Terraloon

Interesting you talk about slow over technical laboured passing because that is exactly how I saw it. In the PL there is no doubt that professionals at the top of their game are able to move the ball and the opposition around but then , bang the space opens and play opens up. What we see at LC is a group of players who have been coached to a league and that league isn’t the championship. Norwich on the other hand are pragmatic and they epitomise the phrase “ play to your strengths “. Was the two draws the height of the new manager bounce ? Norwich were a pragmatic middle of the table Championship team . Yes they are on a decent run but in terms of results this season save the last 3 or 4 games their results were actually worse than LC yet they looked far superior. This really was a game where I thought we would see a change but it was the same. There is time to change things around but that window is slowly but surely closing. If and a big if Oxford are able to get a win at PNE on Friday they will go above Leicester and does anyone think there will be a win at Ipswich? I wasn’t looking down I kept looking at the clubs that needed to be overtaken and that number is slowly reducing but now Oxford are looking up and clearly have LC in their sights.!

Producing a near to accurate cash flow projection in football is in incredibly difficult.I only ever had input into a non league club whose dominant income streams were commercial ,gate and bar receipts and whilst a model using previous seasons averages was used a dip in form and a reduction in those that attended changed the numbers in a blink of an eye.In terms of commercial and sponsorship reduce the resources ( staff) employed getting out there to get entities to sign up and that income goes down even further. Even though additional income could be earned through transfer ( not that much ) or prizes in cup competitions was able to be earned those additional funds were very much treated as an unplanned bonus and formed a contingency fund , well that was the idea ! In other words they didn’t appear in the income projections . In terms of budgeting for wages that was incredibly difficult an injury to say one of your goalkeepers or sacking the manager for instance meant spending some of that contingency fund was inevitable, that’s if you hadn’t already spent it. And that was before things that you didn’t even think would go wrong did. For instance a safety inspection required more lighting or changes of signage.OK these things maybe weren’t that costly but if there isn’t any money in the coffers the costs significantly impact and as wages were the biggest single head of expenditure it was always there that realistically you had to make savings and so cash is even more stretched. Now I know that the sort of sums that LC earn is at another level but reading the clubs accounts and particularly the section which tells us how the auditors assess the clubs ability to carry on trading as a going concern what strikes me is that the club’s economic model is as we know so flawed as to be comical. So back to your comment around what sort of sums could / should be spent on wages where LC are so in terms of the starting number in income terms assumes a significant sum each season will be received by way of a transfer out. In simple terms the sums received for fees received need to match as a minimum the sum accounted for in terms of amortisation and them some. I am pretty sure that I would be able to get the numbers closer in terms of income matching expenditure and the normal assumption ( not in the case of LC) is the more you put toward your playing budget the better the return so by default that would mean even more cuts to the player budget but even using the infamous back of a fag packet calculations it’s abundantly clear that as the clubs income reduces in accord with the reducing sums that will be received from say parachute payments and likely reducing transfer fees received the % of that reduced income that has to be put toward wages has to reduce way below 50%. The fixed costs at LC will likely account for around 60% of cash received in season without parachute payments add in remaining amortisation and without massive transfer income there really won’t be much left for wages. This is a “ We’re doomed Captain Mainwaring moment “ we all know that there is absolutely no chance of promotion this season indeed, we are all looking downward as opposed to upwards and fast forward to the clubs that will be in the Championship next season, that’s if that’s where the club finds itself next season, the challenges will be I believe greater than this.

My guess would be that a lot of the sum reported is in respect of impairment or depreciation of tangible fixed assets along with other accounting tidying up. PSR/FFP won’t as a matter of course come close to the same result as the accounting bottom line . Without a lot more information it’s impossible to get close to assessing the impact but the suggestion is that they are relaxed about the impact

