Terraloon

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

Minors In general terms, adults of sound mind have full contractual capacity and are free to enter into such agreements as they wish1. Minors (those under the age of 18) do not have full capacity to enter into agreements. The rules which apply to minors are a mixture of common law and statute, and depend on when the contract was made. Contracts entered into after 9th June 1987 are subject to the Minors Contracts Act 1987. In considering cases cited in relation to capacity of minors it should be remembered that the age of majority was only lowered to 18 from 21 in 1969, so in the early cases minors were older than they are now. The general rule The general rule is that contracts made by minors are voidable at the option of the minor. Rather confusingly, voidable, is used in two different senses: Certain contracts are voidable in the sense that they were binding unless the minor repudiated, before or within a reasonable period of time, after reaching the age of majority, for example, turning 18 years’ old. Other contracts are voidable in that they are not binding unless ratified by the minor when reaching the age of majority.

Until someone reaches the age of majority 18, any contract has to be countersigned by a parent / guardian and although I am not aware of any challenges my understanding is that a challenge to void a contract signed before that age is likely to succeed

Contract, Loan and Work Experience Players Modified on: Tue, 17 Mar, 2026 at 4:06 PM Contracts Please note the following Rules before entering into any contract of employment with a player. In accordance with The Rules of The Association - Rule C: C11 Players must be aged 18 or over in order to enter into a Playing Contract, save that a Player aged 17 may enter into a Playing Contract where they are not in Full-time Education.

So would I .

As I pointed out elsewhere a player at age 17 as long as they aren’t in full time education, can sign a contract but at the age of 18 when they become of age have to re sign their contract. In effect the likes of Page, like Monga if indeed they have signed contracts have a get out clause. I am left wondering what my advice would be if one of my sons was seen as a top talent, but the club they were with got relegated to the third tier in football and there was a get out of jail card

In the current climate it’s hard to see many options other than to mothball and rely on fingers crossed! I have just posted that the time to consider was when Seagrave opened I for the life of me can’t work out why they kept two working sites. Seagrave is a White Elephant and Belvoir is yet another financial black hole

From the outside looking in and yes with my limited knowledge it’s hard to fathom out on what planet a club of LCs finances ever thought that two training sites was feasible presents a major question in my mind. Ambition is one thing but Seagrave should have been the only location that was in use but yes on the face of it I would agree this seems a classic case of mismanagement

It is just a building but ironically it was supposed to send a positive message be it in terms of giving an impression to the youngsters that they were being treated as elite or ensuring the first team that LCFC were the club that handled them as top players but alas that mindset has backfired massively. Top is out of his depth and has to carry the can of that’s there is no doubt

As I posted elsewhere one of the major problems is that the site has pitches, yea I know, but you can’t just build on land where a football pitch has been in situ for the last three year’s without them being replaced near by. The two training grounds are in different councils areas and are some 20? miles apart so my guess is that Seagrave wasn’t considered “ close by”. The time to in effect to close down, mothball or abandon Belvoir was when Seagrave opened . Three years would have expired meaning Sports England wouldn’t need to be consulted in respect of planning application.At this point I would imagine it’s near enough certain that Sports England would object to any plans and that in itself would present a major hurdle. As for covenants without knowledge of their restrictive nature it’s hard to comment but add to that hurdle another namely the area plan as that would present a major obstacle. From memory the accounts suggest that Beloit has value of £10 ish million

I am far from a planning expert but have a workingish knowledge of such matters. Although not a definite blocker my guess would be that in the local area plan the Belvoir site is probably designed for uses that don’t get close to making it defined for future housing. The major problem is that there are football pitches ( obviously) on the site. That is the major stumbling block because any application for change of use would require Sports England to be consulted and the real possibility is that Sports England would only agree if the pitches at Belvoir that have been in use during the last 3 years were replaced on a site closeby. That word closeby is key as I believe that Belvoir is in the boundary of Melton Council and Seagrave in Charnwood and are circa 20 miles apart . My guess is, and it’s only that, pre planning meetings for Seagrave identified how consultation outcomes might look . By that I mean that LC weren’t just able to just walk away from Belvoir and claim that the new pitches at Seagrave adequately replaced those at Belvoir. Convents in themselves can of course be blockers but there are ways in which certain types of convents can be usurped. The more I reflect on why two training grounds I the more I think it’s was the Sports England issue that dictated

It is indeed like any Quango , because that’s what it is, will come at significant cost and it’s the clubs that are going to pay to fund what will grow significantly in terms of staff numbers and thereby cost. Far too many expected the regulatory body to get involved in matters which they see as being wrong.

