New Sponsor BC.GAME

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

Hang on, does this mean my Curacao crypto is now worthless? How am I meant to look my bride-to-be in the eye 

[filbertway]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Everyone saying someone should be sacked etc. 

 

But hold on a minute. If the cynics on this forum are correct and this was less a real sponsorship deal and more a PSR / FFP scam so that the owners could put more of their money in to the club than sponsoring yourself allows... isn't this sort of a good thing? 

 

Because now we've got a perfectly good excuse to go and get another new sponsor and have two in one season...? In a year in which we're desperate for cash injections? 

 

And the only thing we lose is a bit of face? 

 

Like having money isn't our problem, right? Being allowed to spend it is. So even if it wasn't originally just a scam and we were expecting BC to pay monies they now won't, we were still spending based on income we expected to have by a contract and I imagine we're still covered then for PSR? 

 

I appreciate I'm waffling a bit here but it feels like people are over reacting a bit because they think we look incompetent when actually very few people outside of Leicester will give a shit, especially when half of the Premier League has got identical type sponsors? 

 

Haha this is an interesting way of looking at it actually, have we accidentally discovered an infinite money glitch? (well as much as Top  can/wants to put in anyway) 

 

[Lako42]

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

 

Because now we've got a perfectly good excuse to go and get another new sponsor and have two in one season...? In a year in which we're desperate for cash injections? 

 

 

 

Might mean something if sponsorship was paid up front

[Mickyblueeyes]

Fun fact. Leicester have a General Counsel in charge of legal.

 

However, Leicester commercial director who is responsible (in theory as we don’t know how the club works) for this sort of deal is also a lawyer. Two lawyers at board level plus a CFO an accounts and legal team all in house. 

[VLC86]

8 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Everyone saying someone should be sacked etc. 

 

But hold on a minute. If the cynics on this forum are correct and this was less a real sponsorship deal and more a PSR / FFP scam so that the owners could put more of their money in to the club than sponsoring yourself allows... isn't this sort of a good thing? 

 

Because now we've got a perfectly good excuse to go and get another new sponsor and have two in one season...? In a year in which we're desperate for cash injections? 

 

And the only thing we lose is a bit of face? 

 

Like having money isn't our problem, right? Being allowed to spend it is. So even if it wasn't originally just a scam and we were expecting BC to pay monies they now won't, we were still spending based on income we expected to have by a contract and I imagine we're still covered then for PSR? 

 

I appreciate I'm waffling a bit here but it feels like people are over reacting a bit because they think we look incompetent when actually very few people outside of Leicester will give a shit, especially when half of the Premier League has got identical type sponsors? 

 

Fair point, the article says the same happened to Bournemouth recently and I hadn’t heard that.

 

I guess the only way this becomes different is if it becomes apparent that we were complicit, which as others have said we probably wouldn’t find out.

[Nolucklcfc]

8 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

This is the absolute worst case scenario.

 

Even though it's come after the title and FA Cup win, we will be smeared with cheating accusations in the same way Man City are. 

 

There's no other explanation as to why they'd pick this sponsor. You'd expect it from one of the 30 vape shops on the streets of Leicester. Not the football club ffs.

 

Does anyone from the Premier League do checks too? This isn't a great look for anybody. 

 

 

£££ is why they picked it. 

[Finnegan]

18 minutes ago, Lako42 said:

Might mean something if sponsorship was paid up front

 

But it doesn't matter though right? Like I said, Top isn't cash poor and the club isn't cash poor. It's not administration we're trying to ward off, it's sanctions for OVER spending because we do have the cash there's just rules designed to keep us from challenging the established clubs. 

 

We don't necessarily need the cash in hand, we need it on paper and we had it on paper and now we can go and get more of it? 

 

[Golden Fox]

20 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

One of the few good things about American sports

A bit out of date there... the money-grabbing NFL is the only major sport now taking a stand on jersey adds. The NBA started (small patches on vests), followed by the NHL (started as helmets & now small patches on jerseys) and MLB (sleeve ads, and then helmet ads for Playoffs this year). They aren't as front and centre (literally) as football, and not on all retail shirts, but the leagues all used the excuse of revenues down during covid to open the floodgates. 

