Terraloon

On 10/06/2026 at 20:09, st albans fox said:

I think there is a time limit on claims which means we wouldn’t be able to bring any claim against Man City or Chelsea 

burnley brought their claim against Everton promptly 

 

The time limit was 28 days after the award which would have been around mid to late December 2023.

From memory Leeds, Leicester , Southampton all stated they wanted to lodge a claim . Leeds as we know have settled, and Burnley have as we know been awarded an eye watering sum. I will come back to that ruling later.

Leeds were paid a couple of million based purely on PL merit payments. That matter was settled privately.

Leicester, Southampton and Forest as I said all indicated they would claim but from everything I read the suggestion is that these  initial claims were never taken further.

To Burnley.

Their claim to compensation was under PL rules heard by the original IC who if you remember were subsequently told that they hadn’t acted fully in accordance with the charges or indeed the rules. From my reading of the written reasons I would imagine that the quantum of the award will be significantly reduced. 
 

I wasn’t going to refer to the Chelsea or Man City matters however.

As most will recall there was a significant amount of anger about Chelsea’s settlement and a lot of sabre rattling from clubs about how they were going to do this or that. I have read the settlement agreement several times and my interposition that  it’s an incredibly well scripted piece of work. 
 

I genuinely believe that had Chelsea played a straight bat and put the responsibility on the PL as opposed to them , Chelsea, offering up possible explanations then the PL probably wouldn’t have been able to prove any of the matters. I would imagine that the discussions were held very much on the basis that Chelsea offered up  possible explanations without prejudice.
 

In other words if Chelsea hadn’t liked the terms of the settlement then it would have had to go to a full hearing and again back to that settlement agreement the wording suggests that wasn’t an option that the PL was sue about 
 

The settlement agreement went out of its way to answer the question about potential PSR breeches and that wasn’t done purely to justify the outcome but my guess would be that Chelsea lawyers wanted the IC panel who signed off the agreement( this panel would hear any subsequent claims) to be tied to that view if any club within that 28 day period lodged a claim that there weren’t PSR questions .
 

That agreement was signed off in March . I haven’t heard about any claims so my guess is that the view would be no point . 

As for Man City . I am torn as to what the final outcome will be.

Some of the charges such as failure to co operate, the Mancinis contract and image rights payments won’t have been the reason for the delay so surely the focus and delay revolves  around disguised equity and as a consequence of that notion the charges around failure to supply correct financial information would either follow or be dismissed as a consequence of charges not being proven. I know that’s a simplistic view .

As I say I am torn . Man City are adamant that they have irrefutable evidence. Well if that were the case the IC would have reached that conclusion months ago. Yet here we are.

If you look at his managerial record at his previous clubs it’s remarkable in that GD at each club is very close in terms of goals scored v goals against. Also games won and lost are remarkably close in terms of won and lost.

By now we should be hearing far more rumours in terms of players in and yes players out. The first competitive game potentially is what about 7 weeks away.

14 minutes ago, SafewayFox said:

I know that we’re not regulated by PSR in League One, but what’s the lads book value?

 

Anyone buying him, is nothing short of a miracle.

If the information on transfer market is correct then his book value is around €5.6 m. That’s just under £5m

I doubt that he will just walk from his contract so he will be getting any signing on fee paid immediately ( signing on fees are spread over the contract period) 

Until 30/6/26 the club is bound by PSR under the championship rules. Post that date all players still with the club will be included in the squad costs meaning player trading will be factored in. So sell a player at a loss and that loss will count toward squad costs.

I really don’t know where to start.

I had my car serviced on Thursday.  All the boxes were ticket to prove work had been carried out . One of the boxes ticked was that windscreen washer had been topped up.

Yesterday some 8 miles after I picked the car up no washer fluid .

My point is that just like the garage that serviced my car it seems to me the FAB meetings are no more than putting a few ticks in the boxes.

The whole process is amateurish. Of course there may well have been a bit more to it but in terms of substance but there really is little detail around things that matter. Throw away facts such as a large number of the 4500 new ST holders are under 18 and the limit for sales 22k have been met are interesting but there is little detail around SCMP something that really needed more comment.

I am not having a pop at those that represent the supporters but supporters are not being told anything in the meetings that couldn’t be fed back by say a monthly newsletter.

2 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

I'm not sure the new spending rules mean clubs can ignore book values. The new rules are about player costs vs player income, equity injection and % of turnover. 

 

There's some debate as to whether book value losses count as a player cost or not. 

