Damned

[Rampage]

10 minutes ago, Rampage said:

Bet you will.

 

7 minutes ago, AbuDerbyDave said:

Fiver says I won’t 

Raise you to 32

[Philmycock]

Should our local church be selling raffle tickets for their summer fete?

[Gritstone Ram]

Being as it is Derby and Wayne Rooney I am prepared to over look any thing that is unethical about this whole thing.

[RadioactiveWaste]

Just now, Van Gritters said:

Being as it is Derby and Wayne Rooney I am prepared to over look any thing that is unethical about this whole thing.

He was scouted by Tom Ince's mum.

[jono]

I’m not fond of the huge growth of the gambling industry, and those terrible slot machine things in the poorest of areas but like Spies and Prostitutes, gambling is part of human life so getting too moralistic about it doesn’t really solve anything. Just needs sensible regulation, after that it’s an industry like anything else and most people deploy common sense and enjoy a flutter

[DarkFruitsRam7]

3 hours ago, jono said:

When the churches get round to a bit more self condemnation about abuse of children, Unmarried mothers, along with the general mayhem and slaughter in gods name over the last 2000 years then I might be prepared to listen 

What?

[jono]

4 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

What?

Check out what the catholic’s did to “fallen” women ... the Magdalen homes in Ireland, brutal dehumanising carp all in the name of god.

in essence young girls that got pregnant had their babies taken from them and they got sent to church run convent launderies, to work and do penance for their sins. It was slavery, nothing less 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

4 minutes ago, jono said:

Check out what the catholic’s did to “fallen” women ... the Magdalen homes in Ireland, brutal dehumanising carp all in the name of god.

in essence young girls that got pregnant had their babies taken from them and they got sent to church run convent launderies, to work and do penance for their sins. It was slavery, nothing less 

Sorry, I misinterpreted your initial post. I’m with you 100%.

[Kennington Ram]

Derby County will outlast the Church of England, so I'm not especially worried about this.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

These are bits in the official FA guidelines re sponsorship -  Apparantly you are not allowed to advertise under your shirt or have personal messages on shirts .  Every player seems to do that .  I assume we have a vastly paid legal team who have examined the below-  we are on shaky ground though.

 

Subject to any Competition rules that may apply, the officially designated logo or name of the Competition (or combination of the same) or the officially designated Club emblem may appear once only on each of the player’s shirt numbers providing the logo, name or combination does not exceed an area of 20 square centimetres. The officially designated logo or name of the Competition’s designated charity  or combination of the same may also appear once only on each of the player’s shirt numbers providing the logo, name or combination does not exceed an area of 20 square centimetres. No other Advertising or any other marking is allowed on players’ shirt numbers.

6.                       Advertising entailing the use of numerals is permitted only if such numerals clearly form part of the Advertising and cannot in any way be confused with Players’ shirt numbers.

The following Advertising is permitted:

(i)            Playing kit

(a)                    On the Clothing of a Player on the field of play, the following areas shall be permitted to be used for Advertising

One single area not exceeding 250 square centimetres on the front of the shirt (see Fig 10);

One single area not exceeding 100 square centimetres on the back of the shirt (see Fig 13);

One single area not exceeding  100  square  centimetres  on each sleeve of the shirt, between the shoulder seam and the elbow (provided Affiliated Association or Competition Rules so permit) (see Fig 12);

One single area not exceeding 100 square centimetres on the back of the shorts (see Fig 14); and

Once only on each sock tie-up providing it does not exceed an area of 100 square centimetres (see Fig 11).

One or more company may be advertised and, in respect of any one company, one or more of its products. The same Advertising must appear in the same form on the Clothing of all Players and Club Officials, wherever such Advertising appears, throughout the entirety of the match.

 

 

[Stagtime]

3 hours ago, Pastinaak said:

I don't know how they frigging dare. I'm not massively impressed with the whole gambling infiltration of our club but there's a synergy between the businesses so I understand it. 

One thing I'd never be able to accept on the shirt would be any kind of sponsorship from any religious organisation. Imagine having 'JESUS LOVES YOU' on the shirt??? That'd be worse than 'JUST EAT'!

Lucky Cocu wasn’t around in those days, I might have thought the church was sponsoring us!

[DJFern94]

34 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

These are bits in the official FA guidelines re sponsorship -  Apparantly you are not allowed to advertise under your shirt or have personal messages on shirts .  Every player seems to do that .  I assume we have a vastly paid legal team who have examined the below-  we are on shaky ground though.

 

Subject to any Competition rules that may apply, the officially designated logo or name of the Competition (or combination of the same) or the officially designated Club emblem may appear once only on each of the player’s shirt numbers providing the logo, name or combination does not exceed an area of 20 square centimetres. The officially designated logo or name of the Competition’s designated charity  or combination of the same may also appear once only on each of the player’s shirt numbers providing the logo, name or combination does not exceed an area of 20 square centimetres. No other Advertising or any other marking is allowed on players’ shirt numbers.

