Terraloon

Where in the list is the name of James McCarron ? Irrespective he wasn’t appointed till after the date this list is up to

Yes . The free signings are never that. From agent fees to re location fees . From a signing on fee to a loyalty bonus.

You are right and well…. Wrong. Not all but the vast bulk of players , even academy youngsters, have an agent and the sums that agents charge is astronomical. Historically agents acted both for the player and the club. When the club agrees to pay the players agent fees it appears in payroll as a benefit in kind . The restructure of “ upstairs “ is highly unlikely to appear in the agents fees . The fees only represent sums paid to players, coaches or clubs where a sum has been paid to registered agent.

Have to pay agents for just about everything and yes that includes selling players. Interestingly there were actually 5 loans in Carranza whose agent was also paid to deal with a loan recall James Aribo Mukasa Richards Lascelles was a new registration. In effect signed as a free agent. The point being even a free agent there will be a sum to be amortised

We have no idea if the numbers said to be the PSR outcomes for the first two years are correct but let’s assume they are. What that means that add backs in 22/3 were £25.7m and in 23/24 £25.5 m. I must be missing something in the accounts to suggest the add back is in 24/5 will increase to £46m. Which I believe would be bigger than most PL clubs . I still haven’t got it clear in my mind if the 22/23 period will be assess over 13 months likewise I still fear potential impact around interest waived following the conversion of owner debt to equity.

Not sure what to make of this Asked whether the loss of just over £71m would mean the club would again breach PSR and face further points deductions, Davies assured us that the club would be compliant with PSR and that would become clearer when their financial statement for the current year is made available in December 2026. The £71m loss is included in the 3 years ending30/6/25. At this point the 30/6/26 numbers arent relevant nor will they become available for things to “ become clearer” in Dec 26 . Well not to us plebs that is. The claim about reducing wages to 82% is hardly something to hang your hat on particularly as that’s just one of the heads of expenditure that makes up SCR. Seems to me all that was happening here is something that LCFc seems to be doing more and more and that’s kicking the can down the road. Some clubs , not that many admittedly, publish their PSR submissions would have been a good time for the club to do likewise. But we know that’s not going to happen, possibly can’t happen, till the 23/24 matters have been resolved.

First thing to remember it was circa £19 million loss last year so the increase in losses year on year is £52 million ish 24/25 Yes Turnover increased by £81.156m But cost of sales went up by £55.697 million so only £25.4. Profit and loss tells us that there was £64 million less revived in transfer profit so now £39 million negative comparing 24/25 to 23/24 (£25.m - £64m) These are rounded up /rounded down There was £12m less in respect of Meresca money so up to £51m other areas such as Admin expenses went up some others like net interest came down.

Have to keep going back to the accounts because just when I start to get my head around matters then something else jumps out at me. For instance the debt under the stadium HP has increased. I am trying to get my head around how or indeed if the extra sum impacts PSR . Similarly debt interest on sums converted to equity have been waived. Nothing is wrong in terms of how the accounts are put together but following on from the Man City arbitration settlement with the PL there are now requirements around assorted and related parties when it comes to PSR calculations.

Initially there was a £90+ million loan drawn down from KPI to finance the build. But following conversation of debt to equity it become ever more difficult to work out what is owed and not subject to a formal fixed or floating charge or what exactly the position is when it comes to what would happen if any creditor had need to enforce non payment. Everything I see or shall I say read , suggests that LCFC Ltd is the owner of Seagrave. The problem is that LCFC is owned by Top and or KP. So to a degree it’s irrelevant.

Sorry but that’s not quite what the club states. It said “It anticipates compliance” Bear in mind that the accounts were signed off before the outcome of the 23/24 charges were known but also some of the rulings in there particular around the apportionment of the 13 month period. Like someone else posted until we see the outcome of the appeals it would be process to lodge , if applicable, any charges for 24/25. One little snippet in the accounts was something I didn’t know was that the EFL are running a shadow SCR model for 25/26

It would appear so , yes I use the word appear , that depreciation on the asset appears on the clubs balance sheet meaning it is a club asset but there is also mention that it is subject of an HP agreement with KP which has been extended for another 10 ? years.

The money bought in may be close to £50m but the profit will likely translate into circa £25m profit. Which as we know will equate to no more than £15m more than reflected in the 24/25 monies. I need to gather my thoughts fully and of course the wages being paid to what were bought in as PL players along with their amortisation will slowly but surely be no more. The problem is that without PL football or Parachute Payments the running costs of things such as Seagrave , and the Stadium will alone take care of a significant % of all the income streams if you ignore broadcasting ( Parachute Payments)

I must admit I haven’t fully read the accounts but do the club say that or do they something along the lines of we believe we are compliant?

I’ve actually just found my notes when I put together my PSR estimates. 22/23 loss £89m allowables £29m number for PSR £60m loss 23/24 loss £19m allowables £29 m number for PSR £10m profit 24/2* loss £71 m allowables £29 m number for PSR £42 m loss. In my initial calculations I believed it would be £30 m Three years £92m against allowable £83m I should add that some of the income numbers such as gate receipts were higher than I expected and I have used the same number for academy and woman’s football.