The first hurdle for the EFL to charge would be proof from the PL that they had started an PSR investigation whilst LC were still a PL club. That said if LC either failed to comply with obligations to supply projections, failed to meet deadlines , supply audited accounts or those projections were significantly incorrect then there would be a valid PL argument as to why any investigation wasn’t commenced. The PL fast track process was introduced in an attempt to deal with any PSR failure for say 24/25 in the 25/26 season and for cases that follow the defined process they have only been able to get one case , Forest, fully completed before seasons end. Everton 2 was largely completed but even after the IC had dealt with the substantive arguments there was still one aspect unanswered , it involved the treatment of interest on a loan and should that interest be a PSR allowable . It required a ruling from an accounting body (FRS) that took several months to resolve and certainty post the end of the season. The fast track process is the anticipated way in which the PL will proceed but it’s not the only process because at any point either party, the PL or a club, can make application to the IC to follow a different time line. It is impossible, even if projections have revealed a PSR breach, to state with certainty until annual accounts have been completed and undergone audit. The 24/25 PL Clubs, and as we now know Leicester included, will have been obliged to send their 30/6/25 ending accounts to the PL by 31/12/25 but at that point there was still a dispute between LC and the PL . That dispute wasn’t resolved until the recent IC ruling. We don’t know if LC maintained that they weren’t required to send accounts to the PL after ceasing membership. If they did well that would be a reason for delay and dare I say will almost certainly lead to another charge .Another and the main problem for the EFL would have been till the recent IC ruling has been confirmed at appeal it’s impossible for any charge for the 3 year period ending 30/6/25 to be made. One reason why I say that there is still a dispute around the 36 v 37 month period impacting 22/23 . Two final points . First. No matter how clear a rule book is when it comes to interpreting what is meant by something that is clear to one person but an other will argue that isn’t what is meant. I will give to a simple example. In our local car park there is a sign which reads “ Have you paid and displayed ? Penalty £60 . I think we all know what that means but one person who didn’t pay and got a PCN successfully appealed saying that had he paid and displayed he could have received a £60 fine. The local council’s argument was “ It was obvious “ But was it ? The lawyers earn big bucks for advancing arguments as to how using different arguments and rulings in different and usually non sporting matters as to how the rule book should, could or must be read . Ironically those same lawyers if they represented the other side would be arguing the polar opposite. The second is and it’s something that must not be forgotten that the PL / EFL indeed any European league that could provide a team to play in either the CL, Europa or Conference competitions had no option but implement cost constraints akin to FFP.

It’s sustainable because they have such vast income. In excess of £650m Pa so interest around 9% Try looking at LC accounts. In 23/24 from income of £105 m interest £14 m so I test around 13.5%.

The first thing that has to happen is the more important charges have to be proven. If and a big if all 115+ charges are proven then without doubt they will suffer a massive sporting sanction. The PL shareholders are the clubs and the majority won’t give a toss if Man City are either relegated or banished. There is absolutely no way that the likes of Sky will have any clauses around the clubs that make up the league nor will they be entitled to getting money back if a club falls foul of a PL disciplinary process.

Here’s the thing. In the EFL regs you are right there is a rule that you can’t be punished for the same period although the loss total is relevant and could impact. It’s not quite as simple as this but LC were punished for £20 million over and got 6 points for the years 21/2+22/23+23/24 . So say 2 points a year. So if the loss for the years 22/23+23/24+24/25 is say £20 million over then you would expect that it would only be another 2 points. However there isn’t the same rule in the PL rules re not being punished for the same period . That said in Everton 2 the IC did take into account that a punishment had already been handed down for the first 2 years.

If you cast your mind back to the 23/24 season the EFL wanted LC to produce a business plan but the club went all guns blazing to challenge the “request” to produce one and in the end it was ruled in March 24 that clubs relegated to the PL weren’t required to submit business plan in December ( I think) but by the next deadline then LC did have a player embargo put in place by the EFL. We simply don’t know what is going on re the 25/26 season in terms of having a business plan in place but even if you have one in place it isn’t a given that embargo follows. Something in the back of mind is saying that some other numbers are due to be sent in around now.

It’s talking about the specific point about the change in accounting year and how one season could and should have covered a 37 month period but that didn’t happen it’s that aspect that gives the clarity they are talking about, not I would add I am sure what happens to the one month not yet assessed as my inital thoughts were that the £2.8 m loss for that extra months will almost certainly be factored in to FU25

Leicester in 25/26 are affiliated to the EFL . So any 24/25 charge would have to be announced by the EFL . The PL statement made reference to the 20 PL clubs that played in the PL for the 25/26 season. If you remember the PL charged LC under EFL rules having taken over the investigation that was commenced in the EFL, the rules allow that investigation to follow clubs as they move either up or down from the PL. I have always stated that I think it’s 50-50 if there will be a 24/25 charge but if the PL started an investigation into LC for 24/25 and if the numbers exceed the allowable then the EFL would carry on the investigation and if there are any charges they would be in accord with the PL rulebook.

