Jump to content

Sandy Baltimore


Recommended Posts



Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Valerie said:

Why is the 3 logo back :angry2: ?

Three are doing a stand alone shirt-front sponsorship of the women's team. This is another CFCW specific deal which has been put in place as part of a strategy to boost CFCW's commercial operation. Previously commercial activities around the women's team was handled by the same operation which deals with men's team activities. Now there is a separate operation, with separate staff, dedicated to working on behalf of CFCW.

The proof of the pudding will be whether we achieve bigger and better deals using this split commercial team compared to what would have been achieved with the previous unified effort. Of course it is very unlikely that we will ever see the result of in-house analysis of the numbers. So far so good however. A fly in the ointment however is that the head of CFCW's commercial team has been head hunted to lead the commercial operations for the WSL as a whole.

The fact that it is Three who are doing this sponsorship is controversial in some quarters. Three obviously became very unpopular among Chelsea fans for their reaction to the sanctions which were imposed on Roman. I think this reaction was a bit misguided to be honest. People could be more understanding of the situation Three were in. They operate in a business where there is a very heavy degree of 'churn' among consumers and the way Roman was being scapegoated made it reasonable for the company to give itself some cover. Interestingly, the club's senior management never criticised Three's behaviour. Instead they made it clear that there was a good relationship with Three, who they never criticised in anyway. Everyone has their own outlook of course but I think people should take notice of this and factor in the fat that, now the dust is settled, working with CFC. This suggests they never had anything against Chelsea and were just team doing what they had to do to protect their shareholders which is something they are legally obliged to do.

Edited by OhForAGreavsie
Link to comment
Share on other sites



8 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Three are doing a stand alone shirt-front sponsorship of the women's team.

So are you saying that 3 will sponsor the women's match shirts too or will that still be on the level with the men's team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Mod said:

So are you saying that 3 will sponsor the women's match shirts too or will that still be on the level with the men's team?

Sponsorship of the training kit is all that has been announced up to now. My guess however, and it's only a guest, is that this is a toe bin the water situation. I believe separate main sponsors will be the goal.

Apparently only 5% of women's team match goers are men's team season ticket holders. Some of the remaining 95% must be main club members, but it would be an ideal situation if match going support for CFCW continues to grow and brings in a whole new Chelsea audience.

Edited by OhForAGreavsie
Link to comment
Share on other sites



8 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Three are doing a stand alone shirt-front sponsorship of the women's team. This is another CFCW specific deal which has been put in place as part of a strategy to boost CFCW's commercial operation. Previously commercial activities around the women's team was handled by the same operation which deals with men's team activities. Now there is a separate operation, with separate staff, dedicated to working on behalf of CFCW.

The proof of the pudding will be whether we achieve bigger and better deals using this split commercial team compared to what would have been achieved with the previous unified effort. Of course it is very unlikely that we will ever see the result of in-house analysis of the numbers. So far so good however. A fly in the ointment however is that the head of CFCW's commercial team has been head hunted to lead the commercial operations for the WSL as a whole.

The fact that it is Three who are doing this sponsorship is controversial in some quarters. Three obviously became very unpopular among Chelsea fans for their reaction to the sanctions which were imposed on Roman. I think this reaction was a bit misguided to be honest. People could be more understanding of the situation Three were in. They operate in a business where there is a very heavy degree of 'churn' among consumers and the way Roman was being scapegoated made it reasonable for the company to give itself some cover. Interestingly, the club's senior management never criticised Three's behaviour. Instead they made it clear that there was a good relationship with Three, who they never criticised in anyway. Everyone has their own outlook of course but I think people should take notice of this and factor in the fat that, now the dust is settled, working with CFC. This suggests they never had anything against Chelsea and were just team doing what they had to do to protect their shareholders which is something they are legally obliged to do.

It's still a bloody ugly logo 😡

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up