• We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website. Read more here

Why is the Supporters Trust Silent?

DB9

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
24,515
Location
Hampshire. Heart's in N Devon
Smoking isn't illegal yet is it ?
No but sport advertising smoking is
 
Last edited:

Alistair20000

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
52,248
Location
Avoiding the Hundred
Smoking isn't illegal yet is it ?
Depends on the substance that is partaken of.
 

Rosencrantz

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
10,122
Location
Tiverton
I'm in the camp that Skybet sponsor the EFL, Betting companies sponsor so many clubs, Especially in the top two tiers then us taking sponsorship for a minor part of the kit is to me fair enough, If some company wants to part with their money then why not? While Betting sponsorship in football is legal I'm happy with it, I never bet myself and it does bring a lot of misery but its up to the EFL/FA/Government to decide whether they want it advertised and you're probably right Rosey in the future it will be banned just like smoking ads were banned. I just don't think if the deal was agreed then because at the Trust meeting and (According to Ed) "What it came down to was the Trust's personal belief system that betting is evil. Even though betting is legal" (His words not mine) then if they really think that they shouldn't be taking a penny from Skybet via the EFL. You can't be a hypocrite saying betting is evil and say no to this sponsorship on one hand then take the money from Skybet.
That's the whole issue about what the club is unilaterally responsible for and what the club is collectively responsible for alongside 71 (at the time) other clubs and is compelled to do contractually. I am sure all clubs have issues from the EFL that they disagree with but got outvoted on so have to comply, otherwise what is the consequence? Leave the EFL and shut up shop? The club can control what they have control over. They can only try to influence decisions made at EFL level which is I would think akin to herding cats at times.

When the Skybet sponsorship is up in 23/24, it will be interesting to see who the next sponsor will be and if it is a gambling company, whether the club would vote yay or nay. If they voted to accept it, that would be hypocritical. But voting against it and being outvoted would be different as we would be contractually obliged to advertise the title league sponsor. Refusal would have consequences I would think beyond just not getting any of their money. I don't think setting a club policy now when you are in the middle of a collective contract that is contradictory is necessarily hypocritical. You have to start to make a stance somewhere if that is the view you have which will then inform your future decisions rather than those taken in the past.

The views on betting being evil seem over the top, but as a community based club with a growing junior supporter base, I can see why City (and other clubs like Everton) want to shift their brand away from advertising betting companies. Lets face it, replica kits are bought by/for junior supporters in great numbers. I know that when I was a kid the whole point of having a replica kit is to be EXACTLY like the first team kit. I don't know if the sponsors appear on City replica shorts but I know Everton didn't have SportsPesa on their junior kits. Nowadays I would prefer that look but as a kid I wouldn't have. So there is a commercial side to it as well although as I say, I don't know if that would apply to City's replica shorts!

The main issue for me from Ed's post really was the communication aspect and as reported by Ed any trite dismissal of an employee doing their best to do their skilled and important job that had occurred. If what we have got similar wedge from a different company like Imperial Cars now the Commercial Team know the policy, all well and good.
 

SEA Grecian

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
6,076
It's a fair point. The problem with giving lots of specific examples is we are on a public forum and I don't want to betray confidences or humiliate people. You must understand that. I will give you one specific example where I felt the Trust put their own personal, philosophical views ahead of what was best for the Club. It was a sponsorship deal that the Club's commercial team had put together for a betting company to sponsor a relatively minor part of the Exeter City kit. The commercial team were super chuffed with the deal as it brought in a decent amount of revenue for the Club, and the branding wasn't in-your-face as it was down the side of the shorts if I remember correctly. Hardly noticeable in fact. Anyway, I was at the Trust meeting where the deal was discussed and subsequently shot down. I was the only person who publicly objected to the decision to scrap the deal and got a lot of dirty looks for doing so. What it came down to was the Trust's personal belief system that betting is evil. Even though betting is legal. Even though half of City fans probably bet on football. Even though every other football club in the land works with betting companies in some capacity. Even though we have Skybet plastered all over the ground and website already. I also pointed out in the meeting that there are far more deaths from alcoholism than problem gambling in this country, so why do we allow sponsorship from Thatchers? No answer. I asked why the Trust were imposing their own personal, philosophical beliefs onto the Club and therefore the fans of Exeter. No answer. At one point the Head of Commercial at the Club was mentioned by an influential Trustee. What happened next staggered me. He was referred to as "just a salesman", with the implication being that he couldn't be trusted. This is a guy who works his ass off for the Club, who is in a senior position bringing in much-needed revenue for the Club, and yet he's viewed almost with contempt by some at the Trust. It was at that point I knew something was badly wrong and I decided to run for election to try and reform the Trust.
The Trust has a clear policy on gambling sponsorship and it seems like the correct decision was reached in line with that policy.
 

DB9

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
24,515
Location
Hampshire. Heart's in N Devon
That's the whole issue about what the club is unilaterally responsible for and what the club is collectively responsible for alongside 71 (at the time) other clubs and is compelled to do contractually. I am sure all clubs have issues from the EFL that they disagree with but got outvoted on so have to comply, otherwise what is the consequence? Leave the EFL and shut up shop? The club can control what they have control over. They can only try to influence decisions made at EFL level which is I would think akin to herding cats at times.

