Midsblue Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Pyro No Party Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midsblue Posted July 19, 2019 Author Share Posted July 19, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristolatic Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Bosnian Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTM Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 How's it odd...? It's marketing for Paddy Power yes. Which they probably paid Huddersfield a boatload of money for! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristolatic Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 I would never have noticed that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosa Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 11 minutes ago, TheBigDog said: The collar/neckline on the the new shirt does not resemble women’s genitals? Blue and white?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 Who paid for the shirt and printing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythemostimportantkick Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 4 hours ago, TheBigDog said: The collar/neckline on the the new shirt does not resemble women’s genitals? Cold and dry and hairy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Posted July 25, 2019 Share Posted July 25, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcfluff1985 Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 1 hour ago, mcfluff1985 said: And a 10k fine for Millwall for their fans racist chanting That should be points off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweeperKeeper Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted September 7, 2019 Share Posted September 7, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted September 7, 2019 Share Posted September 7, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted September 7, 2019 Share Posted September 7, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted September 7, 2019 Share Posted September 7, 2019 2 hours ago, kowenicki said: Not sure it did Hudds any good whatsoever. Except for PaddyPower paying them a shitload of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.