Terraloon

At no time during the 22/23 year was LCFC a member of the EFL . That is the whole point

In season there is a requirement to file information akin to audited accounts which I would imagine LFC complied with that would have given the PL very much the heads up and I would imagine those projections told the PL everything that was fequired

How can it be abuse of process if it complies with the PL 22/23 rulebook ?

The 22/23 rules were definitely in place the accelerated process wasnt hence why the PL say the timing is something the IC will take responsibility for.

Any points deduction won’t be in this season there is absolutely no way that the process could be completed that quickly.

Love it or hate it the PL do have jurisdiction for the 22/23 season even after clubs were relegated. The PL statement makes reference to their inability to deal under the accelerated procedure but I agree that the accounts weren’t due at the PL till 31/3/24 so don’t know what to make of that Edit the submissions date in the 22/23 handbook was 1/3/24 . So it’s that date by which the accounts had to be sent to the PL

The first part of that statement is a matter of fact but no where in the statement does it say that the charge is contrary to the PL rules

Sorry by default if not a PL club an EFL club charged under EFL rulebook when that rulebook makes it 100% clear where jurisdiction lies

It’s worth re reading the statement . My first reading of it suggested to me that there was a question over the legality of these charges but I don’t think it is doing anything else other than put a marker out there.

Some years ago QPR managed to avoid EFL sanctions because they had been promoted their case was only dealt with when they came back down. In both the EFL and PL rules on this clubs that get promoted/ relegated remain under the jurisdiction of the league for the year of their accounts. In other words Leicester would be measured against PL criteria contained within the 22/23 Pl rule book. That in essence was the case we recently were learned about however it was made clear that the accelerated process in the PL 23/24 rulebook wasn’t something that could apply to Forest but charges under the PSR ( (PL) process could.

The PL isn’t like the EFL you are only allowed two players in on loan and yes there is the option of taking additional players from abroad the problem is that the restrictions about sending players abroad is getting tighter.

I rarely comment on here but whilst I wouldn’t say it was rubbish it showed just what the gulf is. Chelseas current form actually isn’t that bad although their performances are far from convincing they are a young squad and every team can say well it would be different if this player or that player had been available you can only judge by what is on the pitch. I think most would agree that Dewsberry Hall was the player that displays the most potential and probably was the top performer on the day for Leicester here is a simple fact he is older than 7 of the starters for Chelsea. He is close to his prime and unless he gets a gig either with Leicester or indeed a move to a PL club What we did see yesterday as I say was the gulf and that mainly revolves around pace and the evolution of the PL over the last few years means that players that bring that extra yard of pace are expensive and a necessity If promotion is achieved , and that’s a big if based on current form, then the squad will need a major injection of players and that probably would entail huge expense

No matter how you look at the numbers it’s abundantly clear that things have to change and change fast. The current trading year will be done and dusted in less than 3 months and whilst there will be a decent player trading profit ( circa £50 million) and possibly a few quid saved in respect of wages the money earned from playing in the two EL competitions and based on current league position there is possibility that some £30 million will not be incoming in 22/23. The cost of inflation will impact and whilst I don’t see the 21/22 numbers being matched I can’t see them being less than £60-£70 million in 22/23. The clear inference is that there is going to have to be a significant number of departures at seasons end. Some will walk on a free. Or those in the last year( such as Maddison ) might just simply say nope I will see out the last year because barring a significant carrier changing injury I can make a mountain of extra money as part of deal at a top club) Irrespective of who or how they leave they will have to be replaced. That will come at a cost of course but it will also be a gamble be it players stepping up, Players arriving on a Bosman or players coming from the academy. The real trouble isn’t that the 21/22 numbers are horrific it’s the fact that they are on the back of several years of terrible financial results and irrespective of the current debt to equity the accumulated losses will at some point catch up when the PL match then against their profit and sustainability test.

Therein is the point and of course to a degree the folly of the whole project. History tells us that football clubs building and owning hotels really doesn’t turnout that well. Ken Bates believed that building around Stamford Bridge adding hotels, night clubs restaurants sports clubs etc would generate significant cash flow , it didn’t and hasn’t even when you threw in the expensive flats that were build in an affluent area the return on the massive investment never materialised. To deliver the sort of return being mentioned ( circa £20-£25 million pa ) is just pie in the sky. Having the facilities is one thing but selling them is another. I haven’t seen what the estimated build costs were when the project was put together but the more relevant number will e what they will cost when and if the build actually happens. If you look just at the price of Steel the price has risen 200% since 2020 and with energy prices rising steeply and of of course the Ukrainian war then it’s safe to assume by the time the first steel is delivered a minimum of double digit rise will have come about. Spurs couldn’t get a fixed price for their stadium and that was at a time of low inflation and as we know their build costs rose from £500 million to a quoted £1 billion and yes they borrowed vast sums over a long period at decent rates but the fact remains that they are still paying between £20-30 million interest pa and that’s before you even talk about the capital.

