Palace's new shirt sponsor is gambling company Mansion - but Rob Sutherland sort of wishes it wasn't.
I'm not a gambling man. I have a flutter here and there - but I don't make a habit of it and I try to avoid the temptation as much as I can. But how much can you avoid it when it's your own football club promoting such a site?
The matter leaves me conflicted. Football is now intrinsically tied to gambling. You can't watch a game on TV without a multitude of bookmakers trying to promote their latest odds. Stadiums and shirts are typically plastered with their branding, while those animated advertising hoardings also provide reminders every minute of their presence.
It's why a company like Mansion, a brand you wouldn't typically associate with football and who specialise in casinos, are sponsoring football clubs at all. A sports betting customer is likely to be tempted by casino sites - the lucrative offers aimed at drawing you in, the potential of a big win keeping your attention - its a big industry with major rewards going to companies that can corner that market.
The gambling sector alone has seen its yield grow by more than a third between 2010 and 2014 - with greater access to online gambling sites, this number is likely to continue growing. And casinos, which held a 16% market share between 2013 and 2014, clearly see an opportunity for greater profit.
With that potential growth comes big money - sponsorship deals that see clubs like Palace earn more than it received in a season of Championship football. This is the quandary - I appreciate that Palace should make as much as they can from the real estate that is the middle of a shirt - I just wish it wasn't a gambling site.
Gambling is addictive. It can be terribly destructive. Gambling sites don't make money from winners - they don't want you to win. Losers are the life blood of gambling sites, and the more you lose, the more important you are to them - with the biggest losers often considered VIPs. The act of gambling isn't immoral, the role that these companies play in it is.
I don't see a great deal of difference between being sponsored by a payday lender like Wonga and a bookmaker or casino site. The temptation is the same - get money quick. The difference is that with one, you get the money and then spend the rest of your time paying it off at extortionate rates - with the other, you spend they money hoping you get the potential return. Neither are get-rich quick schemes - both come with great risk.
It's clearly not an easy argument to make to demand that Palace refuse sponsorship from companies like Mansion. If they're offering the most money, it makes sense to accept that offer. Equally, as a Palace fan, I'd like to wear the new shirt and while I object to the sponsor, I'll accept it being a bi-product of where the club is.
If there is a positive to come from the deal, it's that the brilliant music therapy charity Nordoff Robbins, who are based in North London and Croydon, get to have their logo printed across youth and child shirts. While kids will perhaps be disappointed that they can't wear the exact same shirts their heroes are wearing, given the choice, I'd wear the charity version too.
I'd like to think that, with more seasons of Premier League football, Palace might be able to attract a sponsor that doesn't rely on customers making losses.