Club Finances

[Pita]

2 hours ago, john ridley said:

Looks like jumping  in bed with the devil  is gonna **** em up.They'll want their money,no ifs or buts.Nice one Top.

We are so poorly run it’s unbelievable 

[jammie82uk]

7 hours ago, john ridley said:

Looks like jumping  in bed with the devil  is gonna **** em up.They'll want their money,no ifs or buts.Nice one Top.

Its not just us that use them, other clubs use them as well,

 

Tottenham, West Ham, Burnley, Watford, Bournemouth, Nottingham Forest, Rangers, Sunderland, Aston Villa, Crystal Palace, and Southampton have all used their services 

[john ridley]

1 hour ago, jammie82uk said:

Its not just us that use them, other clubs use them as well,

 

Tottenham, West Ham, Burnley, Watford, Bournemouth, Nottingham Forest, Rangers, Sunderland, Aston Villa, Crystal Palace, and Southampton have all used their services 

That's right ,but I don't see them in the self inflicted mess we're in .

[Dreadnought]

1 hour ago, jammie82uk said:

Its not just us that use them, other clubs use them as well,

 

Tottenham, West Ham, Burnley, Watford, Bournemouth, Nottingham Forest, Rangers, Sunderland, Aston Villa, Crystal Palace, and Southampton have all used their services 

All lenders have certain sectors that they either lend to or avoid. This lot love football clubs. High risk which comes with a high rate. 
I work in finance and wouldn’t lend King Power a penny!!

[l444ry]

Wouldn't be surprised that if Tottenham get relegated then the PSR/FFP regulations will change almost overnight. 

[Les-TA-Jon]

3 minutes ago, l444ry said:

Wouldn't be surprised that if Tottenham get relegated then the PSR/FFP regulations will change almost overnight. 

Aren't PL PSR rules changing next season anyway? 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/mar/19/premier-league-spending-rules-squad-cost-ratio#:~:text=Under squad cost ratio (SCR,the event of a breach.

[Pita]

14 hours ago, john ridley said:

That's right ,but I don't see them in the self inflicted mess we're in .

It’s just that our owners don’t have a clue about business 

[l444ry]

36 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

Aren't PL PSR rules changing next season anyway? 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/mar/19/premier-league-spending-rules-squad-cost-ratio#:~:text=Under squad cost ratio (SCR,the event of a breach.

Yes but not sure how this affects the Championship spending rules on salaries which are becoming much tighter next season. Need someone more clued up on these matters than me to explain the finer points to be honest.

[Les-TA-Jon]

21 minutes ago, l444ry said:

Yes but not sure how this affects the Championship spending rules on salaries which are becoming much tighter next season. Need someone more clued up on these matters than me to explain the finer points to be honest.

Yeah I guess, EFL and PL tried recently to more closely realign their PSR rules, but if PL is now moving to squad cost ratios, I don't know where that leaves EFL/Championship

[foxinsocks]

On 23/03/2026 at 11:14, Les-TA-Jon said:

Yeah I guess, EFL and PL tried recently to more closely realign their PSR rules, but if PL is now moving to squad cost ratios, I don't know where that leaves EFL/Championship

The epl need to change their rules following the "man city problem" - but they can't get the votes!
 

Meanwhile If you owe a bank millions they don't want to force you into administration.  The HMRC does force clubs in to admin but that is to send a message and they don't care about  the debt!

[Terraloon]

3 hours ago, foxinsocks said:

The epl need to change their rules following the "man city problem" - but they can't get the votes!
 

Meanwhile If you owe a bank millions they don't want to force you into administration.  The HMRC does force clubs in to admin but that is to send a message and they don't care about  the debt!

It’s the directors that are legally bound to steer clubs into administration. It’s one of a variety of actions that are deemed to be insolvency events and in the hands of the directors to invoke or potentially face charges for trading whilst insolvent.
 

