Financial implications of relegation?

[gerblod]

4 hours ago, SafewayFox said:

You could argue they’re a gutless bunch anyway.

 

All Dad jokes aside, financially we’re in a bad place so what do you think we’ll do mate?

 

Shrew signings, loans and a couple promoted from the academy is a necessity.

Not sure about signing shrews, but dad jokes aside, you pose me an interesting and taxing question.

Shrewd signings are difficult when every hopeful is under scrutiny - you put your trust in perceptive scouts and then being able to persuade the likely lad we've still got potential.

Amartey, Faes and Souttar will probably remain. I hope Mendy stays too. I still think Thomas and KDH are passable Prem players under the right management. Iversen might stay too, but Ward is ok at Championship level (I hope). Will Vardy give it another season or retire? Daka will stay. Justin is being scouted by some Italian outfit, so I've heard, but his injury will mean him staying a while. So we could get some mileage out of him. Castagne? He's good enough for top-level teams. Praet - I just don't know about him.

We need a strong character to lead the team. Not necessarily that skilful, but a determined and  positive role model. Madders has been the driving force for several seasons now. Will Sharky return? For me he'd be a cornerstone of a fresh team.

Robins would be an excellent replacement manager - in fact, I'd be a better boss than Bodgers, 😜.

But, if relegated, they need to return straightaway - we could be dwelling in the doldrums for an unspecified time if we don't.

There you are - I've stated nothing that any halfwit supporter could have said. Get the pay structure sorted and Whelan and Rudkin out is a start as well. Top has shown that he's not in the same league as Vichai. He's been listening to his heart and not his head. And maybe trying to concentrate on the subsidiary side of LCFC - his vanity projects.

[gerblod]

3 hours ago, Foxy-Lady said:

A Question for the accounts among us....

 

 

According to the latest financial accounts, we had an operating loss of (£93m) last season and a loss of (£31m) the season before meaning consolidated operating losses of (£124m) over the past 2 seasons.

 

Part of the The income from the Fofana sale (£45m/) is deferred into this seasons accounts which provides some relief but as Turnover is very unlikely to have signficantly increased and Costs are unlikely to have significantly decreased, its quite likely that we will be looking at yet another sizeable operating loss again this year.

My understanding was that King Power had written off our debt to them but i dont think this includes Operating losses?

 

So my question is....how come no-one seems to be mentioning that we are carrying significant operating losses REGARDLESS of the outcome this season (ie PL or championship?)?

If we are relegated this season the situation will obviously become exponentially worse......but we are pretty much in the s*** either way if we are continuing to make such huge operating losses even before we get relegated and lose significant amounts of revenue from TV/Sponsorship deals.

 

Am i missing something here...?!?

 

(PS   Incidentally, King Power writing off our debt to them actually means it is now far easier for them to SELL the club to interested parties so im not totally convinced there wasn't an ulterior motive to the timing of this "gesture"......just a thought!) 

👏

[reynard]

Really looks as if everything will depend upon how much we can get from player sales to finance any squad rebuild as well as most of the daily operating costs considering the considerable drop in Tv revenue next season in the Championship.

 

In August 2022 the club secured a loan against future premier league payments upto and including July 2025. That was later renewed to include the start of the 2025-2026 season. I'm not sure the sum of the loan has ever been divulged. But this was to cover anything and everything from transfers to everyday running costs and was, presumably, to help with cash flow, considering our high losses announced in this year's financial statement. As I understand it next season's parachute payments will be paid directly to the bank and we will see none of it at all. This would then be the same for the next season as well. What I'm not clear on is if any of the 25/26 season's payments are also being used as a loan guarantee. Also the club would receive considerably more Tv payments in the Premier League than the Championship so not clear how the bank would approach the reduced amount.

Also there will be interest on the loan as well.

 

Another completely different loan of around 46 million was taken out against the transfer money from the Fofana sale. So the rest must already have been used or paid to his previous club or both. Chelsea will repay their final two payments direct to the bank to cover the loan. So the Fofana money has basically gone already.

Assuming the out of contract players will not be kept, thus helping to reduce the wage bill, it is obvious we will need to sell a good number of other players to both further reduce the wage bill but also to bring in much needed revenue.

So

Maddison 40 maybe 50 million

Barnes 30 Million

 

the rest basically small amounts.

Castagne 10 million

Praet  4 million  etc etc.

