Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
moore_94

Boubakary Soumare

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Claridge said:

Yes, but they pay one of the lowest amounts. FFP fine/deduction would massively affect us, their brand and the value of the club, not sure they would risk that

The only route they have now after letting FBS take over the shirt sponsorship is the ground and the training ground.

 

The ground is still owned directly by King Power, not the club, so they can't pay us for sponsoring something we don't own.

 

So leaves the training ground?

Edited by coolhandfox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

...not allowed if I  recall!!!

It would be the same as directly financing the team. It has to be a Company outside of the King Power umbrella. 

Isn't that what Chelsea were doing even in recent years  under Abramovic, and are doing now under their new ownership?  I don't understand how all this stuff works. It just seems to feel like one rule for the so called big clubs and another for everyone else.

Edited by smudger63
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

The only route they have now after letting FBS take over the shirt sponsorship is the ground and the training ground.

 

The ground is still owned directly by King Power, not the club, so they can't pay us for sponsoring something we don't own.

 

So leaves the training ground?

I think the naming rights on the ground is still given to the club, no matter who technically owns the stadium. The naming rights money is interesting: King Power has to low ball the money to avoid accusations of breaking the rules on owners funneling money to the clubs. But the King Power sponsorship was actually hugely beneficial to King Power (made them internationally known) as well as the Thai tourism industry. The good thing about the FBS deal is that it puts a real price on the shirt sponsorship, so if King Power took it over again, it could pay more without raising eyebrows.

 

They could do the same with the stadium, I guess, but the truth is, they want that King Power name out there...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarriedaLeicesterGirl said:

I think the naming rights on the ground is still given to the club, no matter who technically owns the stadium. The naming rights money is interesting: King Power has to low ball the money to avoid accusations of breaking the rules on owners funneling money to the clubs. But the King Power sponsorship was actually hugely beneficial to King Power (made them internationally known) as well as the Thai tourism industry. The good thing about the FBS deal is that it puts a real price on the shirt sponsorship, so if King Power took it over again, it could pay more without raising eyebrows.

 

They could do the same with the stadium, I guess, but the truth is, they want that King Power name out there...

Funny that you can pay way below the market value for certain commercial sponsorships and that's OK, but try and over egg it and fines are dished out left, right and centre.....!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

The only route they have now after letting FBS take over the shirt sponsorship is the ground and the training ground.

 

The ground is still owned directly by King Power, not the club, so they can't pay us for sponsoring something we don't own.

 

So leaves the training ground?

Good thing about the training ground is that we now all know it as Seagrave. It's established so they can slap whatever sponsors name on it and we won't refer to it. 

 

Shame that we never established a name for the stadium before the Walkers sponsorship. That said, I thought we had at time as during the purchase and build it was referred to as Freeman's Wharf (which is a decent name). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Funny that you can pay way below the market value for certain commercial sponsorships and that's OK, but try and over egg it and fines are dished out left, right and centre.....!

...if as a club you choose to accept a deal way below the market price, then that is up to you!!!

  Receiving payment way above the market price would be seen as attempting to circumvent the rules and bring you to the attention of FFP gaurdians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Claridge said:

Wouldn’t king power just increase the money paid to sponsor the stadium to avoid ffp

If memory serves they were sponsoring the shirt and stadium in a combined deal on a 10 year contract when they signed us, at market value in 2010. It couldn't be increased especially because of what Man City were doing and because that 10 year contract was solid. I think it was about £4m a year, which was around market value in 2010 Championship terms, but as soon as we got promoted and won the Premier League, was obviously nowhere near what we're actually worth. That deal expired in 2020 and we carried on with KP on the shirts with Thailand Smiles With You for a year because of the pandemic. FBS is rumoured to be around £30-40m a year if memory serves (someone help with that pls). No idea what the KP stadium deal is currently.

 

Weren't there rumours of a stadium sponsorship deal recently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

If memory serves they were sponsoring the shirt and stadium in a combined deal on a 10 year contract when they signed us, at market value in 2010. It couldn't be increased especially because of what Man City were doing and because that 10 year contract was solid. I think it was about £4m a year, which was around market value in 2010 Championship terms, but as soon as we got promoted and won the Premier League, was obviously nowhere near what we're actually worth. That deal expired in 2020 and we carried on with KP on the shirts with Thailand Smiles With You for a year because of the pandemic. FBS is rumoured to be around £30-40m a year if memory serves (someone help with that pls). No idea what the KP stadium deal is currently.

 

Weren't there rumours of a stadium sponsorship deal recently?

Might be tied in with the expansion. Or perhaps a sponsors name on the new East Stand. 

