Terraloon

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?

I too believe there will be a much smaller loss in 25/6 but still a loss. In accounting terms I would imagine that the 26/27 wage bill will need to drop from my £85m 25/26 estimate but the problems will just keep coming unless LC are back in the PL. For the purpose of this exercise let’s just suppose there is Championship football in 27/28. My guess would be that excluding any player trading numbers then income at most would be £ 40-£50m With those pesky other running costs accounting for circa £25-£30 million , interest around £5 million a requirement to spend a minimum of £2.5-£3 m on the academy, another £1m on woman’s football it’s possible, no probable that the maximum sum available to spend on wages, for 27/28 will be way under £30 m and that sum will be for all staff not just the players. What will be inevitable is that a significant round or redundancy will occur sadly but also its inevitable that the number of coaches, medical staff etc will reduce.

The IC went through a series of calculations which resulted in the conclusion that if the EFL refused to/ didn’t impose the points deduction that a sum of £1.6 million should be paid as alternative to each point. So 6x £1.6 = £9.6m

Good summary. The PL was I believe pretty clear that the non submission of the accounts was an aggravating factor and should as a minimum have nullified the mitigating factor . I do wonder if both the IC and at the appeal there should have been a financial penalty for what was an absolute ridiculous stand LC took on non submission of accowhich would always have to be submitted to either the PL or indeed the EFL. What was to be gained from a LC perspective?

When I say it’s not ended I am not exclusively talking about the 23/24 year. The impact of the overspends will continue to work against LC to the point that having to somehow only be allowed at most a £39 m overspend ability over 3 years will massively damage unless either there is a switch to SCR or pro back to the PL is achieved.

Not sure that’s right. Sorry. There was absolutely no way that there would have been a charge whilst the appeal was still live. I somehow doubt that the EFL , because that’s who would complete the investigation but under the PL rules, would issue anything before the seasons end nor can I see any way in which the club could be compliant . Was it you that mentioned Borson changing his opinion? I have looked for a comment from him re his change of mind are you able to provide a link ?

Yep on the PL site now. Surprised the two didn’t announce simultaneously

The PLs appeal was to make a point and send the message to member clubs. LC either were very badly advised or simply didn’t grasp the consequences of 1) kicking the can down the road 2) being belligerent This hasn’t ended yet.

Here’s what the statement says The decision relates to our profit and sustainability position for the three-year period to June 2024 and is accepted by the Club. With the matter now at an end and five games of the season remaining, everyone at the Club is fully focused on the matches in front of us and on shaping the outcome of our season through our results on the pitch. The PLs appeal wasn’t about the 6 points it was about the failure to comply with obligations around submission of accounts

Where is that stated ? The clubs announcement certainly doesn’t mention the PLs appeal

I am wondering about that as well. Normally the announcement would normally would be posted on the PL website first that announcement would include a link to the written reasons . At this point I can’t see anything on either the PL or EFL site.

It’s all about ifs. Personally I can’t see Portsmouth getting more than 4 more points. Oxford 7 sadly Leicester 4. I have been saying for weeks it’s Oxford that are for me the more likely to get out of it.

Just to add to the gloom or maybe some we think a positive is that the PL appeal panel are likely to come back with a verdict in the next few days. I thought that the two games over the Easter weekend would yield at least 4 points but two did nothing to help in the slightest and even with two relegation rivals playing each other the league position 2 games further on and no improvement in league position at all. I actually think Portsmouth are done but it’s not the that worries me, well until the game at their place, it’s Oxford that seem to have some sort of momentum.

I said a few weeks ago that it was Oxford that should be kept an eye on and I still think they are the ones that will finish above LC. Ok they didn’t win today but just as important from their perspective they didn’t loose either.

One thing I think we can all agree is that there won’t be any PL for Leicester as a result of the 25/26 season. Pretty obvious I know but at this point It is still a possibility that in 26/27 the club could be plying its trade in either the Championship or indeed EFL 1. What I have tried to do is get some sort of handle on what the 25/26numbers will look like particularly as the Trust were fed the line about PSR compliance when we see the 25/26 numbers. At seasons ended there is a window of circa a month for transfers out to put some positive numbers into the accounts but the question for me who the players are who will add those extra £s to the coffers. I was asked the other day what I think the current seasons numbers will be so I will have a go. Please bear in mind the issue I believe the major concern going into 26/27 will probably be cash flow . 25/26 Income In accounting terms we know that there parachute payments will probably contribute, before transfer profits, of around 50-55% of overall income. In 25/26 I would imagine that the total will be very close to the 23/24number of £105m. Transfer profit ( not fees received) is around £40m. So £145m Ependiture It’s difficult to get any real lead as to the total wage expenditure. Initially I was working on around £100m. class 1 Nic has added significantly to all entities costs. However more from hope than evidence I am estimating that the wage numbers for this season will be £85m ish. Other operating costs will continue to grow irrespective of which league. One snippet I thought was interesting was that energy consumption continues to grow and as we also know so will things like business rates. My guess would be the numbers for other operating costs will grow to about £27 m We won’t see the sort of numbers in respect of amortisation but as a minimum I would imagine the accounting costs in 25/26 in respect of transfers in will be between £40-£50 m Finally, one area which we need to keep an eye on will be interest paid. The costs that have to be shelled out to that Aussie bank is growing like Topsy. They don’t charge 2-3% when they lend money indeed you are looking at closer to 8% . If the £40m 26/27 parachute payment for instance has already been drawn down the interest on that sum alone could amount to £3+ m. I think that interest payments alone will be between £10-£12m When you add back circa £25 m in it’s around between £5-10 m so let’s estimate + £7.5m But as I say it’s the cash flow that for me is the red flag. Things in PSR compliance (£6+ 23/24 £45- in 24/25 and £7.5) £31m ish against allowable of £61m so yes I can see compliance for 25/26

Daka is goal side yes but he isn’t running toward goal .he is running in effect toward the touchline. The fact that Skipp is running toward goal is irrelevant. https://www.skysports.com/football/video/36399/13527623/leicester-2-2-preston-championship-highlights 2 minutes 13 seconds in.

Was it a clear red ? Of course it would have helped but here’s the factors that are taken into account DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY (DOGSO) The following must be considered: distance between the offence and the goal general direction of the play likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball location and number of defenders

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.