Terraloon

It is

I would guess that if the finances were there quite a number of players would , or soon would be in discussions to try and agree to cancel contracts as they say “ by mutual consent” Alas everything it seems to be coming down to is it affordable or will contracted player agree to walk. Let’s just look at Vestergarrd. Is he planning for Leicester to be his last club? What is his domestic situation? Is he married does he have kids are they happy etc etc etc. Domestic circumstances will play massively into what he will want to do. Thats before you even start to think about his finances and options. We know he isn’t a Championship player, his legs have gone ( if he ever had any) his body like all players as they get older particularly those that are lumps are increasingly vulnerable. We have witnessed his demise he will know it better than any of us and the simple fact of the matter is he isn’t going to get a long term contract where even say a two year , no even possibly a three year deal will get what he will in the remaining year at LC. Lastly you have the clubs options. This is where I really struggle to see what the way forward is . I think we all would agree that no one’s going to come in offer a fee. Will he agree to go on loan ? Unlikely. Let’s just suppose he is due £1.5 m for next season. When you add in things like his end of contract payments, the Nic costs etc he is going to cost circa £2 million . We don’t have any current knowledge of the numbers but does any one think Top has £2 million down the back of a sofa? Add to that , and I haven’t done the numbers there is still an element of amortisation to factor in But he is just one player I am sure that there are four, five six ir more the club would want gone but the simple fact is the money ain’t there.particularly when you factor in that he will have to replaced and that will come at a cost. Back for one second to Vestergarrd. I don’t think he will go ! He is a cart horse but cart horses , experienced ones at that may well just be what is needed in EFL1. The trouble is knowing LC they are just as likely , if indeed he is to EFL 1 standard to offer an extension.

When the latest accounts were published there was comment, as required, about transactions with that Aussie bank. Look at the wording of the £50m loan. That suggests to me that in effect every £ of it had been drawn down and with the repayments due way into the future surely suggests it has to include some if not all of the 26/27 parachute payments

Not paying players in accord with their contract to would lead to a registration embargo.The players would be able to claim justification in ripping up their contracts and leaving claiming sporting just cause. Players leaving would have to have their values impaired putting even greater pressure on the numbers. Football creditors , which is how unpaid players are classified would be treated in preference to all other creditors. but more of an issue would be that with out protection of an insolvency event my guess would be that the club would expelled from the EFL.

That is the 64k$ question. In the 24/25 there is mention of two sums post 30/6/25 being drawn down in respect of PL distributions. The only thing we know is what the accounts show us

We discussed this yesterday and whilst I can’t say 100% you are wrong if the arrangement with Macquarie is in fact deemed to be of the type referred to in the guidelines and if any sum of the 26/27 has in fact been drawn from the facility then it is highly likely that sum is indeed discoumted Forward Financing: 1.16.1 Distributions - If Premier League Distributions which are relevant to the Reporting Period (a Parachute Payment for example) have been received by the Club in Cash in a prior Reporting Period as a result of ‘forward financing’’, the amounts received in the earlier period may not be included in the calculation of Relevant Turnover. Guidance: If a Club is relegated from the Premier League at the end of Season; Competes in the Championship is Season 2024/25 but is relegated to League One at the end of that Season; and Forward finances 100% of its Year 1 Parachute Payment from the Premier League and 70% of its Year 2 Parachute Payment, receiving those amounts during Season 2025/26 IT FOLLOWS THAT The Club will only be able to include 30% of the Year 2 Parachute Payment within the calculation for Relevant Turnover for Season 2026/27, its first in League One.

Do you know the biggest worry was when Top didn’t commit to spending he said something about trying.

I pointed out a while ago that a red flag, well one of many red flags, was the sum appearing in the accounts in respect of interest and indeed it is sizeable and will continue to be there as long as there are borrowings of the size and nature we see at LC. There is absolutely no simple answer to the conundrum that is Seagrave. Ok some wet themselves at the project and ambition that it signalled but the reality is that someone in authority should have spent attention to the risks many since relegation from the PL seem obvious

Based on known fees none but the suggestion in the post accounting period suggests that there is some , that said it may they just used a standard phrase

Not quite sure how to read the attached which was included in the accounts. My initial thoughts are that these aren’t just re 25/26 parachute payments

In the latest accounts, bear in mind they are up to 30/6/25 so close to a year out of date. In the creditors due within one year the sum was £53, 156m and after one year £28.232m so £81,388,000 Two things the first number will almost certainly have been reduced but we know another chunk will have been added following transfers in.

