Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[Chocolate Teapot]

31 minutes ago, Babylon said:

We gave them our accounts when we had to and forecast a breach. Not sure what other process there is, we've never denied we were going to breach, we just argued when their ability to do anything kicked in 

Not sure that's strictly true in terms of denial. The club basically said they wouldn't reveal how they were going to comply via a business plan.

[kenny]

13 minutes ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

Not sure that's strictly true in terms of denial. The club basically said they wouldn't reveal how they were going to comply via a business plan.

The accounts don't include the allowable losses under PSR and no one knows yet what the club is claiming.

 

We will be claiming for:

Increased costs at seagrave for youth development 

All Running costs for belvoir drive

All investment in the women's team 

All charitable donations 

All infrastructure developments,  the final payments for seagrave construction will be in the 2020-21 accounts. This could be £20m. The costs of the stadium extension will be over £1m so far.

[Chelmofox]

1 hour ago, Wymsey said:

Can imagine the club being in 'negotiations' with the authorities to agree to a middle-ground punishment over this.

I don't understand what is to be 'negotiated'? We have to go through a process where we get to make our case and hope the independent panel take on board out points.

 

Unless i have missed something?

[Ric Flair]

If we can get our wage bill down to somewhere nearer £100m in the PL, then we ought to be able to spend a healthy amount in the right manner.

[sylofox]

2 hours ago, teblin said:

This isn't true, we can spend but need to do so in a sustainable way. We probably can't spend until we are no longer an EFL club.

A sustainable way is not going to keep us up.

 

I think we need at least 5 new players all at least as good as we have or better. Care to explain where that money is coming from.

 

What we are owed on Barnes and maddison has already been borrowed. Most of the prem money is already spent on wages.

 

Our sponsorship is poor and any investment is going to have to pay off debts first.

[davieG]

3 minutes ago, sylofox said:

A sustainable way is not going to keep us up.

 

I think we need at least 5 new players all at least as good as we have or better. Care to explain where that money is coming from.

 

What we are owed on Barnes and maddison has already been borrowed. Most of the prem money is already spent on wages.

 

Our sponsorship is poor and any investment is going to have to pay off debts first.

Find players like Mahrez, Drinkwater, Fuchs, Albrighton etc.

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, sylofox said:

A sustainable way is not going to keep us up.

 

I think we need at least 5 new players all at least as good as we have or better. Care to explain where that money is coming from.

 

What we are owed on Barnes and maddison has already been borrowed. Most of the prem money is already spent on wages.

 

Our sponsorship is poor and any investment is going to have to pay off debts first.

Our amortised transfers we'll owe for 24/25 without any outgoings or incomings (except for Fatawu) is around £28-30m. It was more nearer £40m this season but Praet and Vestergaard drop off at around £4-5m each.

 

As I've said, if we can get our wages down to somewhere near £100-110m and revenue between £175-200m. Then spending £70-80m this summer (although perhaps we should keep it more to £50-60m) would add around £15m to the £30m amortised transfers fees to about £45m. 

 

Whether that would get us to comply with a 3 year cycle loss of £83m is tricky to completely gauge, will depend how much we breach 22/23 and then possibly 23/24 by. But basically we need to have cut our wages by 40-45% IMO.

 

We will have made a very good start on that in the last two summers.

 

 

[kenny]

2 hours ago, Chelmofox said:

I don't understand what is to be 'negotiated'? We have to go through a process where we get to make our case and hope the independent panel take on board out points.

 

Unless i have missed something?

How much is an acceptable loss for PSR has to be claimed then decided on by the PL before the punishment.

 

One example will be, we will be claiming the majority of the running costs for Seagrave as being towards youth development to make the club sustainable.

 

(Made up figures coming up)

 

So we will claim, £18m of the £20m it costs to run the training under allowable losses on youth, women and community work. The PL will have to decide whether that is reasonable or whether more of the £20m is related to the first team and is therefore not allowable. We will be citing Big 6 training ground costs as examples of what is fair and the PL will want to compare us to Brentford or Crystal Palace.

[FosseSpark]

Can see it being a right old revolving door this summer. 

Only player on the below list i would offer a contract is Vardy: 

Albrighton already gone

Vestegaard proven to not be at Premier League level - (maresca can't be blind to his titanic like turning pace)

Iheanacho and Praet - not playing under Maresca and not going to tear up the prem

Ndidi - heavily rumoured to be getting a contract elsewhere and physically shot.