When I adopted a back of a fag packet calculation some months ago I suggested that anything over a £40 million loss would cause problems and at that time I thought the loss would be around that number but i genuinely thought both wages and amortisation would be lower. So on the face of it I fear an incoming charge. What concerns me even more is that using the chart the suggestion is that 25/26 has to deliver no more than a £11 million ish loss if yet another charge is to be avoided.

The 80% isn’t just wages . You also have to add on amortisation/ impairment and agent fees.

Odd isn’t it assumed that it was a 5 year deal but no you are right it was a 4 year one.

Not sure it will achieve its aims but in theory that’s the whole point of SCR. However the 85% allowable in the PL is too high and whilst wouldn’t want to applaud UEFA 70% seems far more realistic

The charges, they have aren’t just in respect of parachute payments , are numerous the club have jumped into bed with Macquaire in respect of sums still owed to LC in respect of historical transfers. In effect any of those clubs default that will lead to trouble. It appears that the parachute payments probably aren’t paid in one sum in June as the charge has been extended into 2027. If you look at the latest confirmation statement there has been quite an increase in equity , well there has been since we last saw the allocation of shares , Top himself seems now to have 30m £1 shares alongside increases in KP shares . That almost certainly is the announcement increase in equity where debt was converted to shares. I don’t want to defend Top/KPI but the fact that they have converted debt to equity does suggest that they have injected cash indeed Seagrave was built using their monies In reality cash is going to be the problem . Top may well have to put cash in but with those loans will now come an assumed charge to interest which will all add to the running costs.

Not the most accurate but I rely as much on Transfermarket as any other source. It’s stated that he signed in 24/25 for €22.5 m and that a loan fee of €3 m was received . At the end of 24/25 his remaining value would have been €18 m and although not at the end of 25/26 that value will be down to €13.5m however as the transaction happened, it seems in 25/26 the sum that needs to be used is €18 m i would imagine that around 50% of his initial fee is still owing along with circa 60% of his signing on fee that will become payable immediately. So what does all that mean? Well effectively the reported €15 million fee and €3 m fee spooky as it seems matches his book value. So accounting broadly neutral but it’s those pesky wages, likely agents fees etc which added up mean…. A disaster

Not wanting to defend anyone but trying to track filed documents on the Companies House website isn’t it seems the exact science it should be. I noticed significant delays not just in LCFC but numerous other entities that I have viewed what I noticed is that a significant number were said to be late in filing confirmation statements. In the case of LC the front screen on the record suggests that the confirmation statement was actually filed on 25/11/25

Liability is limited( hence why we have Ltd companies ) so I very much doubt that she personally would have any liability although their is something called negligent employee which would include directors and those that hold senior but have not been directors but that is usually only invoked when an employee doesn’t ensure that their tax/ Nic is deducted correctly or the deductions aren’t submitted to HMRC. I believe the legal responsibility rests with the directors when it comes to charges of trading whilst insolvent.

It’s the directors that are legally bound to steer clubs into administration. It’s one of a variety of actions that are deemed to be insolvency events and in the hands of the directors to invoke or potentially face charges for trading whilst insolvent. Banks lend , not always, but more often than not knowing if the sh1t hits the fan they are to a large degree protected having secured either a fixed and or floating charge over the entities assets. HMRC doesn’t force clubs into Administration what they do is issue WUO ( winding up orders) when clubs don’t pay the VAT, PAYE and Nic .They take such actions to “ Protect The Public Purse” and that doesn’t mean just dealing with debt already quantified but also to ensure that further debt doesn’t accrue. The Enterprise Act 2002 removed what was then The Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise from preferential creditor status and although that has to a degree returned the football creditor rule added a super creditor type which HMRC has challenged , unsuccessfully, but I wouldn’t rule out that the Labour Government and some point legislate to clarify. It’s worth noting that the number of WUOs issued by HMRC has decreased significantly. That to a large degree is because clubs are more up to date with tax payments if for no other reason than debt not under control ( paid or subject to a time to pay agreement) leads to a transfer embargo as a minimum. The EFL announced pre season that the Championship clubs were discussing the possibility of introducing SCR not a lot has been reported but I for one think it’s inevitable the only question will be what % of football revenue will be allowed to be spent on the squad. Some months ago I talked about how the likelihood was that spend limits over in % terms as opposed to a set sum £105 million) that is the mechanism that will in place in the PL post 25/26 . I can’t believe 14 clubs voted for SCR . I am not sure exactly how it will play out but I genuinely believe that it will massively benefit the big 6 and yes they will be constrained to UEFas 70% that will be measured against a significantly number than those PL clubs that don’t feature in UEFA football. On that I suspect some clubs will possibly reject the opportunity of playing in the EL or the Conference because the prize money isn’t big enough

It’s understandable to compare costs but the reality is that non league clubs main revenue stream, generating a huge % of their overall running costs, is match day whereas for LC and indeed most PL, EFL receive a significant % of their income from broadcasting and in the EFL monies filtering down from the PL deal. Yes NL clubs get a little from the PL but drop down the pyramid and little to nothing finds it way to non league.