 

More importantly for us, does anybody have any idea on the cashflow from BC game? Deal was reported at $40m, but was that $20m up front for each season? Monthly instalments? Paid in arrears? The size of the financial hit we will take will be dependent on this. (You never know, if it was a money laundering scheme and we got all $40m up front, and can re-sell next year's shirt space having already received payment for it once, so there is a (slim) chance we actually gain out of this!)

[ACF]

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

But it doesn't matter though right? Like I said, Top isn't cash poor and the club isn't cash poor. It's not administration we're trying to ward off, it's sanctions for OVER spending because we do have the cash there's just rules designed to keep us from challenging the established clubs. 

 

We don't necessarily need the cash in hand, we need it on paper and we had it on paper and now we can go and get more of it? 

 

Completely correct - we can double dip. BC.Game and whatever they’ve paid (IF we were smart we would’ve requested a lot of this upfront), and then presumably King Power, that can legally pay the pro-rata market rate set by the deal with BC Game.
 

We’ve had it proven that a front of shirt sponsorship with an unrelated party is worth £xm. We’re about 32% through the Premier League season, so KP could fund a deal worth 68% of what BCgame paid 

[Groby_Blue]

31 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Everyone saying someone should be sacked etc. 

 

But hold on a minute. If the cynics on this forum are correct and this was less a real sponsorship deal and more a PSR / FFP scam so that the owners could put more of their money in to the club than sponsoring yourself allows... isn't this sort of a good thing? 

 

Because now we've got a perfectly good excuse to go and get another new sponsor and have two in one season...? In a year in which we're desperate for cash injections? 

 

And the only thing we lose is a bit of face? 

 

Like having money isn't our problem, right? Being allowed to spend it is. So even if it wasn't originally just a scam and we were expecting BC to pay monies they now won't, we were still spending based on income we expected to have by a contract and I imagine we're still covered then for PSR? 

 

I appreciate I'm waffling a bit here but it feels like people are over reacting a bit because they think we look incompetent when actually very few people outside of Leicester will give a shit, especially when half of the Premier League has got identical type sponsors? 

 

Baldrick on standby... 

 

[Jattdogg]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

I'd bet they do...but then my go-to illegal porno crypto gambling hub has vanished.

Roll the dice and smash twice or get pubic lice. Com

[Finnegan]

I mean it's just all very convenient isn't it. 

 

Leicester need a big injection of cash on the books this year to ward off PSR but there's a limit on what KP can pay themselves for a sponsor. 

 

So we end up getting sponsored by a company for a record fee who basically don't exist, have very little global presence, and surprise surprise fold up after a few months. 

 

Then hey presto, King Power probably immediately come back as sponsors any day now to fill the gap for the rest of the season with Top paying himself the maximum allowed by the league and getting his brand back on his own kit. 

 

Do we actually need to sack someone or do we in fact need to give the lawyers running the commercial team a payrise? 

 

Surely it's only a problem if we're caught doing something naughty and given that Man City have evaded punishment for sponsoring themselves for a decade or so now we're probably OK. 

 

Edited 28 November 2024 by Finnegan

[ramboacdc]

I miss the days when our scandals were simpler. I feel I need to know a lot about gambling commision laws around the world to keep following this. Is the summary Crypto = scam and we didn't do due dilligance basically and took the money? If so, looks like the chickens are home to roost. 

No one will get sacked for it, or stand down. We live in a world now where you can just pump out a fake apology statement and move on hoping the news becomes tomorrows chip paper. 

[bmt]

16 minutes ago, ACF said:

Completely correct - we can double dip. BC.Game and whatever they’ve paid (IF we were smart we would’ve requested a lot of this upfront), and then presumably King Power, that can legally pay the pro-rata market rate set by the deal with BC Game.
 

We’ve had it proven that a front of shirt sponsorship with an unrelated party is worth £xm. We’re about 32% through the Premier League season, so KP could fund a deal worth 68% of what BCgame paid 

This is a really good point. Still think most people's problem with BC Game is more an ethical point about promoting gambling though based on the comments here.

