Huddersfield new kit

HoffTTM

Midfield
Got to be against league rules surely, all sorts of stuff regarding maximum size and placement in CL and Prem, imagine similar for EFL
 

yorkyexile

Striker
Just having an argument at work about ` Uddersfeeled`s new strip which has paddy power in a sash arrangement from left hip to right shoulder. Correct me if i`m wrong here but isnt there regulations on the size and placement of sponsors logo`s?

The offending item

Rumours are its a wind up but leave that to one side, would that contravene advertising/sponsorship regs?
that`ll teach me to search before posting!!!
 
Last edited:

robbied1

Striker
What happened with etting companies being made to cut back on sponsorship? Hence us having the xancer charity
 

Fievel

Full Back
What happened with etting companies being made to cut back on sponsorship? Hence us having the xancer charity
That was Betdaq doing it voluntarily. I can't remember if it was getting ahead of official regulation which comes in soon anyway, or if it was the industry trying to cut back as they've realised they're in danger of getting more regulation.

That is also why there's supposed to be fewer betting ads this season during live matches, because they were trying to preempt actual laws.
 

flusheding

Striker
I thought that’s why we dropped Dafabet. I could be wrong
GVC Holdings’ betting exchange company BETDAQ have terminated their shirt sponsorship deal with English League One club Sunderland AFC as the company continue their Changing for the Bettor social responsibility initiative.

GVC last month voiced their support for a blanket ban on sports betting advertising in the UK, including an end to gambling-related football shirt sponsorships and TV ads.

They have now acted along these principles by ending their relationship with Sunderland and have donated its shirt sponsorship to charity ‘Children With Cancer’, who will replace BETDAQ as principle SAFC partner for next season – the 2019-2020 campaign.

By the sounds of it, this monster company who own Ladbrooks and Coral as well as the smaller firms like BETDAQ are trying to show themselves to be self-policing and aren't the bad guys so that the government doesn't roll in and treat gambling like smoking. They chose to pull out though, they aren't currently being forced to.
 
Last edited:

robbied1

Striker
That was Betdaq doing it voluntarily. I can't remember if it was getting ahead of official regulation which comes in soon anyway, or if it was the industry trying to cut back as they've realised they're in danger of getting more regulation.

That is also why there's supposed to be fewer betting ads this season during live matches, because they were trying to preempt actual laws.
I see, i must admit i didnt know the ins and outs but felt it was strange of betdaq, maybe they have other sponsorship deals meaning they couldnt with us?
 

Sebastien

Striker
Intriguing how they've managed to fit into the rules regarding maximum area of a sponsor logo.

Ii is a joke as under FA regulations, sponsors’ names on a shirt can only be a maximum size of 250cm squared
Should have read the full thread before posting. ;)
 

Top