 

If it ever gets through planning and built. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

If memory serves they were sponsoring the shirt and stadium in a combined deal on a 10 year contract when they signed us, at market value in 2010. It couldn't be increased especially because of what Man City were doing and because that 10 year contract was solid. I think it was about £4m a year, which was around market value in 2010 Championship terms, but as soon as we got promoted and won the Premier League, was obviously nowhere near what we're actually worth. That deal expired in 2020 and we carried on with KP on the shirts with Thailand Smiles With You for a year because of the pandemic. FBS is rumoured to be around £30-40m a year if memory serves (someone help with that pls). No idea what the KP stadium deal is currently.

 

Weren't there rumours of a stadium sponsorship deal recently?

Is this owt to do with Soumare??????

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sean2000 said:

The 105% is only because of COVID - losses of match day revenue, loss of some broadcast income and the way they've merged two years accounts together. Wages last year were £192m with £226m revenue (broadcast plus match day) along with player sales profits of £44m (these are not in year - they are against the book value of the players and amortised). That means, for FFP purposes we're 192/(226+44) = 71.1%. Of course, that's last year. This year will not be the same but unlikely to be substantially different.

 

That's why we don't need to sell Maddison or Fofana (but would if crazy bids came in), but why we can't sign anyone until we move out players to create a place in the 25 man squad. So we want to move squad players like Choudhury, Perez, Vestegaard even though they have little value - not the stars. Now Schmeichel and Choudhury have gone we'll see a couple of players come in. And I suspect it'll be one out one in after that.

Don’t forget agents fees, which have been running about £12m p/a and obviously lack of Europe, so what, £20/£30m off revenue.

 

Whilst it’s not urgent, as it’s phased we still need to cut back a fair bit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Frost said:

Mohamed Camara is joining Monaco from Salzburg so looks like Soumare's move is off.

This is a huge blow, looking now at our fringe players there's no obvious move for any of them. Maybe Perez to Spain might be the one that sees us get a right winger in. Soumare doesn't seem to have any other clubs with money after him though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

This is a huge blow, looking now at our fringe players there's no obvious move for any of them. Maybe Perez to Spain might be the one that sees us get a right winger in. Soumare doesn't seem to have any other clubs with money after him though. 

I was wondering if the likes of Celtic or Rangers would be interested if they happened to progress in Europe. But agreed, going to be a tough ask unless we concede on his wages which won't really help our position 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Stadt said:

He was given chances last season and he was miles off. He can't do the basics - he's not all of a sudden going to reach the threshold of running hard enough, closing down and tracking runners.

He looked like he was doing it this summer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Stadt said:

He was given chances last season and he was miles off. He can't do the basics - he's not all of a sudden going to reach the threshold of running hard enough, closing down and tracking runners.

He can though which is the biggest mystery, he was unplayable away at Spartak so he definitely has it in him. Obviously a different thing applying it week in week out, but saying he can't do the basics is over the top.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said:

He can though which is the biggest mystery, he was unplayable away at Spartak so he definitely has it in him. Obviously a different thing applying it week in week out, but saying he can't do the basics is over the top.

Obviously has talent but appears that Brendan has tried to integrate him, and tried tough love with neither working. 
 

Some transfers just don’t work out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LVocey said:

Obviously has talent but appears that Brendan has tried to integrate him, and tried tough love with neither working. 
 

Some transfers just don’t work out.

Indeed. 3 out of 5 (potentially 4 if Daka doesn't start motoring) from the last window is ****ing abysmal strike rate though... 

Edited by AjcW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AjcW said:

Indeed. 3 out of 5 (potentially 4 if Daka doesn't start motering) from the last window is ****ing abysmal strike rate though... 

I agree (although not about Daka needing to motor, think he actually provided more last season than I expected and long term will be a good signing).

 

In fact I’d say more transfers have been poor than good whilst Rodgers has been manager - it’s why I certainly didn’t shed a tear for Congerton leaving. 
 

Soumare is probably the most forgivable of the lot though - came with a great reputation and obvious talent but for some reason mentally hasn’t been able to apply himself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LVocey said:

I agree (although not about Daka needing to motor, think he actually provided more last season than I expected and long term will be a good signing).

 

In fact I’d say more transfers have been poor than good whilst Rodgers has been manager - it’s why I certainly didn’t shed a tear for Congerton leaving. 
 

Soumare is probably the most forgivable of the lot though - came with a great reputation and obvious talent but for some reason mentally hasn’t been able to apply himself

Yeah fair on Daka

 

I also think Soumare would thrive under the right manager.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...