Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
ClaphamFox

Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

By ClaphamFox, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Ian S

Ian S

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, The_77 said:

That Forest are risking an increased sanction by appealing their punishment makes me think they are confident they will get their points deduction reduced further or eliminated. 

So the answer to my question is none then.

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Sunbury Fox said:

How did they manage that??

Their spending last summer was post end June 

and if they spent £120m then only £24 of that goes down as a negative in their annual accounts 

the numbers for 23/24 won’t be as good 

 

its huge wages that kills you and we became experts 

Edited by st albans fox
  • Like 2
Mistyblue

Mistyblue

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Their spending last summer was post end June 

and if they spent £120m then only £24 of that goes down as a negative in their annual accounts 

the numbers for 23/24 won’t be as good 

 

its huge wages that kills you and we became experts 

“The Club also recognised a gain of £71.4m upon the write off of shareholder loans”  I think this was to do with the take over/new owners , bur seems strange (I am no expert) but is certainly  a one off

Terraloon

Terraloon

Posted
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Sunbury Fox said:

How did they manage that??

Shareholders wrote off loans of £71 million which has been shown as exceptional income .Dont think that is allowed when it comes to FFP/PSR 

Edited by Terraloon
  • Like 2
ClaphamFox

ClaphamFox

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, Mistyblue said:

“The Club also recognised a gain of £71.4m upon the write off of shareholder loans”  I think this was to do with the take over/new owners , bur seems strange (I am no expert) but is certainly  a one off

Yes, this bit is crucial. When their new owner took over, he wrote off £71.4m in loans to the previous owner, which was recorded as income. Without that, they'd have made a loss.

  • Like 1
Chrysalis

Chrysalis

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

It will come as a surprise to them 

fortunately the auditors should be on top of it …..

 

imagine we end up in the gazette for compulsory s /off !

I can see it now.

 

LCFC press statement.

 

"The bank holiday was not forthcoming, and we are the victims of continued unforeseen problems  Our legal team is on the case".

  • Like 1
Terraloon

Terraloon

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Good financial management?

Their wages and amortisation alone accounts for over 100% of their turnover. The £71 million distorts matters beyond belief 

  • Like 2
Chrysalis

Chrysalis

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Terraloon said:

Their wages and amortisation alone accounts for over 100% of their turnover. The £71 million distorts matters beyond belief 

You have the wages to turnover figures?

Terraloon

Terraloon

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

You have the wages to turnover figures?

Page 15 of their report

 

Turnover                    £140.983 million

Player sale profit.     £. 1.898 

Other operating Inc   £. 2.035

Total.                            £144.916 million 

 

Staff Costs.               £100.109 million

Amortisation.            £42.710

Agent fees.                  £5.058

( source FA )

Total.                            £147.877 million

Edited by Terraloon
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
ClaphamFox

ClaphamFox

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

I can see it now.

 

LCFC press statement.

 

"The bank holiday was not forthcoming, and we are the victims of continued unforeseen problems  Our legal team is on the case".

We're going to sue the Eastern Christian churches for deciding to hold the Easter break this weekend. We need to protect ourselves against unlawful acts from the authorities, and we remain committed to ensure that any further moveable feasts are properly and proportionately determined, in accordance with the applicable rules, by the right bodies, and at the right time.

Edited by ClaphamFox
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Chrysalis

Chrysalis

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Page 15 of their report

 

Turnover                    £140.983 million

Player sale profit.     £. 1.898 

Other operating Inc   £. 2.035

Total.                            £144.916 million 

 

Staff Costs.               £100.109 million

Amortisation.            £42.710

Agent fees.                  £5.058

( source FA )

Total.                            £147.877 million

Interesting, I think their wages % not as bad as ours got, but there is a fair chunk of change on amortisation dragging it up, although well within permitted losses.

The_77

The_77

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Ian S said:

So the answer to my question is none then.

And how many have actually been charged under these rules?  We’re not dealing with very much precedent here.

PAULCFC

PAULCFC

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, PAULCFC said:

Am i right in thinking the accounts have to be filed by 31 of this month(Sunday)?With Friday being a bank holiday,Has anyone told the board about this?

Sorry to double quote this..........but does anybody expect them to get this right!......yes i'm not the greatest fan of the board!