 

12 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

I mean it's just all very convenient isn't it. 

 

Leicester need a big injection of cash on the books this year to ward off PSR but there's a limit on what KP can pay themselves for a sponsor. 

 

So we end up getting sponsored by a company for a record fee who basically don't exist, have very little global presence, and surprise surprise fold up after a few months. 

 

Then hey presto, King Power probably immediately come back as sponsors any day now to fill the gap for the rest of the season with Top paying himself the maximum allowed by the league and getting his brand back on his own kit. 

 

Do we actually need to sack someone or do we in fact need to give the lawyers running the commercial team a payrise? 

 

Surely it's only a problem if we're caught doing something naughty and given that Man City have evaded punishment for sponsoring themselves for a decade or so now we're probably OK. 

 

There is kind of precedent for our lawyers being a bit dodgy (depending on how you look at it), but forward looking and clever, by changing our accounting dates and then having such a robust defence against PSR. Potentially the most forward looking part of the club!

[Daggers]

13 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

So we end up getting sponsored by a company for a record fee who basically don't exist, have very little global presence, and surprise surprise fold up after a few months. 

King Power set up Europe’s leading illegal gambling black market player that featured stolen porno on all of its marketing just to circumvent the sponsorship cap?

 

Honestly, I think you’re attributing a level of competence to them that has never been previously witnessed. 
 

[ACF]

7 minutes ago, bmt said:

This is a really good point. Still think most people's problem with BC Game is more an ethical point about promoting gambling though based on the comments here.

What are you on about? We’re a wholesome family club, we successfully bankrupt dodgy offshore crypto gambling companies!

[LFEFox23]

Surely the premier league would do their own basic due diligence of shirt sponsors before approving?

[Finnegan]

1 minute ago, LFEFox23 said:

Surely the premier league would do their own basic due diligence of shirt sponsors before approving?

 

You mean the Premier League that did exhaustive due diligence and concluded that the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund definitely isn't the Saudi government? 

 

[bmt]

Just now, LFEFox23 said:

Surely the premier league would do their own basic due diligence of shirt sponsors before approving?

They don't even take legal advice on their own rules! And they were satisfied the Saudi Public Investment Fund were sufficiently separate from the state. 

 

More of a shambles than us!

[21st Century Fox]

Remember when there was talk of being sponsored by Russian energy companies... ah good times.

[AjcW]

32 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

I mean it's just all very convenient isn't it. 

 

Leicester need a big injection of cash on the books this year to ward off PSR but there's a limit on what KP can pay themselves for a sponsor. 

 

So we end up getting sponsored by a company for a record fee who basically don't exist, have very little global presence, and surprise surprise fold up after a few months. 

 

Then hey presto, King Power probably immediately come back as sponsors any day now to fill the gap for the rest of the season with Top paying himself the maximum allowed by the league and getting his brand back on his own kit. 

 

Do we actually need to sack someone or do we in fact need to give the lawyers running the commercial team a payrise? 

 

Surely it's only a problem if we're caught doing something naughty and given that Man City have evaded punishment for sponsoring themselves for a decade or so now we're probably OK. 

 

This is exactly what has happened/is happing.

 

The only issue is if Josimar blow the whole thing open and somehow find a link back to KP in Asia... and decide to smear us with that.

 

[AjcW]

I'm also considering applying to work at Josimar given they've basically found exactly what I found  

 

Save me the subscription I pay them.

[martyn]

So we're pretending to appoint Ruud as the dead cat for this story, and this story is the dead cat for then appointing Warnock on a 5 year deal.

[FoyleFox]

13 minutes ago, martyn said:

So we're pretending to appoint Ruud as the dead cat for this story, and this story is the dead cat for then appointing Warnock on a 5 year deal.

I don't think adding animal cruelty to our list of misdemeanours is going to be helpful 😕 

[Finnegan]

7 minutes ago, FoyleFox said:

I don't think adding animal cruelty to our list of misdemeanours is going to be helpful 😕