At 33 he almost certainly would be looking for a last deal but no doubt the one he is on currently is far too good. He might get a deal somewhere at say £10k a week so circa £1 million in total gross over 2 years but for one of the two years he would still be under contract at LC. Let’s assume that he is on say £40k a week and 26 /27 is indeed the last year. Well it’s worth to him is greater than 52 weeks because as it the last year there would be several weeks paid after the contract ends so worth say £2.2 m to him way in excess of the £1m that would be payable in 26/27&27/8 combined. My point is that he holds all the cards going into the last year . If I were his agent I would be looking for between 60&75% of the remaining sum maybe settling on 60-50% ish. Yes there would be savings to the club but as with many things LC there would have to be funds available to save . Also timing would be a thing . Is there enough capacity in the 25/6 PSR numbers to advance his costs ? If not what would the numbers look like if a replacement player is bought in? As for amortisation even when someone is signed on a free there will be agent fees etc and these costs are amortised over the contract period. To negotiate a settlement will cost agent fees and almost certainly LC would be liable for those costs and if the deal was indeed done in 26/27 not only would those fees be factored in but also fees from the original contract would have to be impaired in 25/26 . Its an incredibly complex set of calculations that will need to be carried out but at his age and the fact that he is indeed 33 I would be advising him, if I were his agent, just sit on your contract .

The question I guess we don’t know the answer to is will much change in terms of departures even if relegation is avoided ?

Stolarcyzk - No Vietes - Yes. Begovic - No Bausor - Yes. Nelson - Yes. Okoli - Yes Souttar - Yes. Kristiansen - Yes. Ricardo - No. Lascelles - No. Vestergaard - Yes. L. Thomas - Yes. Aluko - Yes. James - No. Winks - No. Choudhury - Yes. Aribo - No. Skipp - No. Page - Yes. Mukasa No. Ramsey - No. Golding - Yes. S. Thomas - Yes. Fatawu - No. Ayew - No. Richards - No. Mavididi - Yes. Decordova-Reid - Yes. Daka - No. Marcal - Yes. Monga - No.

Golding I am convinced was a player that had to be signed from Chelsea in order for them to pay the £30 m that was recorded when KDH was sold to them. What is interesting is that if you add the fee that was paid for Golding ( £5 m ) to the £25 m that Chelsea got for KDH when they sold him to Everton spookily that comes to the £30 million they paid for KDH in the first place.!

It simply isn’t as easy as that. Almost certainly the local plan designates Seagrave an employment/ recreational land/ sporting fields or something along those lines without doubt it is not earmarked for housing. There are situations where a change to designated usage can be agreed but it’s far from straight forward. Add to that LC Council are obliged to keep a register of pitches in use ( within the least 3 years) almost certainly all the pitches at both Seagrave and Belvoir are included in that register. What that means is that if a planning application was made for either sites which entailed a reduction in the number of pitches then Sports England who have to be consulted and they will object to planning that doesn’t entail a replacement pitch being put in place on another site Let’s just suppose that they could demolish Seagrave and sell the land for housing then a sum of close to £100 m would need to be achieved to cover the loss of the asset and even then there would be issues around claiming PSR credit for selling a training ground. To complicate matters even further Seagrave was built having received a £91 million loan from KPI . A question I can’t answer is what are, if any, the conditions attached to that loan? Seagrave will prove financially to be a millstone around LC necks. My estimate is that it costs around £5 million a year to run , Charlie suggests it’s £15m. I hope he isn’t close to being right because the reality is that the clubs likely income in 26/27 and 27/28 won’t be able to justify close to the sum I mention and certainly not the £15m he suggests. What would I do ? Well explore the possibility of selling Belvoir. Could more pitches be developed at Seagrave to compensate? Could the WSL be accommodated at Seagrave? Will LC Council support any application for housing , will Sports England object and finally what will disposing of Belvoir look like in both in terms of cash from the sell but also how much will be saved in terms of annual running costs ?

I along with quite a few others have speculated as to what now happens and yes it is just that, speculation. We still don’t know a lot as to the here and now but what little we know as facts don’t paint a pretty picture. The soon to be published accounts will reflect a year when once again LC received significant broadcasting and commercial deals due to the club plying its trade in the PL but as we won’t know see the actual numbers for the current season for at least 14 months and as a they say about politics a day is a long time well in business 14 months is a lifetime. In previous accounts the comment that the club can only be treated as feasible if there is continued financial input from KP, financial institutions continue to allow borrowings and of substantial income from transfer fees continues. Back to the speculation and here is perhaps the most worrying in that it isnt just that this seasons cupboard is bare but before the first session of 26/27 takes place the money the PL intends to provide a buffer has been spent. Of course KP may well step in to plug any shortfall but even that isn’t a free pass as it were because there are limits as to how much can be introduced by way of equity and if those cash injections are by way of loans well then interest is factored into the PSR calculations. The clubs income in 25/26 will have dropped from 24/25 and in 26/27 it will drop even further so it’s as much now about reducing costs and whilst of course the obvious ones such as wages have to be prioritised as Charlie pointed out some of those costs simply can’t be reduced.

