Babylon

Is he? He was poor for a while before dropping down a division, regular injuries, and question marks about his age. Someone might take a punt, but let's not kid ourselves he's got the options he would have had three years ago.

The wages on the books include all staff at this club (I think there were 400+ people, bonuses, benefits in kind). Anyone saying what our average is just guessing. The "average wage" was going to be inflated during the 20/21 and 21/22 seasons, due to league finish, FA Cup wins, European competitions etc.

Off the hook maybe not, but they absolutely do take into account mitigating circumstances. If, for instance, we miss out on P&S by £20m, and can show that relegation directly meant we lost £20m worth of sponsorship and prize money (wasn't the shirt sponsor £16m and they walked before the end of the deal because of relegation), prior to the June P&S. When they have already found Everton guilty of breaking it, they absolutely must take that into account.

We won't find out until we know how much we are over it. If we are £10 or £20m over, then it impacted it a lot. Again, our losses might be big, but the P&S is a different story. Much of it will come down to how they see all the loans and whether they accept they are for infrastructure.

The levers were always selling players; the club have admitted as much when regularly discussing our MO. The problem is, as I mentioned above we went from a team stacked with bankable assets, to the market being decimated by covid and not as much money being there. Awful injuries, loss of player form, further rapid changes to FFP, players running down contracts more to regain power. We added to our own issues, with hindsight we should never have backed Rodger's in the one summer window, but keeping our players and buying others was everything people wanted us to do.

We were probably forced to spend when we really didn't want to in the January, because of us struggling. I think they would have preferred to just bank the cash. They've said a lot of times that player trading was their MO. Injuries that has really dented some of our assets like Ndidi, Ricardo and Justin... oh and even Maddisons ongoing hip problems. Barnes has a bad injury it took some time to get over. Chuck in Tielemans and Soyuncu running down contracts. And a raft of saleable assets was no longer there. I have sympathy there, but you reap what you sow. And we've got rid of Rennie to reorganise the backroom medical team to, I presume, please, Rodger's, and it was a shambles.

You can only trade if people are interested, let's not forget that when we probably would have wanted to sell, the drop in spending across Europe was a billion or two lower than normal due to covid. Then you had huge ups and down in form and injuries. Ideally I think we'd have loved a decent offer at the right time, doesn't always work like that though.

I think they were outstanding debts and unpaid last account. They aren't stupid; if things are tight, as you say, they won't charge.

Don't look up all the management fees we pay to KP and associated companies, because I think it might dispel that. As you say, they all have companies and they get paid that way, rather than through PAYE. Look up Gadbridge Ltd, with Susan Whelan as sole director, paid £100k in management fees from Kingpower Racing last year.

But it's chicken and egg, if we spent money, and got Europe, you'd go most likely go mental saying we shouldn't have spent the money because we couldn't compete. The UEFA rule change was announced when we WERE playing in Europe. It was also widely reported that the premier league would follow suit with UEFA, which was reported as soon as the UEFA rules changed. And they've been discussing a change numerous times since. With 19 clubs apparently backing the change and Richard Masters saying “Over time we have historically aligned with Uefa, because seven or eight of our clubs play in European competition,” https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/feb/28/premier-league-clubs-set-to-back-uefa-style-framework-of-financial-rules People can moan about being badly run, but with respect, it would have been amiss not to start pulling the wages back. And to add to this, I'm not saying there hasn't been mistakes, as I keep saying over and over again. I was addressing specific points and clearly said our own mistakes compounded the issue.

With hindsight, but did we have any offers? Look at where he ended up, and that happened because there were question marks over whether he can ever sustain good form. Chuck in the fact that the summer of 21 we had only just had a crowd back for our game, clubs had lost 10's of millions due to COVID and transfer spend was down by a billion or two overall. Not only that but the club would have been slaughtered for selling him. They would have been slated no matter what they did.

