Campaign to Boycott the new Tennant's Sponsored Kit

This is not about boycotting Celtic. I have never advocated bovcotting Celtic, nor would I. As for starting a campaign against Lawwell, no, that is not what I am about either. Indeed I have defended the board's financial prudence in the past, and it's not that I'm saying he dropped the ball. I also said this is not about liking a product or not. But I am proud to be a Tim, proud of my club, of its history and position in the world and I likewise want to be proud of the image that is projected.

 

Boycotting the new strip is boycotting Celtic, hurting Celtic's bottom line.

It won hurt tennants or the sponsorship

 

Further, this is not about trying to generate hatred toward that other team or its supporters. They have their own ethos and identity, regardless of what we might think of it. But Celtic is Celtic, and that is my concern. Again, is this a better deal for Celtic, or is it the best deal for the O** F***?

 

I agree that Tennants is a shocking sponser, especially because the smelly buns are sponsered by them too.. but even if they were'nt, I still say its shocking that alcohol is a sponser on a football kit nowadays... a healthy game sponsered by a killer, and one of the biggest problems facing Scotland right now! * even Rab C Nesbitt is tea total now!

The original poster does make a good point but I wouldn't go as far as a complete boycott, as it is the club that would lose out big time.. but buying the kit without the sponser from an official Celtic store would defo prove a point to the board and Tennents that were not going to advertise this * anymore!

 

How is buying a shirt without a sponsor going to hurt Celtic's bottom line? it could hurt Tennants, especially if a significant number of supporters decline to wear the Hoops sans the Tennants logo. As you point out, the deal is in, the money has been secured so its not hurting Celtic financially for the next 3 years but it will make the board think twice the next time negotiations come to pass.

It is possible to get official shirts, from offivcial stores without the sponsor. I know, because I got one for my daughter.

 

I understand but anything that drives a wedge only serves to further separation and animosity really. Im concerned about the levels of Hatred in peoples blood sometimes.

 

No it wont. No matter who buys a sponsorless shirt or not, if a brewery offers the best deal, Celtic will take it. The regulations around advertising alcohol is something that the brewery has to live with, not Celtic. They have offered this deal knowing the restrictions in place.

Everyone knows its possible to get sponsorless shirts because Celtic have advertised it on their website. Tennants know this stance and still offered the deal.

I gotta laugh at this holier than thou attitude to an alcohol sponsor, society's attitude to binge drinking isnt going to be solved by boycotting the sponsors of Celtic

 

I dont like the idea of being associated with them other lot,but we are always going to be associated as the "old firm".

As for having an alcoholic drink as sponsor.........dont bother me one bit,but i wish it was Guinness instead of that pish water Tennants.

 

We can always buy a sponserless top...
* having a big red T on the front of it...
Remember we had ford peoples...lol

 

Stella for me!

 

I think your wrong about that point.........i grew up when c.r.smith was the sponsor and now i'm addicted to buying double glazing.

 

What will a boycott do?

Nothing.


It's just a sponsor ffs.

 

Im sure the huns need us more than we could ever need them and with that they get far more from a joint sponsorship deal than we do , even in a 50/50 split... If we were to go it alone with a foreign sponsor who wouldn't be affected by any kind of backlash in Scotland (a kind of sponsorship deal which I feel is probably open to us already or will be in the near future) then I feel the huns would really struggle to get themselves a lucrative deal as being associated with the hun can only be bad for business , especially when they don't have the get out of also being sponsors to Celtic..

 

It is more the wider issue of the nature of the joint sponsorship. Had Celtic done a deal with a brewery alone am sure there may have been some who would have voiced thier opposition, however, I would've been quite content to simply purchase a sponsorlesss strip. My objection to who the sponsor is, is only a personal opinion, and perhaps I was wrong to add that in the OP, however people may choose to boycott the new 'sponsored' shirt, in preference for a 'sponsorless' one on whatever basis they choose, be it being against the joint nature of the deal or as to who the sponsor is.

 

Ha ha. That's quality. People have the choice to buy a top with or without sponsors. The kids tops won't have tennants plastared across it so where's the problem?

Celtic need to make money. If tennants offer £3m and asda offers £1m should we accept that offer?

Money drives the football club.

 

Fairly sure the reason we do joint sponsorships is that its more money. More money than any other deal offered on without Rangers attached.

For argument sake,

If we were offered £1,000,000 (just a number) per year for 3 years vs. £1.5M per year for 3 years for joint sponsorship, you'd take the one without the joint sponsorship on principle.

Thats, an easy £1.5M dropped because of not wanting a joint sponsorship. Having the same sponsor doesnt make in any way like them nor will it see the end of us being labeled the "Old Firm". Money dropped for nothing changed.


What happens if Rangers ever strike a deal with Nike for jersey sponsorship?

 

Sounds like a good idea to me. personally I was disgusted to read today about the joint sponsorship deal. I simply cannot believe that in the current climate we could not get more money going along with a big multi national then the huns could.

 

Who gives a * man Theres bigger problems than an advert on the jersey
Quite petty going on about a sponsor is it not ?

 

i couldnt care less who sponsors us, as long as were getin one over them each year by winning leagues.

 

Ok. Say, for arguement's sake that, this is the case, where would do you draw the line? £1 less? £500K less? Where do you draw the line and say its not worth us getting into bed with them for? Remeber that year, back in the 90's, where Umbro were the sponsor? That was because Fergus McCann refused to get in bed with the offers on the table at that time.

Or, on the other hand, say Celtic were to have declined the joint sponsorship, costing us, for arguement's sake, your quoted £500K per season, meaning our solo deal be worth £1m. However, who is to say that the best that 'that other team' could manage as a solo deal would be a worth £750K per season, thereby costing them more than it is us?

Remember, alot of business is about perception. How often have you read in a paper the term 'O** F***' when in fact it should be 'R*****s', but by using OF we get tarnished by the same brush, deflects part of it away from them, and insinuates that Celtic are no better. It's pure guilt by assosciation.

To those within football and who do know the difference, this is not an issue, but to the casual observer, who may not know the difference the perception often is that we are simply the other half of the same coin.

Everytime Scotland's Shame go on a rampage in some foreign city, like we have seen so often, it is an embarrassment not unto themselves, but to Scotland, and in particular, Glasgow. To the casual observer, there is the possibility that its just a matter of time before Celtic fans will do the same. We know better, as we saw in Hamburg, we can resist the taunts, but to many in the outside world, Celtic is simply the other half of the O** F***. If they know nothing else about Scottish football, they will have heard of Celtic & R*****s. They see the strips, know we are from the same city, and assume we must be equally as radical. Then they see the same brand plastered across the front of both. Image is important.