The ludicrous part of this is, the child can't wear a top with BETDAQ on it, but they can look all around the ground and in front of them is BETDAQ all around the ground, in the programme, and on any adult shirt in their view. It's a stupid and poorly thought through rule.
Lots of people are criticising AFKA for not speaking with them yesterday, but no one has picked up on his main faux pas which comes just two words in. Where you have an auxiliary verb, the past tense of speak is spoken. In case you are wondering, the 've part of I've is the auxiliary.
You can just imagine the kids pulling on their shirts with betting companies on the front and thinking, immediately, where can I get a bet? The football authorities are a joke.
Even now, in my mid 40s, I'm still badgering my dad for a red bus ....
I think more importantly, Hummel need to sort out the sizing of the shirts. My Grandson is 11 (albeit tall) and I had to buy him a small men's shirt last year!
So the shirt had Betdaq on it anyway and I had to pay extra for an adult size!
You can just imagine the kids pulling on their shirts with betting companies on the front and thinking, immediately, where can I get a bet? The football authorities are a joke.
Comments
first @AFKABartram tells lies; and
second the repugnant Daily Mail is his newspaper of choice. [I expect he will tell us that this article dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5286743/Premier-league-clubs-selling-shirts-gambling-ads.html published yesterday is mere coincidence (see fact one)].
I'm boycotting. Protests are needed. No more banning of fish puns at his whim.
Just sell the forum and fuck off.
http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11678/11325307/newcastle-united-fined-over-shirt-sponsor-breach
http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11678/11325307/newcastle-united-fined-over-shirt-sponsor-breach
Kind regards,
Disgruntled, overlooked parent, Newcastle
So the shirt had Betdaq on it anyway and I had to pay extra for an adult size!