Just a simple google search points to the fact that just over a year ago there was a multi million pound upgrade of Forests training ground. I doubt that having invested so heavily that there would be any plans to look to vacate their upgraded facility. The facts are the facts and they are Seagrave was and will forever be a luxury that LCFC simply can’t afford , and that fact be it costing £5 million, £10 million , £15 million or whatever nor sadly I suspect as long as PL football is absent will it be enough to ensure top talent from the academy decide to stick around.

The only legal challenge that is likely will enable academy youngsters, up to the point they sign a binding professional contract, move from one academy to another without compensation of any sort being payable and that includes players signed under scholarship terms.Indeed the suggestion is that the Competition Commission will at some point be bought into the “ debate” legal opinion seems to be that it is even for those under 18 , considered to be a restraint of trade. At this point in time an academy player aged 17 can sign a contract so long as 1) it’s countersigned by a parent 2) Once the players reaches 18 and therefore at the age he is legally qualified to sign in his own right the club have to get the player to sign again. If not the contract is almost certainly, on application to be voided. As for the Regulator these type of matters aren’t even close to their remit

Not quite sure how the club can be smarter when it comes to contracts bearing in mind the earliest age a youngster can sign a professional contract is 17 and only then if they are not in full time education. Before that age youngsters at age 16 can be offered scholarships but I believe that they can’t be paid anything save a fixed sum of up to a couple of hundred £s. No top prospect worth their salt would sign a professional contract at a EFL 1 club if they knew a PL club was interested

The difference I believe would be if you factor as it were then all the cash would be in one year whereas the EF1 process would to be count as each annual or the like instalment is received.

It’s being reported that Wednesday will start next season in EFL1 with a 15 points deduction. This emphasises why I believe people need to be very careful when they are almost begging for Administration. Let me explain . To exit Administration there has to BA an agreement with creditors to pay a% of the outstanding debts. The sum new owners are prepared to pay to buy Wednesday out will see just 6p in the £ but as a minimum it appears that it will have to be 15p in the £. Most of Wednesdays debts were to the ex owner. To make up 15 points ain’t going to be easy

My take on it is that the investigation ,by the team at the EFL , hasn’t yet reached the stage where a charge is ready to be made. In effect at this time is the league not just accepting WBAs numbers It seems that the issue revolves around interest on loans made to the club by the ex owner. As we witnessed in both the Everton PSR charges interest payments often are matters that cause disputes between the judiciary bodies and club’s auditors when it comes to how interest is apportioned in the PSR submissions.

I have to put out there that I haven’t had time to read for a second time the SCMP rules but on my first read I am far more concerned than I was just thinking that spending 75% of income was going to be a challenge. I posted earlier an extract from the SCMP rules around Parachute Payments. I might be, and hope I am wrong, but the way I read it if LCFC have in effect drawn down and used in 25/26 all the 26/27 parachute monies then that sum doesn’t count as income for SCMP purposes in 26/27 Then you have transfer income. If all proceeds are paid in one instalment than all that income can be included but if say it’s payable over 4 years then the payment only counts when it’s made.I haven’t fully worked things through but in the 24/25 accounts there were significant sums due to be paid by the club in respect of historical transfers in. Similarly there are payments due re historical transfers out but as we know these payments are the subject of draw downs from that Aussie Bank. Pages 217 on Appendix 5. https://images.gc.eflservices.co.uk/526ac020-67b3-11f0-9ba4-015464ec39cd.pdf Would appreciate others thoughts

I need to play with some numbers and thoughts but would suggest that the following rule we parachute payments and how possibly LC may well have yet more problems 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.

We screamed and screamed and screamed but they wouldn’t give us the points back.

The numbers I posted were from him

I did my own calculations which put them under £2 million ( just) . In their accounts they state that they “ Intend to present a compliant PSR report. I found this interesting West Brom's pre tax losses for the last three seasons were £64m, infrastructure add back just under £3.5m. Academy costs are likely to be significant as West Brom have a Cat 1 academy, so estimate £6m a year, £18m over three years. That takes PSR loss to £42.6m, before women's team (which is not full time) and community scheme. Allowable loss (after cost of living adjustment) is £41.5m. A lot will depend on the actual running costs of the academy.

Think your on to something about playing the surprise factor. How about 3 keepers and 8 defenders. That certainly would surprise them

Here’s an off the wall view but I genuinely believe that Seagrave and the fact that the players are treated as Kings has elevated their feeing of self importance and clearly the surroundings are way too luxurious for players no where near the top of their profession What I mean by that is that far from living in a world where they are treated and aspire to be treated very well at LCFc they turn up for training and I genuinely believe they feel they are special and are in the elite bracket of players which, they clearly aren’t.