 

Assuming an average of £80k p/w that is £20.8m off the wage bill at a stroke - only cutting 2 players that have featured regularly, and who we know won't be part of a premier league future team.

 

 

 

[Chelmofox]

8 minutes ago, kenny said:

How much is an acceptable loss for PSR has to be claimed then decided on by the PL before the punishment.

 

One example will be, we will be claiming the majority of the running costs for Seagrave as being towards youth development to make the club sustainable.

 

(Made up figures coming up)

 

So we will claim, £18m of the £20m it costs to run the training under allowable losses on youth, women and community work. The PL will have to decide whether that is reasonable or whether more of the £20m is related to the first team and is therefore not allowable. We will be citing Big 6 training ground costs as examples of what is fair and the PL will want to compare us to Brentford or Crystal Palace.

Sure - i am aware that the PSR calc needs to be agreed but thats just part of the process and i know was a sticking point with Everton. 'Negotiation' made it sound we were trying to work on a deal with the PL. I maybe read it wrongly.  We can only go through the process.

[sylofox]

2 hours ago, davieG said:

Find players like Mahrez, Drinkwater, Fuchs, Albrighton etc.

I totally agree with that.

 

But at that time we had probably best ever recruitment team in place. Something else along with our finances that's become a joke over recent years.

 

We are all guessing what's going to happen. But at this present time I see very little that is right with our club. Other than the promotion.

[Bluetintedspecs]

22 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

We'll find it very difficult to defend that £100m + worth of players have ran their contracts down, likewise another £50m + this summer.

Ofcourse you can defend that , unless you can tell us how to , legally, force a player to sign a contract or leave if they have decided to run a contract down? 

[Chelmofox]

3 minutes ago, Bluetintedspecs said:

Ofcourse you can defend that , unless you can tell us how to , legally, force a player to sign a contract or leave if they have decided to run a contract down? 

But the PL statement for Forest said exactly this. It seems not to be a consideration.

[Babylon]

1 minute ago, Chelmofox said:

But the PL statement for Forest said exactly this. It seems not to be a consideration.

They don't really consider much. Their attitude is, you knew the rules and in the worst case scenario should basically no over spend. 

 

We have some mitigation, such as clubs broke the rules, helped get us relegated and made our losses worse. But we had giant losses the year before, so even that's not a massive mitigation. 

[Ric Flair]

13 minutes ago, Bluetintedspecs said:

Ofcourse you can defend that , unless you can tell us how to , legally, force a player to sign a contract or leave if they have decided to run a contract down? 

But the retort will be, if we were forecasting tens of millions in sales of such players that with everything else would then be how we'd attempt to comply, we were negligent to rely on that given we didn't sell a single such player.

[davieG]

36 minutes ago, sylofox said:

I totally agree with that.

 

But at that time we had probably best ever recruitment team in place. Something else along with our finances that's become a joke over recent years.

 

We are all guessing what's going to happen. But at this present time I see very little that is right with our club. Other than the promotion.

We seem to have a decent team now judging from Fatawu, Hermamsen and Mavididi

 

We have to get back to realising we're not a top 6 team or at least we can't use their spending as a yardstick for our spends we have to compete with them by being clever and not just throwing money around on fees and wages.

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

They don't really consider much. Their attitude is, you knew the rules and in the worst case scenario should basically no over spend. 

 

We have some mitigation, such as clubs broke the rules, helped get us relegated and made our losses worse. But we had giant losses the year before, so even that's not a massive mitigation. 

The irony here being, as we've proven now multiple times, the Premier League doesn't even know their own rules and are willing to break them repeatedly.

[st albans fox]

7 hours ago, kenny said:

The accounts don't include the allowable losses under PSR and no one knows yet what the club is claiming.

 

We will be claiming for:

Increased costs at seagrave for youth development 

All Running costs for belvoir drive

All investment in the women's team 

All charitable donations 

All infrastructure developments,  the final payments for seagrave construction will be in the 2020-21 accounts. This could be £20m. The costs of the stadium extension will be over £1m so far.

Pedantically , the costs of stadium expansion can only be deducted post planning permission being granted 

Edited 8 May by st albans fox

[Grebfromgrebland]

3 hours ago, davieG said:

We seem to have a decent team now judging from Fatawu, Hermamsen and Mavididi

 

We have to get back to realising we're not a top 6 team or at least we can't use their spending as a yardstick for our spends we have to compete with them by being clever and not just throwing money around on fees and wages.

Exactly as long as we don't try and compete for the top 7/8 we should be ok.

 

FFP is designed to make sure that doesn't happen.

