Rangers clinch new long-term shirt sponsorship with Kindred Group (32Red & Unibet)

[maverick1200 2,828]

Rangers ANNOUNCE MULTI-YEAR PARTNERSHIP EXTENSION WITH 32RED

https://www.Rangers.co.uk/article/Rangers-announce-multi-year-partnership-extension-with-32red/3e96tycaFQDJBQJGziSoj5

--

I'd like to know the figures and how much it is compared to other British clubs. 

We are certainly organised at the moment. 

[mus 1,378]

Good luck with this mate!

[maverick1200 2,828]

Just now, mus said:

Good luck with this mate!

Bastard!  Just seen the other thread and thought for fuck sake. 

 

[esquire8 42,756]

Had a mare there mate. Not the first and won't be the last 

[stuart1994 4,303]

If it’s the biggest deal I’m happy simple as. 

[Assegai 7,870]

1 hour ago, esquire8 said:

They've not put through the legislation for it yet. Any deals before it has went through will be allowed to continue.

Understood, thank you!

[BillyG91 5,512]

If thats the best deal on the table then it’s a good choice. 
 

[Willis 20,919]

I don't particularly like the 32red logo design but I couldn't care less about them being a gambling site. Folk greetin about gambling and alcohol sponsors should man up a bit

[plymouthranger 3,872]

As long as they paying good money and the logos not horrendous (which it isn’t) who cares.

Was hoping for the 150th anniversary kit we would be sponsorless, but I understand the club probably can’t afford that right now

[DrLaudrup 4,606]

I'm not the greatest fan of betting companies but I'm pragmatic enough to be happy so long as the Club is getting the best deal. I don't know any of the numbers but I suspect we are still short of when our commercial arm was one of the largest in UK football. The reality of playing in a smaller league and with (currently) not a regular Champions League platform means that whether we like it or not 'A list' sponsors won't rush to us yet, but hopefully this will be better than the last 32Red deal and a sign of ongoing strengthening of that side of our operation. 

[We Will Follow Rangers 12,921]

As long as the money is good not bothered about any other consideration, individuals are responsible for their actions no one else.

Deaths due to alcohol specific causes are at record highs yet no one  batted an eyelid when we were sponsored by shit beer or cider producers.

27 of England's top 44 clubs have gambling related sponsors that's just the way it is. gambling is inherently linked with football

[JamieD 18,948]

15 hours ago, theblueoysterbar said:

What harm does a betting company do to society? It's a free choice on whether to use them or not.

Most people are in control of their vices. It's not to be blamed on them that some people aren't.

You wanting a ban on brewers and distillers as well?

32Red have been fined for encouraging problem gamblers to keep betting, to be fair. 

Of course people should be free to gamble, drink etc, but that doesn't mean the industries that profit from exploiting these habits behave respectably.

[G.E.C. 18,777]

Mind we were sponsored by Blackthorn for a year.

Decent on draught.

[BrotherTJ 172]

17 hours ago, SonicWill said:

Really disappointing that we're still going with betting companies. Makes us look like every other team and sends the wrong message, given the harm they do to society.

Hopefully Government action will crack down on these companies being sponsors.

I agree, but between the choice of a betting sponsor and a booze one, I'd take the former. And yes, I spot the irony in my avatar.

Wse aren't a club (yet) to pick our sponsors - they choose us.

When I become a bitcoin trillionaire I'm going to hand the team a few mil NOT to have any fuckery on the shirts - just like in the good old days.

Jimmy Hill has a lot to answer for.

[Jamie29 764]

Regarding the gambling issue. I have never looked at a football top and thought, oh I better stick a coupon on. 

If your watching football do you really notice the sponsor? 

[theblueoysterbar 19,628]

7 hours ago, JamieD said:

32Red have been fined for encouraging problem gamblers to keep betting, to be fair. 

Of course people should be free to gamble, drink etc, but that doesn't mean the industries that profit from exploiting these habits behave respectably.

Surely that shows that there is a fairly robust system in place to keep these companies in check.

[JamieD 18,948]

5 hours ago, theblueoysterbar said:

Surely that shows that there is a fairly robust system in place to keep these companies in check.

If it was robust, the gambling companies wouldn't breach the rules and need to be fined. In any case, we're not advertising the Gambling Commission. The existence of a regulator doesn't make the regulated organisation somehow more respectable. 

The only companies wanting to throw money at us are going to be dodgy in some way or another. We don't have to kid ourselves that they aren't just to feel better about it. 

[harlands plater 16,981]

Disappointed to see us still tied in with an online betting company, for personal reasons.