Leicester City Post Record Losses of £92.5m

[Rusko187]

Am I right in thinking the stadium expansion will be taken out of future TV earnings? I'm all for the expansion but if that's the case, would it not be more prudent to get the books balanced first and improving the team before we expand? I understand the need to increase our commercial appeal but it doesn't feel like we can afford to do it.

[Babylon]

9 minutes ago, Lcfcwigstonblue said:

They still had a net spend of £100m after the Grealish sale. 

His sale goes into one set of books, player purchases are amortised across length of contract, so probably 4 or 5 sets of accounts. 

[Babylon]

7 minutes ago, Rusko187 said:

Am I right in thinking the stadium expansion will be taken out of future TV earnings? I'm all for the expansion but if that's the case, would it not be more prudent to get the books balanced first and improving the team before we expand? I understand the need to increase our commercial appeal but it doesn't feel like we can afford to do it.

We don’t know how it will be paid for. Clearly income is usually used to fund it, of which tv income is a large chunk of it. But kingpower could fund it.

 

I think you are looking at the loans we get that are just secured against future revenue. They are just ongoing loan / overdraft facilities. 

[Finnegan]

16 hours ago, Matt said:

So you’re telling me Rodgers has been backed?
 

 

This is what's doing my head in about the people calling for the board to go.

 

That's £60m on players that barely get a kick. And you want him to put his hand in his pocket and go "okay, have some MORE money!"?

 

I agree Top could perhaps become more ruthless in holding people accountable but you can't really say he didn't free up the resources. 

[Ric Flair]

4 minutes ago, Babylon said:

His sale goes into one set of books, player purchases are amortised across length of contract, so probably 4 or 5 sets of accounts. 

Exactly, we've now been buying players post that title win influx for 6-7 years so the player amortisation in our accounts will be far higher than these new scrotes coming in to the Prem in the last 2-3 seasons and spending big but booking only a fifth of that to the accounts. 

 

We are paying the price for a) a period of success and attempting to keep pushing whilst the goings good and b) because we've been doing it now for several years.

 

The likes of Villa will soon run in to trouble.

[Rusko187]

2 minutes ago, Babylon said:

We don’t know how it will be paid for. Clearly income is usually used to fund it, of which tv income is a large chunk of it. But kingpower could fund it.

 

I think you are looking at the loans we get that are just secured against future revenue. They are just ongoing loan / overdraft facilities. 

Ahh, I was under the impression these loans were secured against the expansion. Not that I expect our owners to buy us a new ground, it would most certainly help if it was funded outside of the clubs means.

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

 

This is what's doing my head in about the people calling for the board to go.

 

That's £60m on players that barely get a kick. And you want him to put his hand in his pocket and go "okay, have some MORE money!"?

 

I agree Top could perhaps become more ruthless in holding people accountable but you can't really say he didn't free up the resources. 

Rudkin is Top's man, I think the last man standing at the club will be Rudkin if Top was held hostage and had to keep calling our names to be bumped off.

 

Our manager has orchestrated many failings in the last 2 seasons on and off the field and he was instrumental in the recruitment of Congerton who they were in tandem on new signings. Neither negotiate contracts, nor player sales and both of those areas have absolutely buried this club and show no signs of change either.

 

pWhen you read the reports that we offered that slob Jack Harrison £100k a week only a month or so ago then it's enough to want to smear yourself in fish paste and jump in a piranha tank.

 

Rudkin MUST go. If Top won't consider that, Top can bollocks as well.

[Rusko187]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

Rudkin is Top's man, I think the last man standing at the club will be Rudkin if Top was held hostage and had to keep calling our names to be bumped off.

 

Our manager has orchestrated many failings in the last 2 seasons on and off the field and he was instrumental in the recruitment of Congerton who they were in tandem on new signings. Neither negotiate contracts, nor player sales and both of those areas have absolutely buried this club and show no signs of change either.

 

pWhen you read the reports that we offered that slob Jack Harrison £100k a week only a month or so ago then it's enough to want to smear yourself in fish paste and jump in a piranha tank.

 

Rudkin MUST go. If Top won't consider that, Top can bollocks as well.

Nice

[Gamble92]

21 minutes ago, Lcfcwigstonblue said:

They still had a net spend of £100m after the Grealish sale. 

Because they've realised it's a necessity to stay in the league. Their first 11 is no way any better than our strongest. But they've maintained a decent depth and it's paid off in their points tally.

 

Our strategy has just been - well we have a "top" coach and team that finished 8th so we'll just about be okay if we get rid of the captain and don't buy anyone. Well done everyone at LCFC 

[Clever Fox]

3 hours ago, Sambiasso said:

Vardy is the clubs top earner. 

Soumares basic wage is 90k a week  

No wonder he didn't want to go back to France. I can't believe we're so stupid to be paying unproven players these sums of money.

 

Big money should be earned by way of bonus.

[LCFCJohn]

3 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Vardy took a pay cut on this latest deal. Thry'll all have relegation wage decreases too.

