Les-TA-Jon

6 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

The 2027s are the biggest problem really.

 

If you're implying Winks has an option, I don't see why either the club or the player would want to trigger that unless it's already happened because it's automatic based on appearances? His wages will be so damaging to us that extending him to try and sell him doesn't seem profitable and his attitude was wayward enough in the Championship that forcing him to play in League One seems daft. And despite how we see him here, he's easily good enough to go and get a good contract somewhere on free agency so much that he doesn't need to extend here.

 

But the rest, BDCR, Choudhury, Vestergaard - that's a massive, massive lump of wages right there that I don't see us being able to get rid of. We desperately want to wipe them out and get a clean slate and some flex in the wage bill to properly rebuild but I don't really see how we possibly get rid of those. I don't see who even loans Vestergaard or BDCR without us paying a huge chunk of their wages. They'll be the highest paid players in League One and they shouldn't even make the 11. Hamza, maybe, is a decent League One DM if we're that desperate?

 

Stol,

Aluko, Souttar, Nelson, Thomas

Hamza, Skipp,

X, X, Mavididi,

X

 

Ugh. On paper that shouldn't be too horrible but it's just way too many toxic reminders of the last few years. God I wish we could just gut the whole lot.

 

 

Yep, the squad and contract situation is rancid.

The Winks thing is because a month or so ago there were reports going round that a 4th additional year was triggered when we went up under Maresca. 

Just now, Finnegan said:

Just realised Luke Thomas is contracted to 2029.

 

Winks probably to 2027 too. 

On 11/04/2026 at 19:42, sm1 said:

Just beat us and get it over and done with.

Pretty sure the earliest we can get officially relegated is Tues 21st. 

23 hours ago, winteriscoming said:

Just realized that if Portsmouth win in mid week and beat us Saturday we’re down. 
 

22 hours ago, Parker Pen said:

Yep me and my son were saying the same thing yesterday 

Earliest we can be officially relegated is Tues 21st I think. 

6 minutes ago, AjcW said:

It’ll only be a 1 or 2 pt job so I imagine they might try and get it done this week, especially if WBA have worked with them and accepted it. 

1 or 2 points won't make the difference to us - but could make all the difference to West Brom themselves - so not sure why they wouldn't fight this/delay the process/appeal etc? 

I can't see how it's possible for an independent commission to hear all the arguments, review all the evidence, make a final decision, allow time to appeals, process and respond to appeals and get to a final conclusion - all in the space of 18 days before the season concludes...

38 minutes ago, Sankey93 said:

What’s the rules now on league 1 spending ? 

34 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

I’m not 100% sure but I know they changed the rules because of Brum and Wrexham 

35 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

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?

Yeah I think dreams of a huge rebuild are a bit fanciful. 

Anyone worth anything will need to be sold, but we've long struggled to find buyers, no one will want to match wages and of course their value drops like a stone, and yet avoiding a loss vs book value is almost impossible. Of course we can do that on some players, but given historic losses - surely we struggle to do it on lots of players? 

And yes L1 and L2 have different spending rules, but upon promotion to the Championship you fall under PSR rules again, so the club can't (or shouldn't) ignore them. 

And even if we do 'successfully' sell a lot of players - I'm not convinced we'll have many funds to sign replacements - so the club either accepts a similar to this season hodge-podge of stale players we can't shift, prematurely promoted youth products and free transfers/loans - or they hang onto more players than they should. 

3 minutes ago, FoxesWalk said:

Monga too

Won’t be sold until he’s 18+ right? 
 

Otherwise we don’t actually get a fee? 
 

For what it’s worth I’m not sure he’s actually any good yet anyhow 

54 minutes ago, Lad1966 said:

May be I’m dreaming this, the last time we got relegated to league 1, didn’t we looked at what Southampton did to get out of league 1 at the 1st attempt and recommended NP to the club.

52 minutes ago, LCFCJohn said:

Have you just identified where the Southampton obsession started 

50 minutes ago, Langston said:

 

Southampton didn't get relegated to League 1 until 2009 and didn't come back up at the first attempt, so probably not!!!!

30 minutes ago, Lad1966 said:

Maybe it was another club, but I’m sure that how we got linked to NP. Maybe it was because NP managed Southampton previously.

When we went down in 2008, Nigel Pearson was at Southampton and came back from behind to win and kept them up on the last day, at our expense. 

