17 augusti 2010

Sponsorer

För mer information om våra tröjor se: >>>

Även publicerad på Chelsea Vital

Chelsea - Sponsors, Do They Matter?
The easy answer is of course that the money they put into the club matters a lot.

Thankfully in the major leagues only one sponsor is allowed on the shirts. (You should see some shirts in small leagues where the shirts are hardly seen behind 5-10 different logos. On the other hand, there you buy the shirt without the sponsor on it for yourself).

I have no idea what Samsung are paying Chelsea, but it is obvious that they are happy with their sponsorship. I know Kenyon claimed it was the second best deal or so in the Premier League when it was signed. They started with Samsung Mobile but were so happy with the effect of the sponsorship that the main company took over.

We have lately read about some new sponsorship that Chelsea and Gourlay have made agreements with. None is featured on the shirts. That is only for Samsung and the shirt maker Adidas.

Singha beer replaces Heineken in the restaurants and bars at Stamford Bridge. Lucozade fills the so called water bottles. Dolce & Gabbana is replacing Armani for costumes and decorating suits and other places on the Bridge. Each and every one brings at least a million or so into the coffers of Chelsea for the pleasure of being associated with our blue club. Believe me, they would not do it unless it pays off.

Through the years, since sponsorship started in the 80`s Chelsea have had a variety of sponsors. I cannot say I remember them all. Some big, some smaller. Some I remember because I liked or disliked the product. Coors` absolutely one of them. Not the worst American beer (that honour goes to Budweiser, which was served for a period at the Bridge, and Miller`s High Life- to call them beers is false marketing). But the background always irked me that Chelsea advertised a product from a family with a really dark background with the John Birch Society in the US (a very right wing organisation that is kind of scary but maybe the hooligans were what attracted them).

Onoe of our very first sponsors on the shirt was Commodore 1987-93 (although those with active minds may recall the Gulf Air logo appearing on the shirts a few years earlier - ed), which should suits today`s fantasy leaguers. Followed some year later by Amiga, 1993-94. A pity Apple do not sponsor sport. A bad mismatch was of course that we advertised Fly Emirates, 2001-05, when Roman Abramovich took over. The Commodore shirts were also without any doubt the ugliest shirts Chelsea ever worn (counting only the first kit). They simply were absolutely hideous Umbro-experiments in shirt design.

Chelsea have only had five major shirt sponsors through the 23 years since the first one, (although some may recall Ken Bates actually had his farm name plonked on the shirts for a brief time-ed)

I have to admit I like having Samsung, 2005-, as sponsor apart from all the logical reasons. I used to have Samsung mobiles and electronics even before. Now I notice myself thinking about Chelsea when I see them. It is good merchandise. Autoglass, 1997-2001, was a bit on the anonymous side. I do not even know if they are around or has Carglass taken over?

Carlsberg and Liverpool is a tradition. Of course I am always partial to someone that advertises beer even if Carlsberg in England is something I never touch. I have on three occasions through the years sent the pint back complaining it was something wrong with the brew before I realised I had been served Carlsberg! Not a mistake I`d do it again (beer brewed licensed locally does never taste the same as the original). I do however like the real Carlsberg made in Denmark. Now they advertise Standard Chartered. Insurers I guess like so many other teams.

Internet bookies and insurance companies today seem to dominate sponsorship. Pretty boring if you ask me. AIG, the scandalmongers behind so much of what went wrong the American economy is gone today, replaced by AON (not a good logo either) on the barrel chest of Rooney.

Working mainly as a graphic designer the main thing for me is how it looks of course, despite whatever connotation the sponsor might awake in me. And most look awful. Very few make any regard for how their logo will look on the shirts, even less to how it goes with the clubs traditional values, shirts etc. The only rule seem to be bigger is better. Which it of course is not, but bigger might mean that it is easier to recognise on television.

Logotypes is a very special form of advertising. And in many ways it is holy ground for many. Just remember our reactions to the badge Ken Bates brought forth in order to get Chelsea to reap the branding and merchandising awards that he could not use with the old badge due to heraldics of the Chelsea family. I actually liked it, most I understand did not. But graphically it was very good though the lettering could have been better, compared to what Fulham fans went through. But I totally understand why the clubs had to do it as so many crests where taken from public sources, family crests, city crests and no revenue could ever be made from them as the copyrights belong to others. Chelsea were able to make a deal and go back to a crest very similar to the traditional (from 1952 - no one wants the horror before that. I will not even talk about it to our young readers as it might scare them away).

Samsung is not an attractive logo, but it is not an ugly one either. It is simply a bit anonymous, but readable on tv and probably fills its function. Autoglass was not goodlooking. Coors was a bit more aestethically pleasing than the company owner*s background, and worked fairly well on the chest of our heroes.

I was reminded of this today when I watched Newcastle. Now with another financial institution that did not make them self proud during the financial crisis, Northern Rock. Oh how I miss the most perfect blend of sponsorship and shirt that ever been seen on a single football jersey. I have always had a fondness for Newcastle and it is not for their good support locally (Sunderland might have an even better one).

It was because their shirts during the Newcastle brewery sponsorship. That is the pen-ultimate marriage of sponsorship, club and shirt. Their logo actually made their classic black-white strip look better, no one will ever accuse Northern Rock of that. I do not drink the beer, but it is still for me the best logo around for a beer and most other things. It makes me think beer and of course the connection between a local brew and the football club was congenial and no longer around in football on top level. And correct me if I am wrong, did not Newcastle`s decline in football start when they changed their sponsor?

That is the only football jersey from another club (but my loved ones) that I would ever consider having, much less wear - but that one can be worn for style alone.