 

 So we may be able to raise around 100 million but that will be a big part of main income for the next two seasons and with that we will need to find 10-15 new players plus their wages and agent fees.

There are also likely to be fairly significant operating losses this season too considering our league placement payments will drop quite a bit and we have not significantly reduced the overall wage bill.

 

Unless there really are significant relegation clauses for most players we are going to struggle and to say things will be tight will be an understatement.

Sadly the real losers will be the non playing staff, a great many of whose jobs will be under threat.

[desertfox2]

5 hours ago, Mee-9 said:

Do you think we would look a good prospect for a buyer if we went down?

 

Own the ground now, training facility, big fanbase.

 

Think anyone would see us a bargain? 

It's not that there wouldn't be people interested. It's are they the right people for the long term future of the club? A lot of people might be interested, but only doing it by debt financing which is the last thing we need. Basically a pound shop version of the Glaziers is what you would get. With very little of their own money at risk. Finding a new owner that would fund it all himself won't be easy as they would have to take over the debts, Top would want money and they wouldn't really be able to spend much on the team because of the losses we are carrying for FFP. For someone with a serious amount of money and we are talking Billionaire status they will want to go and splash the cash with their new club. They couldn't do that here as we have those FFP losses like a weight around our necks. We wouldn't be a bargain buy anyway. Most of the Championship would be for sale to someone like that and they wouldn't have our losses. 

 

Top just needs to clear house and get rid of Rudkin, Whelan and put in honest and competent people who won't just blow smoke and will tell him exactly what is wrong without sugar coating it. They then need to make sure that everything is tidied up behind the scenes.  That's why we did so well with Pearson. He doesn't suffer fools and he tells it how it is. It doesn't make him popular but it works. We need that kind of honesty throughout the club. Heads need to roll and we need to bounce back at all costs in the first season. 

Edited 10 May 2023 by desertfox2
Spell

[st albans fox]

I was having a think because I’d listened to ric’s podcast and they were getting v irate about wages. 
fwiw, I think some of the stuff that’s been tweeted as being accurate isn’t - we certainly didn’t renew Ricky for more than 70k after his injury woes 

 

anyway, Kieran maguire mentioned earlier that relegation clauses of approx 25% were pretty standard in PL contracts 

Percy had written last month that we had 35-50% clauses on our players

 

and that’s what got me wondering - have we we managed to write larger clauses into our contracts because we are effectively ‘over paying’ them ?? 

certainly hope so 

 

[Foxy-Lady]

6 hours ago, reynard said:

Really looks as if everything will depend upon how much we can get from player sales to finance any squad rebuild as well as most of the daily operating costs considering the considerable drop in Tv revenue next season in the Championship.

 

In August 2022 the club secured a loan against future premier league payments upto and including July 2025. That was later renewed to include the start of the 2025-2026 season. I'm not sure the sum of the loan has ever been divulged. But this was to cover anything and everything from transfers to everyday running costs and was, presumably, to help with cash flow, considering our high losses announced in this year's financial statement. As I understand it next season's parachute payments will be paid directly to the bank and we will see none of it at all. This would then be the same for the next season as well. What I'm not clear on is if any of the 25/26 season's payments are also being used as a loan guarantee. Also the club would receive considerably more Tv payments in the Premier League than the Championship so not clear how the bank would approach the reduced amount.

Also there will be interest on the loan as well.

 

Another completely different loan of around 46 million was taken out against the transfer money from the Fofana sale. So the rest must already have been used or paid to his previous club or both. Chelsea will repay their final two payments direct to the bank to cover the loan. So the Fofana money has basically gone already.

Assuming the out of contract players will not be kept, thus helping to reduce the wage bill, it is obvious we will need to sell a good number of other players to both further reduce the wage bill but also to bring in much needed revenue.

So

Maddison 40 maybe 50 million

Barnes 30 Million

 

the rest basically small amounts.

Castagne 10 million

Praet  4 million  etc etc.

 

 So we may be able to raise around 100 million but that will be a big part of main income for the next two seasons and with that we will need to find 10-15 new players plus their wages and agent fees.

There are also likely to be fairly significant operating losses this season too considering our league placement payments will drop quite a bit and we have not significantly reduced the overall wage bill.

 

Unless there really are significant relegation clauses for most players we are going to struggle and to say things will be tight will be an understatement.

Sadly the real losers will be the non playing staff, a great many of whose jobs will be under threat.

So....in a nutshell...