I doubt we wanted to have them all leave on a free. Many were offered contracts long before the ends of their current ones, but they saw the chance to get a free and to keep the power like so many players are now, by running the contract down. Then they changed the FFP rules, meaning we had to start cutting back. So any renewals, were potentially going to be 30% of what they were currently on. To stay within the wages being no more than 70% of turnover. Add into that we couldn't afford to buy people, so you then end up in the scenario whereby it was better to keep players and lose them on a free than letting them go on the cheap and not be able to afford a better or equal quality replacement. That was a decision to try and fend off our troubles, with hindsight you can say the wrong one. But it's one I at least understand. Then chuck in relegation and you're not in a position to really offer contracts and players unlikely to sign even if you do. FFP changes have played a massive part in our contract issues; it wasn't by choice. That's not to say mistakes weren't made, of course they were. We should never have allowed Rodgers to bring in Congerton and the raft of failed transfers that followed . Then sticking with Rodgers when we really should have gotten rid. Then, getting rid of it when we did and had nothing lined up. Poor decisions that have just compounded problems we were already going to face.

This is where numerous issues start adding up. If you go back to when we were challenging for the top 5 or just before that, the team with littered with players who we could potentially have shifted for a large fee. Look how quickly that changes with a few injuries (Ricardo was probably a £60m+ player before injury, ditto Ndidi was probably £40m+ before he started picking up injuries. I mean we just sold like three players for £160m in about 12 months. Chuck in Tielemans when he was good, Souyuncu. We had a large number of saleable assets, but we pushed too hard to compete rather than just cash in at the right time, and got unlucky with some of them. I didn't see many moaning at the time. A few injuries, a few bad signings, not sacking a manager, and a few bad decisions, chuck in the FFP changes and it's all come together to create a mess.

Madison would be in the 23/24 accounts. But the PSR for the year before I think... I dunno, the whole lot is all over the bloody place.

It also kind of gives us a bit of a card to play for mitigating circumstances. Premier League "Hey naughty Leicester you have lost too much money" Leicester "You've found clubs guilty of breaking FFP, in a season that directly impacted our profits and losses" How on earth they are going to unpack all of that I don't know. It is, after all mitigating circumstances. Whilst if we took a payoff now, they could, I suppose, argue that we settled that issue.

It's spelt condescend. Sorry, couldn't resist. Look, if you are going to chuck around accusations and accuse me of saying x, y and z, then at least quote an actual post. Because, once again, you are just wrong. I have said over and over and over again that they share a collective blame. All you ever do is misconstrue what has been said. I believe in collective responsibility because we don't know the facts of the situation, and thus I generally won't point fingers at individuals.

Please find one single post where I said you shouldn't speculate about his responsibilities. I know it's hard for you, but you just fail to grasp the basics. There is a massive difference between discussing someone's potential responsibilities and absolutely slating someone about certain things when you have ZERO idea of their involvement. Do you not get that? Not only that, but they are also provable facts or literally listed in articles that people post as "proof" that she doesn't touch the football side. If you want to keep trumping up John Percy articles, I'll just do the same. He listed most of those things in his article.

I think we're arguing semantics. She will be involved in everything to some degree. Does she tell someone to empty the bins? She'll employ the people who tell the people to empty the bins. If you know what I mean. The finger prints will be on everything. She might not be invovled generally in signings, but she agrees the budgets and funds, that others use to sign players. etc

Define footballing matters? Does she get involved in setting up scouting teams? Unlikely Does she talk to the manager directly about stuff happening on the pitch etc? Unlikely Was she the clubs representative at premier league meetings? Yes Has she got involved in transfer discussions? The same reporters people seem are happy to believe have said so. Is she involved in football budgets? (what we have to spend on players and wages) Yes of course, she's the CEO. Is she involved in discussing and agreeing on the overall direction of the club, including on the pitch? Yes, to a degree. She Spearheaded the development of Seagrave. It wasn't long ago that people were adamant that she interviewed Maresa rather than Rudkin and that was used as a stick to beat him. She's the CEO of a football club and on its board. Of course, she has a say in footballing matters. It's how you want to define them.

