KBet (still working on exact company!)

[HankMarvin]

23 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

There are a number of people with genuine concerns over gambling (mostly through personal experience) whom I understand wholeheartedly have an issue with betting companies sponsoring out shirts etc - others …. . the anger from others ??   - your post hits the nail on the head.

 

If we were being run well and doing ok then it wouldn’t be much of a story on here. 

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 

Edited 15 July 2025 by HankMarvin

[RedSoxUK]

8 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

If people want to actually, seriously lean in to this then mocking up a football kit, @Foxes_Trust having the big ones to endorse and advertise it, using their logo in place of the Leicester City logo, whacking an anti-gambling / gambling support charity as the sponsor and donating all proceeds to said charity would be a serious big dick move.

 

That's perfect...  Admiral kit maker for the connection?

[AjcW]

13 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

If people want to actually, seriously lean in to this then mocking up a football kit, @Foxes_Trust having the big ones to endorse and advertise it, using their logo in place of the Leicester City logo, whacking an anti-gambling / gambling support charity as the sponsor and donating all proceeds to said charity would be a serious big dick move.

 

Absolutely. This would get nowhere without collaboration 

[Gamble92]

11 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

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 

No offence but you've got some of the worst takes I've ever read on this forum

[HankMarvin]

1 minute ago, Gamble92 said:

No offence but you've got some of the worst takes I've ever read on this forum

Touchy subject clearly 

[UniFox21]

5 hours ago, SemperEadem said:

Because of exactly this sort of attitude.

Fully agree, the attitude is shite.

 

However that attitude goes to the very top of the game; the league itself, the club owners. I don't have any hope the new independent board will do anything given the likely political ties between gambling company owners and the parties. 

 

It's going to take a club(s) to be slapped for something before any real action is done. Id hope the gambling authority would grow a pair and start slapping fines left, right and centre. But I just don't see it happening 

 

[jammie82uk]

56 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

If we were being run well and doing ok then it wouldn’t be much of a story on here. 

if we was well run and doing ok then there wouldn’t be the need to “invent” a 7 week old company to be our main sponsor 

[Sly]

12 hours ago, HankMarvin said:

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.

I think the difference is, it is getting worse.

[HankMarvin]

2 minutes ago, Sly said:

I think the difference is, it is getting worse.

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 

[Ashley]

2 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

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 

Did we not have a company in which Rudkin and Whelan name was only on the company or have I got that wrong? 

[Sly]

2 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

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 

Fair point actually.

 

If you scratch the surface of King Power itself, even Vichai himself, you become aware quite quickly that they’ve operated in the shades of grey that is required to become a billionaire. 
 

No smoke without fire.

[Sly]

1 minute ago, Ashley said:

Did we not have a company in which Rudkin and Whelan name was only on the company or have I got that wrong? 

We do. 
 

I saw it recently when trying to follow a paper trail on something else whilst reading the accounts.

[HankMarvin]

3 minutes ago, Ashley said:

Did we not have a company in which Rudkin and Whelan name was only on the company or have I got that wrong? 

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”

Edited 15 July 2025 by HankMarvin

[AjcW]

12 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

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”

Don't think anyone would claim we've not always been shifty under these owners.

All i'd ask from you is not to trample over people finally calling it out, just because they haven't in the past doesn't mean they haven't wanted to. Sometimes the time is just right. 

[HankMarvin]

33 minutes ago, AjcW said:

Don't think anyone would claim we've not always been shifty under these owners.

All i'd ask from you is not to trample over people finally calling it out, just because they haven't in the past doesn't mean they haven't wanted to. Sometimes the time is just right. 

For a start I was responding to someone that said it’s worse now.

The point which you seem to be choosing to ignore,

is just like if attention was brought to the situation above.

it could’ve drastically changed what followed, we went on to get promoted won the league etc etc

and the ironic thing is in the years that followed, our fans and general fans of football thought we had the best owners ownership model in football despite what went on in the past.

Does success matter more than ethics?

These reports were dismissed by many at the time.

 

It’s not just a logo on a shirt. 

It’s

Sleeve sponsors

LED boards pitchside

Stadium naming rights

App partnerships

Pop-up odds during broadcasts

Official betting partners” offering match previews

Ads before, during, and after every game

Removing gambling from the front of the shirt is just symbolic it won’t change the business model.
It’s like removing cigarette machines from pubs in the 90s, while leaving tobacco leaflets on every table.

Last season, over 50% of Premier League clubs had some form of gambling sponsorship on the front of their shirts.
This isn’t a side gig anymore — it’s embedded and provides inflated sponsorship deals.

As I said given the choice of facing PSR issues or having zero funds, MY personal preference is that I don’t care what’s on the shirts. 
If you feel like that’s trampling over your thread, maybe set up a WhatsApp group and don’t have an open debate in a public forum.

 

 

Edited 15 July 2025 by HankMarvin

[OntarioFox]

52 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

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 

This reads to me like we've long been guilty of the same book-cooking that clubs like Chelsea are now doing shamelessly - we've just sat on our hands for a decade and watched other clubs get wise to the current climate, while we're still pretending it's 2016 and everything's great.

