|
|
Post by leemorris on Sept 5, 2019 17:27:38 GMT 1
Fine is fair as we flouted FA regulations but also highlights the issue with racism in the game with the level of fines players are receiving.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boaty McBoatface on Sept 5, 2019 17:31:38 GMT 1
Martin Coy, the referee, said Phil Hodgkinson asked him before the match to ban the kit which could itself be good publicity and part of the advertising campaign!
Coy’s witness statement read: “He said that the kit was not actually their real kit and it was all part of an advertising campaign. He said that he did not want the squad to wear the kit as the FA had informed ‘HTFC’ by phone call that it would be a breach of their regulations.
“He said that he was new to the chairman role, this being his first game and he didn’t want to be charged by the FA. He said that he wanted me to ban them from wearing the kit and said that my decision could then potentially be good publicity and part of the advertising campaign.
“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. I also stated that I did not want to be part of any publicity.”
What a total farce, but well played the referee refusing to get involved in this nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jello Biafra on Sept 5, 2019 17:36:22 GMT 1
Just goes from bad to worse, it seemed a stupid childish thing to do anyway. Oh, the fucking irony... |
|
|
|
Post by ruggedivy on Sept 5, 2019 17:37:12 GMT 1
Martin Coy, the referee, said Phil Hodgkinson asked him before the match to ban the kit which could itself be good publicity and part of the advertising campaign! Coy’s witness statement read: “He said that the kit was not actually their real kit and it was all part of an advertising campaign. He said that he did not want the squad to wear the kit as the FA had informed ‘HTFC’ by phone call that it would be a breach of their regulations. “He said that he was new to the chairman role, this being his first game and he didn’t want to be charged by the FA. He said that he wanted me to ban them from wearing the kit and said that my decision could then potentially be good publicity and part of the advertising campaign. “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. I also stated that I did not want to be part of any publicity.” What a total farce, but well played the referee refusing to get involved in this nonsense. Farce indeed. Pretty much sums up the start of Phil’s tenure.. |
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Sept 5, 2019 17:39:51 GMT 1
Gives our resident moaning fuckers something else to whine about?
Paddy Power will pay it.
It has not affected how our highly paid professional players have performed so far.
Neither did Jan coming in, neither did Hudson having a go and they shit all over Dave in his last month's.
Blame the new chairman, blame winter???
Fuck off..
|
|
|
|
Post by Sugy , Paignton Devon Terrier on Sept 5, 2019 17:40:36 GMT 1
Just trying to think who town could have bought with a £50,000 fund that might have made a difference
The real winner is what was raised for charity from the sale of the shirts
|
|
|
|
Post by teddytheterrier on Sept 5, 2019 17:52:34 GMT 1
Course he wanted it banning. He's now got to pay the fa 50k 😂😂😂 couldn't make it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by HuddsTerrier on Sept 5, 2019 17:52:36 GMT 1
Gives our resident moaning fuckers something else to whine about? Paddy Power will pay it. It has not affected how our highly paid professional players have performed so far. Neither did Jan coming in, neither did Hudson having a go and they shit all over Dave in his last month's. Blame the new chairman, blame winter??? Fuck off.. I agree it's likely Paddy Power will only pay as a favour - contractually they have done nothing wrong and the fine is to Huddersfield not PP If I was PH I'd be asking the commercial guys how they ended up committing in a legal contract something that was outlawed by FA rules |
|
|
|
Post by specialun on Sept 5, 2019 17:53:14 GMT 1
Martin Coy, the referee, said Phil Hodgkinson asked him before the match to ban the kit which could itself be good publicity and part of the advertising campaign! Coy’s witness statement read: “He said that the kit was not actually their real kit and it was all part of an advertising campaign. He said that he did not want the squad to wear the kit as the FA had informed ‘HTFC’ by phone call that it would be a breach of their regulations. “He said that he was new to the chairman role, this being his first game and he didn’t want to be charged by the FA. He said that he wanted me to ban them from wearing the kit and said that my decision could then potentially be good publicity and part of the advertising campaign. “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. I also stated that I did not want to be part of any publicity.” What a total farce, but well played the referee refusing to get involved in this nonsense. Does Phil remember he owned Southport...? I found it astonishing a man who owns a legal firm (sorry - who says his ownership is a misapprehension) did not know the rules about participants betting in football Surely... surely he knew this was in breach of FA Regulations?! The sash could be seen from the moon Having been caught out once... and as owner of a legal firm... you might have thought he’d have asked this?! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 17:58:06 GMT 1
So the Commercial Director (SJ) signs us up to a deal the Chairman feels obliged to beg the ref to get us out of? I wonder why the other clubs Paddy Power tried to coerce into their scheme decided it wasn’t for them? Maybe because they saw that PP we’re ready to lawyer up to dictate club actions and make us a laughing stock?