Sorry but we simply don’t know the extent of the clubs liabilities nor how things have changed , save a few snippets, since the end of the 23/24 accounting year. Charlies point wasn’t that the club can’t meet its current liabilities but more that the person running the accounts seems to be using all the levers available to pay todays liabilities but not from today’s income included in those levers is the drawing down of monies that realistically will be needed for next season. Potentially another example of LC kicking the can down the road ? I worked in debt management and yes unpaid wages would be a major red flag and there’s no suggestion that is happening but you talk as if you know what’s going on re creditors we don’t know either way but surely you can see why alarm bells are ringing.? Often when I dealt with distressed companies to the outside world every thing seemed fine but almost in a blink of an eye something goes wrong and bang the whole deck of cards crumble. As for losing equity in the club in terms of KP that ship has long since sailed and who knows there may well be significant tax benefits in Thailand in allowing debt to be written off in another tax regime. I simply don’t know nor I would guess do you but one thing I do know is that I wouldn’t at all be surprised if at some point the club does enter administration .

At this point in time it’s impossible to know how much debt the club has and to who it’s owed post 30/6/24 Here we are the best part of 20 months on from the last published set of accounts knowing not much save the club have factored all fees yet to be paid but it doesn’t just end there because the parachute payment due not just for 25/26 have been advanced but also the sums due for 26/27 in effect cash due to fund in part the 26/27 year is almost certainly been used this season. Bear in mind that in Jan 26 the club entered into another agreement providing a facility with that Aussie Bank but this agreement isn’t secured against future fees or parachute payments, they are already committed, this time the security is against every fixed asset the club owns. Charlie is spot on when he points out that factoring these matters are red flags. I am not sure that I heard Charlie say it was normal to take out parachute payments in advance of the year they would fed into cash flow. His point about the change of Christmas pay date in isolation may not have been the issue but I actually think taking all things into consideration it all adds to the negativity. You say the only way that LC go into Administration is if KP can’t pay but that isn’t correct there is at least one other possibility and that is they , KP, won’t pay any more and if that’s the case then then leads to even darker thoughts. We have absolutely no idea what creditors are being paid on time if they indeed are. When clubs particularly in the EFL are in arrears with say other clubs or HMRC for we don’t get to hear about debts of that nature if the club has agreed a payment arrangement as for other creditors any business that is fire fighting tends to prioritise payments based on who is pushing the hardest at some point those owners will see one of the balls drop as it were. The likelihood is that the club will limp on ( unless Top opens his cheque book) but just as there was an inevitability that the day of judgment would arrive for those PSR matters if the signs are being read correctly then at some point sooner rather than later the weight of debt or put another way the lack of cash could well be catastrophic To a degree any money borrowed , save income already committed ( parachute payments and transfer fees still due ) is borrowed against future ticket sales the problem comes for instance if season ticket renewals don’t reach projections or God forbid relegation means prices have to be reduced

There are sorts of options and one of which we shouldn’t loose sight of is the club World Cup. The failed SL wasn’t any alternative to the PL it was an add on that would have replaced the CL. Where they got in wrong in planning was not having a promotion and relegation mechanism had they thought that aspect through pretty sure we would have either seen it introduced by now or it was to be implemented very soon. The fall out from the failed SL hasn’t really forbidden such a league say under the control of UEFA or come to that FIFA but you can bet your bottom dollar that the top European leagues will be exchanging views as to how a SL project could be revisited but don’t dismiss the possibility that the PL could be revamped as I said less clubs and maybe a couple of games less alongside a UEFA SL, aUEFA EL and a UEFA Conference where all clubs (8) that weren’t subject to either of the 2 relegation places qualify for those UEFA tournaments

