Bohs will be grand, it's just an image in the likeness of a clenched fist...
Rumour has it this image just missed out....
The gay pride colours and the fist are an unusual combo but i'm all for inclusion
I did a bit of checking and I think it might be ok. The Fare network who work with UEFA have a list of symbols that might be questioned. In general they relate to those displayed by fans, but it may be a good reference point for team kit too. See page 41.
http://www.farenet.org/wp-content/up...all_2016-2.pdf
I for one am stunned that Bohs have had to pull this jersey over image rights. Someone should really have said something earlier :
I'm sure that if they had then Bohs fans (and others) would have taken that risk seriously :
As I stated before, how anyone could give a club that sold the same piece of land twice to two different people the benefit of the doubt on this is worrying. Apparently these are changed times and the very savvy current Board learned from that previous legal ****-up
Huge Kudos to Dalymountrower for seeming to be the only Bohs supporter on here who saw this coming from the very start :
The Greatest League in the World has just out-greatest itself, and without a ball even being kicked ! God I love the League of Ireland
15 quotes. That's gotta be a record.
While yourself and Dalymountrower were correct in hindsight, there are some important words in the media release that indicate this wasn't same old same old.
I get people will want to get their jollies off us - and have at it as far as I'm concerned, its funny - but it sounds from the above that the club was somewhat shafted by the licensing company. The reason people gave the benefit of the doubt is because it is a completely different board - one that does an honest and, to date, very effective job on a mostly voluntary basis. Vastly different to the charlatans who used to wine and dine themselves and others to sell off our ground without doing a jot of due diligence.Bohemian Football Club acted in good faith and followed the correct process when purchasing the licence for this image via a world-leading third-party photo licensing company. However, the Bob Marley representative agency has informed us that this company did not have the right to grant any such licence for this image. We are dealing with this separately.
I don't know. You can buy photos through a site like SportsFile, say - but that doesn't give you carte blanch image rights.
If Bohs didn't tell the licencing company what they were buying the image for - and there'd be no real need to necessarily - then it's hardly the image company's fault.
It could, sure.
But history has taught us not to be believing Bohs on this
The more things change in the LoI, the more they stay the same.
It's why we love it.
(Seriously, only a Bohs fan would try blame the picture company. This is Bohs' fault entirely; everyone here who's not a Bohs fan could spot the really obvious issue straight away)
Ultimately it is Bohs fault. Sorry if I suggested otherwise - I wasn't trying to lay the blame entirely at the other party. I just think that it is mitigated somewhat if they were misinformed by the licensing company about the scope of the license.
Bookmarks