 

- in the event of relegation, the sale of Maddison, Barnes & any others will realise about enough money to just about cover our projected operating loss for this season (-£90m?).....but we still carry a  -£100m consolidated deficit from the past 2 seasons

- The remaining fofana transfer money appears to have been already leveraged in the form of loans re-payable directly to the bank.

- The reduction in player wages (did JR really have the foresight to put in a -25% clause??) and mass redundancies elsewhere might be sufficient to offset the reduced income from TV and sponsorship deals.

 

.......and then we have to set about rebuilding a squad to compete in the championship from the remaining players with ZERO money, less income from matchday revenue and still potentially carrying the operating losses from the previous 2 seasons.

 

Thats basically what i was figuring when i asked my original question  (ie.....we are in the s***!!!)

 

 

[st albans fox]

Just now, Foxy-Lady said:

So....in a nutshell...

 

- in the event of relegation, the sale of Maddison, Barnes & any others will realise about enough money to just about cover our projected operating loss for this season (-£90m?).....but we still carry a  -£100m consolidated deficit from the past 2 seasons

- The remaining fofana transfer money appears to have been already leveraged in the form of loans re-payable directly to the bank.

- The reduction in player wages (did JR really have the foresight to put in a -25% clause??) and mass redundancies elsewhere might be sufficient to offset the reduced income from TV and sponsorship deals.

 

.......and then we have to set about rebuilding a squad to compete in the championship from the remaining players with ZERO money, less income from matchday revenue and still potentially carrying the operating losses from the previous 2 seasons.

 

Thats basically what i was figuring when i asked my original question  (ie.....we are in the s***!!!)

 

I think player sales will bring in more than enough to cover the shortfall next season.  the risks of not bouncing back are huge ref the following season. . Hence I believe the club will take quite a risk to keep as many good players as they can whilst taking in enough to cover that shortfall.  The salary reduction clauses seem to be pretty standard - but some players will demand to be sold if their salaries drop significantly and they can get a deal in the PL which covers the loss. 
 

hopefully someone will manage this or it could easily become an absolute sh1tshow  - this is a big concern. (As is the new coach)  

[Chrysalis]

On 09/05/2023 at 19:18, Babylon said:

Parachute payments are £40m+ for next season, on top of probably a turnover generated of £20-£25m. Plus sales of players, Maddison alone I’m sure is going to fetch at the very least £35m, but I’d be expecting more like £40-45m with a few interested clubs. So we’d be looking at an income of around £100m at least. Sell Praet, Castaneda, Vesty, Nacho and there has to be another £40m there at least in income. 
 

We don’t have to pay everything to the bank, it’s staged, it can be refinanced if we need to, KP could step in if they wanted to. We also have cash at hand in the bank and KP had cash facilities available to the club in the last accounts. 
 

So long as we have wage reductions for all players. I see no panic right now.

 

 

Well it does looks ok if we pretend we have 40 million we wont have, I give you that.

 

Current wage bill considerably above 100million, how much does it reduce when you take off the players out of contract plus maddison.

 

Refinancing (with even higher interest) isnt a solution, its kicking the can down the road.  Thats also even if the bank allows us to do that.  All the loans have been secured from that bank, what would the refinanced loan be secured on?

Edited 10 May 2023 by Chrysalis

[moore_94]

6 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Well it does looks ok if we pretend we have 40 million we wont have, I give you that.

 

Current wage bill considerably above 100million, how much does it reduce when you take off the players out of contract plus maddison.

 

Refinancing (with even higher interest) isnt a solution, its kicking the can down the road.  Thats also even if the bank allows us to do that.  All the loans have been secured from that bank, what would the refinanced loan be secured on?

From Kieran Maguire today regarding Macquarie:

 

City have at least £70m owed to Macquarie, but Maguire does not believe it is in the bank’s interest to call that in and put the club’s future at risk. In the event of administration, they could miss out on some of the money they’re owed.

 

Burnley, who have bounced back immediately to the Premier League under Vincent Kompany following relegation last season, also have loans with Macquarie.

 

Maguire said: “Your parachute payments, if the worst happens, will be about £42m, of which I think quite a lot of that will be ring-fenced for Macquarie. How much Macquarie are due to be repaid we don’t know, but that’s always a cause for concern.

 

“It’s in Macquarie’s interest for Leicester City to still be around. That’s looking at it from a positive point of view. Macquarie were quite happy to take on Burnley’s parachute payment issues at the start of this season and they’ve come straight back. It’s not a nightmare but it’s going to require a lot of hard work at board level.

