Carlsberg

[dww]

Yes, I think it is like that but this new Puritanism about alcohol is really quite wearying.

Carlsberg is beer, not crack.

I can see that but I do always feel it looks/feels a bit daft in the same way as say McDonalds sponsorship of the Olympics does. For me the thing that makes it slightly less dumb looking is that football has always (in my lifetime at least) been as much a spectator sport as a participatory one and pat of that culture has always been drinking.

[Neil Young]

I can see that but I do always feel it looks/feels a bit daft in the same way as say McDonalds sponsorship of the Olympics does. For me the thing that makes it slightly less dumb looking is that football has always (in my lifetime at least) been as much a spectator sport as a participatory one and pat of that culture has always been drinking.

I think your second point almost entirely negates your first (although I can see the parallel).

[dom9]

Yes, I think it is like that but this new Puritanism about alcohol is really quite wearying.

Carlsberg is beer, not crack.

I wasn't being puritanic. I love a drink.

The fact is, if you have a sponsor, then you promote their brand, and the consumption of that brand. That was point I was making.

[cled the red]

Yes, I think it is like that but this new Puritanism about alcohol is really quite wearying.

Carlsberg is beer, not crack.

You've never tasted it then!!!!

[magicalbarnes]

Just purely out of interest, does anyone know the value of our current deal with Carlesberg?

[Neil Young]

I wasn't being puritanic. I love a drink.

The fact is, if you have a sponsor, then you promote their brand, and the consumption of that brand. That was point I was making.

I wasn't meaning to accuse you of being puritanical. Sorry it came across that way.

I do think there's a puritanical streak running through public discussion of alcohol, which mainly correlates with people who don't do something (drink or whatever) laying down the law to people who do do it.

It's puritanical authoritarianism* or authoritarian puritanism**, take your pick.







* That reminds me of Gordon Brown

** That also reminds me of Gordon Brown

[dom9]

I wasn't meaning to accuse you of being puritanical. Sorry it came across that way.

I do think there's a puritanical streak running through public discussion of alcohol, which mainly correlates with people who don't do something (drink or whatever) laying down the law to people who do do it.

It's puritanical authoritarianism* or authoritarian puritanism**, take your pick.




* That reminds me of Gordon Brown

** That also reminds me of Gordon Brown

The worst ones are the ex-drinkers / smokers. It was fine for them to overindulge in the said activity in the past, but it's far from OK for others to come to the same conclusion themselves on their own (if, they even want to).

[Migselv]

I wasn't meaning to accuse you of being puritanical. Sorry it came across that way.

I do think there's a puritanical streak running through public discussion of alcohol, which mainly correlates with people who don't do something (drink or whatever) laying down the law to people who do do it.

It's puritanical authoritarianism* or authoritarian puritanism**, take your pick.







* That reminds me of Gordon Brown

** That also reminds me of Gordon Brown

On the subject: Carlsberg have been loyal to us during the time when we won f*** all (almost), and in my opinion we should have no reservations against working with them now, considering they seem ready to splash the cash.
If they hadn't recognized that Liverpool as a brand is more valuable now, than it were when we last struck a deal, it would be different. The 60 mil. imply that they do recognize an increased value of the sponsorship though.
But to end working together out of puritanism and political correctness would be wrong.
Especially since most fans are getting drunk on matchday anyway. I think that is much more a case of promoting the use of alcohol, than a Carlsberg logo on a shirt.

[Joe King]

My objection is fairly similar to Tee's also the fact that we have won no titles since they have been our sponsors and we get ****e money from them.

Obviously, whilst Tee's is based on more sensible arguments, mine is based more on superstition and commercial reasons.

[Neil Young]

But do we get ****e money from them?

[Joe King]

But do we get ****e money from them?

[CJ]

looking at the good news from babscome thread its not clear our current deal is crap

[Neil Young]

looking at the good news from babscome thread its not clear our current deal is crap

That's what I was thinking.

[Gazmo1]

If Carlsberg made water......................oh they do.

I'm sure the Mancs weren't arsed at all the bad financial advice AIG gave out when they were taking sponsorship money.

G.

BTW you can buy branded Liverpool in the UAE.

[Vermilion]

http://industry.bnet.com/advertising/10002525/liverpool-fc-might-replace-carlsberg-as-shirt-sponsor/

Liverpool F.C. Might Replace Carlsberg as Shirt Sponsor

By Jim Edwards | June 9th, 2009 @ 8:54 am

Liverpool F.C. “might be considering new sponsors” to replace Carlsberg, according to Ian Ayre, commercial director at the club. The news came at a meeting between Ayre, a candidate to become CEO of the club, and a supporters’ group.

Carlsberg’s £7 million shirt sponsorship of Liverpool is in its last 12 months, Ayre said, and the club and the brewer are currently in a renegotiation of the contract. The club is not actually talking to anyone else, however:

Carlsberg had an exclusive period of time during which LFC were not entitled to have negotiations relating to sponsorship with any other organisation.

He indicated that they might be considering new sponsors but had to be aware of the exclusivity period that Carlsberg had.

The result of the negotiations will be interesting in light of Manchester United’s replacement of AIG with insurer Aon as its lead sponsor. That deal is thought to be worth more than $100 million. The paltry size of Carlberg’s sponsorship was clearly on the mind of Liverpool fans at the meeting who asked about Man Utd’s sponsorship strategy. Ayre replied:

… the club had added Thomas Cook, Paddy Power, Maxxis Tyres and Konami in the last 18 months as well as renewing with Bank of America as a partner. The Club’s attitude was to try not to have too many sponsors as it diluted the value to sponsors.

Ayre also gave out some tidbits regarding corporate largesse that goes with sponsorship: Around 500 tickets every game go to Premier League sponsors such as Barclays Bank (the stadium’s capacity is about 45,000). If that sounds a little low, it is. When asked for a breakdown of corporate guests, Ayre gave these numbers:

* 80% of the tickets were made up of Season Ticketholders and other fans.
* 6.5% represented the corporate entertainment figures
* the remainder went to visiting fans, sponsors, staff and players.

If you’re interested in the minutiae of football sponsorship, the rest of the article is worth a read.