Terraloon

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In the latest accounts, bear in mind they are up to 30/6/25 so close to a year out of date.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

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