We are yet to see the 26/27 rules but my reading of what is likely is this

If a player is sold  on or before 30/6/26 then any loss ( fee minus balance still to be amortised) will be reflected in the 25/26 accounts.

If the player is sold post 1/7then that loss will be included in the 26/27 squad costs. 
 

A few other factors . First what would the buying club want ? Will the 25/26 numbers have any wriggle room left ? Oh and until the EFL sign off the 25/26 numbers the club are still under Championship regulations.
 

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

Yes, it has to be repaid, but it's covered. Money is owed to us - transfers and PL parachutes - but it won't now come to us. It bypasses us and the monies due go direct to Macquirie.

 

The only way we are liable is if, say, the PL defaults on its payment. The club will have underwritten that risk. At which point Macquirie can ask us for what it's due. But that's an extremely unlikely scenario. Therefore the Macquirie debt isn't of pressing concern. Liquidity is. 

 

Back of fag packet maths, we will need around 40m-50m at least to function next season. I don't think we have it. And I can only guess they are relying (praying) on player sales to finance that. 

 

Additionally, and possibly the biggest existential risk we have, is we may well still owe instalments on Bilal, Hermansen, Mavididi, VK, Souttar, Skipp. This has been mentioned a couple of times in the media, Inc the Charlie Methven interview. 

 

My original point anyways is posters on here fearing 'the banks'. They are, in my view, the least of our problems. 

What we need to do is look at income v expenditure not what the numbers in the accounts will look like.

The banks have taken security against just about everything up till June 27 by which time I would guess that little to no parachute, transfer fees, or income of any note can be borrowed against. As we know that come that date at very best LCFC will at best be a Championship club , a club competing without parachute payments against clubs who will be getting significant monies to aid there wage bill against the % target
 

You are probably right about not having £40-50 m but by my back of a fag packet calculation I think it’s closer to £80-£90m

Some basic costs which in the accounts are deemed to be administrative will come to a minimum of £23 m even then only  if significant savings are made. These costs have been in excess of that sum , significantly more so circa £25-£26m. With additional numbers being added due to increases in utility costs, business rates insurances etc I think even £23m will be a significant challenge 
 

There will be sums due to be paid in respect of historical transfers in. I guess these will be , with interest, around £12-£15 m 

Before we even look at first team wages paying for the academy players and support staff, woman’s players and support staff medical staff , maintenance staff, club administration staff etc is anyone’s guess but I very much doubt there would be much change from £15 m

So best case scenario before first team players and coaching staff it’s circa £53m 

There is still the debate about what does or doesn’t count in terms of SCMP football revenue particularly around parachute monies but from the three main income streams match day , sponsors and commercial it’s hard to see how it was going to get close to £50m income my guess it’s more likely to be closer to £40m

13 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Sorry pal, but you're wrong on this. It's factoring. Invoice finance. 

 

We've basically sold the debt..

 

Businesses do that for cashflow issues. You are owed 100 quid and can't fanny about waiting for the client to pay, so you 'sell' the invoice for 90 quid to a bank. And additionally, you have to underwrite it (so as to avoid a business flogging a dodgy invoice to the factoring company where you know the client won't pay) 

 

You're gonna have to trust me on this. That's how it works. 

 

Technically yes we owe Macquirie the money because we have said, for example,.if Chelsea don't pay their bill - we will.

 

Point is, the money we owe to Macquirie is covered. Liquidity is the issue. Not Macquirie. 

In one sense you are right in that known income ( not an invoice) has been drawn down in advance but call it whatever we want that money has to be repaid and at a cost.

You mention Chelsea but KDH has been sold on by them.

I have only just got around to reading the article by but the Esk but it’s this bit that struck me

The  picture for 2026 is one of systemic risk. Relegation to League One will represent a devastating new low. Financed by parachute payments that are not accounted for in the 2025 statement, the club would see its solidarity payments drop to a mere 12.6% basic rate in League One, a fraction of the £30-50 million it currently receives. Such an outcome would likely necessitate the total liquidation of the squad’s remaining market value to service the high-interest Macquarie debt.

1 hour ago, messerschmitt said:

I found an article about teams having points deductions dating back to the start of the Premier League. The smaller teams have had points deductions totalling 418 points, and that doesn't include last season's. To my recollection, the big six have not had any, as you mentioned, Man City and Chelsea, but there's also the incident when they all quit the Premier League for a few days and were going to receive significant punishments.

Re The Super league.

The six clubs that signed up for the SL didn’t  quit the PL. What they agreed to do was play in a non sanctioned competition. The trouble was that a sanction could only have been imposed if they actually had played in the competition .

