Jump to content
Midsblue

Decent shirt & brilliant marketing

Recommended Posts

https://twitter.com/htafc/status/1152126447345123329?s=21

 

Brilliant marketing by Sean here.  Raises loads of media because the Paddy Power sponsor broke rules.  Then issues the actual shirt minus any sponsors logo as the club and PP are bringing the shirt back to the old days without any logos.

 

Our club release a meh shirt and the release a second temp version for Morocco that’s better than the matchday version.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Midsblue said:

https://twitter.com/htafc/status/1152126447345123329?s=21

 

Brilliant marketing by Sean here.  Raises loads of media because the Paddy Power sponsor broke rules.  Then issues the actual shirt minus any sponsors logo as the club and PP are bringing the shirt back to the old days without any logos.

 

Our club release a meh shirt and the release a second temp version for Morocco that’s better than the matchday version.

 

 

I quite like the new shirt and prefer it to the Morocco version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Midsblue said:

https://twitter.com/htafc/status/1152126447345123329?s=21

 

Brilliant marketing by Sean here.  Raises loads of media because the Paddy Power sponsor broke rules.  Then issues the actual shirt minus any sponsors logo as the club and PP are bringing the shirt back to the old days without any logos.

 

Our club release a meh shirt and the release a second temp version for Morocco that’s better than the matchday version.

 

Brilliant marketing? 

Yes by Paddy Power, not by Huddersfield who have flagrantly breached rules with the obvious intention of saying it's worth it for the publicity. That's disgraceful especially on such a contentious subject. 

 

I suppose it's the marketing version of 'taking one for the ream'. Or cheating as it could equally be referred to. 

 

I hope they get hammered for it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% agreed. PaddyPower have smashed it with this little stunt and the actual kit looks nice & crisp without the sponsor.

 

Hopefully we see something similar next year with this anniversary kit.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

Brilliant marketing? 

Yes by Paddy Power, not by Huddersfield who have flagrantly breached rules with the obvious intention of saying it's worth it for the publicity. That's disgraceful especially on such a contentious subject. 

 

I suppose it's the marketing version of 'taking one for the ream'. Or cheating as it could equally be referred to. 

 

I hope they get hammered for it. 

 

Hammered for what?  One shirt in a preseason friendly?  I’m quite envious than it wasn’t us - how I’d love some positive jovial marketing for our club at moment and a decent quality shirt to boot 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, TheBigDog said:

 

I quite like the new shirt and prefer it to the Morocco version.

OK, daft question. What's the difference between the new shirt and the Morocco shirt? Asking for a friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

Brilliant marketing? 

Yes by Paddy Power, not by Huddersfield who have flagrantly breached rules with the obvious intention of saying it's worth it for the publicity. That's disgraceful especially on such a contentious subject. 

 

I suppose it's the marketing version of 'taking one for the ream'. Or cheating as it could equally be referred to. 

 

I hope they get hammered for it. 

 

For god's sake lighten up a bit, it was a great marketing idea and worked a treat, got people talking during the dull pre-season & Hudds now get to wear an awesome kit next season.

 

Saying you hope they get 'hammered' for wearing a novelty kit during a pre-season game and having a bit of fun just outs you as a complete and utter kill-joy and bore :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

Brilliant marketing? 

Yes by Paddy Power, not by Huddersfield who have flagrantly breached rules with the obvious intention of saying it's worth it for the publicity. That's disgraceful especially on such a contentious subject. 

 

I suppose it's the marketing version of 'taking one for the ream'. Or cheating as it could equally be referred to. 

 

I hope they get hammered for it. 

Bet you're a right laugh at parties...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1 hour ago, Midsblue said:

https://twitter.com/htafc/status/1152126447345123329?s=21

 

Brilliant marketing by Sean here.  Raises loads of media because the Paddy Power sponsor broke rules.  Then issues the actual shirt minus any sponsors logo as the club and PP are bringing the shirt back to the old days without any logos.

 

Our club release a meh shirt and the release a second temp version for Morocco that’s better than the matchday version.

 

 

Might get a fine yet.  Not so clever then is it.  Also this is marketing for Paddy power, not Hudds.  Who does Sean work for again?  I doubt it was his idea (More likely PP) and if it was then all he has done is raise awareness of PaddyPower.  Odd.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's it odd...? It's marketing for Paddy Power yes. Which they probably paid Huddersfield a boatload of money for! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bristolatic said:

OK, daft question. What's the difference between the new shirt and the Morocco shirt? Asking for a friend.

