Companies House - Registration of charge

[Terraloon]

42 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Will probably end up having to refinance the loans - presume they are under some kind of financial covenant reporting too. Be interesting to read any going concern comments from the auditors this year. 

 

 

Not quite sure I would call  these arrangements loans.Loans normally require the principal to be repaid or refinanced  that’s not what is happening here

 

Whats happened in effect is in respect  of transfers its the norm that any  fees are paid in instalment but rather than LCFC waiting  till those instalments are  due to be paid they , LCFC, have entered into an arrangement whereby all the sums still to be paid have  (after deduction of a sizeable charge) paid to Leicester by the finance company and those future instalments when they become due  don’t hit LCFC bank accounts they are paid directly to the finance company . 
In relation to TV monies it will be known what money is due to be paid in respect of parachute payments and again either in full or in part those monies have been advanced again and like future transfer fees will be paid directly to the finance company . Helps cash flow to a degree but as the parachute payments and or no further players are sold then the money you can raise by this means reduces or disappears 

 

[orangecity23]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

Be interesting to read any going concern comments from the auditors this year. 

 

 

I'm not an auditor, but I find every time after going to the KP recently, I tend to end up increasingly more concerned after watching our shambles of a team playing 

[The Year Of The Fox]

11 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Not quite sure I would call  these arrangements loans.Loans normally require the principal to be repaid or refinanced  that’s not what is happening here

 

Whats happened in effect is in respect  of transfers its the norm that any  fees are paid in instalment but rather than LCFC waiting  till those instalments are  due to be paid they , LCFC, have entered into an arrangement whereby all the sums still to be paid have  (after deduction of a sizeable charge) paid to Leicester by the finance company and those future instalments when they become due  don’t hit LCFC bank accounts they are paid directly to the finance company . 
In relation to TV monies it will be known what money is due to be paid in respect of parachute payments and again either in full or in part those monies have been advanced again and like future transfer fees will be paid directly to the finance company . Helps cash flow to a degree but as the parachute payments and or no further players are sold then the money you can raise by this means reduces or disappears 

 

I don’t blame the club for using these finance companies to help cash flow when selling Maguire for £86m

 

But we’re doing this for the £5-10m signings too which is a massive red flag for anyone who can see past the whole KPFC/Top is God clan 

[Osavo]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

Be interesting to read any going concern comments from the auditors this year. 

 

 

Was it Everton who had a material uncertainty relating to going concern a few years ago? Wouldn't be surprised if we ended up in the same boat. 

 

Would love to be a fly on the wall during those conversations.

[Terraloon]

1 minute ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

I don’t blame the club for using these finance companies to help cash flow when selling Maguire for £86m

 

But we’re doing this for the £5-10m signings too which is a massive red flag for anyone who can see past the whole KPFC/Top is God clan 

Think that’s right.

 

What the trouble is now is that the the clubs were able to use the sums advanced to support cash flow but now as you say it’s now happening with sales where the sums generated is greatly reduced are significantly less 

 

The day of reckoning as it were has been pushed back but should promotion not be achieved then as we know the  parachute payments decline and if players aren’t sold for even the £5 million level then due to the constraints of PSR/ FFP Top can’t, without sanction, freely inject cash 

[Lambert09]

2 hours ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

A mortgage based on the well paid job you don’t actually have 

That’s on the bank for accepting then 

[Tommy G]

2 hours ago, Terraloon said:

Not quite sure I would call  these arrangements loans.Loans normally require the principal to be repaid or refinanced  that’s not what is happening here

 

Whats happened in effect is in respect  of transfers its the norm that any  fees are paid in instalment but rather than LCFC waiting  till those instalments are  due to be paid they , LCFC, have entered into an arrangement whereby all the sums still to be paid have  (after deduction of a sizeable charge) paid to Leicester by the finance company and those future instalments when they become due  don’t hit LCFC bank accounts they are paid directly to the finance company . 
In relation to TV monies it will be known what money is due to be paid in respect of parachute payments and again either in full or in part those monies have been advanced again and like future transfer fees will be paid directly to the finance company . Helps cash flow to a degree but as the parachute payments and or no further players are sold then the money you can raise by this means reduces or disappears 

 

Thanks for the explanation but these are bank loans and there is a decent explanation under note 12 in the latest stats. They are secured on premier league tv money and transfer fees receivable - there’s a difference between security and the actual loan. 
 

So my point was, the loans on the balance sheet probably could be kicked further into the long grass, subject to the bank agreeing - which will involve a nice fee and probably a ratchet on the margin - neither pleasant but it probably keeps us a going concern in the short term given we aren’t going to be near PL money any time soon. 
 

The above is probably what’s keeping the FD up at night given they are hurtling towards the next year end. 

[Tommy G]

2 hours ago, Osavo said:

Was it Everton who had a material uncertainty relating to going concern a few years ago? Wouldn't be surprised if we ended up in the same boat. 