Re Premier League Clubs having points deductions

From memory it’s only 4  clubs who actually have suffered PL points deductions

 Everton 6 points.    Two FFP matters

 Forest 4 points.       One FFP matter

Middlesbough 3 Points.    Failing to turn up for a fixture

Portsmouth  9 points . Administration 

5 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

Except teams like Forest, Bournemouth, Villa, Brentford, Brighton have all been able to finish top 8 in recent years without hitting the self destruct button. 

 

The game absolutely protects the big 6 'cartel' and most financial rules protect the status quo, but Leicester's situation is not simply flying too close to the sun and having one bad season is it? It's 4-5 years+ of institutionalised mismanagement with no self-awareness or attempt to course correct - all coming home to roost. 

I often read that the big 6 as it were are protected and like you many suggest that the rules protect the status quo but I honestly just don’t follow that argument.

Indeed the simple fact is that clubs that are classified as being big six are the ones that have the biggest match day, biggest commercial and biggest sponsorship. When it comes to broadcast income thankfully it’s not distributed on viewing numbers because a fair number of clubs would see a significant drop in the monies received.

I saw an article a while ago talking about how FFp and PSR actually worked disproportionately in the favour of clubs with lesser income  in the PL who when you look at the  additional sum that they could loose a season it equated to a far greater % allowance than clubs with the biggest incomes.

I have heard arguments about income sharing but personally I think that would be football taking a backwards step and ironically to see just how unfair it would be let’s look at season 26/27 where I have a seen an estimate that Leicester will be receiving around 25% -30% of the leagues income. So if income sharing were to be put in place LC would be trading on income of circa £20-£25 m.

10 hours ago, Qwerty said:

I agree, but the fact remains that without the punishment of a points deduction, we wouldn’t have been relegated, and would be in a far healthier financial position.  The way the punishments are devised seems counterintuitive.  Fines and points deductions lead struggling clubs to struggle even more, and be at even more risk of bankruptcy. I think transfer bans would be better.  
 

Punishing a club that has overspent by relegating them doesn’t help anyone, which is what PSR is claiming to do. 

Sorry but we simply don’t know how the last  game would have played out had relegation not already been confirmed. In that final game all the pressure was off as far as Blackburn were concerned. Similarly how anxious were LC players going into that game knowing that relegation was fact ? I would suggest they went into the game with no jeopardy.

Of course the result could have been exactly the same but I for one don’t seek any solace in the claim that there wouldn’t have been relegation without the points deduction. The simple fact was that the club should never have been in the position where firstly a points deduction should have occurred but more importantly six points shouldn’t have made a difference between survival and relegation. Compared to every other club in the  relegation zone you could multiply by probably 5 fold the wages spent by Leicester compared to others.

When it comes to sanctions every man and their dog knows if you don’t comply with PSR you get a points deduction. Leicester dodged getting a sanction earlier but did the club take heed? Nope let’s still spend and have a guess what was inevitable !

We all can agree that a points deduction in a financial context has a significant impact but there are mainly two different scenarios 1) Overspending in accord with the rules( this is what we are talking about re Leicester ) and 2) Matters around an insolvency event.

Looking at 1) a fine as was stated in the very first PL case against Everton a fine really isn’t going to have that great an impact but a points deduction would  or at least it should act as a deterrent but just as important a points deduction in acknowledges the compliance of all those clubs that did restrict spending and complied. 

Moving to 2) I have a bit of trouble even allowing a club suffering an insolvency event to survive in the same league. Administration and a CVA in many ways is a cop out. Entering these types of insolvency has significant impact on creditors who don’t fall into the category of football creditors particularly  local suppliers and the tax authorities. I realise that a double digit points deduction often leads to relegation but sorry I would go even further and relegate a club entering an insolvency event but I would go even further and bar all directors of a club entering the any types of insolvency event from any future involvement with a club.

You have to factor in the power of a deterrent and a simple points deduction and maybe a transfer embargo doesn’t tip the balance

2 hours ago, Qwerty said:

Exactly.  It’s dressed up a being a way of preventing teams from going bankrupt by overspending, but it’s ended up being a charter for the rich teams.  It ensures that the rich teams stay at the top, and the smaller teams can only compete if they get lucky. 

Please don’t get sucked into the narrative about stiffing ambition or stopping a club over spending the simple question is did the rules place  brakes on LC spending ? LC spent far more than it could afford and the reality is that despite the rules LCs financial state isn’t close to healthy  and that’s because of the clubs mismanagement.
 