 

“Burnley had a deal originally with MSD Holdings who are one of the other big lenders. They transferred that to Macquarie. The fact that Macquarie were prepared to take on the finances of a Championship club is indicative that they’re reasonably fair.

 

“It’s not in their interest to call in the loan. It works out as being very expensive. If they go into administration, you’re not guaranteed to get all of your money back and it all starts to get very messy.”

[Chrysalis]

11 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

From Kieran Maguire today regarding Macquarie:

 

City have at least £70m owed to Macquarie, but Maguire does not believe it is in the bank’s interest to call that in and put the club’s future at risk. In the event of administration, they could miss out on some of the money they’re owed.

 

Burnley, who have bounced back immediately to the Premier League under Vincent Kompany following relegation last season, also have loans with Macquarie.

 

Maguire said: “Your parachute payments, if the worst happens, will be about £42m, of which I think quite a lot of that will be ring-fenced for Macquarie. How much Macquarie are due to be repaid we don’t know, but that’s always a cause for concern.

 

“It’s in Macquarie’s interest for Leicester City to still be around. That’s looking at it from a positive point of view. Macquarie were quite happy to take on Burnley’s parachute payment issues at the start of this season and they’ve come straight back. It’s not a nightmare but it’s going to require a lot of hard work at board level.

 

“Burnley had a deal originally with MSD Holdings who are one of the other big lenders. They transferred that to Macquarie. The fact that Macquarie were prepared to take on the finances of a Championship club is indicative that they’re reasonably fair.

 

“It’s not in their interest to call in the loan. It works out as being very expensive. If they go into administration, you’re not guaranteed to get all of your money back and it all starts to get very messy.”

I dont disagree with that, but there is a big difference between going into admin and just having no transfer budget.

 

Did Burnley get a deferral for a year then?

 

What I would consider an adequate way forward and as compensation for his mistakes is Top clearing the loan with his personal wealth or transferring the loan to KP, and giving an assurance he wont secure future monies ever again under his ownership.  Future funding would either be via KP loans, cash injections or turnover, no interest paid.

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, Chrysalis said:

I dont disagree with that, but there is a big difference between going into admin and just having no transfer budget.

 

Did Burnley get a deferral for a year then?

 

What I would consider an adequate way forward and as compensation for his mistakes is Top clearing the loan with his personal wealth or transferring the loan to KP, and giving an assurance he wont secure future monies ever again under his ownership.  Future funding would either be via KP loans, cash injections or turnover, no interest paid.

Burnley owed about £60m to banks or other external lenders at relegation.  However, the club had been trading profitably for many years (£10m profit before costs of player purchases and income from player sales in the relegation year) and perhaps were in a better position than you.  (The debts had all been run up to pay off the previous owners who were happy to take £160m out of the club.)

 

Anyway, the parachute money went to the lenders leaving "only" £20m loan.  Every saleable player, apart from Roberts, Taylor, Brownhill, and Peacock-Farrell, was sold, total £70m.  Other players with no resale value that were kept were Barnes, Rodriguez, Gudmondsson, Cork.  That was literally all the players from last year's squad that were retained.

 

Of the £70, about £20m was spent on players in summer, and another £15m or so in the January window.  Four important players (plus one unimportant one!) were signed on loan, one of which (Beyer) has now been signed on permanent.  Wage bill cut by significantly more than half, from £90m to (believed) about £35,-£40m.  

 

Heaven knows how they did it, except that obviously the appointment of Kompany was a masterstroke.  (Signed a new 5-year contract this week, so at least he isn't going to Spurs or Chelsea this summer!).  Can it be done again?  Who knows.

[Chrysalis]

7 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Burnley owed about £60m to banks or other external lenders at relegation.  However, the club had been trading profitably for many years (£10m profit before costs of player purchases and income from player sales in the relegation year) and perhaps were in a better position than you.  (The debts had all been run up to pay off the previous owners who were happy to take £160m out of the club.)

 

Anyway, the parachute money went to the lenders leaving "only" £20m loan.  Every saleable player, apart from Roberts, Taylor, Brownhill, and Peacock-Farrell, was sold, total £70m.  Other players with no resale value that were kept were Barnes, Rodriguez, Gudmondsson, Cork.  That was literally all the players from last year's squad that were retained.