 

Would love to be a fly on the wall during those conversations.

Well it will be up to the directors to produce a concrete plan, with the support of cashflows out 3 years and stress tested under different scenarios - went through it myself during Covid in a much smaller business ~£50m and it’s not pleasant, really stressful and given the way audit regulation has gone in the past few years it’s the main focus of audits now. 
 

I think the next balance sheet date will be a rough ride tbh - given there is Top, Rudkin (not a stat director but still) and the FD who is relatively new it’s hardly a top team, excuse the pun. 

[Stadt]

Just now, Tommy G said:

Well it will be up to the directors to produce a concrete plan, with the support of cashflows out 3 years and stress tested under different scenarios - went through it myself during Covid in a much smaller business ~£50m and it’s not pleasant, really stressful and given the way audit regulation has gone in the past few years it’s the main focus of audits now. 
 

I think the next balance sheet date will be a rough ride tbh - given there is Top, Rudkin (not a stat director but still) and the FD who is relatively new it’s hardly a top team, excuse the pun. 

We need a new CEO rapidly and I just don’t think Top is bothered about sorting it out 

[Tommy G]

6 minutes ago, Stadt said:

We need a new CEO rapidly and I just don’t think Top is bothered about sorting it out 

There’s no termination of appointment filed on CH for Susan Whelan, which is odd….someone has just probably forgotten to do it - amateur hour. 
 

Once she is removed we won’t have a British director as a statutory director anymore 

[JacobLCFC1234]

in lay persons terms, for someone who just watches the football and doesnt take much interest in this, is this whats happening:

 

• We have a very high wages to turnover ratio - this creates cash flow issues within the club
• To ease the cash flow issues, when we sell a player, a loan company gives us the money we are owed up front - the installments (and smaller payments from us depending on the interest level) are then paid back to the loan company
• An increasing number of deals are being done this way, meaning we have an increasing liability to the loan company
• Should we not be able to finance the repayments on time, the loans are secured against sources of money we have not yet received. i.e tv money
• We are not likely to get said tv money and our parachute payments are going to shrink next year
• Even if we are FFP compliant, the agreements entered into with the loan company are going to leave us up shit creek because our income streams are going down and we have hardly any assets left to sell

 

Is this a fair summary?

[Stadt]

19 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

There’s no termination of appointment filed on CH for Susan Whelan, which is odd….someone has just probably forgotten to do it - amateur hour. 
 

Once she is removed we won’t have a British director as a statutory director anymore 

The FD was promoted within (finance hasn’t been our strong point, a lot out of their hands admittedly) relatively recently. It’s already too insular and he’s the most senior business figure.

 

From what I’ve heard there’s people out of their depth behind the scenes and it sounds a sinking ship.

 

The worrying thing is none of this make us very saleable.

[Tommy G]

26 minutes ago, Stadt said:

The FD was promoted within (finance hasn’t been our strong point, a lot out of their hands admittedly) relatively recently. It’s already too insular and he’s the most senior business figure.

 

From what I’ve heard there’s people out of their depth behind the scenes and it sounds a sinking ship.

 

The worrying thing is none of this make us very saleable.

Don’t think enough of him to make him a statutory director like his predecessor 

[Stadt]

2 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Don’t think enough of him to make him a statutory director like his predecessor 

I think Top probably just has no idea about this 

[Paninistickers]

6 hours ago, Gamble92 said:

Remember when I said I was worried about the loans on here in 2020 and so many of you told me I knew nothing and the owners always pump so much money in. They'd never do anything to harm us. How dare I be so ungrateful. 

Same mate. Raised my own concerns on this from the off. As did a few others

 

And,.coz I like being a smart arse, also in  (july) 2020 was my first post calling Luke Thomas out 😉

[Terraloon]

On 06/11/2025 at 18:44, Tommy G said:

Thanks for the explanation but these are bank loans and there is a decent explanation under note 12 in the latest stats. They are secured on premier league tv money and transfer fees receivable - there’s a difference between security and the actual loan. 
 

So my point was, the loans on the balance sheet probably could be kicked further into the long grass, subject to the bank agreeing - which will involve a nice fee and probably a ratchet on the margin - neither pleasant but it probably keeps us a going concern in the short term given we aren’t going to be near PL money any time soon. 
 

The above is probably what’s keeping the FD up at night given they are hurtling towards the next year end. 

Whilst they are categorised as loans they aren’t what quite how loans as we know them work.

Read this description 

 

How the Process Works

Guaranteed Future Income: Football transfers are often paid in instalments over several years, not as a single lump sum. A selling club is owed these future payments (receivables) by the buying club. Similarly, clubs are guaranteed certain amounts of "Central Funds" from their league (e.g., Premier League) related to broadcasting rights.

Loan Collateral: A club can use these guaranteed future receivables as collateral to secure a loan from Macquarie.