Banks lend , not always, but more often than not knowing if the sh1t hits the fan they are to a large degree  protected having secured either a fixed and or floating charge over the entities  assets.

 

HMRC doesn’t force clubs into Administration what they do is issue WUO ( winding up orders) when clubs don’t pay the VAT, PAYE and Nic .They take such actions to “ Protect The Public Purse” and that doesn’t mean just dealing with debt already quantified but also to ensure that further debt doesn’t accrue. 
 

The Enterprise Act 2002 removed what was then The Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise from preferential creditor status and although that has to a degree returned the football creditor rule added a super creditor type which HMRC has challenged , unsuccessfully, but I wouldn’t rule out that the Labour Government and some point legislate to clarify.

 

It’s worth noting that the number  of WUOs issued by HMRC has decreased significantly. That to a  large degree is because clubs are more up to date with tax payments  if for no other reason than debt  not under control ( paid or subject to a time to pay agreement) leads to a transfer embargo as a minimum.

 

The EFL announced pre season that the Championship clubs were discussing the possibility of introducing SCR not a lot has been reported but I for one think it’s inevitable the only question will be what % of football revenue will be allowed to be spent on the squad. 
 

Some months ago I talked about how the likelihood was that spend limits over in % terms as opposed to a set sum £105 million) that is the mechanism that will in place in the PL post 25/26 . I can’t believe 14 clubs voted for SCR .

 

I am not sure exactly how it will play out but I genuinely believe that it will massively benefit the big 6 and yes they will be constrained to UEFas 70% that will be measured against a significantly number than those PL clubs that don’t feature in UEFA football. On that I suspect some clubs will possibly reject the opportunity of playing in the EL or the Conference because the prize money isn’t big enough

 

 

 

 

Edited 24 March by Terraloon

[Paninistickers]

6 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

deemed to be insolvency events and in the hands of the directors to invoke or potentially face charges for trading whilst insolvent.

My original take on Whelan leaving was to avoid potential personal liability and criminal charges. Reinforced when this patsy from Thailand was brought in

 

That idea has take a tumble tho since the new appointment of the chief accountant as CEO - unless of course he's not actually on the board of directors. If that were to be the case, can CEOs face personal criminal charges for trading whilst insolvent? 

[Terraloon]

2 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

My original take on Whelan leaving was to avoid potential personal liability and criminal charges. Reinforced when this patsy from Thailand was brought in

 

That idea has take a tumble tho since the new appointment of the chief accountant as CEO - unless of course he's not actually on the board of directors. If that were to be the case, can CEOs face personal criminal charges for trading whilst insolvent? 

Liability is limited( hence why we have Ltd companies ) so I very much doubt that she personally would have any liability although their is something called negligent employee which would include directors and those that hold senior but have not been directors but that is usually only invoked when an employee doesn’t ensure that their tax/ Nic is deducted correctly or the deductions aren’t submitted to HMRC. 
 

I believe  the legal responsibility rests with the directors when it comes to charges of trading whilst insolvent. 

[NextPlease]

32 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

My original take on Whelan leaving was to avoid potential personal liability and criminal charges. Reinforced when this patsy from Thailand was brought in

 

That idea has take a tumble tho since the new appointment of the chief accountant as CEO - unless of course he's not actually on the board of directors. If that were to be the case, can CEOs face personal criminal charges for trading whilst insolvent? 

Kevin Davies was already on the board listed at Companies House as Secretary, it has not been updated since appointed as CEO

[drew]

3 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

My original take on Whelan leaving was to avoid potential personal liability and criminal charges. Reinforced when this patsy from Thailand was brought in

 

That idea has take a tumble tho since the new appointment of the chief accountant as CEO - unless of course he's not actually on the board of directors. If that were to be the case, can CEOs face personal criminal charges for trading whilst insolvent? 

She can still be pulled in if the trading periods under scrutiny falls during her tenure.