Edited by PAULCFC
eblair

eblair

Posted
Posted

Last years were 9 days late on CH. There’s a lag between CH receiving and publishing so wouldn’t get too het up when they’re not up until next week

  • Like 4
LCFCJohn

LCFCJohn

Posted
Posted
On 27/03/2024 at 01:55, Mr Weller 2 said:

That’s my point. Poor judgement is part of the game (any game) but the punishment is that it might lead to losing a point/goal/ race/match etc. There shouldn’t also be an additional punishment imposed by the ruling authority.

 

i.e you don’t punish a poor pass by giving the opposition a penalty 

A poor pass is not against the laws/rules of the game. If a law/rule of the game is broken on the pitch (I.e bad foul) it is punished so unsure of the point you are trying to make.

 

Off the pitch, a poor decision that doesn’t break rules would not be punished, I.e the odd duff signing. If you make enough bad decisions over and over until you are breaking the financial laws of the game, of course you should get punished. 
 

Your point is like saying ‘It was just a poor decision that I was drunk when I got in my car and drove into that person so I shouldn’t be punished’.

  • Like 1
Guest Chocolate Teapot

Guest Chocolate Teapot

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, The_77 said:

That Forest are risking an increased sanction by appealing their punishment makes me think they are confident they will get their points deduction reduced further or eliminated. 

We're talking about Notts Forest while hired Clattenburg to try and bribe the refs. I'm not sure we can take any confidence from their actions.

coolhandfox

coolhandfox

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, The_77 said:

That Forest are risking an increased sanction by appealing their punishment makes me think they are confident they will get their points deduction reduced further or eliminated. 

You can't punish someone for appealing.

 

Not a chance they have an increased sanction for appealing.

Edited by coolhandfox
  • Like 1
lcfc278

lcfc278

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

Yes, this bit is crucial. When their new owner took over, he wrote off £71.4m in loans to the previous owner, which was recorded as income. Without that, they'd have made a loss.

Maths and numbers are not my strong pioint at all so I'm struggling to understand this one.

 

The new owners wrote off £71m in loans that the club owed, and they've recorded this as an income? How is that done? Do they put on the accounts that £71m was put in their account and then a week later or whenever after the deadline it goes back out to pay off said loan?

Ric Flair

Ric Flair

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

You can't punish someone for appealing.

 

Not a chance they have an increased sanction for appealing.

There are many things in football that an appeal can lead to a bigger punishment or outcome but not sure on this.

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, lcfc278 said:

Maths and numbers are not my strong pioint at all so I'm struggling to understand this one.

 

The new owners wrote off £71m in loans that the club owed, and they've recorded this as an income? How is that done? Do they put on the accounts that £71m was put in their account and then a week later or whenever after the deadline it goes back out to pay off said loan?

That 71m cannot count towards psr 

the loan interest payments can come off but the disappearance of the loan will improve the net asset value of the business by that amount.  We did it when KP converted £194m of loans into shares 22/23.  The consequence of that was reduce interest payments which comes off the cash out column 

 

Thinking about  the conversion of the 194m of debt into shares means that our balance sheet end 23/24 should look much healthier than it did end 22/23 

will the accounts actually look better than expected because of that loan removal whereas the underlying numbers will be poor. It might take Swiss ramble and mr maguire a little while to get their tweets out once they become public 

 

  • Like 2
ClaphamFox

ClaphamFox

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

There are many things in football that an appeal can lead to a bigger punishment or outcome but not sure on this.

I read somewhere that Forest's deduction can only be increased if the Premier League appeals against the decision to reduce it. An independent panel won't increase it in response to an appeal from Forest. If that's the case, Forest may as well appeal as they have nothing to lose in doing so. It doesn't mean they'll get anywhere, of course.

  • Like 1
UniFox21

UniFox21

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I read somewhere that Forest's deduction can only be increased if the Premier League appeals against the decision to reduce it. An independent panel won't increase it in response to an appeal from Forest. If that's the case, Forest may as well appeal as they have nothing to lose in doing so. It doesn't mean they'll get anywhere, of course.

Pretty much 

They basically have a free hit at getting it reduced, and why wouldn't you take that? 

  • Like 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...