The reality is that when it comes to football normally prudent and successful business people  get sucked into to chasing a dream and whilst  many owners are very rich by and large the bigger the club the richer the owner . Top is a pauper when it comes to comparing him to the likes of the owners of City, Arsenal, Newcastle etc but not just that when it comes to those big clubs whose owners aren’t quite as rich their clubs generate significantly more income.

How are  LC ever going to complete financially with clubs who generate more from a front of shirt sponsorship than Leicester do from every sponsorship the club has ? 

 Even then Leicesters relegation from the PL wasn’t down to not spending more than a whole bunch of clubs with less income it came about because the money was wasted. 
 

If you then look at the 25/26  season spending big and spending far more than a whole bunch of clubs didn’t mean that the bigger club in the championship , a club with far more income and spending more didn’t lead to  promotion indeed it as we know lead to relegation . Again it wasn’t not having the fund it was down to wasting money .

1 minute ago, Pliskin said:

They’ve only changed these rules because of Birmingham and Wrexham. They have to emend the rules because teams largely abuse them. And they’re clearly not very good writing up rules to begin with.

 

SCMP has been in play for about 15 years…..

The changes in terms of the allowable % be in allowable spend or indeed owners equity input was a compromise many clubs wanted the reduction down to 40%.

53 minutes ago, Scotch said:

Included in what? With the new rules, they only look to ensure a certain % of what was brought in has been spent so I'm not sure how a loss can affect that. 

 

Mutual terminations are absolutely allowed. I'm not sure why the FA would step in if both the player and the club wanted the contract to end. I don't have any examples at this level but there are certainly examples of it at PL level. 

The player trading  numbers count toward the squad costs. 
 

If you look at the EFL rules when it comes to squad costs they talk about transfer loss being included.

The new protocols have made  absolutely no difference about clubs agreeing with a player to mutually agree cancelling a contract but as I said a club can’t unilaterally cancel a contract 

14 hours ago, Scotch said:

The goalposts have moved on that front. Before we couldn't sell players for less than their book value as it would go down as a financial loss which would count against us in terms of PSR. 

Now, we can sell players for absolutely anything and although it will still be a financial loss, it won't see us fall foul of financial rulings. If players were willing, we could even terminate contracts and it not financially hurt us but rather align our wage bill with where it needs to be. 

 

Think of all the measly bids we've had over the years from Italian teams that were less than what was still on the books. We can no accept them.

Not 100% but very close to that %  I believe any loss( any sum received below book value) is included. 
 

A club can’t unilaterally terminate a players contract without penalty . Almost certainly the FA would , unless there was proof of gross misconduct, would step in.

Just now, trooky said:

Yes, apparently they introduced a rule but not a sanction to go with it. That's why their is so much speculation about the punishment. 

Very very few rules have sanctions attached to then . 
 

Let’s just look at this Southampton case. Will there be evidence to prove on the balance of probability? That’s the first hurdle even before their is talk of a sanction.

Will they be other examples  that are in earthed during the process ?
 

Will Southampton admit it or deny and then are subsequently the charge is proven ? Would there be any possibility of mitigation ?

Most disciplinary matters and indeed criminal cases will see a % of any sanction reduced but when it comes to an offence where the sentence or sanction is fixed in law ( murder for instance ) why would anyone or any entity ever admit guilt ? 


 

1 hour ago, trooky said:

I don't agree with any kind of financial rules applied to football, especially limits on owner investment because it just prevents the growth of clubs. 

 

With the current ongoing farce of spygate and the fact they never put any sanction in place after Leeds, the EFL would be better placed sorting out the existing rules. 

The EFL did introduce a rule following the Leeds case. It’s under that new rule that’s Southampton have ben charged.

The SCMP rules particularly in EFL 1&2 were/ have been introduced following representations of the clubs.

7 hours ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

https://www.efl.com/news/2026/may/15/championship-and-league-one-clubs-approve-changes-to-financial-control-rules/

 

How will these rules affect us?

 

Surely this means book value no longer matters for us? We can shift the deadwood without worrying about how much the player initially cost? 

The starting point in any calculation has to be what number you are going to apply that % against. Put another way what will the football revenue numbers look like.

The SCMP system is dynamic and won’t be based on previous years numbers. 

There has been much debate about that on here the rules on football income are far from straight forward so I suppose you have two scenarios 

1) The monies due 26/27  in respect of parachute payments haven’t been drawn down in 25/26 

2) The monies due 26/27 in respect of parachute payments have been drawn down in 25/26 and are categorised as forward financing.

if 2 applies then I suspect that the in year numbers will show up a problem resulting in a registration embargo. The reduction in year one allowance will impact significantly 

The next issue will be on what date and for what trading profit ( not fees) any players are sold. There is still time in ye 30/6/26 . It may be crucial to ensure that there possibly is need to get extra income to ensure compliance but again we need to fully understand how transfer income is treated going forward  . By that I mean my initial reading it might not be transfer profit as such it may well be when you receive the cash.

