Leicester City chairman outlines priorities for Premier League season

[winteriscoming]

It will only take 3/4 games which we lose on the trot and puel will be gone. I don't agree with this long term but clubs in the premiership don't look long term. Every season is about survival and owners will obviously go out to stay up. Look at sides like stoke and wba who would of thought last season they would go down. I might be wrong but wba finished 10th and stoke finished 13th. Long term plans at clubs change suddenly to short term solutions when you are struggling at the bottom. 

[WigstonWanderer]

With FFP the growth in player costs (including wages and amortisation of incoming transfer fees) appears to be limited to a relatively small (but significant, 7m) amount plus any increase in club revenue. Revenue includes sponsorship, gate receipts, merchandising, European competition prize money, and player sales, but excludes TV revenue.

For a club of our size sponsorship and merchandising are probably significantly limited. Even after the title win I don’t think these have become a major source of revenue, and the effect will dwindle with time. European competition prize money is self evidently dependent on success on the field.

Gate receipts are relatively small fry, but the club will presumably benefit somewhat from ground expansion.

Everything points to the club placing a bigger emphasis on player sales as a source of the required revenue increases that could fuel the wage growth needed for success. This includes the huge investment in the new training ground, the appointment of Puel and a new emphasis on buying and developing youth.

It doesn’t necessarily require academy players to become first team regulars as long as value can be added by their development and eventual sale. With the training facilities and an increasingly good track record of development, better young players will be attracted to come, a virtuous circle, and revenues will increase.

Edited 22 August 2018 by WigstonWanderer

[gurru991]

23 hours ago, Heathrow fox said:

If Puel lands in the bottom 3 for even a short period of time after Christmas,he will be sacked make no mistake.Premier League sustainability was the key word in that message.Relegation will not be tolerated.

This team will not be in the relegation zone this season. No Way, No Chance, Not Gonna Happen. There is a valid plan in place for the first time in a while & this club will do just fine with the personnel they have in place.

[Heathrow fox]

56 minutes ago, gurru991 said:

This team will not be in the relegation zone this season. No Way, No Chance, Not Gonna Happen. There is a valid plan in place for the first time in a while & this club will do just fine with the personnel they have in place.

I agree we should have enough for a decent season.There is a plan in place.However the slightest hint of relegation troubles and the panic button will be hit.All long term thinking will go out the window.

[KingsX]

1 hour ago, WigstonWanderer said:

With FFP the growth in player costs (including wages and amortisation of incoming transfer fees) appears to be limited to a relatively small (but significant, 7m) amount plus any increase in club revenue. Revenue includes sponsorship, gate receipts, merchandising, European competition prize money, and player sales, but excludes TV revenue.

For a club of our size sponsorship and merchandising are probably significantly limited. Even after the title win I don’t think these have become a major source of revenue, and the effect will dwindle with time. European competition prize money is self evidently dependent on success on the field.

Gate receipts are relatively small fry, but the club will presumably benefit somewhat from ground expansion.

Here's how the Guardian reported LCFC accounts for the 2016-17 season (the high water mark).

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, KingsX said:

Here's how the Guardian reported LCFC accounts for the 2016-17 season (the high water mark).

I assume profits on outgoing transfers come in “Commercial and other income” (doesn’t seem to fit anywhere else). For this season it will be highly significant with the sale of Mahrez. Obviously no CL money.

As I understand incoming transfers are amortised over the life of the contract. Under FFP I believe this amount is added to the wage bill and the increase in the total from one season to the next restricted (actually a bit more complicated than that). You’d need a more detailed breakdown than the above to work it all out.

In Mahrez’ case the outgoing fee less anything owed to Le Havre is income as his original transfer fee is insignificant. Obviously if say Slimani was sold there would be a balancing loss to some extent, but half his cost is already amortised.

BTW not claiming any inside knowledge of how this all works, just what I’ve read. In particular this:

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/premier-league-update-their-ffp-rules

 

Edited 23 August 2018 by WigstonWanderer

[BenTheFox]

On 19/08/2018 at 21:22, Deucalion said:

I'm a little cynical about this too.

Dropped is any mention of challenging for European football, and in is talk of sustainability and relying on the youth team.

I don't see how that's a bad thing at all. 

[zealot]

15 hours ago, Gerbold said:

Agreed - to football fans everywhere the one lasting facet of their club is the ground. I mourned the loss of Filbert Street because it was, for all its faults, the home of the team I followed. I'm not sure I ever worshipped there but it was a a place where I belonged. It cannot be replaced - for me, that is. New fans will grow up holding the new stadium as their home-from-home.

