West Ham Sponsor-Less Shirts

LarkfiedLoyalNS

Well-Known Member
Our kids tops would be the same it’s cause it’s a gambling company but we are using one of our other sponsors on the kids tops, Utilita.
 

RedWhiteBlue

Well-Known Member
It's mad that all through the years the club have never really found a way to consistently offer a sponsor-less top.

Seems that every fan wants one without a sponsor but on the other hand the top with a sponsor seels like crazy anyway.

I wish they would work out some kind of deal with the sponsors. Maybe given them a payment from the sale of X number of kits with no sponsor. I'd be willing to pay a bit extra for that.
 

AndyWebsterLoyal

Well-Known Member
Sure that is the same template used for a Hearts top last season.

Agree that Umbro make lovely tops though.
You meaning this one? It was 14/15 when we were in the Championship with them.

hearts-2014-15-away.jpg
 

StirlingBear

Well-Known Member
Crazy that main sponsor is off the top but the smaller arm one remains. Probable paying a lot less money but getting exposure on all tops. Strange
If we were to to this Id expect no sponsors at all

TBF Sponsors are paying money to be on the TV rather than to be on supporters kits. With big clubs like ours it may be slightly different as we will be one of the few clubs who have a huge support that buy tops in large numbers.

For the most part though the sponsorship deals are based on exposure on TV.
 

EndOfDays

Well-Known Member
I dont think our sales would go through the roof at all tbh, people are buying the home top sponsor or no sponsor.

Is their really a huge number of fans out there not buying a top becuase of the sponsor?
 

scottwoodburn

Well-Known Member
I dont think our sales would go through the roof at all tbh, people are buying the home top sponsor or no sponsor.

Is their really a huge number of fans out there not buying a top becuase of the sponsor?
Few of us mate but I suspect not many. I bought the sponsorless Hummel one and last years retro. If it became an option I’d be all over it.
 

CoopBlue

Well-Known Member
I dont think our sales would go through the roof at all tbh, people are buying the home top sponsor or no sponsor.

Is their really a huge number of fans out there not buying a top becuase of the sponsor?

To be honest, I bought the home top purely for my collection. Not really a fan of it or the sponsors.

I wont be buying any more tops this season unless they produce sponsorless ones.
 

PT98

Well-Known Member
Most tops look better with the sponsor. It's not a replica top IMO if it looks different to the one the players are wearing.

Having said that, the west ham one does look better without the sponsor, as its huge and ridiculous
 

butcherboy

Well-Known Member
Selling ONLY shirts with a betting sponsor is hardly in keeping with our Everyone Anyone campaign.

Sponsorless shirts should be made available every season but never more so than on an Anniversary shirt.
 

barcelonabear

Well-Known Member
I’m pretty sure it will be part of the sponsorship deal that it’s on all kits, would have to be renegotiated when contracts up
 

mark hateley

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
IMO sponsorship on tops always seems a waste of time.

Cr Smith - crap windows
Mcewan's lager - dish water
Carling - bowfing
NTL - crap
Bet32 - never used them

Then again if I am looking for a fabricator AFAB is the place to go for a new gate, do you think they will come to WoS for work :D
 

GarMckin

Well-Known Member
I dont think our sales would go through the roof at all tbh, people are buying the home top sponsor or no sponsor.

Is their really a huge number of fans out there not buying a top becuase of the sponsor?

Huddersfield Town’s shirt in 2019/20 was the 6th highest selling in England after the PaddyPower no sponsor publicity stunt. It was searched twice as much as the second highest Championship kit from Leeds.

Sponsorless wouldn’t just appeal to our fans. With Champions League exposure we could have boosted sales significantly with a full sponsor-less shirt.
 

CoopBlue

Well-Known Member
Clubs like Rangers should start being firm with their shirt sponsors.

Firstly, start by saying that the shirt manufacturer will also produce sponsorless version in all sizes.

Secondly, insist that fans buy training/leisure wear should not be expected to have to have sponsor's logo's plastered all over them - especially a betting firm.

If all clubs took this stance, sponsors would have to adhere to these policies.

In our situation we are not Man Utd who get £50m a year from their main shirt sponsor - we get a tiny fraction of that. So there is no way on earth that the Kindred Group are paying anywhere near enough to give them the right to have their shitty logo's plastered all over virtually every piece of merchandise which fans purchase. Why should fans be a walking billboard for this ?

Clubs need to take a stance and stop these companies taking the piss.
 

Slayer

Well-Known Member
Well done West Ham United for looking out for the fans.

Oh for the days of just a plain blue shirt with the Club crest. I actually think Rangers would sell an awful lot more shirts if they got rid of that betting firm and went "plain".

That said, when some EPL Clubs are raking in £40+ Million a year from shirt sponsorship deals, I can't see things changing anytime soon.
 

sally cinnamon

New Member
Personally I prefer without the sponsor. Last year was there 125 year anniversary and my husband and son both bought the sponsor-less shirt, more traditional looking.
 

StirlingBear

Well-Known Member
I do love a sponsorless top managed to get the last two umbro tops we had sponsorless as well as some training gear as well. Look so much better especially the 12/13 72 inspired home shirt. It is without a doubt my favourite home top and the nicest one we have had imo. Just a shame we had to wear it in the third division.

The 11/12 home top did not look quite as good without a sponsor right enough.
 

bjorklund-by-the-sea

Well-Known Member
It's mad that all through the years the club have never really found a way to consistently offer a sponsor-less top.

Seems that every fan wants one without a sponsor but on the other hand the top with a sponsor seels like crazy anyway.

I wish they would work out some kind of deal with the sponsors. Maybe given them a payment from the sale of X number of kits with no sponsor. I'd be willing to pay a bit extra for that.
They’re paying for the advertising space on 200,000+ fans shirts - I’m not sure there would be many that go for it and I’m not sure how many clubs would take the financial hit. That said it only takes a few to break the trend and then everyone will do it. I’m not sure you’ll find many fans saying the sponsor tops are better so there should be some will to make that suggestion a reality on a commercial level.
 

RFC_Champions

Well-Known Member
I’ve got no idea why we don’t do this.

Tomket, Seko, Unibet, 32Red or Utilita don’t give us money because a wee guy wears his strip walking down to the local cafe to get himself a couple of rolls n square sausage.

They pay money because the vast majority of our games are televised all over the world. Domestic and European competition.

The refusal to sell unsponsored strips is a slap in the face to people who have addictions or are against gambling.

Time to get it sorted. I recon the club/Castore could even sell “unsponsored strips” for more money than they could the sponsored tops.

I’d certainly pay an extra £10 or £20 to have an unsponsored top.
 
Top