The collar/neckline on the the new shirt does not resemble women’s genitals? 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TheBigDog said:

The collar/neckline on the the new shirt does not resemble women’s genitals? 🤔

Blue and white?! 😳

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2019 at 10:18 AM, Dave_Og said:

Brilliant marketing? 

Yes by Paddy Power, not by Huddersfield who have flagrantly breached rules with the obvious intention of saying it's worth it for the publicity. That's disgraceful especially on such a contentious subject. 

 

I suppose it's the marketing version of 'taking one for the ream'. Or cheating as it could equally be referred to. 

 

I hope they get hammered for it. 

FWIW they would’ve got around the rules if it was real by arguing that the sash was part of the shirt and thus only the lettering would count towards the ‘sponsor area’ set out by the regulations, see Middlesbrough shirt 17/18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fined, as expected.  £50k is bit light though. 

 

Hopefully the FA asked for disclosure of the deal and that’s more than they earned from it, but it seems unlikely. 

 

 

Pretty grubby this:

 

In the FA's written reasons Martin Coy - who refereed the friendly on 17 July - said Huddersfield chairman Phil Hodgkinson had asked him to ban them from wearing the kit before the match.

"He said that my decision could then potentially be good publicity and part of the advertising campaign," Coy said in a witness statement.

"I was uncomfortable with this and felt it was not my place to ban the kit outright, but I informed them that I would recommend they followed the rules and advice from The FA."

Coy was then told Huddersfield would not wear the shirt, details of which the club's operations manager Ann Hough said were kept from the Terriers board until the day of the game.

The FA warned the club on the same day that they may take action if the shirt was worn, but Hodgkinson said the sponsor threatened legal action if they did not wear it.

"The sponsor said that it would be deemed to be a material breach of the sponsorship agreement if the team did not wear the oversized logo," he said.

"In the circumstances, when faced with the threat of serious legal action from the club's main sponsor, and with no time to seek external legal advice, we felt we had no alternative but to wear the oversized logo in the match."

Edited by kowenicki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kowenicki said:

Fined, as expected.  £50k is bit light though. 

 

Hopefully the FA asked for disclosure of the deal and that’s more than they earned from it, but it seems unlikely. 

 

 

Pretty grubby this:

 

In the FA's written reasons Martin Coy - who refereed the friendly on 17 July - said Huddersfield chairman Phil Hodgkinson had asked him to ban them from wearing the kit before the match.

"He said that my decision could then potentially be good publicity and part of the advertising campaign," Coy said in a witness statement.

"I was uncomfortable with this and felt it was not my place to ban the kit outright, but I informed them that I would recommend they followed the rules and advice from The FA."

Coy was then told Huddersfield would not wear the shirt, details of which the club's operations manager Ann Hough said were kept from the Terriers board until the day of the game.

The FA warned the club on the same day that they may take action if the shirt was worn, but Hodgkinson said the sponsor threatened legal action if they did not wear it.

"The sponsor said that it would be deemed to be a material breach of the sponsorship agreement if the team did not wear the oversized logo," he said.

"In the circumstances, when faced with the threat of serious legal action from the club's main sponsor, and with no time to seek external legal advice, we felt we had no alternative but to wear the oversized logo in the match."

And a 10k fine for Millwall for their fans racist chanting 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mcfluff1985 said:

And a 10k fine for Millwall for their fans racist chanting 

 

That should be points off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kowenicki said:

Fined, as expected.  £50k is bit light though. 

 

...

 

Cheap for the level of publicity they got, you couldn't get that rate with any ad agency!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SweeperKeeper said:

 

Cheap for the level of publicity they got, you couldn't get that rate with any ad agency!

 

Paddy Power got the publicity, less so Hudds imo 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 8:37 PM, kowenicki said:

 

Paddy Power got the publicity, less so Hudds imo 

Isn’t that the idea with shirt sponsorship? And Huddersfield probably got additional shirt sales from fans who like the idea of a sponsorless shirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Stevie_J said:

Isn’t that the idea with shirt sponsorship? And Huddersfield probably got additional shirt sales from fans who like the idea of a sponsorless shirt.

 

For Paddypower yes. Not sure it did Hudds any good whatsoever.  Looks like it’s given them a bit of a headache going off the full story of what went on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

For Paddypower yes. Not sure it did Hudds any good whatsoever.  Looks like it’s given them a bit of a headache going off the full story of what went on. 

 

Paddy power: we’ll ahem, ‘sue’ you for breach of contract. Wink wink. Oh, by the way, we’ll pay you loads. 

 

Hudds: Ok, draw up some paperwork saying that and we’ll wear it. 

 

🤷‍♀️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kowenicki said:

 

Not sure it did Hudds any good whatsoever.  

Except for PaddyPower paying them a shitload of money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...