Terraloon

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.

What this means is that the matter hasn’t yet reached the stage where a charge has been laid. Where the CFRU considers there has been a breach of the Rules that cannot be resolved by a registration embargo, it can raise it to an external panel of experts, the Club Financial Review Panel (“CFRP”) for an independent determination. The same panel can also ratify any Agreed Decision between the Club and the CFRU.

In the PL they have what’s called an accelerated process which to ensure any points deduction is made in the relevant season means that “charges” have to be bought by 14 January. That date even then makes it incredibly tight to allow process to be followed before seasons end. At this point the club, WBA, will have 14 days to respond to any charge. If the charge was laid today( nothing on EFL site yet) even just that early phase of the process takes you to just 5 days before the last matches of the season on 2 May. The planning then would then kick in for the work required to prepare cases for an IC. Again there would be time delays in built I would doubt that you would even get an IC to sit before end of May. Then you have the time taken to write up the ruling and when published there is another 14 days to allow for an appeal. This isn’t getting done before the seasons end and highly unlikely before the leagues AGM. Two things. First we don’t have a clue at this point what the charge is in relation to. It could be a breech of the upper limit of course but it could be an administrative matter such as not filing accounts or the like on time. Second . In WBA you have a club that wasn’t awaiting any other process to be completed but it’s taken to now for the league to get to this point. I am still far from sure that there isn’t something incoming for LC! I would add that if say a club went into administration after the third week of March then the points dedttakes effect in the follow season.

Be it in EFL 1 or indeed the Championship ( I know) there surely has to be hope that there is a massive overhaul of the squad . I sadly fear that it won’t be happening or close to as easy as some think. We assume, that players will have relegation clauses in their contracts. Yes relegation clauses will give a certain amount of financial protection in terms of wage expenditure but players rarely will be advised by their agents to sign these type of agreements without some sort of payback protection for them. That protection often manifests itself in pre agreed fees . These fees are vastly below club’s valuation. I don’t doubt for one second that there were relegation clauses from the PL to the Championship but I am far from convinced that the club is as well protected as some believe. For instance if relegation does happen then just about every player that has any remaining sum to be amortised should see a a significant element of their value written off. It’s called impairment, it is the same as amortisation in terms of impacting accounts. That won’t happen because it will put even greater strain on the accounts as will the fact almost certainty that the club still owe considerable sums in respect of transfer fees and signing on fees which will normally are spread over the contract term but come become immediately payable if a player leaves mid contract. Put another way it will cost significantly and the question them is do the club have the cash to facilitate or come to that will players agree to what’s proposed?

The numbers tell us that KP have injected vast sums. To deny that fact isn’t reality nor is the suggestion that FFP/PSR has restricted the development of the club because the simple matter of fact is just like any kid in a candy store spending is excessive and random mainly wasteful and the consequences of that mad spending are what the club and supporters are now having to endure. I am far from sure that KP have the resources nor more to the point the will to inject much more because just like any gambler will tell you chasing your losses will only lead to further losses. I know an ex chairman of a non league club and he in the day was happy to inject a four figured sum each week but ultimately he received so much abuse not only did he turn off the money tap he lost all interest . He passed most of his shares to the supporters club and from a position where he lived the club now doesn’t even go to the clubs AGM. Those that went before him told him it would end in tears but he in business had never tasted a decline so when things started to go t**s up he firstly didn’t recognise those early signs but more to the point he didn’t have a plan nor the support network to offer the required advice needed to agrees the decline. I don’t want to defend Top but it’s abundantly clear that he is out of his depth and despite stating the opposite in public I would imagine if he could get out he would . LC is a distressed club , a distressed business that shows no signs of recovery or plan to recover . I believe that the club were incredibly badly advised when it came to the commencement of challenges to the jurisdiction of the league. In my working life I was always told that before launching into a legal challenge you need to work through the implications not just of losing but what a win could lead to and that’s why I always believed that all that was happening was the day of reckoning was always going to have to be faced. Finally someone mentioned the delay of the December pay day and whilst it was of course a red flag I hadn’t thought about the timing but the latest charge registered early in the new year probably provided the cash to deal with cash flow in January particular as that charge mentions PL distribution in February

I get your point but sorry if a player on say £25k a week with another two years refuses to leave and go to another club on say a £15k a week contract would you really blame them ? Players are for all intents and purposes short terms employees. The club signed them and gave them big contracts so the responsibility lies solely with the club/ owner. Have players delivered value for money ? No of course not but the players are afforded vast protection during their contracts and unless they have committed gross mis conduct don’t expect any to have their contracts just torn up . That is without them receiving compensation

It’s called passion

No matter which iteration of the numbers, no matter which direction the stats lead us it’s sickening to think that it’s all coming down to 4 or 5 games, games that realistically shouldn’t pose that much of a problem but the reality is that a group of well paid players aren’t worth the money they are being paid No doubt the biggest concern to the majority of the players is that one, two even potentially three relegations will appear on their CVs in terms of concerns about the state of the club I very much doubt that other than them declaring their love for the club the majority will give a toot.

Sad that I am I start to look at the league table and look at the highest position achievable. It’s possible, yeah I know, that 13th points wise could be achieved , not that I factor in who is playing who. After this weekends matches it’s inevitable, won loose or draw, that “ achievable “ final position will get worse my guess is it will be no better than 16th. WBA are creeping to safety, their form has massively improved but that 5 point gap is still able to be hunted down but that would take 2 games as we know. As I have for many a week believe, no fear, Oxford are the team from the three from them , Leicester& Portsmouth that will get out of it. We all know that it should never be like this but it is . Relegation from the PL is one thing but facing a relegation to the third tier is a defining moment in I guess how even the most ardent of supporters feel and despite what some say turning up on a wet Tuesday or a freezing Saturday ain’t the same when the opposition are Burton or Rotherham . No offence intended to those two clubs but these aren’t the level of opposition any LCFC will be comfortable with.

Think that before long it’s going to dawn on some that far too much of the club infrastructure and running costs aren’t going to be affordable based on income and the gravy train that is LCFC has run out of steam. I still can’t quite get a handle of what Seagrave costs but it has to be in the range between £7.5 & £15 million, yes there is a massive gap in my estimate range but when you add the cost of the stadium which is circa £7 million before you talk about repayment of the HP then you can see how the add ons are at least £25 but almost certainly closer to £30 m. How can a club that without PL monies won’t be bringing in more than £55 m even think that Seagrave is sustainable?