 

Of the £70, about £20m was spent on players in summer, and another £15m or so in the January window.  Four important players (plus one unimportant one!) were signed on loan, one of which (Beyer) has now been signed on permanent.  Wage bill cut by significantly more than half, from £90m to (believed) about £35,-£40m.  

 

Heaven knows how they did it, except that obviously the appointment of Kompany was a masterstroke.  (Signed a new 5-year contract this week, so at least he isn't going to Spurs or Chelsea this summer!).  Can it be done again?  Who knows.

So they were on a better financial footing than us then.  The main difference for us we have been losing a crap ton of money year on year now. They had to overcome losing most of parachute money, with us and its also overcoming a operating loss.

 

I suppose it depends on how much we can raise from sales, how much we can reduce the wage bill and if thats not enough if top will inject some more into the club.

 

It does feel lately we have been trying to take shortcuts, Rodgers replacement looked like not too much effort was made, recent player signings are not of the same quality as earlier ones.  Burnley showing if you get acquisition right, run things well behind the scenes it can work, indeed as a club we have done that ourselves in the past, it isnt all about money for on the pitch success.

 

If there is any options of keeping players, I would like to keep Nacho, he at least stood out as trying before he got injured and would be comfortably scoring in the championship I think.

Edited 11 May 2023 by Chrysalis

[dsr-burnley]

5 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

If there is any options of keeping players, I would like to keep Nacho, he at least stood out as trying before he got injured and would be comfortably scoring in the championship I think.

Any chance of keeping Vardy?  I reckon he would score goals in the Championship.  Barnes and Rodriguez managed 17 between them even though it was always either/or, they scarcely ever were both on the pitch at the same time.  There's a new lease of life available for a past-his-best striker who knows where the goal is, when he drops down a division.

 

The training ground could be a white elephant, I suppose.  Burnley's cost £11m to build and I suspect that the running costs are proportionately less as well. 

[Chrysalis]

6 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Any chance of keeping Vardy?  I reckon he would score goals in the Championship.  Barnes and Rodriguez managed 17 between them even though it was always either/or, they scarcely ever were both on the pitch at the same time.  There's a new lease of life available for a past-his-best striker who knows where the goal is, when he drops down a division.

 

The training ground could be a white elephant, I suppose.  Burnley's cost £11m to build and I suspect that the running costs are proportionately less as well. 

I think we would keep Vardy unless he foregoes his contract.

 

Vardy and Nacho would be devastating in the championship.

 

Also not only do I agree with you on the training ground, we actually still have our old training ground, so are paying for two grounds, how many clubs maintain two training grounds?

Edited 11 May 2023 by Chrysalis

[dsr-burnley]

1 minute ago, Chrysalis said:

I think we would keep Vardy unless he foregoes his contract.

 

Vardy and Nacho would be devastating in the championship.

Exactly.  If you want to imitate a Burnley side that goes straight back up, Dyche's 2016 side might be a better example to follow.  Basically consisted of 2 goalscoring forwards (Gray and Vokes, because Barnes was injured that year) and 9 support players.  Mind you, Heaton in goal and Keane and Mee centre halves was a pretty solid back end as well.

 

This year was obviously totally different, with all three wingers getting into double figures and the centre forwards playing more "false 9" type.

 

You might stay up yet.  Southampton are gone, I'm praying for Leeds to join them, and there's only one place left.  I'd quite like Forest to have that one.

[Babylon]

12 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

Well it does looks ok if we pretend we have 40 million we wont have, I give you that.

 

Current wage bill considerably above 100million, how much does it reduce when you take off the players out of contract plus maddison.

 

Refinancing (with even higher interest) isnt a solution, its kicking the can down the road.  Thats also even if the bank allows us to do that.  All the loans have been secured from that bank, what would the refinanced loan be secured on?

Why do you keep saying we don’t have the £40m. We do, it doesn’t go to them, it goes to us. It’s just a security, if we don’t pay they can take it away. 
 

The money owed to them was staged payments until 2026 and we were already in discussions some time ago to extend this for a further two years, it’s in the accounts. And yes, of course it’s a solution… extending the length of time to repay something is literally one of the first things anyone with any debt that may cause them issues would do, odd comment. Refinancing could also include KP taking on the debt and us owing them. 

 

There is absolutely nothing to gain by them putting us in financial trouble. Like any company who you owe money to, it’s in their interests to help… as they have done other clubs. 
 

It can be secured on any number of things, land being one of them. 

