Terraloon

Thoughout the EFL the process ‘ will be a an allowable spend against income. There are subtle differences such as the allowable % but also what counts toward that spend. One thing I would suggest that is worth keeping an eye on is how LCFC transfer spend and income changes downward. That said you will need to watch just how stretched things become when the club tries to get close to spending 65% . By that I mean that irrespective of anything else the cost of running the club I would imagine is going to exceed 35% of all income and whilst there is room to inject equity the question then is how much Top can / will be able to invest Put another way the club bleeds money keeping the stadium the training ground and paying non playing staff members and it’s that issue certainly in 26/27 that is going to be a problem

Just spent a happy half hour reading through the 26/27 regulations. . The 65% thing is a given but what worried me was the reference to advancing the parachute payments. It’s back to that good old Aussie Bank. I can’t read it any other way than if the club has borrowed the money in 25/26 monies due in 26/27 they it is discounted as income

The terms of the agreement, namely obligation to buy, is an extremely important factor. This transaction is not quite straight forward. First off the loan fee which is said to be €3.5m will definitely have been paid in the 25/26 year and not 26/27. We then come to the reported fee which was €18.5 m . Bear in mind a chunk of the original reported cost namely £20 m will be training compensation paid by LCFC to the likes of Genk. So it’s €15 m against the unamortised sum of circa £10 million or €11.6 m . Then we come into unknowns such as what signing on fee did he get, signing on fees are divided by the number of years . So if he was paid say €2 million then he would be entitled to €1 m on transfer. If the transfer became permanent as stated by Stutgart on 25/5/26 then that will be in the 25/26 accounting year . Irrespective of the date for SCR the transfer is deemed to have been completed when the terms under the obligation to buy are met. Irrespective of when cash changes hands. Mad I know. At some point in the not too distant future we will find out how the numbers look like but even though 26/27 won’t be in the Championship the club are bound by that leagues rules till all 25/26 conditions have been met. EFL 1 SCR isn’t obviously the same as PSR so using a transfer profit in full isn’t how football income is calculated for SCR purposes.

The main ramification would be it is that owing money to Leeds would be classified as a football creditor. That in effect would have to be paid at 100p in the £

Sorry I have no idea why I put beyond reasonable doubt. On that point one thing that has intrigued me is the Man City CAS outcome. Both at UEFA and CAs they apply the burden of proof as being Comfortable Satisfaction. I wrongly had assumed that would be similar to Balance of Probability so to a degree I didn’t question the assumption being made that if there is the same evidence that a PL commission would probably reach the same conclusion if there wasn’t any more evidence. However I have done a little more reading and Comfortable Satisfaction is believed to be a higher level of proof.

Sorry what would be your starting point ? As St Albans says at this time neither club has been found guilty of any PSR excesses. LCFC issues have been confirmed by various panels who say that LCFC exceeded the allowable sums . As I said in my earlier post the wording in Chelsea’s settlement agreement and sanctioned by a formal IC makes it clear that what you are dealing with isn’t a PSR matter but a matter of payments not made in accord with process , even then that settlement agreement makes it absolutely clear that had Chelsea not co operated indeed they themselves put forward and agreed to scenarios around those payments that weren’t able to be proved even to the level of beyond reasonable doubt.

I have said time after time that the actions taken by the club to to fight the PL would come back to bite the club on the bum and here I think the actions of the club to fight the rules as opposed to dealing with the financial issues that cause those issues is a great concern the fact that whilst tthere weren’t charges for 23/24 doesn’t mitigate that based on the numbers there was an issue and whilst arbitration couldn’t overturn the “ erroneous “ ( sorry for using that word ) decision of the appeals IC ruling. The fact remains that the PLs core arguments regarding jurisdiction was in the end the agreed consequence. So no charge but the numbers remain a factor. Time after time people say LCFC won that case . Won ? Delayed matters maybe When it comes to M City and Chelsea two completely different matters . M Cities still hasn’t been ruled on but the wording that was in Chelsea’s settlement agreement was deliberate and my guess would be that Chelsea’s lawyers knew all to well that they needed to get the IC signing off the agreement to state ( be it we agree with it or not ) that there was in effect no sporting advantage. Where this all goes I have no idea and whilst I would hope that LC have some sort of insurance cover any significant ruling against the club could be catastrophic.

If he was a very good championship player he would be signing for a Championship club likey Portsmouth but he hasn’t that can mean just one of two things . First it could be he is on a very decent contract or more like he is at best a declining Championship player who really is a EFL 1 player

Doris the tea lady

I am going to be brutally honest and no doubt ain’t going to like some. 1) Monga is a youngster who has some potential but there are dozens of youngsters around who have the same or better potential but because they are at top clubs they haven’t yet made first team debuts so aren’t on supporters radars. 2) LCFC aren’t in any position negotiate. There is limited interest in him ( see 1 above). My guess is clubs that can afford to buy him just don’t see the potential that many on here think there is. Or God forbid attitude is an issue. ( I don’t know anything but do wonder) 3) Any package that potentially could rise to £10m will be loaded toward add ons. As I said the rumour I heard the initial feel is way less than 50%. 4) The club have to get rid of him. The pre contract deal, if info is correct ,would be paying him between £1&2m a year. That’s unaffordable for a player that almost certainly won’t be a starter or come to that even any starter in EFL1 . If the club did rely on him he would be kicked all over the place. 5) He simply won’t develop anymore if he doesn’t move. The coaching staff will be culled as part of the economies that inevitably means his development would be secondary he would be so engrossed in match preparation as opposed to education 6)

It does but my point was far too many expecting £10 m which would be staggering if achieved but everything I hear is that isn’t close to the initial payment

He actually didn’t say £5m he said way less than 50%.

A Man City mate of mine who is quite savvy on these matters is suggesting that the initial fee is way below 50% of the £10 million package. Arsenal pulling out isn’t anything to do with them not liking him but the fact that LCFC pushed too hard. The only club prepared to talk about even close to decent numbers is Man City I should also add that the club will struggle to match the agreed wage sum that is in the current agreement and is the basis of the contract . That offer would put him close to the highest, if not the highest earners of players , and still at the club, who signed contracts in the last two years. Finally based on numbers despite age if he remains at the club he will feature in the 26/27 SCMP numbers.

I believe there are several examples where a youngster has agreed to sign but changes their mind. The latest and perhaps highest profile Rio lad that walked out on Chelsea to go to Liverpool

It’s no where near as straight forward as that. He can agree to sign but can’t sign till 17 and even then his parents have to counter sign. What complicates this even further is that he can only sign if he isn’t in full time education which gets complex because he should be in either full time education or in effect on a scholarship agreement.