judging by other posts which implied people were unhappy with being sponsored by a betting company was poor form, why then was no issue when we were sponsored by an alcohol brand (and still are too i believe as i think they are still a commercial partner)
i know how serious alcohol dependence can be, i did after all refer to that when i replied to a poster earlier saying betting can ruin people and i said alcohol can too
as for laughing at people i do that when i feel people get on their high horse about particular brands as you wonder who then could we be sponsored by thats not so offensive
among our club partners we have a bank fined for money laundering, two alcoholic companies, we've had deals with many betting companies down the years too
so why does it become a problem all of a sudden for some is my point
people get the wrong idea when we are sponsored by some companies, its not like we promote issues like alcohol and gambling.
It looks like we agree on a lot here. I think it's fair enough to say that this is the business, if you want to compete then you have to take sponsorship money from wherever.
But all I'm trying to say is, not all sponsorship is equal. As a prominent institution in the country, the club should show moral leadership, if it decides not to, then it behooves us to admit that its deciding not to. What we shouldn't do is make excuses for the club like 'well people would have complained even if we were sponsored by a paint company'. I doubt it first of all, and even if people did complain, that is not what is important. What is important is that alcohol and gambling are genuine problems and paint is not. Making it out like all sponsorship is the same because, no matter what somebody will complain is a cheap excuse. We should be above that.
After all, if all sponsorship really is the same then everyone getting upset at City being sponsored by a slaveholder tyrant is a hypocrite.