The insolvency service came after me for a 6 week window where I was still a director of a company that started to fail due to the owner having a breakdown. I knew at the time i should have backdated my resignation, but hey ho, i fought them and won.

[Tommy G]

3 hours ago, NextPlease said:

Kevin Davies was already on the board listed at Companies House as Secretary, it has not been updated since appointed as CEO

I wouldn’t use companies house as a point of reference given the bloke can’t even file a confirmation statement on time. 

[Paninistickers]

9 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

I wouldn’t use companies house as a point of reference given the bloke can’t even file a confirmation statement on time. 

Most be like herding kittens for Davies tho, chasing the Khunt around Bangkok to sign off on the accounts he'd prepped months prior.

 

With all his busy schedule tik tokking, polo playing and screaming with laughter at relegations, he's a hard guy to pin down

[Terraloon]

9 hours ago, Tommy G said:

I wouldn’t use companies house as a point of reference given the bloke can’t even file a confirmation statement on time. 

Not wanting to defend anyone but trying to track filed documents on the Companies House website isn’t it seems the exact science it should be.

 

I noticed significant delays not just in LCFC but numerous other entities that I have viewed what I noticed is that a significant number were said to be late in filing confirmation statements.

 

In the case of LC the front screen on the record suggests that the confirmation statement was actually filed on 25/11/25

 

 

[MPH]

On 22/03/2026 at 07:18, john ridley said:

Looks like jumping  in bed with the devil  is gonna **** em up.They'll want their money,no ifs or buts.Nice one Top.

 

it’s a secured loan. Nothing new.

[foxinsocks]

19 hours ago, Terraloon said:

It’s the directors that are legally bound to steer clubs into administration. It’s one of a variety of actions that are deemed to be insolvency events and in the hands of the directors to invoke or potentially face charges for trading whilst insolvent.
 

Banks lend , not always, but more often than not knowing if the sh1t hits the fan they are to a large degree  protected having secured either a fixed and or floating charge over the entities  assets.

 

HMRC doesn’t force clubs into Administration what they do is issue WUO ( winding up orders) when clubs don’t pay the VAT, PAYE and Nic .They take such actions to “ Protect The Public Purse” and that doesn’t mean just dealing with debt already quantified but also to ensure that further debt doesn’t accrue. 
 

The Enterprise Act 2002 removed what was then The Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise from preferential creditor status and although that has to a degree returned the football creditor rule added a super creditor type which HMRC has challenged , unsuccessfully, but I wouldn’t rule out that the Labour Government and some point legislate to clarify.

 

It’s worth noting that the number  of WUOs issued by HMRC has decreased significantly. That to a  large degree is because clubs are more up to date with tax payments  if for no other reason than debt  not under control ( paid or subject to a time to pay agreement) leads to a transfer embargo as a minimum.

 

The EFL announced pre season that the Championship clubs were discussing the possibility of introducing SCR not a lot has been reported but I for one think it’s inevitable the only question will be what % of football revenue will be allowed to be spent on the squad. 
 

Some months ago I talked about how the likelihood was that spend limits over in % terms as opposed to a set sum £105 million) that is the mechanism that will in place in the PL post 25/26 . I can’t believe 14 clubs voted for SCR .

 

I am not sure exactly how it will play out but I genuinely believe that it will massively benefit the big 6 and yes they will be constrained to UEFas 70% that will be measured against a significantly number than those PL clubs that don’t feature in UEFA football. On that I suspect some clubs will possibly reject the opportunity of playing in the EL or the Conference because the prize money isn’t big enough

 

 

 

 

You are right and I was careless in my description of events.  My point was rather that a bank will try to compromise.  ie owe a bank £1000 and you have a problem; owe a bank £10,000,000 and they have a problem.  It is unlikely that a bank would call in a loan that the club could not replay.