6.                       Advertising entailing the use of numerals is permitted only if such numerals clearly form part of the Advertising and cannot in any way be confused with Players’ shirt numbers.

The following Advertising is permitted:

(i)            Playing kit

(a)                    On the Clothing of a Player on the field of play, the following areas shall be permitted to be used for Advertising

One single area not exceeding 250 square centimetres on the front of the shirt (see Fig 10);

One single area not exceeding 100 square centimetres on the back of the shirt (see Fig 13);

One single area not exceeding  100  square  centimetres  on each sleeve of the shirt, between the shoulder seam and the elbow (provided Affiliated Association or Competition Rules so permit) (see Fig 12);

One single area not exceeding 100 square centimetres on the back of the shorts (see Fig 14); and

Once only on each sock tie-up providing it does not exceed an area of 100 square centimetres (see Fig 11).

One or more company may be advertised and, in respect of any one company, one or more of its products. The same Advertising must appear in the same form on the Clothing of all Players and Club Officials, wherever such Advertising appears, throughout the entirety of the match.

 

 

I'd say we are all clear. 

 

1. The advertising isn't "ON" the shirt number, it "is" the shirt number.

2. The number 32 cannot be confused with a player's shirt number, because it is a shirt number.

Where it is sketchy is if they decide that it is advertising and the 100 square centimetres ruling.

[uttoxram75]

3 hours ago, Ewe Ram said:

Whatever happened to people taking responsibility for their own actions? I’ve watched football for a long time and never been influenced by any of it. I don’t drink Pedigree, I didn’t buy Avon tyres either. I don’t gamble and this isn’t going to make me. If I got bladdered on Pedigree should I blame Derby for having them sponsor a suite? 

If you get bladdered on Pedigree you'd not be in a position to blame anyone else. A Pedi hangover is a full day on the sofa with a pillow over your head.

[ram59]

Dunno wether anyone else has put this up, but Adam Reily  of PNE sponsored by red32, has a squad number of 32.

 

Nothing said about that though. 

 

Plus Stephen Wearne of Boro. 

[DesertRam]

11 hours ago, Wignall12 said:

Or just 31+1 ?

The truth is that due to all the hysterical publicity this has generated, we could have the same effect

with him wearing 23 on the back of his shirt! 

[DesertRam]

The "Dark Ages", in case anyone didn't know, officially started when religion ruled the world.

(and before anyone points it out I put a small r on purpose)

[Derbyramhk]

Which club wouldn't sell their soul for the upcoming glory we are about to receive (pun intended)? League, cup and European trophies await... 

[richinspain]

It would be interesting to read @Mafiabob's thoughts on this. Personally I do think that we are taking advantage of a loophole, but it's a loophole that has arisen because of the circumstances. Sky bet for example wouldn't be able to use it, it's purely down to our sponsors name. I do however think that those making all the fuss are the ones that are actually doing the advertising. I don't for a second believe that anyone who has "Rooney 32" on their shirt will be doing it to advertise, just as those who had "Martin 9" didn't when we had Just Eat as sponsors (sorry Chris, cheap joke). Probably 90% of those that don't care who a club's sponsor is wouldn't even link the two. Those shouting about it are drawing attention to it. Any child wearing "Rooney 32" with Bet32 on the front of their shirt won't be secretly advertising because there is nothing there to advertise, just as "Ronaldo 7" isn't advertising, when in all truth that is actually advertising a brand that makes a fortune for it's owner. If the FA do make a case out of this I'm sure that our legal team will have a field day taking them to the cleaners.

[1977 Ram Raider]

SSN confirming this will all be sorted in 32 hours.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

20 minutes ago, richinspain said:

It would be interesting to read @Mafiabob's thoughts on this. Personally I do think that we are taking advantage of a loophole, but it's a loophole that has arisen because of the circumstances. Sky bet for example wouldn't be able to use it, it's purely down to our sponsors name. I do however think that those making all the fuss are the ones that are actually doing the advertising. I don't for a second believe that anyone who has "Rooney 32" on their shirt will be doing it to advertise, just as those who had "Martin 9" didn't when we had Just Eat as sponsors (sorry Chris, cheap joke). Probably 90% of those that don't care who a club's sponsor is wouldn't even link the two. Those shouting about it are drawing attention to it. Any child wearing "Rooney 32" with Bet32 on the front of their shirt won't be secretly advertising because there is nothing there to advertise, just as "Ronaldo 7" isn't advertising, when in all truth that is actually advertising a brand that makes a fortune for it's owner. If the FA do make a case out of this I'm sure that our legal team will have a field day taking them to the cleaners.

As far as I’m aware, @Mafiabob will take the view that it’s people’s choice to gamble, and the problem doesn’t necessarily lie with the bookies or the sponsors.