Weirdly they sacked him and we got him in

4 minutes ago, LCFCJohn said:

I’m surprised anybody thought we’d win. That was the most obvious result before the game and it happened. 
 

Relegation all but mathematically confirmed.

 

Embarrassing club top to bottom. 

We could W1 and L4 and still stay up 

Just now, LCFCJohn said:

But we aren’t making it back to the PL under this ownership either.

 

So we either have to keep them indefinitely and stagnate to a L1 club at best probably or ensure really awful times, so administration, to get a fresh start.

 

A crap position to be in.

I think Administration is more likely than PL promotion currently but don’t think the situation is as simple or binary as you say 

8 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

One step closer to Top and King power going?

Top and King Power only leave through: 

Administration or club back in the PL. 

I want them gone, but I don’t want to roll the dice on administration to see it happen 

Just now, Spanner73 said:

I never thought I’d want our club to be relegated but I do 

How would this help, out of interest? 

Surely no one is seriously doubting the validity of this decision? We’ve have goal line tech that works 99.9% of the time for years and years. 
 

1mm over the line is still over the line. 
 

if it was our goal and it kept us up, how many Leicester fans would be arguing for us to go down? 

Takes a few reads to parse but this suggests the ref was correct to only caution the player, when playing advantage on a DOGSO incident 

From EFL highlight clip

Mate you couldn’t tell the difference between a weekend away in Lisbon and the end of the world the other day, pretty sure you’re less accurate than goal line tech 

12 minutes ago, Bert said:

Well yeah because Daka was otherwise in wasn’t he. 

12 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

deliberately taking out the striker so it's a dcm going through instead feels like definite cheating that deserves greater punishment than a yellow for me, but that is a very subjective thing to try and judge - like of the Jordans, you'd rather James than Ayew get a similar chance.

Yeah but DOGSO decisions don’t/can’t take account of the player who has the chance. Even if Jakub is through on goal and gets stopped, it’s a DOGSO. 
 

the point is, given the ball ran on and Skipp had a GSO, how can it, by definition be a red for DOGSO? 

That second Preston goal - Riccy starts on the post and then just leaves it for some reason. Would have been an easy clearance…

Amount of times Preston obviously pushed players and pulled shirts and the ref just didn’t care - was incredible. 
 

the ‘DOGSO’ incident is tough for the ref, if he stops and gives a Red, then the crowd goes mental that Skipp isn’t allowed to run in on goal. 
 

And can it really be a DOGSO given Skipp does go on to have a goal scoring opportunity? 
 

having said that, if the guy lets Daka go, we’ve got Daka and Skipp vs Iversen and it’s a tap in situation. 
 

so feels like the ruling was correct but still feel hard done by somehow 

55 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

The fact that you think it would be presenteeism means we can't have a good debate on it.

 

I firmly believe that he does not need a weekend away after being in the job for a little over a month and having previously been out of work for around two months. Especially considering the current situation the club is in and the fact he can go for a months long holiday in a few weeks time should he wish to. He's paid more than well enough for us to expect his full attention during this period of the season.

 

He's been in the job for exactly 42 days. In which time we've played 7 games. Assuming they don't train on the day of a game or the day after, plus an extra day off in the week, it means he's spent 21 days with the squad on the training ground doing his job.

 

This week was a perfect opportunity to use the ~17/18 first team players he has available to him to really get his ideas down before two of the biggest games we've had in years given the potential consequences of relegation.

 

I'm not asking him to sit at Seagrave for 20 hours a day. I'm asking the manager of the club to forego a long weekend in the sun in order to maximise the chances of success in those two games. His full attention should be on PNE and Sheffield Wednesday, not his tan.

 

For me, this is in keeping with the soft touch the club has developed over the last few years where there are no standards or pride in a strong work ethic. Seagrave is a collection of people here solely for the money we dish out and not the collective aims and ambitions of the supporters. We're in the bottom three with a handful of games to go in April and our manager is going on holidays and posting it on social media. It'd be funny if it were Forest, Cov or Derby. 

Are you equally annoyed about the other non-working days Rowett must have had since he started?

Or is your expectation that he should have worked 42 days straight?

And what does 'work' look like in this context, on those days when the players are not there? 

30 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

How many of those are realistically going to be involved in the first team? In terms of undisputed starters i'm counting two but then you've probably got to play one of the two strikers.

 

I'd say that 4 of those players would start in what Rowett would see as our best 11.

10 of those players have been in and out of the lineup under Rowett and in (probably) each of his squads.