[Chrysalis]

7 hours ago, foxinsocks said:

You are right and I was careless in my description of events.  My point was rather that a bank will try to compromise.  ie owe a bank £1000 and you have a problem; owe a bank £10,000,000 and they have a problem.  It is unlikely that a bank would call in a loan that the club could not replay.

Its secured from what I understand, when we run out of future EPL monies to secure against, then it gets more interesting when we secure against the ground, or seagrave.

Liverpool had a problem like that and the bank just basically resold the club to a new owner from under the old owners feet.

[Paninistickers]

7 hours ago, foxinsocks said:

You are right and I was careless in my description of events.  My point was rather that a bank will try to compromise.  ie owe a bank £1000 and you have a problem; owe a bank £10,000,000 and they have a problem.  It is unlikely that a bank would call in a loan that the club could not replay.

 

2 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Its secured from what I understand, when we run out of future EPL monies to secure against, then it gets more interesting when we secure against the ground, or seagrave.

Liverpool had a problem like that and the bank just basically resold the club to a new owner from under the old owners feet.

I'll gladly be wrong on this, but if we are talking about Macquirie, it isn't a secured loan on the usual sense. I've banged on and in about this, so apologise to those who've read this point before. 

 

The EPL are contractually due to pay us money - this June just past and next June..

 

As it is contractually due and pretty much certain we'll get it, the club has in essence sold those payments to Macquirie

 

In return Macquirie have given us the money in advance 

 

The security comes from Macquirie insisting that, should the EFL fold and not pay them, City need to pay them back instead. 

 

Meaning the only chance Macquirie come with daggers is if the EFL goes bankrupt - almost impossible. 

 

Which all means, this coming June, when we should have been getting 45m from the EPL, we instead get nothing. Macquirie gets it. 

 

Which means, I think we are well and truly fcked unless KP start financing the club again - something they haven't done for a good 8 years. 

[Claudio Fannieri]

Have a look at Watford’s latest accounts, 1sf year without parachute payments, it is a bleak picture. Especially if we do get relegated to league one. 

[Terraloon]

11 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

 

I'll gladly be wrong on this, but if we are talking about Macquirie, it isn't a secured loan on the usual sense. I've banged on and in about this, so apologise to those who've read this point before. 

 

The EPL are contractually due to pay us money - this June just past and next June..

 

As it is contractually due and pretty much certain we'll get it, the club has in essence sold those payments to Macquirie

 

In return Macquirie have given us the money in advance 

 

The security comes from Macquirie insisting that, should the EFL fold and not pay them, City need to pay them back instead. 

 

Meaning the only chance Macquirie come with daggers is if the EFL goes bankrupt - almost impossible. 

 

Which all means, this coming June, when we should have been getting 45m from the EPL, we instead get nothing. Macquirie gets it. 

 

Which means, I think we are well and truly fcked unless KP start financing the club again - something they haven't done for a good 8 years. 

 

The charges, they have aren’t just in respect of parachute payments , are numerous the club  have jumped into bed with Macquaire in respect of sums still owed  to  LC in respect of historical transfers. In effect any of those clubs default that will lead to trouble.  It appears that  the parachute payments probably aren’t paid in one sum in June as the charge has been extended into 2027.

 

If you look at the latest confirmation statement there has been quite an increase in equity , well there has been since we last saw the allocation of shares , Top himself seems now to have 30m £1 shares alongside increases in KP shares . That almost certainly is the announcement increase in equity where debt was converted to shares. 
 

I don’t want to defend Top/KPI but the fact that they have converted debt to equity does suggest that they have injected cash indeed Seagrave was built using their monies 

 

In reality cash is going to be the problem . Top may well have to put cash in but with those loans will now come an assumed charge to interest which will all add to the running costs.

 

 

 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

2 hours ago, Claudio Fannieri said:

Have a look at Watford’s latest accounts, 1sf year without parachute payments, it is a bleak picture. Especially if we do get relegated to league one. 

Insane numbers for a completely run of the mill club like Watford. The whole thing needs a total reset.