 

Not condoning King Power's appallingly shady business practices at all by the way - just pointing out that our ownership is now so incompetent that they can't even get that right anymore and have to go begging to lawyers to find loopholes instead.

[Sly]

55 minutes ago, Ashley said:

Did we not have a company in which Rudkin and Whelan name was only on the company or have I got that wrong? 

We do. 
 

I saw it recently when trying to follow a paper trail on something else whilst reading the accounts.

[Bluearmyfox28]

How are governing bodies still allowing this shit to happen? That’s where my issues stems. As others have said, football has become “if you can’t beat them, join them”. Even Simon Jordan stated with regards to our PSR loophole, ultimately if you can get away with it, most clubs would to stay competitive regardless of the moral side of things, otherwise you fall behind.
 

The exact same with the PSR issues with selling training grounds and women teams for hugely inflated prices.
 

They’ve become a laughing stock, doesn’t take much to review a set of rules and make adjustments. They was quick enough to do it when we made them look like idiots but turn a blind eye when it’s bringing money into the English leagues.

 

Vile.

Edited 15 July 2025 by Bluearmyfox28

[Golden Fox]

2 hours ago, HankMarvin said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, Sly said:

deleted post

We do need to be careful alleging money laundering, and there is also a massive difference between money laundering and playing financial games to get around some arbitrary rules put in by governing bodies.

 

Take Chelsea for example. Abramovich was clearly money laundering as it enabled him to get his crooked millions out of Russia and spend. But their recent dealings of selling hotels and women's teams to sister companies is making a mockery of the rules, but are just really moving assets around the same group, so isn't really shady at all.

 

Reading @HankMarvins posts on 2014, it looks like a poorly disguised way of King Power paying sponsorship but using an interim company to get money paid. Trestellar were registered in England and are still registered (although not audited). They made over £800k in their first accounting period in 2015 and profit and loss reserves still just over £800k, so this is likely an agency fee and a lot of the money flows would have been traceable. This smacks of Chelsea's recent shenanigans - being cute with the rules and getting away with it, but not money laundering.

 

It is possible that this is just more of the same of Top paying money into the club and using KBet to cover tracks as this might be a standard service offered by these companies, and it is just about hiding flows from the football authorities rather than it being money laundering. But the fact the sponsor on the shirt doesn't exist as a genuine business and the fact the company is registered in Curacoa just takes this to another level. I would have thought if it was just about PSR, we could pursue other options (e.g. selling our own women's team) - but I can't see why we have gone down this route as a club if it wasn't due to the original source of the money being from illegitimate means.

 

[Gamble92]

I really hate this suggestion that we're only moaning now results are so bad on the pitch.

 

There was a minority of us who have always been vocal about not thinking all is well with King Power. Don't need to go back through the timeline again but they've never run anything well from the top. Every bit of success has come from those beneath them and the Director. 

 

They've been completely and utterly exposed now and we are still fighting with whataboutery from happy clapping flask drinkers. 

[Jobyfox]

At this point we’d probably have more credibility if we were sponsored by: Pornhub 

[Gamble92]

4 hours ago, RedSoxUK said:

That's perfect...  Admiral kit maker for the connection?

Last time Admiral made anything in Leicester you had hair 

[Stopharage]

1 hour ago, Jobyfox said:

At this point we’d probably have more credibility if we were sponsored by: Pornhub 

I’m waiting for them to announce Andrew Tate as the new women’s team manager and the Australian mushroom murderer as our new head of catering. 

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, Jobyfox said:

At this point we’d probably have more credibility if we were sponsored by: Pornhub 

Can't wait for the matchday... programme.

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, Golden Fox said:

 

We do need to be careful alleging money laundering, and there is also a massive difference between money laundering and playing financial games to get around some arbitrary rules put in by governing bodies.

 

Take Chelsea for example. Abramovich was clearly money laundering as it enabled him to get his crooked millions out of Russia and spend. But their recent dealings of selling hotels and women's teams to sister companies is making a mockery of the rules, but are just really moving assets around the same group, so isn't really shady at all.

 

Reading @HankMarvins posts on 2014, it looks like a poorly disguised way of King Power paying sponsorship but using an interim company to get money paid. Trestellar were registered in England and are still registered (although not audited). They made over £800k in their first accounting period in 2015 and profit and loss reserves still just over £800k, so this is likely an agency fee and a lot of the money flows would have been traceable. This smacks of Chelsea's recent shenanigans - being cute with the rules and getting away with it, but not money laundering.

 

It is possible that this is just more of the same of Top paying money into the club and using KBet to cover tracks as this might be a standard service offered by these companies, and it is just about hiding flows from the football authorities rather than it being money laundering. But the fact the sponsor on the shirt doesn't exist as a genuine business and the fact the company is registered in Curacoa just takes this to another level. I would have thought if it was just about PSR, we could pursue other options (e.g. selling our own women's team) - but I can't see why we have gone down this route as a club if it wasn't due to the original source of the money being from illegitimate means.

 

If we were still in the  PL we could be more creative (like  Chelsea) 

the championship is way more restrictive