Campaign against Standard Chartered?

[Biscao]

I'm very disappointed by their conduct.

 

Fair enough, they toss in some cash - does that give them the right to dictate how we should act as an institution?

 

If the choice stands between acting like Roy Hodgson and getting £30m or acting like we have a pair and getting £22.3m, I'd say the latter is preferrable.

 

Luis Suárez handshake row upsets Liverpool sponsors Standard Chartered | Football | guardian.co.uk

[Megadrive Man]

I am a bit bored. We've gone nearly a week now without campaigning against something/someone/cancer & aids.

[Rafa's Peggy's]

Meh. If my company was paying another company £20m a year to be associated with them, I'd probably want a say if a PR situation had been as badly handled as this one.

 

We take their money, we can't expect them to just be quiet.

[Code]

They need us more than we need them, they should shut the fuck up.

 

Who the hell are they anyway?

[Pidge]

Thought this was going to be a thread about RAWK...

[Biscao]

My point is; where in our contract with SC does it say we have to adopt their bland, corporate values to allow them to be exposed to millions of people around the globe through our shirts?

 

If there's one thing you should know before sponsoring a profiled team in the PL it's that people don't always do what's expected of them in a "professional" manner - meaning, avoiding all conflict, and should it occur anyways: smoothing it over like it never happened

[marpetwilson]

I'm very disappointed by their conduct.

 

Fair enough, they toss in some cash - does that give them the right to dictate how we should act as an institution?

 

If the choice stands between acting like Roy Hodgson and getting £30m or acting like we have a pair and getting £22.3m, I'd say the latter is preferrable.

 

Luis Suárez handshake row upsets Liverpool sponsors Standard Chartered | Football | guardian.co.uk

 

We can say sorry, maintain good relations with key sponsors and still 'have a pair' at the same time. Loosing sponsorship would not do the club any favours - the media frenzy would ramp up as a minimum, and it would give future sponsors a big reason to negotiate down. Before you know it Liverpool slip further down the football rich list and it becomes more difficult to make marquee signings and we continue the downward spiral into mediocrity (I'm even depressing myself here!). The club has done the best thing right now - we need to shake off the heat, get out of the spotlight and regroup. No point fighting a battle we can't win and losing the war because of it.

[KevieG]

Bit much to be lectured on standards and morality by a bank.

 

But in the grand scheme of things and considering the week just put down, I'm not bothered.

[18-5]

I will campaign in front of their corporate office if Biscao is willing to compensate for the millions they give us every year.

[phc1965]

Rafa's Peggy's > We take their money, we can't expect them to just be quiet.

 

 

we take their money because they benefit from giving it to us. we are on a slippery slope if we then let them dictate to us how our manager and players should behave.

[RoboRiise]

[Guest The Big Green Bastard]

Tiger Woods + Nike.

 

These rants are going a bit too far.

[Guest San Don]

Er, this will go well.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

How does campaigning against our main sponsor constitute drawing a line under the matter? I'm pissed off with Evra, pissed off with Ferguson, but I just want this whole saga to fuck off and disappear from the public eye now. We've got a cup final coming up. I want us to make headlines for footballing reasons, not off the pitch reasons.

 

Any campaign against Standard Chartered would be counter productive. It wouldn't make the apologies disappear. It could cost us money, both from their sponsorship potentially being terminated if they get too much hassle, and the knock on effect of other sponsors being reluctant to become associated with a club who may be perceived as having trouble causing fans.

 

But, most importantly, it could have the effect (which is the least desirable one for me) of keeping the whole Suarez thing in the public eye if the press get hold of any campaign. Plus, will the press hold us in a good light for such a crusade? We all know the answer to that.