Is this fact? I can’t imagine this is just a done thing across the board, like Man City and Chelsea surely wouldn’t do this. If it’s the clubs discretion, based on the evidence of the stupid contracts handed out and the seeming head in the sand attitude towards the threat of relegation, I’d be surprised if they had even considered it!

[Babylon]

9 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

No wonder he didn't want to go back to France. I can't believe we're so stupid to be paying unproven players these sums of money.

 

Big money should be earned by way of bonus.

Nobody knows what he earns. 

[Babylon]

38 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Rudkin is Top's man, I think the last man standing at the club will be Rudkin if Top was held hostage and had to keep calling our names to be bumped off.

 

Our manager has orchestrated many failings in the last 2 seasons on and off the field and he was instrumental in the recruitment of Congerton who they were in tandem on new signings. Neither negotiate contracts, nor player sales and both of those areas have absolutely buried this club and show no signs of change either.

 

pWhen you read the reports that we offered that slob Jack Harrison £100k a week only a month or so ago then it's enough to want to smear yourself in fish paste and jump in a piranha tank.

 

Rudkin MUST go. If Top won't consider that, Top can bollocks as well.

It's a difficult one, do we expect him to know the ins and outs of every player and their worth? Or should that be the remit of the head scouts, who should really be putting a monetary worth on a player for the more non football people to use when negotiating. 

[Ric Flair]

6 minutes ago, LCFCJohn said:

Is this fact? I can’t imagine this is just a done thing across the board, like Man City and Chelsea surely wouldn’t do this. If it’s the clubs discretion, based on the evidence of the stupid contracts handed out and the seeming head in the sand attitude towards the threat of relegation, I’d be surprised if they had even considered it!

That's what I've been told but as you say when you see the mess we've gotten in to, see the numbers and then hear reports we've recently offered Jack Harrison 100k a week then there's a worry we won't have done and we're set for financial ruin if we drop.

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

It's a difficult one, do we expect him to know the ins and outs of every player and their worth? Or should that be the remit of the head scouts, who should really be putting a monetary worth on a player for the more non football people to use when negotiating. 

I think it's the overall policy of how we've negotiated player salaries. It's materially changes as expected but we've been very naive, stupid or generous on some of the salaries we've dished out from the off to either squad players or new players full stop.

 

I understand the rewarding of successful players, even if that then turns out to be a mistake but I'd hope we'd have a more flexible and performance based structure on wages. It's staggering compared to some clubs.

 

Equally as galling, has been our inability or refusal to remove unwanted players. I think we've had an inflated opinion on worth of said players and are paying the price for that. 

[Babylon]

Just now, Ric Flair said:

I think it's the overall policy of how we've negotiated player salaries. It's materially changes as expected but we've been very naive, stupid or generous on some of the salaries we've dished out from the off to either squad players or new players full stop.

 

I understand the rewarding of successful players, even if that then turns out to be a mistake but I'd hope we'd have a more flexible and performance based structure on wages. It's staggering compared to some clubs.

 

Equally as galling, has been our inability or refusal to remove unwanted players. I think we've had an inflated opinion on worth of said players and are paying the price for that. 

There is a bit more context to it, many players have renewed their contracts several times over. You can argue they are on too much money now, but losing them means you have to buy a new player and pay the wages. So it's often cheaper to renew and over pay a bit in terms of wages. 

[RoboFox]

Only now are we feeling the full ramifications of our perennial European bottling. 

 

 

[Simoken]

and this is the reason why they need to sell up the club, they cant compete anymore.

[Simoken]

2 hours ago, Lcfcwigstonblue said:

Villa have a lower turnover than us.

similar wages.

spent £100m yet still made a profit.

think we need their accountants

because they have commercial value, LCFC dont, simple as. Villa is a huge club compared.

[ClaphamFox]

5 minutes ago, Simoken said:

and this is the reason why they need to sell up the club, they cant compete anymore.

Richer owners would not exempt us from FFP rules.

[Stadt]

We have to spend big to compete with reckless spenders Brentford and Brighton.

 

 

A lot of this could have been avoided if the higher ups understand the general trajectory of the club. I know for a fact bad news doesn't go up the chain very well.

[Simoken]

I cant stand our business model, relying on selling 1 big player a season to fund and keep us a float. its depressing. We are the Southampton of the midlands.

[Spudulike]

18 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Only now are we feeling the full ramifications of our perennial European bottling. 

 

 

Although we most probably would have signed players for higher transfer fees/wages to compete in the UCL which we now can't shift (unless in the unlikely event they were actually any good). Congerton's recruitment history may well have caused even more damage. 

[alanf0x]

5 minutes ago, Simoken said:

I cant stand our business model, relying on selling 1 big player a season to fund and keep us a float. its depressing. We are the Southampton of the midlands.

I know a lot of clubs from the midlands that would swap places with us!! 

[Babylon]

26 minutes ago, Simoken said:

I cant stand our business model, relying on selling 1 big player a season to fund and keep us a float. its depressing. We are the Southampton of the midlands.

So, you suggest what exactly as a business model?