When the Skybet sponsorship is up in 23/24, it will be interesting to see who the next sponsor will be and if it is a gambling company, whether the club would vote yay or nay. If they voted to accept it, that would be hypocritical. But voting against it and being outvoted would be different as we would be contractually obliged to advertise the title league sponsor. Refusal would have consequences I would think beyond just not getting any of their money. I don't think setting a club policy now when you are in the middle of a collective contract that is contradictory is necessarily hypocritical. You have to start to make a stance somewhere if that is the view you have which will then inform your future decisions rather than those taken in the past.

The views on betting being evil seem over the top, but as a community based club with a growing junior supporter base, I can see why City (and other clubs like Everton) want to shift their brand away from advertising betting companies. Lets face it, replica kits are bought by/for junior supporters in great numbers. I know that when I was a kid the whole point of having a replica kit is to be EXACTLY like the first team kit. I don't know if the sponsors appear on City replica shorts but I know Everton didn't have SportsPesa on their junior kits. Nowadays I would prefer that look but as a kid I wouldn't have. So there is a commercial side to it as well although as I say, I don't know if that would apply to City's replica shorts!

The main issue for me from Ed's post really was the communication aspect and as reported by Ed any trite dismissal of an employee doing their best to do their skilled and important job that had occurred. If what we have got similar wedge from a different company like Imperial Cars now the Commercial Team know the policy, all well and good.
Then if I'm right that the Trust has an open part of their meetings and a closed part, That person who said about betting is evil should of kept his views til the closed part when people like Ed wasn't present and could of been dicussed then?
 

DB9

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
24,515
Location
Hampshire. Heart's in N Devon
The Trust has a clear policy on gambling sponsorship and it seems like the correct decision was reached in line with that policy.
Is that policy written somewhere for people to see (Especially an employee trying to raise money through sponsorship) and i hope if it is written down the words "Betting is evil" is not used :ROFLMAO:
 

Rosencrantz

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
10,122
Location
Tiverton
Then if I'm right that the Trust has an open part of their meetings and a closed part, That person who said about betting is evil should of kept his views til the closed part when people like Ed wasn't present and could of been dicussed then?
No, in the name of transparency you would question leaving it to the closed part just because you have an opinion which might be seen by some to be absurd/over the top/controversial and don't want to be viewed negatively. After all, if you are comfortable with your opinion and can back it up with reason, why hide it? I have no reason to question Ed's account for accuracy and context and it seems to me that the Trust's opinion of "betting is evil" sounds dramatic and absurd without the many sound reasons of why the Trust would want City's brand to steer clear of betting companies advertising where it is within their power to do so as I have discussed above. That would have delivered much more context to the decision even if you don't personally agree with it. Also it would have been fairer for Ed to point out (if he was aware) that an alternative company had been found to sponsor the shorts.

The whole issue of if we should accept betting companies money to advertise where we have the sole power to do so is up to personal preference. Mine just happens to be that I would prefer not to in the context of being a wider community based brand when there are suitable alternatives (Carpet Right, JMC, Imperial Cars). Of course what we are not aware of is the actual £value of those deals. For me, just because something is legal (tax avoidance for example) doesn't mean that I approve or would do it. I have had the odd bet in the past and probably will in the future but am aware of the serious pitfalls and the choice of the individual. I will stop now before it gets into a much wider smoking/drinking/junk food debate ;) although I will say that as City do actually sell Alcohol and Junk Food...that would be hypocritical!
 

DB9

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
24,515
Location
Hampshire. Heart's in N Devon
No, in the name of transparency you would question leaving it to the closed part just because you have an opinion which might be seen by some to be absurd/over the top/controversial and don't want to be viewed negatively. After all, if you are comfortable with your opinion and can back it up with reason, why hide it? I have no reason to question Ed's account for accuracy and context and it seems to me that the Trust's opinion of "betting is evil" sounds dramatic and absurd without the many sound reasons of why the Trust would want City's brand to steer clear of betting companies advertising where it is within their power to do so as I have discussed above. That would have delivered much more context to the decision even if you don't personally agree with it. Also it would have been fairer for Ed to point out (if he was aware) that an alternative company had been found to sponsor the shorts.

The whole issue of if we should accept betting companies money to advertise where we have the sole power to do so is up to personal preference. Mine just happens to be that I would prefer not to in the context of being a wider community based brand when there are suitable alternatives (Carpet Right, JMC, Imperial Cars). Of course what we are not aware of is the actual £value of those deals. For me, just because something is legal (tax avoidance for example) doesn't mean that I approve or would do it. I have had the odd bet in the past and probably will in the future but am aware of the serious pitfalls and the choice of the individual. I will stop now before it gets into a much wider smoking/drinking/junk food debate ;) although I will say that as City do actually sell Alcohol and Junk Food...that would be hypocritical!
Perhaps i'm focusing on the words "Betting is Evil" a bit too much, Mind if i heard that i would have raised an eyebrow.
 

Rosencrantz

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
10,122
Location
Tiverton
Perhaps i'm focusing on the words "Betting is Evil" a bit too much, Mind if i heard that i would have raised an eyebrow.
It does seem bizarre and totally over the top.

"Good news, we have a new sponsor!"

"Great. Who is it"

"A betting company"

"NO, that cannot be allowed. Go away and get someone else"

"But why, they are paying bare money"

"Betting is Evil 👿"

"But..."

"Betting is EVIL 👿...dismissed"
 

Edward

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2010
Messages
756
How in Christ's name do you embed a video? Off-topic but witty if you are childish. Can somebody help?
Edit - it seems to have worked.
 
Top