Terraloon

Not sure when the Afobe transfer you talk about happened ( he had so many) but the Rule change banning Bridge transfers was introduced in 2020 5bis Bridge transfer: No club or player shall be involved in a bridge transfer. It shall be presumed, unless established to the contrary, that if two consecutive transfers, national or international, of the same player occur within a period of 16 weeks, the parties (clubs and player) involved in those two transfers have participated in a bridge transfer. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee, in accordance with the FIFA Disciplinary Code, will impose sanctions on any party subject to the FIFA Statutes and regulations involved in a bridge transfer.”

You can’t do that in the same window. What you are suggesting is called a Bridge Transfer. If you sign a player you can’t then move them on for 4 months. The only way that could work is to confirm the transfer whilst still on loan say in January and then he could be sold on in the summer

His wages along with many others are simply unaffordable we all know that but the drum I am banging is that about income v costs going forward. Its difficult to cut through all the clutter but once the parachute payments are done then using some of the “ bigger”championship clubs such as Middlesbrough then you can expect a annual income of circa £40 million . Business rates for Seagrave and King Power combined will account for around 10% of that sort of annual income.

It cost £100 million . The problem would be as VLC86 said who would buy it ? There is absolutely no doubt the facilities are word class but they must cost an absolute fortune to run. For perspective the business rates alone in 25/26 will have cost £. £1.562 million in 26/27 they go up to £ £1.747 million.

People need to draw breath when they float the idea that relegation would somehow solve underlying issues and lead to a brighter future. Relegation ( the doom loop may well occur even in the championship) will be an utter disaster. The simple fact is the infrastructure alone wouldn’t be supported from EFL 1 or EFL 2 income. This season , to a degree, the impact of relegation from the PL has been cushioned by the club being in receipt of parachute payments but cutting wages means that save the odd exception you pay less you get players with lower ability the likelihood is that very little transfer income will be achieved before 30/6 and before anyone points to Bilal after factoring in sums of his initial fee that remains to be amortised and costs associated there will be a small accounting profit but certainly not a great sum. Remember LCFC have got a decent return on players over the last few years very very few players sold by EF1 /2 clubs generate much in the way of transfer fees and sadly their decent academy players are picked off by the big boys LCFC is structure wise a PL club. The training ground is world class but it comes at significant cost and those costs simply wouldn’t be affordable in the lower leagues.

Your right it was a whoosh and in my defence I am struggling to distinguish humour/ sarcasm from a failure of some to grasp just how much of a cluster f this all is!

Are you really trying to find logic in what’s going on? As I pointed out I am struggling to get a handle on the 24/25 numbers. I have to say I think they will be very close but I really am struggling to estimate the 24/25 wages . I can’t think that any breach would be significant but I do see why you think the opposite. The Everton and Forest charges were under an accelerated procedure and the ICs findings were published in less than a month, not sure the current IC will be quite that quick unless the club are admitting the charges, which wouldn’t surprise me,

Far from standard business practice but the loans being talked about are player loans in fact some player loans cost millions

It is, Add to that certainly many of the basic costs won’t reduce. Things like utilities, like insurance, like business rates will remain pretty static and whilst debt interest to McQuire will probably drop that will be more to do with there will in all likelihood be a significant reduction in transfer income going forward . Whilst talking about income dropping broadcasting revenue will be reducing significantly as will commercial and sponsorship . I have found it very difficult to get a true handle on the 24/25 numbers but it’s going to be very tight. But the 25/26 numbers which will be as you say £61m reducing will create even greater challenges as will the £ 39 million in 26/27.question will be whether PL can push down any punishment when the rule didn’t exist when alleged offence occurred.

They clarified the rule but the fact remains that the arbitration panel ruled that the PL did have jurisdiction to charge Leicester. The PL in effect won the argument re jurisdiction under the old rules it was that ruling that LCFC challenged and indeed the appeal panel agreed with LCFC . The ruling couldn’t change the 22/23 decision but going forward even using the old rules LCFC following the arbitration award LCFC were going to be charged

The final analysis wasn’t that the LCFCs argument about the rules was correct it was simply that the arbitration panel couldn’t revert back to the original ICs conclusions ,not because of the fact that the appeal panel had reached the wrong conclusion( which they the Arbitration panel stated the Appeal panel had )but because the process the appeal panel followed wasn’t flawed. In other words LCFC weren’t legally correct it was the fact that at appeal panel ruled incorrectly in the clubs favour but reached that conclusion by a valid process As for co operation the belligerent and deliberate decision not to submit accounts for instance made a major statement and as I said in an earlier post the fact that this fact is a separate charge will almost certainly set the ground for arguments around not just mitigating factors but also aggravating factors. If you trawl back through my , yep very negative, comments I pointed out that it was pretty obvious that the horrendous accounting numbers would come back to bite on the bum the court cases simply kicked the can down the road, in even more “ good news”. I think it will be touch and go re a further charge for 24/25 the fact that there will be the full £105 million allowed , well that’s if Top increases his equity probably just tips it in LCFC favour but if there is a charge for 24/25 from the PL then that will lead to an smaller but inevitable further points deduction in 25/26. But it’s going forward that the real problems will stack up, that is unless promotion is achieved my guess is that there will be a EFL charge for 25/26 with the £105million add back allowed in 24/25 dropping to £61 million which for perspective is less that the sums that currently are expended by way of amortisation and other operating costs .

