That would be like smoking in a pub before the smoking ban, knowing the ban was coming.It’s a disgrace signing a new deal with a betting company when these are becoming outlawed advertising.
Thankfully my not buying it stance fit that reason is made easy as that is SHITE
Should we only ever use brands with historical ties to the club?It's a brand nothing to do with the history of the club.
No class.
I don't know why anyone is surprised.
Home kit should be Gold and Black. Away kit should be all White. (Teal at a stretch).
Ideally with no sponsor. (Black sponsor logo only if you insist).
That's my old fashioned take on it.
It totally lacks class though doesn't it?Perfectly fine and within the limits of the law.
Have they?That would have ruled out Castore, who have been the best quality kit supplier in decades.
True. But the length of delay in the change is solely based on villas deal with their sponsor as that was the longest outstanding and the authorities could hardly force clubs to breach contracts they had already signed. But if a cunts trick to sign a new deal in the phasing out period.That would be like smoking in a pub before the smoking ban, knowing the ban was coming.
Perfectly fine and within the limits of the law.
Yes. Like many of our recent sponsors. Even Doritos couldn't be described as classy.It totally lacks class though doesn't it?
Quality wise. Easily. Designs not so much.Have they?
Doritos isn't tied up with Macau Money tbf.Yes. Like many of our recent sponsors. Even Doritos couldn't be described as classy.
Eh? Potato crisps aren't about to get banned as a sponsor are they?!Yes. Like many of our recent sponsors. Even Doritos couldn't be described as classy.
Tomorrow for the launch of SuduShouldnt it be out today ?
Didn't some sport (cricket?) ban snack food sponsorship..?Eh? Potato crisps aren't about to get banned as a sponsor are they?!
The authorities could easily have enforced a no new betting sponsorship law. But they didn't.True. But the length of delay in the change is solely based on villas deal with their sponsor as that was the longest outstanding and the authorities could hardly force clubs to breach contracts they had already signed. But if a cunts trick to sign a new deal in the phasing out period.
It's understandable you don't like it, and that's fine. And as you have clearly recognised it won't offend everyone's sensibilities.Legal doesn’t make it less dishonourable. Although I must confess bias in the matter as a reformed gambling addict.
No desire to be puritanical about it so I’m comfortable in my skin with saying I will swerve it but your mileage may vary and that’s fine too
No but if you eat a bag of tangy cheese while your driving, it'll make a mess of the steering wheel.Doritos isn't tied up with Macau Money tbf.
No, but they're not classy either.Eh? Potato crisps aren't about to get banned as a sponsor are they?!
The tournament that we don't speak of is sponsored by them.Didn't some sport (cricket?) ban snack food sponsorship..?
What I meant was the club is now a brand. The owners couldn't give a shit about the clubs history. Only the future as a cash cow.Should we only ever use brands with historical ties to the club?
That would have ruled out Castore, who have been the best quality kit supplier in decades.
Ah, I've just checked, the not for us tournament got a bollocking for targeting U16s with junk food propaganda a coupleof years ago. But they are still doing it...