HankMarvin

Don’t know but this one was also newly formed 🤔 “Trestellar, the company which produced this immediate increase in sponsorship and commercial income – vast for a Championship club – was a newly formed company. It was set up on a Sheffield trading estate by the son and daughter of Sir Dave Richards, a former Premier League chairman. Richards had close links to Leicester’s Thai owners (his Thai football contacts also include having become acquainted with the country’s ousted prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra”

Depends how hard you look I guess, It was pretty murky then and none of it was in the public domain prior to this investigation The investigation centres on a deal Leicester say they did in January 2014 with a company called Trestellar Ltd, to market the club in the UK and south-east Asia. That deal immediately produced an apparent £11m increase in Leicester’s sponsorship and commercial income, reducing the club’s loss from £34m the previous year. In the club’s most recent accounts, for 2014-15, Leicester say Trestellar sold the club’s main sponsorships – the name on the players’ shirts and the stadium – to King Power, the club’s owners. The Thai owners were already sponsoring the shirt and stadium before the Trestellar deal; in 2012-13 Leicester’s sponsorship and other commercial income was £5.2m. After the Trestellar deal, with King Power still holding the same main sponsorships, the income immediately jumped to £16m. That substantially reduced Leicester’s loss, which was otherwise likely to have resulted in a large fine under the Football League’s then new financial fair play rules by which all clubs agreed to cap losses at £8m to try to reduce excessive spending on players’ wages. Losses under FFP rules are not reduced by a club owner paying money to the club, or by doing so via sponsorship, if the amount paid is clearly inflated beyond market value. Leicester still say Trestellar paid the club for the rights to market their brand, then sold the sponsorships to the owners. The resulting smaller loss – £21m in 2013-14, including expenses clubs are allowed to offset – meant Leicester argue they complied with FFP rules and no sanction should be applied. Some other clubs are furious, arguing they reduced spending on players to comply with the rules while Leicester overspent on players’ wages, achieved promotion and have since resisted any sanctions. Leicester’s 2013-14 accounts state they spent £36m on players’ wages, £5m more than the club’s entire income

Touchy subject clearly

But even when it’s moved off the front it’s still going to be on clubs sleeves, do those offended turn the telly off when betting adverts are on during watching sporting events because it triggers them? Or choose to ignore it

Not benefiting from it is subjective, we had the joint 9th highest shirt sponsorship deal in the Prem last year. Not capitalising on it, is more fitting because how poorly the club is ran.

With a name like gamble you should be a fan or maybe that’s the issue? No you missed the point, the knock of effect of not taking the most money they can get would results in potentially no transfers or further PSR issues, so shutting one door to stop outcry opens the next. I’d rather see less chance of those two things happening, over worrying about a shirt sponsor “gambling firms are currently propping up the Premier League sponsorship market, with The Sponsor’s fair market value today significantly inflated by fees from betting brands”

I personally couldn’t give a shit about the sponsors, fans will be in uproar about the next thing if not this. no transfers, failing PSR. It just moves on to the next thing. Clearly it’s a club in free fall, with failing after failing. How do you know it’s not worth the extra? You don’t know what they have paid in the Championship, this is a club that couldn’t sack the manager till the next financial year and are rumoured to have baulked on a release figure for Rohl. In an ideal world we wouldn’t have to go this route, but it’s not like we don’t have form. As I previously said nobody questioned the ethics back in 2013/14 when we were getting promoted due to dodgy sponsorship deals. it all faded into the background with the success that followed.

Well that’s a load of bollocks when there were 9 teams on less deals last season in the prem

Or maybe they are doing all they can to avoid failing PSR or allow market manoeuvrability in the championship on top of what might be a points deduction

Helping the club is helping themselves they are the owners. They don’t want to have spent all this time to see their investment go to shit. So will leverage what ever they can from these deals, much like they were doing under Vichai

But if there is already a topic why create another one? It’s about 10 mins old. Normally they just merge

They were doing dodgy sponsorship deals to help seal promotion before we got promoted over 10 years ago. Just more uproar about Betting now, nobody cared about the ethics then

Probably a good time to play hide the thread

Reminds me of those wank old pompy shirts with gold in them

He was probably knocking one out yesterday, adding to his list of accomplishments hiring the manager that won the club World Cup just 2 seasons ago as a championship manager

No it’s fine, you’re just looking at the clubs they signed from

Burnley want Norwich’s Josh Sargent 15 goals in the Champ last year. Their price £20m

Or they get to review the footage at any time

He was in the Algarve with King and others under 2 weeks ago, probably said he would watch a game

Do you take into account having spent more on players and having a bigger squad.

Yes and had 14 more games to get them.

Digressing away from the original point, His second season, was statistically worse than that his first season with 14 more games and 8 points more gained.

It’s quite clear

Hence look at points per game 👀

Maybe look at the points per game as indicator 48/32 56/46