Man Utd changed sponsors IIRC after AIG got the big bail out. I wonder if Liverpool can/would do the same now. A lot of people would be pissed I'm sure if they did after buying the new kit. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19159286 *I saw that on a photo of the squad with a banner in front. Full credit to whoever came up with it.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/football/p...rpool-end-sponsorship-deal-standard-chartered Good article. I think the owners can win back alot of support by ending the agreement, getting a new sponsor, and by replacing any officially bought 2012-13SC jersey by fans with a new 2012-13 kit with the new sponsor. Expensive, but the fans love it. The Columbus Blue Jackets in the NHL did something similar this past season when Jeff Carter was traded for Jack Johnson after failing with the team in his first 2/3 of a season...so they replaced any fans' Jeff Carter jerseys for Jack Johnson ones. EDIT: Before anyone throws this argument out there, I realize that there's a MASSIVE difference in the number of shirts we'd be talking about between Liverpool and the Blue Jackets.
OK, maybe I am just being defensive of the big bad bank, but let me get this straight the US State of New York - clearly an edifice of morality and without corruption, is lecturing a bank about business ethics and telling them with whom they can and can't do business? Do I really need to list the unbelievable hypocrisy in this story of a US entity lecturing people on who people can do business with? I love America but really - glass house and all that. I have a friend at SC in the London office, you want to know what he thinks? The week that this story was released was the same week that the ever so clean and pure State of NY offered SC an option of paying a large settlement quietly to the state or they would go public and then fine them a massive amount which they would end up settling anyway. He thinks every state has their own way of making money when the chips are down.
You took the words out of my mouth. The more I read this, the more garbled and confused the situation seems. You have a panoply of regulators some of who, like this chap from New York, seem to be fighting for turf and influence. And then you get an over-the top statement, I mean "... a rogue bank exposing the US to terrorism and drug traffickers ...". I think this is a storm in a tea cup.
SC has to pay $340 million in fines. Does that constitute a reason to switch sponsors? Does it matter? I really don't know. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19253666
And Carlsberg has helped ugly chicks get laid for 300 years. Does that mean we think any less of them?
I just want it all settled so I can safely purchase a Joe Allen or Fabio Borini kit (haven't decided yet, leaning toward Allen though).
SC will remain our sponsor. The fact that some third tier state regulator is making these claims while the bank is working directly with the Fed & Treasury is ridiculous. Obama should have called Cuomo and had him smack this guy around. I would not be surprised to see the FSA go after GS or JPM for a few hundred million pound fine just to prove a point that random regulators better be reigned in or there could be a worldwide free for all.
SC could be skinning orphans to make office chair covers and it would not stop people from buying Liverpool shirts as long as the sponsorship money rolled in.
Are you shocked that a huge banking conglomerate operating worldwide is involved in banking and money transaction scandals? I know I am not.