I dislike this idea of using the stadia as an advertising opportunity - I think the whole idea started with Middlesborough - but they weren't promoting a brand. If it cheapens Leicester's image then it cheapens a whole lot of others too - Arsenal and Man City, for example. It's undignified and commercial. But my point still stands about having to accept this - until someone or ones decides to orchestrate a discussion with the owner. My perception of him is that he isn't the kind of personality who will enter into a dialogue with the fans. We are a pretty amorphous bunch - and face-to-faces are usually limited to a handful of people. The fans would need a representative(s) who were respected by the majority and accepted by Srivaddhanaprabha.

Unfortunately, the English tend to accept what they are told to do. Of course there is a strongthread of radical, disestablishmentarianism in the country but, mostly, we are forelock tuggers. Through the centuries the commoners/working-class have had a lot taken from them (land, the Anglo-Saxon democracy) in return for precious little. Getting universal suffrage, an NHS, education and  the Welfare State had to be prised out of the hand of 'haves'. With Thatcher we were persuaded that we'd all become middle-class -  the top clubs have seized upon that belief by raising admissions and charging the earth for replica kit, souvenirs and memorabilia. But the behaviour of the fans certainly isn't middle-class - still the same effing-and-blinding it was when I started watching in the sixties! And, as you pointed out, the 'refreshments' are still bad - in fact even worse food than we enjoyed (?) back then. I wonder if Sri really understands the English response to football. I wonder how many of these foreign owners do.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was stating the reality. Sri calls the shots and, if we want stability for our club, then we have to bear that. Maybe, in a few years, we'll be longing for the days when we were (were?) a yo-yo club. But I don't see that happening.

Thanks so much for your response Gerbold.

He calls the shots yes but as fans we have a strong collective voice too. I don't believe it would destablise the club at all to make suggestions we feel would improve the club. In fact, I think it would strengthen LCFC to have a stronger healthy fan voice to check things like terrible food and drink, membership problems etc etc. At the moment there doesn't seem to be any push back at all to anything the owners do. 

Again, I am not trying to be troublesome here  -  I genuinely love the Srivaddhanaprabhas for everything they have done for our club. We couldn't have been more lucky and are truly blessed to have such understanding owners who generally get the footballing needs of LCFC so well and have bravely made predominantly excellent decisions so far on the club's behalf.

They are a beloved part of our family. Yet.... as with any family there are bound to be disagreements and I'd like to see our fans stick up for what they believe in a little more on some of these issues sometimes. That is all. Rather than just passively accepting whatever is done on their behalf. Or just cynically saying that change is never going to happen. I feel because we've had rapid success we've been lulled into just accepting everything all the time.

If enough of us want something to happen why the hell shouldn't we be listened too...  More honest and open dialogue between fans and owners is a good thing, no? We've been paying for balti pies, pints, STs, bovril, memberships and merch for (in my case) 40 years or so!

How many times have we seriously as fans pushed back and made a big ask of the owners? Not once yet...    Why the hell not? Why are we so quiet?

[Barwell Fox]

Really don't understand what the problem is with the branding of King Power Stadium. Mandaric came in and helped our financial situation (understatement) and sold us to our current owners. I just don't get why anyone begrudges them the naming rights of the stadium. When we have a home match televised, King Power gets numerous mentions. Do viewers peer at the branding on the shirts or the wallboards around the pitch? Course they don't - they watch the match. Seems like a lot of people think that the giving should be all one way - the owners to the club. Those who feel that the naming of the stadium should reflect our history, well sorry - but it Does!! We were close to going under but now thanks to our owners we are in a very healthy position - with owners who are here for the long term and willing to invest heavily. If they sell one more bottle of perfume through their duty free cos of our stadium branding, then I say good for them.

[Simoken]

On 20/08/2018 at 14:08, filbertway said:

I would absolutely love it to be called the ground of the immortals etc.

I would be embarrased to call myself a LCFC fan if that name was spouted out on sky sports.

[gurru991]

On 23/08/2018 at 06:39, Barwell Fox said:

Really don't understand what the problem is with the branding of King Power Stadium. Mandaric came in and helped our financial situation (understatement) and sold us to our current owners. I just don't get why anyone begrudges them the naming rights of the stadium. When we have a home match televised, King Power gets numerous mentions. Do viewers peer at the branding on the shirts or the wallboards around the pitch? Course they don't - they watch the match. Seems like a lot of people think that the giving should be all one way - the owners to the club. Those who feel that the naming of the stadium should reflect our history, well sorry - but it Does!! We were close to going under but now thanks to our owners we are in a very healthy position - with owners who are here for the long term and willing to invest heavily. If they sell one more bottle of perfume through their duty free cos of our stadium branding, then I say good for them.

Very well said !!

We are incredibly lucky to have the owners we do and having King Power labeling is a very small price to pay for that. 

[somebum]

They also got some sea front property in Birmingham if anybody wants to buy it?