CONFIMRED - Ovie Ejaria

[Franchise FC]

It’s the size which is the problem, rather than the colour

The size and colour of numbers on the back of the shirt are reasonably standard. If Derby choose to give Rooney number 32 and change the entire team number colour to red, how does that contravene sponsorship rules ?

Read my original post. But simply put back of shirt sponsorship is limited to a certain size (which is smaller than the shirt numbers). Therefore by making the numbers into “sponsorship” then it potentially contravenes the sponsorship rules

Simply put, have you seen the numbers on the back of a Reading shirt. They appear to be red. According to your view Ryan East is not getting a game because he’d contravene sponsorship rules.

[3points]

The size and colour of numbers on the back of the shirt are reasonably standard. If Derby choose to give Rooney number 32 and change the entire team number colour to red, how does that contravene sponsorship rules ?

Read my original post. But simply put back of shirt sponsorship is limited to a certain size (which is smaller than the shirt numbers). Therefore by making the numbers into “sponsorship” then it potentially contravenes the sponsorship rules

Simply put, have you seen the numbers on the back of a Reading shirt. They appear to be red. According to your view Ryan East is not getting a game because he’d contravene sponsorship rules.

If he changed his name to Ryan Casumo, then you might have a point

[Snowflake Royal]

The size and colour of numbers on the back of the shirt are reasonably standard. If Derby choose to give Rooney number 32 and change the entire team number colour to red, how does that contravene sponsorship rules ?

Read my original post. But simply put back of shirt sponsorship is limited to a certain size (which is smaller than the shirt numbers). Therefore by making the numbers into “sponsorship” then it potentially contravenes the sponsorship rules

Simply put, have you seen the numbers on the back of a Reading shirt. They appear to be red. According to your view Ryan East is not getting a game because he’d contravene sponsorship rules.

Congrats, that's the stupidest comment of the year.

[Franchise FC]

Read my original post. But simply put back of shirt sponsorship is limited to a certain size (which is smaller than the shirt numbers). Therefore by making the numbers into “sponsorship” then it potentially contravenes the sponsorship rules

Simply put, have you seen the numbers on the back of a Reading shirt. They appear to be red. According to your view Ryan East is not getting a game because he’d contravene sponsorship rules.

Congrats, that's the stupidest comment of the year.

Explain

[Snowflake Royal]

Simply put, have you seen the numbers on the back of a Reading shirt. They appear to be red. According to your view Ryan East is not getting a game because he’d contravene sponsorship rules.

Congrats, that's the stupidest comment of the year.

Explain

If you need it explained, you're probably not going to understand the explanation.

But.

East isn't sponsored by 32 red. The number 32 in isolation isn't advertising.

[Franchise FC]

Congrats, that's the stupidest comment of the year.

Explain

If you need it explained, you're probably not going to understand the explanation.

But.

East isn't sponsored by 32 red. The number 32 in isolation isn't advertising.

So, in essence, you’ve completely missed the point of my post.
If Derby change their number colour to red and give Rooney the squad number 32, what could the EFL possibly invoke as a rule to stop them. The EFL do not/can not dictate squad numbers. As far as I know, the only stipulation on number colour is that they need to be clear and identifiable.

By the way, if you’re going to be patronising, you really need to make sure you’re right.

[Snowflake Royal]

Explain

If you need it explained, you're probably not going to understand the explanation.

But.

East isn't sponsored by 32 red. The number 32 in isolation isn't advertising.

So, in essence, you’ve completely missed the point of my post.
If Derby change their number colour to red and give Rooney the squad number 32, what could the EFL possibly invoke as a rule to stop them. The EFL do not/can not dictate squad numbers. As far as I know, the only stipulation on number colour is that they need to be clear and identifiable.

By the way, if you’re going to be patronising, you really need to make sure you’re right.

As predicted.

[Hendo]

Explain

If you need it explained, you're probably not going to understand the explanation.

But.

East isn't sponsored by 32 red. The number 32 in isolation isn't advertising.

So, in essence, you’ve completely missed the point of my post.
If Derby change their number colour to red and give Rooney the squad number 32, what could the EFL possibly invoke as a rule to stop them. The EFL do not/can not dictate squad numbers. As far as I know, the only stipulation on number colour is that they need to be clear and identifiable.

By the way, if you’re going to be patronising, you really need to make sure you’re right.

Yes they can, when Little came back, he wanted shirt number 77 and the football league said no.

[NewCorkSeth]

The squad number rules are so odd. Different in every country. In france Goalkeepers have to be assigned a certain number from a list of 4 I think. In Italy any number between 1 and 99 is eligible. I didnt think there was any particular laws of note in the english league structure. Anyone got a link to the laws?

[Franchise FC]

If you need it explained, you're probably not going to understand the explanation.

But.

East isn't sponsored by 32 red. The number 32 in isolation isn't advertising.

