Thread starter
#1
Now, don't get me wrong as this is a good cause and a generous donation but I am very angry over this. I will explain.
The Voth jersey in question is a home jersey from last season and the press release states that it was worn in a number of games in the early part of the season. That would be right, given that the Spire patches on the jersey are white, not green (as was the case with the 2nd set jerseys post Christmas).
The set 1 home jerseys were the ones done via bucket draw on Meet the Players evening - if your name came out you paid £195 to sponsor that jersey which was to be worn up to Christmas. That's a lot of money to shell out and the club benefits hugely from the draw and sponsor grid each season. I know who Brad's home set 1 jersey sponsor is and it's not anyone connected with Primus.
I know Primus are a player sponsor but they did not sponsor Brad - Hawkes did - player sponsors got the warm up shirts of the players they sponsored not regular season home jerseys.
My point here is that the sponsorship of the average fan is just as important as the corporate sponsor - why should an average fan be short-changed on the jersey they sponsored. It's not so much that the jersey in question has been worn for fewer games than it should have; it's the fact that there should only be a total of three home jerseys per player in a season - set 1, set 2 and shirt off his back (a one-game wonder). Are we going the way of Belfast and devaluing our jerseys by making multiples of star players like they did when Fleury played for them ?
We all know that if we sponsor a jersey and the player gets gassed or injured then that's tough luck - it's a risk you take sometimes. This is different though and I would like to see the club nip this practice in the bud. How can anyone who sponsored a set 1 jersey last season now be sure that they received what they thought they were getting ? Were extra jerseys made of other players on the roster ?
I honestly do not know - I did not know about this extra Voth jersey until seeing this thread and going on the website.
The Voth jersey in question is a home jersey from last season and the press release states that it was worn in a number of games in the early part of the season. That would be right, given that the Spire patches on the jersey are white, not green (as was the case with the 2nd set jerseys post Christmas).
The set 1 home jerseys were the ones done via bucket draw on Meet the Players evening - if your name came out you paid £195 to sponsor that jersey which was to be worn up to Christmas. That's a lot of money to shell out and the club benefits hugely from the draw and sponsor grid each season. I know who Brad's home set 1 jersey sponsor is and it's not anyone connected with Primus.
I know Primus are a player sponsor but they did not sponsor Brad - Hawkes did - player sponsors got the warm up shirts of the players they sponsored not regular season home jerseys.
My point here is that the sponsorship of the average fan is just as important as the corporate sponsor - why should an average fan be short-changed on the jersey they sponsored. It's not so much that the jersey in question has been worn for fewer games than it should have; it's the fact that there should only be a total of three home jerseys per player in a season - set 1, set 2 and shirt off his back (a one-game wonder). Are we going the way of Belfast and devaluing our jerseys by making multiples of star players like they did when Fleury played for them ?
We all know that if we sponsor a jersey and the player gets gassed or injured then that's tough luck - it's a risk you take sometimes. This is different though and I would like to see the club nip this practice in the bud. How can anyone who sponsored a set 1 jersey last season now be sure that they received what they thought they were getting ? Were extra jerseys made of other players on the roster ?
I honestly do not know - I did not know about this extra Voth jersey until seeing this thread and going on the website.
Who cares who owned it and how many times it was worn. Isn't it enough to know it belonged to the Vother and will be sought after by many?