Yes VAT is paid on top of any fee but my point was the £70 million payment could include vat ,not it did include. In other words was it say £70 million plus VAT or £70 including VAT? What does get confusing is that VAT will have to be paid over to HMRC for the whole fee even though some of the invoiced sum won’t be paid for a while. That is unless Leicester operate on cash accounting when it comes to VAT which I very much doubt they do or indeed could From whatever sum Chelsea paid up front any payable sums due to whoever by Leicester has to be settled . Chelsea will pay interest on any sum still owing . Leicesters finances are a basket case we have no idea what state cash balances are nor do we know if sums made available by the owners have been drawn down will they be repaid or whatever nor will we know about such matters for probably another 18 ish months

When WF signed In October 20 he cost £35 ish million and signed a 5 year deal. That means his fee would be amortised over a 5 year period so £7 million a year. When he signed his new 5 year deal in March 2022 his residue value would have been around £25 million . The clock starts ticking again so his annual amortised sum would be around £5 million a year so by my very rough calculations his amortised value on being sold would be between £20 million and £22 million Now this is where it gets very complicated. There would have been VAT on his fee so did the £70 million include VAT or was it paid on top ? There is a requirement that 4% of the fee would be paid to the FA then a sum would be payable to the clubs that played a part his development . The player would have to be paid the balance of any signing on fee and also there would be agents fees incurred when he first signed, potentially when he signed the new contract and of course arranging the transfer to Chelsea which would likewise be amortised Whilst the cash side of the deal will be crucial in terms of the bank balance in accounting terms it doesn’t change the bottom line.

Some £33 million that was included in the 20/21 accounts was income deferred from the 2019/20 season. That sum won’t feature in 21/22. I know it doesn’t quite work that way but on a straight line that is £66 million loss. Then you have to factor in that in 20/21 there was £43 million profit from player sales and that number wasn’t there in 21/23 so £43+£66. = £109 million loss to this point FA prize money for the FA cup won’t be there and TV Money will be down due to league position but mitigating that will be more match day with the return of full stadiums alas with that extra costs will return to post COVID levels for the like of security and the like. I would think that even if you add in extra UEFA money( which I am far from sure about) and uplift of shirt sponsorship then there will probably be significant additional cost of Seagrave and a full year of paying for LCWFC that will all cost a pretty penny and that added to the £7.2 million difference for finishing lower in the league +. £3.4 million less from the FA will likely cost close to any extra money bought in through matchday, sponsorship and UEFA combined Interest as we have said before will be a chuck more the extra £22.5 million loan from McQuires and of course the extra money from KPwill all be attracting interest even if that debt is in part deferred. The looses are going to be massive and as I said before the number being talked about in the press I think is pretty close to the numbers that will be shown in accounts

The simple answer is no S106 winds me up terrible because quite often the sum agreed is allocated to a project or whatever in another location

Small developments or developments that aren’t going to turn a decent profit will get exemption in terms affordable housing and councils vary but as a minimum in Leicester it is set at 15% The planners will be negotiating what is called a S106 settlement. This will be a significant cash donation to the area / council and used for infrastructure Gaining planning consent is just one step of a long and complex journey. It will be interesting to see what the requirements are in terms of which part is built first and how it’s going to be funded. This isn’t going to be straight forward and it will be interesting to see how the cost v benefits shifts as inflation bites

It wasn’t going close to London, Friday was Gloucester, Saturday Dorset, & Sunday the IOW

The tour of Britain has been abandoned for one

It really isn’t . I get it that a first team was called off because players mayor did witness the crash but the other games were cancelled as a mark of respect.

When the helicopter carrying Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha crashed out of respect the upcoming game against Southampton was cancelled, a couple of Woman’s games involving Leicester City teams and a game involving Oud Heverlee we’re likewise cancelled Of course the loss of Vichai was mainly felt by Leicester City supporters but the loss of a Monarc will be massively impacting quite a large number of the population and if football doesn’t cancel this weekends games then sorry it’s lost it’s heartonce and for all

When I say midweek I refer to the upcoming midweek. Imwas responding to a poster who said the delay will be just a few days

Not sure I draw that conclusion from the article you link.