So, in essence, you’ve completely missed the point of my post.
If Derby change their number colour to red and give Rooney the squad number 32, what could the EFL possibly invoke as a rule to stop them. The EFL do not/can not dictate squad numbers. As far as I know, the only stipulation on number colour is that they need to be clear and identifiable.

By the way, if you’re going to be patronising, you really need to make sure you’re right.

Yes they can, when Little came back, he wanted shirt number 77 and the football league said no.

Clearly, the EFL haven't said no to using number 32.

[Franchise FC]

If you need it explained, you're probably not going to understand the explanation.

But.

East isn't sponsored by 32 red. The number 32 in isolation isn't advertising.

So, in essence, you’ve completely missed the point of my post.
If Derby change their number colour to red and give Rooney the squad number 32, what could the EFL possibly invoke as a rule to stop them. The EFL do not/can not dictate squad numbers. As far as I know, the only stipulation on number colour is that they need to be clear and identifiable.

By the way, if you’re going to be patronising, you really need to make sure you’re right.

As predicted.

What exactly was it that you predicted ?

[Hendo]

So, in essence, you’ve completely missed the point of my post.
If Derby change their number colour to red and give Rooney the squad number 32, what could the EFL possibly invoke as a rule to stop them. The EFL do not/can not dictate squad numbers. As far as I know, the only stipulation on number colour is that they need to be clear and identifiable.

By the way, if you’re going to be patronising, you really need to make sure you’re right.

Yes they can, when Little came back, he wanted shirt number 77 and the football league said no.

Clearly, the EFL haven't said no to using number 32.

No, obviously, but if they think it breaches sponsorship rules, they will bar Derby from using it for Rooney's shirt.

You'd have to be pretty naive to think that there isn't a correlation between the two.

[Franchise FC]

Yes they can, when Little came back, he wanted shirt number 77 and the football league said no.

Clearly, the EFL haven't said no to using number 32.

No, obviously, but if they think it breaches sponsorship rules, they will bar Derby from using it for Rooney's shirt.

You'd have to be pretty naive to think that there isn't a correlation between the two.

Can't wait to see the legal fallout of that one.

[WestYorksRoyal]

He's already living up to expectations. By the end of the season, I expect Brentford fans will be lamenting their decision not to invest any of the Maupay fees in him. So chuffed we got him.

[Linden Jones' Tash]

Reminds me of Kanu.. Nwankwo rather than Hal....

Fingers crossed he keeps it going on a wet Wednesday night in Birmingham...

[Zip]

He's already living up to expectations. By the end of the season, I expect Brentford fans will be lamenting their decision not to invest any of the Maupay fees in him. So chuffed we got him.

Yes me too. I felt of the five loanees from January he had the most potential. We could see why yesterday. He wanted to come back here and seems very settled already.

[CountryRoyal]

He's already living up to expectations. By the end of the season, I expect Brentford fans will be lamenting their decision not to invest any of the Maupay fees in him. So chuffed we got him.

Yes me too. I felt of the five loanees from January he had the most potential. We could see why yesterday. He wanted to come back here and seems very settled already.

He was of the 5 probably the least influential but by no means was that any particular indication of his performances. The bar was set very high. I really enjoyed him here last year, thought he was excellent and when we were linked earlier in the summer I was delighted. To finally have him is a real coup and especially with such a low buy obligation next year. He’s come back looking even stronger, hungrier, skilful and quicker.

He’s still young though and is a flair player so I just hope when he doesn’t put in an amazing performance fans aren’t quick to get on his back. Absolutely love Ovie.

[NewCorkSeth]

He's already living up to expectations. By the end of the season, I expect Brentford fans will be lamenting their decision not to invest any of the Maupay fees in him. So chuffed we got him.

Yes me too. I felt of the five loanees from January he had the most potential. We could see why yesterday. He wanted to come back here and seems very settled already.

He was of the 5 probably the least influential but by no means was that any particular indication of his performances. The bar was set very high. I really enjoyed him here last year, thought he was excellent and when we were linked earlier in the summer I was delighted. To finally have him is a real coup and especially with such a low buy obligation next year. He’s come back looking even stronger, hungrier, skilful and quicker.

He’s still young though and is a flair player so I just hope when he doesn’t put in an amazing performance fans aren’t quick to get on his back. Absolutely love Ovie.

I want to second all that. We all need to band together and publically shame anyone who criticises him unnecessarily. I said it many a time over the summer. He has bags of potential. The most I remember seeing in a player.

[Hound]

Sunday was the first time I’ve seen him really decide to take a hold of the game. Whilst he was good in patches and generally positive last year, he did sit on the periphery quite often

Really saw the player he could be. He looked hungrier, stronger and far more aggressive. Absolutely limitless potential

[windermereROYAL]

If we can get this guy for £3m it will be the bargain of this or any other century. he has limitless potential if Sunday was anything to go by.