wurmer

Only just realised this is happening - they're taking the piss surely?

9 hours ago, Pita said:

Protesting will not help unless the happy claspers are on side. They don’t want to know 

They’ll still be saying they’re amazing even if we end up in L2

5 hours ago, Leycestrian said:

'A lot of fans stilll.........' Really ?
I doubt it. This isn't a blip. How can three relegations in four years be a blip ?
You think that Top can turn it around ?

He has shown no sign of  being capable of getting a grip and sorting things out

He says we shouldn't blame other people, we should blame him.
Yes Top, we do. You are to blame. You are responsible for your staff, that is your job.
If you are incapable of running a football club, hand it over to someone who is.

He’s not interested and certainly not running it. He’s leaving that to Rudkin (who isn’t even the CEO).

They gone yet?

He's going nowhere, the only way he goes is if Top goes.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17d1VJuTVm/?mibextid=wwXIfr
 

some of the comments on here… shows what a fkin bunch of muppets some of our fans are

Couldn’t care less.

We’ve got bigger problems to deal with than who manages us.

See you on the other side folks.

So, has our esteemed nepo-baby actually turned up?

1 hour ago, Blue ROI said:

I'd take Mike Flowers Pops over the useless Nepo Baby

I'd have Jimmy Saville backed up by Rolf Harris as DOF over this lot

On 17/04/2026 at 10:31, dmayne7 said:

Getting rid of Rudkin doesn't solve anything as Top would just employ some other duffer and give them too much power. Wasting your time on Rudkin when he's a symptom, not the cause, it's stupid.

King Power first, then Rudkin and the rest of the board.

7 hours ago, huddersfieldfox said:

Does anyone have a genuine opinion when the rot started. I'm not asking for years back because I genuinely thought we would go back up this season but its now looking like it's the opposite. 

What changed the players mindset, when did the rot start to creep in and why are our players so weak mentally and physically 

Genuinely - it started when the helicopter went down.

Has just gained momentum over the intervening years.

“Foxes never quit”

sick of hearing that shit - those days are over and have been for a long time.

But the cost of borrowing more goes up as the financial markets see the risk of getting their money back as a higher risk, which increases interest payments, which increases deficit, etc etc etc.

1 hour ago, wurmer said:

The one thing that is constant with Starmer is that he hasn't really changed at all.

 

He was completely ineffective in opposition and is proving to be so in government.

 

I'm not sure what people expected when they voted for his party (and by inference for him).

Having said that...

24 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Merchantofdeath.gif 

At least if we went first, we'd be able to escape this fecked up world early on in the game!

10 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Is now a bad time to say what I do for a living?...Probably 

You build 'dem drones?

20 minutes ago, davieG said:

There's a common theme with all of these men too...

They are all c**ts

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Assuming it is confirmed that he didn't know about the failed security vetting, I largely agree with you - for the reasons you've stated.

 

But, unless the May elections are better than expected for Labour (unlikely), I assume it's likely he'll be forced out in a month's time. Though maybe not if the Iran war is still ongoing?

 

Despite all the economic and other problems, if Iran war damage is limited by a deal and the restoration of trade flows, Labour still has 3 years to win back support through its political decisions, unlikely as that might seem now. But the public seem to have terminally taken against Starmer. So, I can see why the party might see a change of leader as necessary, as well as an economic/political upturn.

 

I find the unprecedented antipathy towards Starmer strange. There is justified criticism for some of his decisions and U-turns, though others deserve credit. I can understand why people who buy into low-tax, low-spending politics or climate change denial would be hostile, but the extent of the hostility is astonishing. I assume that most of it is due to a combination of frustration with 16+ years of cost of living pressures, austerity and decline, and the naive belief that any Govt could quickly turn all that around. It's as if LCFC fans expected a new manager to immediately have us back in the PL challenging for Europe....when structural factors are against you and there has been long-term decline, it will take a few years to turn that around, even under perfect management.