Trying to get a handle on any of this is incredibly difficult. Seagrave has a book value of around £100 m. If LC own Seagrave outright without any sort of loan/ mortgage secured against it there would be nothing to stop it being sold and cash put into the business however sell it for less than that £100m then there would be a need to show the loss in the accounts. No one is going to pay more than that £100m if just say KP paid £120m then it’s unlikely that a commercial valuation wouldn’t even get close to the £100m. That would cause issues from a related party standpoint. Also I would imagine that the cash would be discounted under the EFL rules. Confused ? I know I am!

Sorry miss read you earlier post. Not sure he knows for sure . Like most of us he is assuming that the 26/27 monies have been spent but as we debated earlier we simply, nor does he, know for sure

Where’s this info come from ? The last I read was the suggestion that the 26/27 parachute payment had probably been spent and that all that there was look forward to was the £2 m EFL 1 distribution

You are right we simply don’t know but I find the wording in the registered charge in January 26 does suggest to me that there almost certainly would have been some level of draw down of the 26/27 monies

But it does make the point that the claim of £1m per week can not be backed up by what we do know as fact

Why I ask is because in the SMCP guidance it says this. I would add I am not sure what the definition of forward finance is although this is what AI says” Forward financing (or forward funding) in football refers to a financial structure where clubs borrow money against guaranteed future revenues—such as transfer installments, central broadcasting funds, or parachute payments—to secure immediate cash flow for operations or player acquisitions 1.16 Forward Financing: 1.16.1 Distributions - If Premier League Distributions which are relevant to the Reporting Period (a Parachute Payment for example) have been received by the Club in Cash in a prior Reporting Period as a result of ‘forward financing’’, the amounts received in the earlier period may not be included in the calculation of Relevant Turnover. Guidance: If a Club is relegated from the Premier League at the end of Season; Competes in the Championship is Season 2024/25 but is relegated to League One at the end of that Season; and Forward finances 100% of its Year 1 Parachute Payment from the Premier League and 70% of its Year 2 Parachute Payment, receiving those amounts during Season 2025/26 IT FOLLOWS THAT The Club will only be able to include 30% of the Year 2 Parachute Payment within the calculation for Relevant Turnover for Season 2026/27, its first in League One.

Did he specifically mention that the 26/27 parachute payments will count? Why I ask is because my interpretation is because the 26/27 part a payment has been “ leveraged” then I am far from sure it will count in terms of revenue in 26/27

I said this ” Costs such as rates, utilities, insurance, away travel cost around £500k a week. These are included in the administrative costs part in the accounts At one point, admittedly a few years ago we were told that the KP was costing £5m a year.” Indeed other words all those little bits and pieces, including away travel, cost £500k a week see the section I have copied from the accounts

The explanation of how what can and can’t be factored into the relevant income is from page 221 on https://images.gc.eflservices.co.uk/762f3040-324d-11f0-9fd8-e5dd74a69822.pdf

Costs such as rates, utilities, insurance, away travel cost around £500k a week. At one point, admittedly a few years ago we were told that the KP was costing £5m a year.

You would indeed imagine that the parachute payments would count in the 75% income but as I posted in the other thread if, as seems likely that the 26/27 parachute payment has already been drawn down then it’s probable that that significant sum can’t be included in the calculations. My take of the process in the EFL1 is that it’s restricted to a simple equation namely cash in allows you to spend in year 1 some 75% of cash received reduced to 60% in year 2. There clearly is a lot more detail and as they say the devil is in the detail. One thing for instance I haven’t quite worked out is how ST monies received in 25/26 in advance of the 26/27 season will count. This income is what they call deferred income in accounting terms. But you can be pretty sure that most of the ST money received prior to the end of the accounting year will be spent as it hits the bank. All that I know is obvious but what will happen is that players that the club will be looking at signing players who will be wanting deals that will have heavy incentives if promotion is achieved which in turn will uplift the sum spent when under squad cost . It’s a mess where should relegation happen promotion needs to happen immediately but the reckless spending and the association with threat Aussie bank potentially will be a major stumbling block for some while.

This stems from Article 17 of FIFs regulations around status of players. Following the EU courts ruling around the Diarra case the whole issue of sporting just cause is under scrutiny. The issue would be that the contract was signed before the individual reached the age of majority.

You can indeed sign a 3 year deal, if the individual isn’t in education which is a requirement in the UK .but that’s not what the point being made. Untill the age of 18 is reached any contract has to be countersigned by a parent or guardian. There is nothing to say that the contract can’t run for 3 years the point I am trying to make is that any contract signed in such circumstances could be challenged.

As I said earlier I am not aware of any challenges. Very very few players actually sign contracts under the age of 18 simply because in England youngsters are required to be in full time education till the age of 18