Upfront Cash Injection: Macquarie provides the club with a lump sum of cash immediately, minus interest and fees. This gives the club a crucial cash flow injection, allowing them to spend money in the current transfer window, improve facilities, or manage other expenses without waiting years for the instalments to arrive.

Repayment to Macquarie: When the future payments (from the buying club or the league) become due, they are paid directly to Macquarie Bank, not the football club, until the loan is fully repaid. 
 

 

[Paninistickers]

12 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Whilst they are categorised as loans they aren’t what quite how loans as we know them work.

Read this description 

 

How the Process Works

Guaranteed Future Income: Football transfers are often paid in instalments over several years, not as a single lump sum. A selling club is owed these future payments (receivables) by the buying club. Similarly, clubs are guaranteed certain amounts of "Central Funds" from their league (e.g., Premier League) related to broadcasting rights.

Loan Collateral: A club can use these guaranteed future receivables as collateral to secure a loan from Macquarie.

Upfront Cash Injection: Macquarie provides the club with a lump sum of cash immediately, minus interest and fees. This gives the club a crucial cash flow injection, allowing them to spend money in the current transfer window, improve facilities, or manage other expenses without waiting years for the instalments to arrive.

Repayment to Macquarie: When the future payments (from the buying club or the league) become due, they are paid directly to Macquarie Bank, not the football club, until the loan is fully repaid. 
 

 

This is correct. It's invoice finance, not a loan. There isn't a repayment plan. Just the money we would've got from Chelsea or the PL in, say, June 2027 goes straight to Macquarie, it us. 

 

The problem with that, as I and others have said all along, is that the parachute money we were die this season and next, bad already gone. We spent it ages ago. The parachute money goes to Macquarie. 

 

The only way out of this cycle is to get promoted again and Macquirie will happily pay us two years PL + parachute money again, immediately.

 

But, No promotion = No Macquirie= No money. Unless we sell players. And at this moment, who do we sell exactly to finance a 40m wage bill (taking into account some big earners like Daka and winks leaving) and the running costs of seagrave. 

 

We are on the brink. Next July there's no money+ other than player sales. None from the PL, none from Macquirie. Just gambling on selling Fatawu and Monga and Nelson and Stolarcyk for 40m ish

[Ric Flair]

If it's correct that we managed to demand all the Maguire money up front (over £60m profit) to go with massive sales every year before and after and yet just a few years later we've been desperately arranging these sorts of loan facilities is staggering. 

 

 

[VLC86]

Like I’ve said many times and been shot down by a few, to get out of this cycle now needs external funding. KP are clearly not doing that, so hopefully there is either a plan to sell us or bring someone in who fancies wasting about £200m just to get us back level. Scary.

[Paninistickers]

1 minute ago, VLC86 said:

Like I’ve said many times and been shot down by a few, to get out of this cycle now needs external funding. KP are clearly not doing that, so hopefully there is either a plan to sell us or bring someone in who fancies wasting about £200m just to get us back level. Scary.

Just a personal view, but I suspect KP have always flown by the seat of their pants. Maxing out lines of credit way before we were part of the empire. That's how they roll. Borrow borrow borrow and hope one the the bets pays off. 

 

The clue is in their desperate, unquenchable thirst for hard cash. Right back to the Mahrez and Maguire deals. They desperately needed that cash, as, just a guess, they don't have nearly as much in readies as we all think. They are gamblers. And, at last, the roulette wheel is about to stop. And the ball ain't sitting in the right colour. 

[MattFox]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

Just a personal view, but I suspect KP have always flown by the seat of their pants. Maxing out lines of credit way before we were part of the empire. That's how they roll. Borrow borrow borrow and hope one the the bets pays off. 

 

The clue is in their desperate, unquenchable thirst for hard cash. Right back to the Mahrez and Maguire deals. They desperately needed that cash, as, just a guess, they don't have nearly as much in readies as we all think. They are gamblers. And, at last, the roulette wheel is about to stop. And the ball ain't sitting in the right colour. 

Makes sense, Vichai was a massive gambler after all and KP aren’t as big a company in Thailand as some seem to think 

[FoxesTez]

On 06/11/2025 at 19:00, Tommy G said:

There’s no termination of appointment filed on CH for Susan Whelan, which is odd….someone has just probably forgotten to do it - amateur hour. 
 

Once she is removed we won’t have a British director as a statutory director anymore 

She isn’t British… 

[KingsX]

“Too big a club” to drop down to L1 and rot there for a while? 

Consider a club with a half-billion euro squad value. One that spent several years in the Deloitte list of highest revenue clubs on the planet - 17th as recently as 2023 (21/22 accounts).

 

 

In three years, the club pissed away that financial position, then set fire to the last remnants by pre-spending the parachute payments on dross with no market value.

 

PL and European status and cash were nothing against this onslaught of waste. Now it appears the final parachute was torn through before it could be deployed. What is left to cushion a very hard landing?