#Hahaha the betting = bad, alcohol = absolutely fine because we do real ale tours before games story is very unsurprising to me
No-one said betting was evil, that’s just Ed’s wishful thinking to justify his crapThen if I'm right that the Trust has an open part of their meetings and a closed part, That person who said about betting is evil should of kept his views til the closed part when people like Ed wasn't present and could of been dicussed then?
Funnily enough there was a filly born in France in 2000 which the owner tried to register as Gros Nouchons which I am advised translates as Big Tits. The French racing authorities refused the name but when Big Tits was offered instead it was accepted. Vraiment.How in Christ's name do you embed a video? Off-topic but witty if you are childish. Can somebody help?
Edit - it seems to have worked.
Leaving aside the rights or wrongs of bookmakers as sponsors, the real issue is why a member of the commercial department spent time developing a deal which was always going to be rejected if the position of the Trust was this clear. One hopes it was this episode which prompted the Trust to reach its position rather than the club not understanding what was a previously established Trust policy.The Trust has a clear policy on gambling sponsorship and it seems like the correct decision was reached in line with that policy.
Players under 18 cannot have Skybet logo on their shirt.I know I'm going into specifics here but the idea of that Sponorship with the betting club on the kit, Were we in the "Skybet" era where Skybet is plastered everywhere from the ground to the matchday programme or was it beforehand? There's very little point in trying to take the moral high ground when a lot of our income comes from a betting company (Via the EFL).