Campaign to Boycott the new Tennant's Sponsored Kit

I dont agree with havin the same sponsorship as they ugly knuckle dragging smelly *. I am also against being called the old firm.

However, if Celtic dont sell these kits then Nike wont be interested in offering us a new deal meaning we'd lose money off them regardless of how much is guarenteed from Tennents.

A better protest would be just to get everyone to but the kit without the sponsor

 

haha class!

i chuckled at that

 

Don't care who sponsers us its not the sponser that puts points on the table

 

I really need to know how the new kit is going to look. Is anyone any good with Photoshop that can come up with some ideas?

 

It's up to the individual, sponsor top or no sponsor on the top, we all have this choice, it's our money that's buying it. However it would interesting if Celtic or Rangers refused to sell jersey's without the sponsors name, or decided to charge more for a plain jersey without Tennants name, it might get interesting then.

Sponsors obviously want their name plastered everywhere possible, yes they get their name on the telly, but would they react different if every Celtic supporter refuses to act as a free billboard for them.

 

For those of you who have expressed concerns regarding how Celtic would lose out, I have previously noted that you can buy genune Celtic shirts from official Celtic stores WITHOUT the sponsor.

This means that neither Nike nor Celtic will lose anything in terms of revenue from these sales, and as the deal has been done, Tennants money has been secured, so no loss that way either.

The only party effected by this is Tennants, who will not have Tims walking around as billboards for thie product and hopefully, if enough Tims buys shirts without the sponsor, it demonstrates that we are not in favour of joint sponsorship, that we are Celtic fans, not O** F*** fans.

 

at the end of the day it;s all about getting money into the club and from what iv'e read it's a win win for the club we get sponsor money from tennants people who don't want anything to do with the sponsor buy shirt with no logo, which costs more than normal strip hence more money in the coffers through official outlets before someone points that out

 

until the continental and american beers and Guiness made inroads in the 90s, practically the only draught beers drunk in Scotland were the Scottish ones - Tennants, McEwens and Youngers and a couple of other smaller ones.

As for the OF issue. We will always be paired with them because we are seen as two sides of the same coin - clubs built partly on appealing to religious or political identities rather than just representing local communities. To most non-OF fans that is seen as tainting both of us by playing the orange or green cards and therefore upsetting the balance of the game in Scotland. I actually think the people who will dictate whether the term OF is used will be the non OF fans. They are the ones who see us as the odd men out and two sides of the same coin. I know because most of my mates do not support the OF. I think as long as we and Rangers display a shared (if opposite) obsession with northern Ireland and the troubles there then we will be seen as two sides of the same blight by your average non-OF Scot.

 

Its not just non-OF fans that use it, but often by the 'meeja'. These same bastions of honesty and integrity which help to shape public opinion and perception, indeed to the non-OF fans you refer to, not to mention casual observers.

For example, when Scotland's Shame has gone on the rampage in some foreign city, I've seen it used, quite cunningly, to deflect attention, and by using the term O** F*** it insinuates that it may have been the Bluenoses this time, but it could easily have been the other way, because as you yourself used, we are perceived as 2 sides of the same coin.

And isn't this a perception you would like to see changed?

 

Think it is the media more than the non-OF fans and locals in those towns. They can see with their own eyes which set of away fans cause the most grief in their towns. I actually think it is a bit of a myth among tims that non-OF fans dislike us more than Rangers. That is not my experience and apparently even the cops are well aware who causes the most trouble.

 

Firstly, I don't beleive that the Celtic Board are particularly happy holding hands with Rangers any more than we are - look at the differences between our statement on the Tennants deal, and theirs.

But, I feel these kind of deals are detrimental to our club and the board is wrong to put up with it.

Rangers have a horrible reputation no matter where you go. And they will only continue to make it worse. This deal equates to about £1.5m a year - do we really need that relativley small amount every year? Is it worth creating a false image of association with Rangers and justifying the O** F*** tag? I don't beleive it is.

And surely we could have found a more attractive proposition than * Tennants Lager? Surely a club as undoubably big as Celtic can find someone better than some miniscule brewers of pishy beer? If not, surely we could follow the Barcelona model and adopt a charity? Celtic would probably make back the £1.5m a year through the increase in sales.

And, is it ethically correct for Celtic - the biggest club in Scotland - to be promoting bevvy? In fact, is it right for Scottish football to be working with and promoting brands like Tennents when our country is still soaked in the devil drink (a problem to which cheap brands like Tennants are a major contributor)?

No, it certainly is not. It contradicts the ethos of the club - the betterment of the poor, sick and needy - to be promoting alcohol when it is a curse upon our country and its people. Might as well put Buckie on there. With the Carling deal expiring we should be moving away from that kind of thing and looking to more socially responsible organisations.

On top of all that, the big * T on the front of the Hoops will look horrible.

The Hoops are a sacred thing, time to stop whoring it out to those who shamelessly exploit people for profit.

So, as I said before, I won't be buying a sponsored top next year.

 

If we get a better deal when with Huns who cares and as for buying shirt without logo then it's up to individual but I don't think it's a real replica if you don't have sponsor.

 

then buy a top without the sponsor on it! problem solved.

 

That doesn't detract from the fact it's an act of moral bankrupcy.

How can we promote "health, well-being and social integration" AND alcohol? Of all things, the drink has done the most to destroy health, well-being and social integration in Scotland.

Christ, we can't even be trusted to drink the stuff when watching the Hoops anymore. What kind of peverted double standard is this?

Scottish football - especially Celtic, who can avoid a financial hit - should sever links with the likes of Carling and Tennants. They are not approptiate to wear on the Hoops.

 

I don't think that the sponsor has much to do with our relationship to Rangers. We're tied to them thanks to the nature of the Scottish game - a two pony race. That and add in the fact that the two teams can be seen as microcosms of the troubles in Ireland, and you'll understand that what you hope to happen will never happen. We'll always be tied to them, and them likewise to us.

Plus, Tennants are putting 4.5 mil on the table over 3 years - that's good money in these times. And it's not a bad drink!

 

foe me tennant's has always been a poor man's drink so i wont be getting the new top

 

It doesn't have to be that way though. We are our own entity, not 1/2 of a whole. Since when did we become O** F*** fans? We are Celtic and our concern should be the well being of Celtic, not of the 'O** F***'. As has been discussed previously in this thread, if we really have aspirations to further our club, why revert to maintaining a financial alliance with an institution steeped in bigotry?

And then there is the question of the product itself. Again, if Celtic have aspirations beyond the here and now, why partner ourselves with a brand that has extremely limited appeal beyond the borders of Scotland. Let alone the well argued objection P.R.D. has so eloquently stated, regarding the nature of the Sponsor's business.

 

thats up to the individuals who want to buy the alcohol and how they consume it! * all celtic can do about it.their choice celtic have got good money from this simple as that.

 

There is no argument about £4.5m. This is a significant sum. I sure dont have that burning a hole in my pocket. However, there is other business other than what can be dredged from the bottom of a keg.

Am sure there were other groups interested in investment, but maybe were a little bit short of the offer that Tennant's tabled. Am I the only person who remembered the Fergus McCann refused a number of offers, because they were not the right type of deal for Celtic, which lead to us having Umbro as the sponsor for a season? What principles does the new deal represent?

This new deal this is a backwards step. What price do we put on getting into bed with Scotland's Shame?