Finally in terms of revenue how will other income streams such as gather receipts, sponsorship and commercial hold up .in cash terms there will almost certainly be redundancies amongst the administrative staff and many of those will be involved in income generation. Bit of a catch 22 !

It’s pretty obvious that the current players can’t be afforded. If they are in contract then the decision to move on  is theirs. They can’t be forced to and some simply will say no. Others won’t be able to get out the door quick enough and there are a third group who the club won’t be able to afford to move on because the offer there will need to be a fee that at least matches their residual value.

You then have the dilemma that the head coach and certain others staffs wages are included. That to me suggests it’s likely that the club will have to shop in £ land and will have to go for a young promising coach as opposed to an established name.

There are far too many unknowns to really get a handle on what the overall impact will be . We always knew that it was going to be a challenge to comply but I suspect it just got a whole lot more difficult.

And all that’s before we even talk about cash flow!

5 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

That would depend on whether amortisation costs are included- I guess they are.

on the face of it the squad cost ratio dropped 10% and the amount of owner equity allowed also dropped.  Looks worse to me.

Squad costs include : wages , amortisation, impairment and agent fees.

11 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

It’s 85% in your first year down, not 60%.

 

Championship clubs are voting tomorrow on whether to switch to the squad cost ratio. If it goes through, there will be no return to PSR even if we go straight back up.

There is a vote at the EFL today alongside that Championship vote which could significantly change even that %.

Owners of EFL 1 clubs want greater alignment with the EFL 2 rules and that would mean the 60% reduced to 50% . I haven’t seen anything re when it would be introduced , that’s if the 75% of clubs agree, or indeed what the first year transitional % , if any would be.

edit. It is claimed that the squad reduced % will apply from next season.

4 hours ago, SB87_LCFC said:

I totally agree but who is going to want him? 

Let’s be honest there isn’t likely to be any club offering big bucks to any of them when it comes to wages . Not one of them is likely to get better deals at the level of clubs that will likely be looking at them.

9 hours ago, David Hankey said:

Surely, a new contract does not necessarily mean "equal or better terms" particularly when you consider the season we'v just had.

The first step as I say is that a player , to be retained, has to be offered a contract in equal or better terms if that doesn’t happen then the players status changes from being , initially, retained to being a free agent. 
Of course a contract can be offered on worse terms but what happens is that the players status changes negotiates as a free agent .

19 hours ago, Supergray22 said:

I suspect they will and do we know if any psr issues for 25/26 incurs collaboration between championship and league 1 like we saw with the premiership and championship? 

The championship and EFL 1& 2 are effectively all run under the EFL. There are different measures within each league but all rules be it from Championship to 1 or vice versa will be easier to enforce than the Championship to Premier League.

On 11/05/2026 at 05:24, topguest321 said:

Don’t the contracts run till 30th June? 

The first step for those whose contracts end on 30/6 is the club have the option to offer a new contract which has to be on equal or better terms.

Contracts for those not offered terms or those that choose not to take up any offer will still get a few weeks extra pay post 30/6.

The EFL 1 75% squad spend  is unlikely to be truly known till some time around Jan 2028 . It’s all well and good pointing to the lack of limits but if say £100 m was forthcoming and indeed £75m added to the playing budget that sort of investment could prove problematic if promotion was achieved and assessed in a later year  under PSR.

Balancing the numbers in 26/27 won’t be as easy as some think and should promotion not be achieved and the allowable % drops to 60% the challenge becomes even greater.
 

Till the 25/26 Championship numbers are finalised sometime later in 2026 or early 27 then the possibility remains an overspend of £61 million in the three years to 30/6/26 will result in a charge under the championship rules which could result in a points deduction that would be imposed even in EFL1. Let’s hope the numbers aren’t an issue.

The 26/27 season will be being assessed as we talk and there will have been all sorts of projections being submitted to target  compliance for 25/26 or before accounting year end maybe having to selling a player.

Hopefully there isn’t a pressing need to generate transfer  cash before 30/6 because any income received in the 25/26 year won’t count toward the 26/27 income.

I haven’t fully thought it through,  it might be advantageous to sell players in 25/26 but agree a payment plan whereby no cash is actually received til 26/27. That might, and I say might, work massively to the clubs advantage.