That’s not what the PL said. Here’s exactly what they have put out To provide certainty for all clubs and fans, the Premier League will be seeking to have the appeal resolved urgently, and in any event before the end of the EFL season. The timings in terms of how long LC or the PL will be allowed to submit all their papers is guided primarily by the PL rulebook but it’s perfectly in line with those rules for either party to ask for more time. All I believe the PL is saying is that in any of their submissions to the IC they will ask for time lines to be enforced rigorously.The ultimate decision is exclusively in the hands The parties are given 14 days from publication of the written reasons to appeal and you can’t just say “We appeal” you have to provide far more details re the grounds . Bear in mind that it’s unlikely that the IC will allow any further evidence be produced the appeal therefore will be around what the panel got it wrong or at least in the eyes of the appellant . As I said yesterday the PL can and will make comment at the hearing around the quantum and process the IC adopted to arrive at the sanctions and yes they may well be arguing that the failure to submit will be an aggravating and if that succeeds that could in itself cause the appeal board to amend the points deduction. I understand why LC appealed indeed I pointed out some weeks ago factors that needed to be taken into account by the club when making the call but even if the points deduction is suspended at the point of the last game it’s within the rules of the EFL to implement points a deduction way past the last league games of the season. My belief is that they can be applied right up to the time of the league AGM which will be at some time in June

The reality in all this is that the world wide attraction of the PL still grows. World wide broadcasting income isn’t static indeed that area of income growth continues. Hard to accept I know but the bigger clubs in football, and thats the likes of Man U, Man City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and maybe Spurs are the main draw when it comes to TV audiences. The draw of many of the other PL clubs such as Wolves, Bournemouth, Brentford and probably even Newcastle is limited and when it comes to the Championship clubs and that includes Leicester sadly the only way a television deal of any value could be negotiated by the EFL was from a broadcaster that needed to add something to their main PL package. Along with the deals for the SPL in terms the additional sky subscriptions that EFL and Scottish football attracts is minimal. Sky in my opinion is a villain and a good guy when it comes to broadcasting at some point they will loose the bulk of the domestic Sky packages and that will be ITV and some in terms of the financial Armageddon most EFL clubs will suffer not only will broadcasting income drop but without the TV exposure the advertising income and probably sponsorship deals be far less lucrative. If you look at accounts down through the pyramid most clubs are trading in a manner that potentially would lead to insolvency. Should a SL eventually be formed be it a British/English or European league then that in all likelihood would send financial shockwaves down through the pyramid . Sky almost certainly wouldn’t be able to afford to attain the broadcasting rights and the likelihood is that the league would in partnership with one of the huge conglomerates such as Amazon would step up and as we know already the likes of TNT & Amazon who already have some of the smaller domestic PL deals show no appetite for games that don’t involve PL clubs. But worse would be if the super league ,if formed, were to break from the current regulatory bodies namely the FA, UEFA and FIFA. These keep many things in check, I know at times it doesn’t seems so. In just one simple area such as stability of players contracts that would enable the real big boys to laugh at the security of players contracts affords clubs . On that point we are sadly already reaching a point where EU rulings where FIFA will just as they did when the Bosman and Webster rulings be forced into amendments to their rules particularly around compensation when a player decides to leave before their contract ends and claiming Sporting Just Cause.

This is an excellent post

From memory Chelsea had to have the sell ratified under the PL rules and again from memory there were requirements around timing and fair value but any issues that may have been rumoured seems to have been dismissed or not not factual. The 74 charges , Fa ones, that Chelsea face could well result in sporting sanctions but my guess would be that’s £100+ million still being withheld from Blue Co purchase will be attractive to the FA. City do face specific charges around FFP / PSR

In terms of charges in the EPL Chelsea couldn’t be charged because they were perfectly entitled to carry out the hotel transactions.Completely different debate about the rules themselves. In terms of Man City charges they are not just significant in numbers but also they cover multiple types of alleged indiscretions. Theirs is a truly complex set of charges . These charges won’t be dropped / withdrawn the IC will either find some or all of them proven or not proven. It’s interesting you talk about the big 6 being in with cahoots and here we are with Man City facing those 115 charges and Chelsea with 74 FA charges pending.

By appealing against the points deduction LC have re opened up scrutiny of not only how the case was concluded but above all how IC arrived at the points deduction.The PL didn’t need to lodge an appeal against the points deduction because it was pretty much assured that LC would The PL will repeat their arguments re points deductions and as I said whilst to date an IC hasn’t increased a points deduction it’s not forbidden. In effect the appeal IC like many ICs before can and possibly will amend the initial award. The appeal panel has the power to do so. Most journalists are only looking at the PLs appeal which is not suggesting any further points deduction but my guess would be that they believe it should have been assessed as an aggravating factor as a minimum The appeal panel can amend the ICs award as it thinks fit and that could mean a complete rewrite of their findings bear in mind the PL could easily argue about the process being independent and any points increase came about because of LC appeal they, the PL, were only appealing against the non award of a sanction re the non submission of the accounts.