 

I suspect that a secondary issue contributing to Starmer's unpopularity is the personal impression he gives - coming across as a dull, uncharismatic man-in-a-suit. After the likes of Johnson, or Blair to a lesser extent, you'd hope we'd moved beyond wanting charismatic leaders. Hell, even Trump is not "dull", but I'd much prefer a dull leader who gets on with tackling tricky problems that require years to resolve, rather than a charismatic "entertainer".

The one thing that is constant with Starmer is that he hasn't really changed at all.

He was completely ineffective in opposition and is proving to be so in government.

I'm not sure what people expected when they voted for his party (and by inference for him).

The biggest issue is that Top is an absolute cretinous moron.

Rudkin is useless but he's being enabled by a more useless owner who actually doesn't really care that much about the club now.

So Rudkin is allowed to continue, and will be allowed to continue.

It's not in Rudkin's interests to see someone else at the club, so he'll keep kissing ass and keeping the one person who enables him happy.

He doesn't give a shit about the club either.

It's that simple - it's not exactly unique to our club either, it happens in businesses everywhere....

30 minutes ago, Foxmeister said:

 

Hermansen and Ndidi?

My brain fart - Fatawu, Mavididi, Wout Faes, Kristiansen, etc.

Was thinking about the loans already secured on Hermansen's sale!

25 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

That's not the limit. 

 

The rule is 'player costs' can't exceed the total of:

• Player trading income
• ‘Allowable’ Equity injection income
• 75% of turnover

So we've got 75% of turnover + 60% of whatever equity injection + player sale profit to play with. 

Obviously, how well we do that who knows, but its not as simple as the 75% of turnover rule. 

You are spot on with the EFL rulebook formula, but you’re it's not as simple: i.e. allowance vs actual cash-in-the-bank/cashflow.

Yes, that is exactly how the SCMP limit is calculated. But having a high spending limit doesn't matter if our bank accounts are empty. Here is the brutal reality of how those three pillars actually look for us right now:

1. 75% of Turnover (The Parachute Trap) Because we get a Year 2 Parachute Payment, our "turnover" on paper looks okay. But we’ve already spent it. We took out massive commercial loans (like the ones from Macquarie Bank) to survive the Championship, and those loans are secured against our future parachute payments. So yes, the EFL might say "your turnover gives you a £30m wage allowance," but the actual cash from that parachute payment goes straight to the bank to service our debt, not to paying League One wages. You can’t pay a striker with an SCMP allowance; you need cash.

2. ‘Allowable’ Equity Injection You’re assuming Top can and will just pump in "whatever equity" to boost the budget. That ignores what’s happening in the real world. King Power’s duty-free empire has been battered post-pandemic, and they’ve been going through a massive restructure in Thailand. The days of Top writing £50m-£100m blank cheques to bail us out are most likely over. Even if he wanted to, the EFL recently tightened the rules (2024) on how much owner equity can actually be counted to stop financial doping.

3. Player Trading Income (The Fire Sale) You are right that selling players boosts our allowance. But to get that "player sale profit," we have to absolutely gut the squad. We will have to fire-sale Hermansen, Fatawu, Ndidi, and anyone else with a pulse just to legally balance the books.

TLDR: The SCMP formula doesn't save us. It just outlines the exact mathematical parameters of the fire sale we are about to endure. The EFL gives us a credit limit, but Macquarie Bank has already taken the credit card.

3 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

What is the implication of not meeting that 75% wages/turnover ratio? Because there is absolutely no chance we meet it.

There is no chance we will meet that.

7 hours ago, st albans fox said:

We have parachute payment next season 

so we’ll likely manage to navigate our way through it 

I doubt we’ll try too hard to meet psr if it’s looking difficult at 60%. The (predictably arrogant) stance would be that we will get promoted so any sanction would be taken in the championship.  We will attempt to restrict losses because we would have to meet a three year running number of 61m for 24/25 thru 26/27. 
Reckon we would see some young talent sold because it’s all profit (and at supressed values too). Does anyone trust that we’d have the foresight to put league 1 relegation clauses into contracts ?   Would mean a good few players earning approx 50k in league 1!!!!!  Hamza, Thomas, vesty, skipp, BDCR and more, 
just don’t see us getting anywhere close to 60%, even though it will be inflated due to the PP.  Q

We’ve already borrowed against the parachute payment.