They all take the blame, as you day he didn't sign off the decisions or plans. It goes through Top and the board and the CEO. Either blame the man at the very top, or spread the blame around.

Sky? Has anyone believed a word they said in the last decade? The simple fact is the video they put out of Dorsett last night was just simply wrong. They clearly read the EFL post and ours and not the judgement. To suggest it had anything to do with what we submitted this March is laughable. The decision from the panel was taken in January, and held back until after the January transfer window. Percy is up and down; he clearly doesn't have the access he once did. But again, the article is speculative and clearly is hung around what our results are, that nobody even knows yet... let alone the PSR calculations from them. Because we have another 4 months until those are met and a lot can happen in that time. I don't doubt we are going to post a loss, we got relegated... of course we are. It's the finer details that matter, and he simply can't know them all, because he doesn't have a crystal ball to see into the future. What we'd need to find would be entirely different if we got promoted, compared to if we didn't due to all the increased revenues.

1) You should really attempt to actually read before posting. Stan said "How much would we need to get in through player sales before end of June to even have a sniff of being okay for next season?". That's a very specific request isn't it. The response of nobody has a scooby is perfectly correct. Are you actually attempting to argue that anyone on here could possibly answer that? 2) It's not a technicality at all. The panel clearly said that how we interpreted it is correct, and it's not even a case of ambiguity. The EFL even admitted their own rules aren't written very well in their own evidence. We've followed the process as it's written down. As for the right to reply, how many clubs actually do that? Few. It's not an admission of anything. 3) Percy clearly stated it depends on our results, I'll repeat it again. PSR calculations are entirely different to a set of accounts, us making a loss doesn't automatically mean we fail PSR. If he knew the details, he'd give the details. But the fact is he doesn't give much detail at all other than us making a loss, which I'm sure we all knew was on the cards. "The key point is how much Leicester’s losses were in the 2022-23 season when they were still in the Premier League." He doesn't even attempt to answer it. Is it £20m, £40m, £60m £80m... you tell me? Or has nobody actually said? Apparently, not actually knowing and admitting we don't is a bad thing; what planet? 4) Once again, you fail to read what's been said. I didn't say make up a fake sponsorship. I said IF we gain promotion it gives us many avenues to increase revenue BEFORE the June deadline for PSR. That could include new sponsorship (not made up, real valid sponsorship), more corporate, more advertising. That's not speculation, that's the reality of being a premier league club. We don't know what the hole will be in the finances. Maybe that increase is enough, maybe it won't be enough. We have no idea how much needs to be met, but you can't ignore the fact there is a relatively easy cash boost sat there to come in on promotion. Even when the accounts appear, we won't have a full picture, as so much can be written off under PSR. 5) I'm sure everyone is worried, but until we actually have the facts, it's just a bunch of hand-wringing.

I can't fathom that people are on here still thinking new ownership = more money to spend.

His valuation on players going out is going to be influenced by what we've paid for them and what we need to recoup for them for the books. It's entirely different to the valuation of a player coming into the club from somewhere else, spotted by someone else, watched exclusively by the scouting team and not him. Tanner did not say it; the OP is surmising that based on him waiting x amount for players.

I think all the new rules, cross division rules etc are so complex most of the reporters seem to struggle with getting their heads around it all. It's incredibly complex compared to how it used to be. I took it that it meant the EFL would fine us, the premier league could take its own punishment. Could be a proper fisting if things are dire. We've been trying to cut the cloth for more than a year and a half now. We've lost loads of high earners, sold £170m+ worth of players, got more high earners leaving in the summer. Whilst we might get a short term kicking, I don't think we'll be too far from getting things back down to a manageable level, sooner rather than later. It's hard, when they bring these rules in, they are often at relatively short notice, considering you have players sat on 4 and 5-year contracts, it's like trying to do a U-turn in an oil tanker. And obviously worse for clubs who were very finely balanced financially.