[18-5]

We can say sorry, maintain good relations with key sponsors and still 'have a pair' at the same time. Loosing sponsorship would not do the club any favours - the media frenzy would ramp up as a minimum, and it would give future sponsors a big reason to negotiate down. Before you know it Liverpool slip further down the football rich list and it becomes more difficult to make marquee signings and we continue the downward spiral into mediocrity (I'm even depressing myself here!). The club has done the best thing right now - we need to shake off the heat, get out of the spotlight and regroup. No point fighting a battle we can't win and losing the war because of it.

 

Good point, well made.

 

No cunting sponsor would dare to touch us with a barge pole if we were to do this.

[Guest LFD]

Can we stop trying to start campaigns? OK we did it against Hicks / Gillett and that was when we were in a dire situation. This affair has damaged the club but I cringe at the fact whenever something goes slightly wrong we as fans start thinking about emailing these companies, boycotting them etc.

 

We have had people criticising Ayre on here, then FSG, now it is Standard Chartered. No one has come out of this looking good and I include Dalglish in that.

 

But can we try and move on from all this and get back to talking about football, rather than focussing on campaigns against our own sponsors.

 

My god football is shite these days. Fans seem to be more interested in PR, the accounts and politics rather than discussing football.

[Rafa's Peggy's]

Rafa's Peggy's > We take their money, we can't expect them to just be quiet.

 

 

we take their money because they benefit from giving it to us. we are on a slippery slope if we then let them dictate to us how our manager and players should behave.

 

To clarify, I didn't mean they should have a say ALL the time. However, when the PR fuck is as monumental as this one has been, it's unrealistic to expect our major sponsor, who's business interests are mostly in Asian markets, not to have an opinion.

 

The relationship is mutually beneficial and lucrative to both sides. Neither side want it to fail, therefore if LFC have to take their views on board on this occasion we will have to live with it.

 

Put it this way, at this moment we would find it hard to strike a comparable deal with anybody else.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

On the subject of too many campaigns, are we allowed to campaign for a campaign against campaigns against Standard Chartered?

[18-5]

Can we stop trying to start campaigns? OK we did it against Hicks / Gillett and that was when we were in a dire situation. This affair has damaged the club but I cringe at the fact whenever something goes slightly wrong we as fans start thinking about emailing these companies, boycotting them etc.

 

We have had people criticising Ayre on here, then FSG, now it is Standard Chartered. No one has come out of this looking good and I include Dalglish in that.

 

But can we try and move on from all this and get back to talking about football, rather than focussing on campaigns against our own sponsors.

 

My god football is shite these days. Fans seem to be more interested in PR, the accounts and politics rather than discussing football.

 

*Quick to the summer transfer thread*

[Guest ShoePiss]

I don't think a campaign against them is good for anyone.

 

I'm out.

[Biscao]

Just for the record- in case someone missed it: it's a bit of a joke ofc.

 

I'm still pretty pissed that they have the nerve to try and dictate how we conduct our business.

 

It's quite simple- they buy ad space on our shirts. That shouldn't give them a veto whenever the going gets rough.

[Rafa's Peggy's]

Just for the record- in case someone missed it: it's a bit of a joke ofc.

 

I'm still pretty pissed that they have the nerve to try and dictate how we conduct our business.

 

It's quite simple- they buy ad space on our shirts. That shouldn't give them a veto whenever the going gets rough.

 

Welcome to Capitalism my friend.

[Guest The Big Green Bastard]

Just for the record- in case someone missed it: it's a bit of a joke ofc.

 

I'm still pretty pissed that they have the nerve to try and dictate how we conduct our business.

 

It's quite simple- they buy ad space on our shirts. That shouldn't give them a veto whenever the going gets rough.

 

If i invest money in a standard chartered account and it doesn't perform to my expectations, i'm hardly going to leave it there am i ?

[Phoenix]

Ino doubt there is a clause in the contract which allows them to cancel it when something like this happens. I cant imagine any sponsorship deal wouldnt.

[Marko121]

They need us more than we need them, they should shut the fuck up.

 

Who the hell are they anyway?

 

I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with you. Things must be bad