[kenny]

12 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Pedantically , the costs of stadium expansion can only be deducted post planning permission being granted 

We learnt that after Everton. Good point.

[Spudulike]

24 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Pedantically , the costs of stadium expansion can only be deducted post planning permission being granted 

Did the club buy the Eon land post planning approval? 

[urban.spaceman]

1 minute ago, Spudulike said:

Did the club buy the Eon land post planning approval? 

Yes. I think they confirmed it in a tweet/statement about planning permission. Not sure how they'll incorporate it into the plans though.

 

(I did try to check the planning site but the council's system was hacked and down for weeks)

[coolhandfox]

6 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Our amortised transfers we'll owe for 24/25 without any outgoings or incomings (except for Fatawu) is around £28-30m. It was more nearer £40m this season but Praet and Vestergaard drop off at around £4-5m each.

 

As I've said, if we can get our wages down to somewhere near £100-110m and revenue between £175-200m. Then spending £70-80m this summer (although perhaps we should keep it more to £50-60m) would add around £15m to the £30m amortised transfers fees to about £45m. 

 

Whether that would get us to comply with a 3 year cycle loss of £83m is tricky to completely gauge, will depend how much we breach 22/23 and then possibly 23/24 by. But basically we need to have cut our wages by 40-45% IMO.

 

We will have made a very good start on that in the last two summers.

Looking at the numbers, we are looking at a breach of PSR for the 2023 report period of around 35m, as we roughly have the following numbers after healthy deductions and other adjustments: 2021 - 19m, 2022 - 72m,  2023 - 49m,  which come to -140m.

 

-140m is 35m over the target of -105m. (PSR Target for 21,22,23)

 

To hit PSR for the reporting period 2024 (22/23/24), we will have to book a profit of around 10-15m before health deductions.

 

Doing the math with available data and guesses, if we did manage to cut our wage bill by 50% for this season, we are currently somewhere in the -10m to -15m range, so we would have to bring in around 30m profit on player sales in June. (PSR Target -83m for 22,23,24)

 

If we did that, we would be in a much better position for the 2025 (23/24/25) PSR reporting period, as the worst year, 22, would be dropped from the calculation.

 

That would give us roughly 71 m in wiggle room for 2025. If we went back to revenue levels from 2023, we could live with wages of 150m and amortisation of around 50m per season. 

 

However, that would put us at around 85% of revenue spent on wages and transfers, which, if the new rules are adopted in 2026, would need to be under 75%. 

Edited 8 May by coolhandfox

[HankMarvin]

30 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Our amortised transfers we'll owe for 24/25 without any outgoings or incomings (except for Fatawu) is around £28-30m. It was more nearer £40m this season but Praet and Vestergaard drop off at around £4-5m each.

 

As I've said, if we can get our wages down to somewhere near £100-110m and revenue between £175-200m. Then spending £70-80m this summer (although perhaps we should keep it more to £50-60m) would add around £15m to the £30m amortised transfers fees to about £45m. 

 

Whether that would get us to comply with a 3 year cycle loss of £83m is tricky to completely gauge, will depend how much we breach 22/23 and then possibly 23/24 by. But basically we need to have cut our wages by 40-45% IMO.

 

We will have made a very good start on that in the last two summers.

 

 

But that last season in the prem also factored in +70m in player trading, where do we bring in 110m in sales even if we spent 40m?

[HankMarvin]

9 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Looking at the numbers, we are looking at a breach of PSR for the 2023 report period of around 35m, as we roughly have the following numbers after healthy deductions and other adjustments: 2021 - 19m, 2022 - 72m,  2023 - 49m,  which come to -140m.

 

-140m is 35m over the target of -105m.

 

To hit PSR for the reporting period 2024 (22/23/24), we will have to book a profit of around 10-15m before health deductions.

 

Doing the math with available data and guesses, if we did manage to cut our wage bill by 50% for this season, we are currently somewhere in the -10m to -15m range, so we would have to bring in around 30m profit on player sales in June.

 

If we did that, we would be in a much better position for the 2025 (23/24/25) PSR reporting period, as the worst year, 22, would be dropped from the calculation.

 

That would give us wiggle room of roughly 71 m for 2025. If we went back to revenue levels of 2023, we could live with wages of 150m and amortisation of around 50m per season. 

 

However, that would put us at around 85% of revenue spent on wages and transfers, which, if the new rules are adopted in 2026, would need to be under 75%. 

Psr isn’t 105m for us with one year in the champ at 50% so it will be 87.5m for the next few seasons until it changes