Edited 11 May 2023 by Babylon

[StanSP]

The wages here are obscene for some players. Astronomical. 

 

Soumare, Perez, Amartey, KDH, Vestergaard, Evans, Praet have no business being on money that high. 

 

What was the club thinking?! Rudkin at the forefront? 

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

The wages here are obscene for some players. Astronomical. 

 

Soumare, Perez, Amartey, KDH, Vestergaard, Evans, Praet have no business being on money that high. 

 

What was the club thinking?! Rudkin at the forefront? 

They are also made up, guess work…

Edited 11 May 2023 by Babylon

[dmayne7]

4 minutes ago, Babylon said:

They are also fictitious, made up, guess work…

We don't really know the wages. Somebody else provided other figures which are also blatantly wrong (on the other end of the scale). Even with the accounts, I'm sure that includes non-playing staff, bonus clauses etc. What we do know is that we've given out some bloody ridiculous wages 

[Babylon]

Just now, dmayne7 said:

We don't really know the wages. Somebody else provided other figures which are also blatantly wrong (on the other end of the scale). Even with the accounts, I'm sure that includes non-playing staff, bonus clauses etc. What we do know is that we've given out some bloody ridiculous wages 

Indeed, the accounts include directors and 400 regular staff and hundreds of irregular I think, bonuses, benefits in kind, youth teams etc.

 

These high figures are from beyond simplistic calculations of taking a total wage figure and trying to fit it to our squad of players. 

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

23 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Indeed, the accounts include directors and 400 regular staff and hundreds of irregular I think, bonuses, benefits in kind, youth teams etc.

 

These high figures are from beyond simplistic calculations of taking a total wage figure and trying to fit it to our squad of players. 

Total amount is known though, which is circa 180m on a club that trades at 220m in a year with European football. They won't be a million miles off but they are probably wrong.

[Chrysalis]

8 hours ago, Babylon said:

Why do you keep saying we don’t have the £40m. We do, it doesn’t go to them, it goes to us. It’s just a security, if we don’t pay they can take it away. 
 

The money owed to them was staged payments until 2026 and we were already in discussions some time ago to extend this for a further two years, it’s in the accounts. And yes, of course it’s a solution… extending the length of time to repay something is literally one of the first things anyone with any debt that may cause them issues would do, odd comment. Refinancing could also include KP taking on the debt and us owing them. 

 

There is absolutely nothing to gain by them putting us in financial trouble. Like any company who you owe money to, it’s in their interests to help… as they have done other clubs. 
 

It can be secured on any number of things, land being one of them. 

We dont have it for cashflow, its going to the bank (as things stand).  Of course I dont know if its exactly 40 million I used that figure from your reply, we dont know the specifics, but it will not be available to spend.

 

Refinancing can help short term, but the ultimate solution to debt is to get rid of it.

 

Pay day loan is the worst type, as thats a case of borrowing money just for cash flow purposes.

[Babylon]

26 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

We dont have it for cashflow, its going to the bank (as things stand).  Of course I dont know if its exactly 40 million I used that figure from your reply, we dont know the specifics, but it will not be available to spend.

 

Refinancing can help short term, but the ultimate solution to debt is to get rid of it.

 

Pay day loan is the worst type, as thats a case of borrowing money just for cash flow purposes.

But that’s my point, it won’t all be going to the bank. £70m repayable over 23-24, 24/25, 25/26 (we were already in discussions to extend it two years). 
 

So it could be 20-£25m, or £14-18m if we extend for two years without any changes. Whilst clearly a substantial figure, it’s not going to be ALL of the money. 
 

We are highly likely to come to some agreement to reduce it further because we simply have to. 
 

Im probably being overly pedantic on things because I keep seeing people talking like ALL of our premier league money had already been given away for three years, and it’s driving me mad. 

[Les-TA-Jon]

Squad is a mess...

 

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

 

Im probably being overly pedantic on things because I keep seeing people talking like ALL of our premier league money had already been given away for three years, and it’s driving me mad. 

You’re not being over pedantic 

many are being over pessimistic 

 

it’s in the bank’s interest (pardon the pun) for us to be viable and to return at the earliest opportunity 

 

we will renegotiate loans and terms if we need to

 

id say the biggest issue is the commitment of KP in the championship 

 

A year ago they thought they were sitting on an easily saleable asset of £250/300m. (Excluding the £200m owed to them - £450m if you include it)