I like tnhat as an idea

and for instance I can't imagine for one moment that whoever the builders are on the back of the shirt will have paid more than could be raised by a crowdfunder

The question is then, though, is it even better to have both that existing sponsor and a crowdfunded sponsor? ie supplement the revenue rather than replacing it.

Unless there is some limit on the number of sponsors you can have on a shirt..?

agree entirely with the OP around gambling companies. The "...but its ok because we'll work with gambling addiction charities during the term of the deal and that'll make it all better" line the Club spun doesn't really wash.

Silver lining is that my kids can wear a Norwich top without being walking billboards for some corporate.

What I'd also like to see is a sponsor-free shirt option. ie shirt price is £50 with a sponsor, £70 without one. Would need some clever thinking around what that delta should be, to compensate for the reduced deal the sponsors would offer as a result.

Posted By: CWC, Apr 19, 17:04:35