doesn't.
Owning a picture of some utter shite isn't that great. There's much better pictures to look at on the internet. Trust me.1 -
You gotta hand it to Henry, never not grafting for the museums collection 🤣Henry Irving said:Everyone isn't "losing their shit"
Not everyone is demanding a meeting. Only one organisation is.
Some fans think it is all fine, others have serious doubts.
Some doubt the whole current NFT model, some just doubt this particular sponsor, some doubt both.
The key difference in the example you give, for me at least, is you have bought a shirt that you can wear, frame or otherwise enjoy it for 10 years.
No one is telling you it's an investment when you buy it. You're buying a shirt. A tangible object.
You can then sell the shirt if you wish or you can donate it to the museum.
If you buy an NFT of a shirt you don't have a tangible object to enjoy other than as a digital image.
It may or may not increase in value but you're not comparing similar commodities.
One has a function, the other is only and is described by its creators only as, an investment.
And that investment is in an unregulated, fraud riddled market and from a "firm" with hidden ownership which is six months old and whose owner appears on a video in dark glasses, a mask and a hoodie.7 -
1 -
Don’t know if it’s been picked up on but the FCA today issued a reminder to consumers about investing in crypto assets and if you follow a link in that to the advertising standards authority and click on NFTs there is a case with Arsenal and the outcome of that2
