Details of the Rooney to Derby deal

Furious Preston could ditch sponsor over Rooney deal - from The Athletic

"The role played by betting company 32Red in Derby County’s signing of Wayne Rooney has generated fierce debate, much of it rightly focusing on ethical issues.

But there is also a sporting angle and little has been known about how rival clubs with the same sponsor feel towards the situation. Derby have a “star player” clause in their 32Red contract which provides an extra £1.5 million in funding and can be used however the club wishes, including to help cover Rooney’s salary.

My colleague Daniel Taylor describes it as “a strange set-up”, particularly because there are three other Championship teams — Leeds United, Preston North End and Middlesbrough — who have endorsement deals with the same firm but do not benefit from the bonus that has been of such assistance to Derby.

“How would Leeds react, for example, if they were denied promotion at Pride Park on the penultimate weekend of the season because of a goal scored by a striker whose employment by Derby was funded or part-funded by the company that sponsors both clubs?” he writes.

Well, The Athletic has asked the question and it emerges that neither Leeds nor Middlesbrough have a particular problem with the relationship. Preston, on the other hand, are not happy at all and are considering extricating themselves from the partnership at the end of the season as a result. The two-year contract they signed with 32Red in 2018 expires this summer but the betting company can trigger an option to extend by a further 12 months. If Preston decide they want out and can find a replacement, they are minded to tell 32Red not to exercise the option and, should that request be poorly received, they would cite Derby as the reason.

Preston host Derby on March 21, seven games from the end of the season, and a Deepdale source said: “We’ll be facing a team who have a star player we couldn’t even dream of affording, because our sponsor paid for it. It’s a nonsense.

“We entered into a commercial relationship with a sponsor and that sponsor is compromising our ability to compete. By comparison to what 32Red are paying Derby in the first place, this top-up arrangement is disproportionate. These aren’t normal commercial sponsorship numbers.”

It is understood that during the last round of new contract and renewal negotiations, 32Red gave every client a chance to be as creative as possible with their deals, think outside the box and collaborate with them to incorporate mechanisms for accessing additional finance. Derby were the only club to suggest a “star player” clause and are also among three sides who proposed community projects — in their case, the Team Talk mental health scheme — that have released even more money. Preston and Leeds are said not to have put forward any ideas so far, however 32Red would be willing to discuss investment initiatives during the course of contracts.

Neil Banbury, UK general manager at 32Red told The Athletic: “We have reinvented the model of sponsorship to ensure it benefits both clubs and their communities. We are always keen to be innovative and unique with our sponsorship deals across all sports and encourage our sporting partners to work with us to ensure sponsorship in sport is beneficial to everyone.”

Though Leeds and Middlesbrough are thought to be comfortable with the conduct of Derby and 32Red there is, if anything, frustration that they did not act similarly. The EFL’s financial fair play rules aim to ensure club sustainability and Leeds believe using an external sponsor to raise genuine revenue, which can contribute to player and other costs, makes far more sense than relying on owners, the sale of stadiums or other questionable methods.

They accept Derby’s “star player” clause is part of a competitive commercial landscape and that, regardless of when the funds arrive, in principle it is no different to the marketing uplift the likes of David Beckham, Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo have provided clubs over the years. Leeds’ anger is instead directed at the EFL regulations, which an Elland Road source calls “embarrassing” for a perceived lack of clarity over what activity is acceptable or not.

The Yorkshire club were punished last year for spying on Derby training, contravening a law that demands “each club behave towards each other club and the league with the utmost good faith”. But their view is there are numerous matters — for instance, the “star player” clause and stadium sales — that are mired in uncertainty and they feel that undermines the integrity of the competition."

How has this been allowed?

 

I think the only way is for FFP to cover every form of revenue a club gets but that simply won't happen.

 

All capitalism init. Play with money, not players. The most likely club to get promoted, that we sponsor, we'll buy big players for you! FFP? My arse

 

This is actually Preston asking 32Red to give them some more money in the last 12 months.

If they did would they turn it down because it isn’t fair on Leeds and Middlesbrough, would they f*ck.

 

Yeah can't understand why people are up in arms over this.

Every club in the country uses sponsorship as a means to recruit and fund players wages etc... if we were to recruit someone decent in the twilight of their career perhaps we'd have got a more lucrative deal too.

Football is without question morally bankrupt, but what Derby has done is no different. If they were a third party owner like what happened with Tevez etc then that would be different.

 

Me and @TitusMagee. We know a song about that, don't we children?