Unless there has been a massive chunk of change found down the back of the sofa I would guess that there won’t be any funds made available to bring in players in January nor would any savings in terms of wages come seasons end be available . Failure to gain promotion this season will see a further reduction in parachute payments that in all likelihood will dwarf the wage bill savings that seems likely at seasons end. The sums paid out ( none) and players signed in the summer of 25 sadly , I believe, is the model going forward.In other words loan players or players on the down slope the career, Academy players will fill gaps but realistically how many can we hope come through? In the summer to stand still I would imagine that circa £30 million clear will have to be delivered in terms of transfer profit and I can’t see any real sums being made available . I know this is gloom and doom but the numbers speak for themselves and when you compare say broadcasting at Middlesbrough where they generate £9.7 million and LCFC in the same year , in the same league courtesy of parachute payments was £54.1 million

Villa have already been charged and agreed a settlement with UEFA . UEFA almost certainly will be charging Forest and NUFC in the next round of charges.

Ironically I expect it to work in the exact opposite to what you suggest.Clubs that have big earners on long term contracts will probably be given protection. It’s what happened when UEFA introduced FFP all contracts signed prior to 2010 were exempt. If they do indeed get exemption then the likes of Chelsea who have super long contracts will benefit for many a year. In relation to LCFC there will only be a benefit if promotion is achieved . The fact that most of the top PL clubs will already be mindful of the squad ratio costs of UEFA will mean they will cruise through the PL 85% level.

I think you will always get different sets of rules if for no other reasons they are two governing bodies indeed you could probably say that all the rules at domestic level should match UEFas rules and punishments. What we are now seeing isn’t to be fair that unreasonable in that because of the likelihood that a club can be either promoted or relegated that they should in effect get a free hit. Months ago I said what should be the greater concern would be being dealt with by the EFL and whilst not quite what is happening it’s the fact that the charges laid by the PL are under the EFL rules. In reality it’s over to the IC. The 24/25 accounts aren’t yet in the public domain . It’s possible the allowance in the PL rules will make all the difference but once T becomes T-1 then in a blink of an eye £22 million will disappear meaning the 25 /26 numbers won’t see £105 million allowed it will drop £61 million and that’s assuming equity is injected.

Borson touched on this whilst talking on talk sport and yes acknowledged the fact that the charges were under the PL jurisdiction but EFL rules and whilst accepting the fact that sanctions are listed in those same EFL regulations doesn’t explain why he thinks the deduction( if proven) will be determined using the PL rulebook which as we know doesn’t mention sanctions. It will of course come down to how the IC members are guided but yet a further complication for me is that LCFC as we know all too well are at this point an EFL club and it was where the excess happened

Administration is 12 points not 10 in the EFL indeed that’s what Wednesday have just suffered https://www.facebook.com/hmetrozimpapers/posts/sean-fusires-club-sheffield-wednesday-have-been-struggling-to-play-players-their/841991385073897/ In 2020 Wednesday were deducted 12 points for breaching PSR in accordance with either set down sanctions but were able to mitigate that down.

The allowable losses for the 3 years ending 2023 included significant allowances for Covid. So yes you are right the 2024 accounting number was better it’s the P& S Submission that changes significantly. As for the T argument unless I misunderstood that was re the 24/25 season and as yet there isn’t any news on the 24/25 numbers.

Think we need to buckle up here for a major deduction. Whilst we know the charges have been levied by the PL the charges are in accord with the EFL regulations and in those regulations are set sanctions which the IC has to work to. The sum being suggested by which LCFC overspent , if proven, falls into the 12 point minimum level. Depending of the final numbers that 12points may well be viewed as insufficient The two additional charges are key and again need to be noted. If you go back to the Derby debacle they failed to file accounts to the proper standard and as such precedent was set in that if accounts aren’t filed to the correct level or on time then that alone is a P&S failure .The other charge about co operation is I believe an attempt to counter any claims that LCFC might argue re mitigation ( as Sheffield Wednesday did )If these two aspects are proven they will be aggravating factors and are unlikely to lead to a reduction in sanction