A bit less time in pre-season playing pranks and dicking around in fancy dress may have helped us not being managerless and bottom of the league?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bassingham Terrier on Sept 5, 2019 17:59:24 GMT 1
I'd also guess that PP will be less than impressed to read that PH wanted the ref to ban the shirts and that if he could, he would have reneged on the deal.
But as others have said, why on earth did we ever commit to a stunt which quite clearly flouted FA rules in the first place?
|
|
wigster
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,344
|
Post by wigster on Sept 5, 2019 18:08:44 GMT 1
What was a cheap and nasty publicity stunt ( engineered by Paddy Power but agreed to by amateurish Huddersfield Town) has now become expensive. I'm not jumping on a bandwagon - I said at the time it was tinpot and amateurish - but it does seem just another indication - though small - of how standards have slipped at Town in the last two years. It wasn't tinpot, it was genius. Paddy Power got all that publicity then, and now, for £50k. Bargain all day long. Mids, it was certainly not tinpot for Paddy Power - they are masters at this and knew exactly what they were doing. It WAS tinpot for us - amateurish, totally lacking in any dignity and a bit desperate, in my opinion. The Chairman's actions after this "please please ban it, I'm new to this role " seem even worse. Not living in Huddersfield, but Burnley, I took stick from my Burnley friends, long before it was revealed as a "hilarious" joke - how we all roared - and even more so after the truth came out (hardly needed brilliant deduction did it...). It was a bargain all day long for the betting company but, again only my opinion, made us look amateurish and just added to the negative feelings that some supporters, and most outsiders, of this club have now felt about us for 18 months or more. I suppose it did stop people talking about our appalling football/run of results for a while. Yes, I may be accused of lacking a sense of perspective - but I don't lack a sense of how Huddersfield Town appeared - to many of its fans, and certainly to outsiders. I feel a bit guilty about bothering to post on this thread as it's hardly a massive thing, but it does seem to be just another example of poor decision making by people at the club, and indicative of how far we are falling. IF the main aim was to raise money for charity then fair enough, but I'd be amazed if that was the original or major, reason it was done. We were, knowingly or naively, manipulated by a more savvy organisation . Others may disagree, but there are a lot more positive ways of getting publicity. We might actually sell more shirts by winning a bloody football match. |
|
|
|
Post by ritchie on Sept 5, 2019 18:16:08 GMT 1
I'd also guess that PP will be less than impressed to read that PH wanted the ref to ban the shirts and that if he could, he would have reneged on the deal. But as others have said, why on earth did we ever commit to a stunt which quite clearly flouted FA rules in the first place? Hmm not sure about that, adds yet another angle that keeps them talked about |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 18:24:46 GMT 1
The club claimed they would be in breach of a sponsorship agreement with Paddy Power if the team did not wear an oversized logo.
Hodgkinson wrote to the commission: "We were threatened with legal action and 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.
"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. This is an unfortunate event but we accept responsibility and offer a full apology."
The commission, led by Christopher Quinlan QC, wrote: "If the sponsor said that, it is difficult to see why the club felt at all threatened by it. By Clause 5.1.7 one of the club's responsibilities pursuant to the Sponsorship Agreement is that it "will comply with applicable laws and the regulations".
"By virtue of Clause 1.1 of the Sponsorship Agreement "Regulations" include the FA's regulations. Therefore, the club had a responsibility under the Sponsorship Agreement to comply with the FA's Kit and Advertising Regulations. It could hardly be a material breach of the agreement to comply with its terms. That should have been apparent to anyone who read it."
