Fifa and the poppy saga
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Mr. Talons  Southampton 20 Dec 16 5.40pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Can I throw a little grenade in here? The poppy in question is a commercial logo, being the registered trademark of the Royal British Legion (which is a registered company that pays its executives quite well). On that basis, it breaks FIFA rules concerning advertising. Edited by Mr. Talons (20 Dec 2016 5.43pm)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Only 10 a year!! 20 Dec 16 5.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
FIFA: Please don't wear the poppy it is against our rules as we deem it to be a political emblem and it may open the door to more offensive motifs being worn. Home Countries: We don't care what you think we like the Poppy and what it stands for and cannot believe you are trying to prevent us doing what we like. FIFA: It's just that others might get offended or use it to their own advantage and wear swastikas or something, if you wear it we will have to penalise you with points or a fine Home Countries: Fine us we don't care FIFA: Ok you wore it can you please pay the fine? Home Countries: Whaaaattt!!! How dare you fine us we will appeal this is a disgusting abuse of your powers
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 20 Dec 16 6.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mr. Talons
Can I throw a little grenade in here? The poppy in question is a commercial logo, being the registered trademark of the Royal British Legion (which is a registered company that pays its executives quite well). On that basis, it breaks FIFA rules concerning advertising. Edited by Mr. Talons (20 Dec 2016 5.43pm) It's a registered charity, not a commercial company. All charities overpay their executives however.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mr. Talons Southampton 20 Dec 16 6.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk It's a registered charity, not a commercial company.
A registered charity is a commercial company, just with tax breaks. Edited by Mr. Talons (20 Dec 2016 6.40pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| npn Crowborough 20 Dec 16 6.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Quite. Let's test their metal. How bad would it be if we got banned from Russia and Qatar? Possibly daft of me, but I'd actually LOVE it if that happened,
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the.universal 20 Dec 16 7.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
It's a registered charity, not a commercial company. All charities overpay their executives however. Not necessarily. A good chief exec can add on a solid chunk of profit, so even if they are paid substantially more than an alternative, for a large enough organisation it can still add up to more £££ in net (which should be the goal) Edited by the.universal (20 Dec 2016 7.25pm)
Vive le Roy! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Dweeb East London 25 Dec 16 7.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mr. Talons
A registered charity is a commercial company, just with tax breaks. Edited by Mr. Talons (20 Dec 2016 6.40pm) Not sure that is true. In the case of the RBL it does have a commercial arm, but its primary function is clearly charitable. What FIFA's rules are really about is giving them exclusivity in deciding who is commercial or not. So anyone one who does not pour money into FIFA's coffers and the likes of Blatter's pockets then they are deemed to be outwith FIFA and therefore banned from gaining anything and thus enabling them to be the focus of disciplinary action against the host country.
Taking the Sorry to see Lee Hills go, did we ever see Alex Marrow? We did January 2013 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
bungy jump since 1964. Never to see John Jackson in a 
| Mr. Talons Southampton 27 Dec 16 10.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Dweeb In the case of the RBL it does have a commercial arm, but its primary function is clearly charitable.
The RBL's primary function is commerce: to generate income via merchandising. Their poppy is a commercial logo, a registered trademark. As much as I dislike FIFA, they are right to censure unlicensed commercial advertising. Edited by Mr. Talons (27 Dec 2016 11.03pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Henry of Peckham  Eton Mess 27 Dec 16 11.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mr. Talons
The RBL's primary function is commerce: to generate income via merchandising. Their poppy is a commercial logo, a registered trademark. As much as I dislike FIFA, they are right to censure unlicensed commercial advertising. Edited by Mr. Talons (27 Dec 2016 11.03pm) The poppy was symbolic before it was adopted by the RBL as a logo. The poppy symbol has been traditionally acknowledged on Remembrance Day for decades. FIFA are a$$holes because they know exactly what it means. The home footballing nations withdrew from FIFA after the first World War because they did not want to play Germany (they later rejoined of course). History MIGHT have something to do with FIFA's current stance?
Denial is not just a river in Egypt |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| topcat Holmesdale / Surbiton 28 Dec 16 11.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
FIFA were put in this position by the FA. The FA shouldn't have asked their opinion, just worn the poppy and got on with it. By asking FIFA for their opinion before the match, then ignoring it, they only have themselves to blame.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.