Whilst they are categorised as loans they aren’t what quite how loans as we know them work. Read this description How the Process Works Guaranteed Future Income: Football transfers are often paid in instalments over several years, not as a single lump sum. A selling club is owed these future payments (receivables) by the buying club. Similarly, clubs are guaranteed certain amounts of "Central Funds" from their league (e.g., Premier League) related to broadcasting rights. Loan Collateral: A club can use these guaranteed future receivables as collateral to secure a loan from Macquarie. Upfront Cash Injection: Macquarie provides the club with a lump sum of cash immediately, minus interest and fees. This gives the club a crucial cash flow injection, allowing them to spend money in the current transfer window, improve facilities, or manage other expenses without waiting years for the instalments to arrive. Repayment to Macquarie: When the future payments (from the buying club or the league) become due, they are paid directly to Macquarie Bank, not the football club, until the loan is fully repaid.

Think that’s right. What the trouble is now is that the the clubs were able to use the sums advanced to support cash flow but now as you say it’s now happening with sales where the sums generated is greatly reduced are significantly less The day of reckoning as it were has been pushed back but should promotion not be achieved then as we know the parachute payments decline and if players aren’t sold for even the £5 million level then due to the constraints of PSR/ FFP Top can’t, without sanction, freely inject cash

Not quite sure I would call these arrangements loans.Loans normally require the principal to be repaid or refinanced that’s not what is happening here Whats happened in effect is in respect of transfers its the norm that any fees are paid in instalment but rather than LCFC waiting till those instalments are due to be paid they , LCFC, have entered into an arrangement whereby all the sums still to be paid have (after deduction of a sizeable charge) paid to Leicester by the finance company and those future instalments when they become due don’t hit LCFC bank accounts they are paid directly to the finance company . In relation to TV monies it will be known what money is due to be paid in respect of parachute payments and again either in full or in part those monies have been advanced again and like future transfer fees will be paid directly to the finance company . Helps cash flow to a degree but as the parachute payments and or no further players are sold then the money you can raise by this means reduces or disappears

The way in which LCFC have used Macquarie to raise fund isn’t by way of taking loans it’s in effect to “ factor” . What that means is that cash that is due to be paid in the future in respect of instalments for players already sold or money due as part of the parachute payments from the PL has already been paid to LCFc by Macquarie ( who will have kept back significant sums as their commission) who as those instalments become payable will get the payment and not LC. What we are seeing is that no matter which way you look at matters the club is in a terrible state. I somehow doubt that there will be a relegation this season( unless there are two sizeable points deductions) but it’s pretty obvious that the club are spending way above its means, and has done so for some years put all that together and when the parachute payments are reduced( season 26/27) then there will have a fire sale and once you get into that state it’s a truly downwards spiral

The greatest season in LCFCs history was probably the catalyst for the slippery slope that the club are now struggling to navigate What that epic season did was heighten expectations but the reality was and indeed still is that income generation would never match ambition and whilst for a couple of seasons player sales filed the gap, well to a degree they did, the sticking plaster being applied to the accounts would at some point be ripped away and the excessive sums being wasted year on year would eventually impact It was all well and good the club winning legal argument against the leagues but the fact that they, the leagues, had cause tells its own story. The day of reckoning was always going to arrive. I am not suggesting that the club will spiral ala Sheffield Wednesday but to compete at the top level will need a massive investment but without a change of ownership or at least a change of direction from the current owner the mess the club are in is only going to get deeper.

Think you are way off if you think that HMRC “ allow” clubs to run up large tax bills. The simple reality is that HMRC have limited options when a club fails to play tax/ in or VAT but compliance in terms of payments is vastly better than it was in the days before PSR/ FFP. If a club like Sheffield Wednesday defaults then the PAYE/NIC and VAT grows at an alarming rate and if a WUO is issued by anyone then HMRC can do nothing to enforce payment until the WUO is either paid or discharged and due to successive governments not wanting to see clubs go under in effect hearing after hearing gets adjourned all the while those debts grow. In the day club after club entered administration mainly because HMRC issued Winding Up Orders like confetti but for a variety of reasons you rarely hear about WU orders . I think the record was something like 6 professional clubs having WUOs heard on the same day A main reason is that clubs in the PL, EFL and NL have to report to the league governing bodies if they fall behind with payments, fail to file accounts and or submit companies house information. Failure to fulfil these obligations lead to a registration embargo and yes you see some of these put in place but very very few. The proposed restrictions will be disastrous for football in England be it in the PL or indeed any league. Lets suppose it was applied to the Championship where Oxfords income is less that £10 m Pa. Let’s assume the cap is 80% that’s £8 million that cap would be applied to LCFC it’s a way down from over £100 m approximately currently being spent and even if you allowed a multiplier of say 5 ( which defeats the whole object of a salary cap) then that is still a massive drop.