Note: Phil is now CEO of PURE Legal Limited, and also PURE Legal Costs Consultants Ltd, and the other numerous businesses within the PURE group of companies,
|
|
|
|
Post by themanfromatlantis on Sept 5, 2019 18:25:56 GMT 1
Those japesters from PP back in the news again. Unfortunately we were their prize target when you look at all the other clubs they've sponsored not to have a sponsor. That's said with the utmost of respect to those other clubs. But with us being recently relegated, having been elevated to that level for the first time in 50 yrs etc., we were a real catch. Ah well, maybe they'll decide to sponsor the Aussies at cricket and the ICB will fine them one innings worth of Steve Smiths runs...  |
|
|
|
Post by Malvern Tom (WAHLS) on Sept 5, 2019 18:30:42 GMT 1
Listen at the whimps on here. It is/was the club's decision...... The club will pay it...... Maybe the PP company will. Club business, not the fans. UTT
|
|
|
|
Post by themanfromatlantis on Sept 5, 2019 18:32:16 GMT 1
The club claimed they would be in breach of a sponsorship agreement with Paddy Power if the team did not wear an oversized logo. Hodgkinson wrote to the commission: "We were threatened with legal action and 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. "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. This is an unfortunate event but we accept responsibility and offer a full apology." The commission, led by Christopher Quinlan QC, wrote: "If the sponsor said that, it is difficult to see why the club felt at all threatened by it. By Clause 5.1.7 one of the club's responsibilities pursuant to the Sponsorship Agreement is that it "will comply with applicable laws and the regulations".
"By virtue of Clause 1.1 of the Sponsorship Agreement "Regulations" include the FA's regulations. Therefore, the club had a responsibility under the Sponsorship Agreement to comply with the FA's Kit and Advertising Regulations. It could hardly be a material breach of the agreement to comply with its terms. That should have been apparent to anyone who read it."
So are they saying; We knew the rules - so why did we sign up to an agreement (albeit for a publicity stunt) that was in breach of that - so how come we could feel threatened by something we were complicit in? Sounds like we painted ourselves into a corner here if I've understood it correctly. Our attempts to plead that we felt threatened just sound like bollocks & not something that the QC would have given a shiny shite about... |
|
|
|
Post by teddytheterrier on Sept 5, 2019 18:39:40 GMT 1
There goes our January transfer budget.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 18:43:37 GMT 1
Paddy Power will pay it.no they won’t. |
|
|
|
Post by softboy on Sept 5, 2019 18:46:19 GMT 1
I had absolutely no problem with the original stunt but it went too far - to actually play a game in a shirt that wasnt ok, have a reasonable idea we would be fined for doing it and then it appears the new Chairman tried to get the referee to say /no/ we cannot play in it is a complete lack of professionalism and clearly shows the people running the club are not up to the job - CEO definately needs to go before the next piece of stupidity happens
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 18:47:14 GMT 1
Paddy Power will pay it.no they won’t. Oh yes they will! |
|
|
|
Post by runner76 on Sept 5, 2019 18:48:18 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by TheDalaiPharmer on Sept 5, 2019 19:10:09 GMT 1
If things were going well on the field of play I doubt this would be being discussed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 19:10:58 GMT 1
The whole stunt was a pantomime |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 19:12:05 GMT 1
If things were going well on the field of play I doubt this would be being discussed. Oh no they’re not 🤣 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 19:12:27 GMT 1
Oh no they're not! |
|
loumacari
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
Posts: 1,587
|
Post by loumacari on Sept 5, 2019 19:14:06 GMT 1
If things were going well on the field of play I doubt this would be being discussed. Or perhaps a club that accumulated 16 points last season should have spent the summer concentrating on preparing to ‘win a few games’, instead of pulling cheap publicity stunts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2019 19:19:05 GMT 1
If things were going well on the field of play I doubt this would be being discussed. Or perhaps a club that accumulated 16 points last season should have spent the summer concentrating on preparing to ‘win a few games’, instead of pulling cheap publicity stunts. Just like the guy with the spanners putting the white seats in, the commercial side should have been out there getting the players fit! |
|
|
|
Post by slackjaw on Sept 5, 2019 19:19:23 GMT 1
If things were going well on the field of play I doubt this would be being discussed. Or perhaps a club that accumulated 16 points last season should have spent the summer concentrating on preparing to ‘win a few games’, instead of pulling cheap publicity stunts. Just getting them fit enough to play 90 minutes has been too difficult,expecting to win a few games? Think you need to lower your expectations a bit 🤪 |
|
|
|
Post by El Mel on Sept 5, 2019 19:22:35 GMT 1
Football is corrupt from the top down.
One of the reasons it no longer takes much of my money.
|
|
