EFL Statement - Club has no obligation to submit and agree business plan

[OntarioFox]

44 minutes ago, m4DD0gg said:

Off topic - but im sure i have read the KP owners are friends with the sultan of brunei and his crew. Comon top get it sold to these guys.

If Brunei end up owning us I demand that we bring this man back to manage us, for the headlines alone

[Jazzy_Jeff]

The powers that be needed to do something they gave their favourite teams a chance.

 

What we’ll see from here on in is clubs like us having to sell their assets in order to fulfil obligations. Top 6/7 clubs will buy them at a lower price widening the gap even more.

 

 

[Noahfence]

At least we had some great times 

[NasPb]

I trust we'll be fine honestly. 

[ClaphamFox]

16 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

Hmm not sure. Leeds and Southampton never had a couple of years maxing out the wage bill and trying to break into the top 6? 

The rumours seem to be that Leeds are in a spot of bother but Southampton aren't. Other Prem clubs facing major issues include Chelsea, Newcastle, Villa and Wolves, as well as Forest and Everton (which we already knew about).

[Zear0]

Wonder if we can have all those Everton placards?  I'm all for recycling.

[Chocolate Teapot]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

Nobody has a scooby... don't forget on promotion we can get money in the door quickly through new sponsorships etc. 

 

There is a lot of guess work doing heavy lifting in all these articles. 

I know you base your whole arguments on the basis that it's all speculation and no one has a clue but that's total bullshit tbh.

 

In any article written the club have a right of reply and can deny what's alleged, but in this case they've actually confirmed it. When they submitted the projections for the 23/24 season accounts they were on track to break FFP, that's in plain sight. The club have then got off from revealing their business plan to address this for the 23/24 season on a technicality, which has led the EFL to then release a statement saying they're going to change the rules which the club have confirmed with their own statement. 

 

In addition to this, I'm seeing Percy's name dragged through the mud and accusations that he's a 'click bait' journalist, which is pretty ****ing reductive and also hilarious given his track record with the club - he doesn't report shit, he never has done. For anyone unaware of journalistic practices as well, he'll have made the club aware he's producing the story and detailing what's in it - again, they have a right of reply here. The fact the club haven't refuted anything in this piece confirms the club are absolutely in a sticky situation financially. As has been alluded several times by several posters on here, many of whom are very reliable (one in particular) the suggestion is the club are going to have to sell regardless of whether we go up or not, this situation all but confirms that.

 

And then for the speculation - well your argument we can just make up a sponsorship on the basis that we're premier league is a really good one, and one that's never going to fly sadly. The premier league are all over stuff like this, particularly with Newcastle. They'll know our precarious financial situation and there's further stuff to this - from '26 betting companies are out, scrutiny against other deals that the club have done with companies with little information available... So to accuse others of wild speculation with this is bizarre when you yourself are speculating. Transfer income is the largest income for any football clubs P&L, our commercial revenue has topped £40m once (when we were in Europe) and given there's a large hole in the finances (as the projections suggested) the only way you're going to address this is selling a player, you're not going to be able to double your commercial revenue overnight on the basis that you're a premier league club. Well you can but you're not going to get away with it.

 

So this situation is pretty ****ing worrying for the ones that care about the club, that put their heart and soul into supporting the club and spend their hard earned cash following the club up and down the country. I can't put this any better than what @CosbehFox said yesterday, this a grave situation that impacts things far wider than the club and those highly paid executives and owner who've made decisions that have led us into this mess should face questions, including the bloke in charge of the football operation (which is the biggest department in the entire football club with the clue being in the name) who takes home an annual salary most of us won't earn in our lifetimes and is in charge of one of the things we hold most dear should face some scrutiny.

[Lionator]

31 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I can't fathom that people are on here still thinking new ownership = more money to spend. 

And people confusing ffp stringencies with the owners having no money. Ours are loaded and we’re in trouble, Forest’s is loaded from his dodgy shipping trade, Newcastle have infinite amounts of money yet are in trouble with these rules. 

[justfoxes]

Seriously what have the EFL got against us apart from getting out of this fuching god forsaking fuching League ?

 

 

[CrazyKopCorner]

22 minutes ago, OntarioFox said:

If Brunei end up owning us I demand that we bring this man back to manage us, for the headlines alone

Love Bruno - He'd be in my favourite 11 of all time 

 

I remember him coming over and celebrating with us after we beat Blackpool away and his passion was palpable 

[RonnieTodger]

Just now, justfoxes said:

Seriously what have the EFL got against us apart from getting out of this fuching god forsaking fuching League ?

 

 

Sick of seeing these gimp fans of ours on Twitter.

Undoubtedly teenagers that haven’t got a clue, thinking everything is “Leicester taking the piss” out of anything and everything. 

Embarrassing.

[ClaphamFox]

Just now, Lionator said:

And people confusing ffp stringencies with the owners having no money. Ours are loaded and we’re in trouble, Forest’s is loaded from his dodgy shipping trade, Newcastle have infinite amounts of money yet are in trouble with these rules. 

On one of the Leicester facebook pages last night, somebody was arguing that we'll be absolutely fine 'because King Power wrote off the debt'. Others were claiming that if we get promoted we won't have to sell any key players because of the TV money coming in next season.

Never underestimate the depths of some people's ignorance. 

[justfoxes]

4 minutes ago, RonnieTodger said:

Sick of seeing these gimp fans of ours on Twitter.

Undoubtedly teenagers that haven’t got a clue, thinking everything is “Leicester taking the piss” out of anything and everything. 

Embarrassing.

If we’ve broken any rules then we will be subject to  points losses etc but as this Sky report states we haven’t broken any rules “YET !” then the EFL have jumped the gun a bit, Leicester have had independent advice and we haven’t broken the rules as yet we may not if we go up as Champions or bring in new investment or sell a player but how can you punish a Team that hasn’t broken the rules until they actually do ?

[Ric Flair]

I shouldn't find any of this funny but I can't stop giggling at those who will happily hang their hat on Percy or Sky when it comes to transfers but the veracity on anything remotely negative is immediately questioned.

 

I suppose journalists don't lie about good news, only bad news.

 

 

[Mickyblueeyes]

6 minutes ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

 

 

In addition to this, I'm seeing Percy's name dragged through the mud and accusations that he's a 'click bait' journalist, which is pretty ****ing reductive and also hilarious given his track record with the club - he doesn't report shit, he never has done. For anyone unaware of journalistic practices as well, he'll have made the club aware he's producing the story and detailing what's in it - again, they have a right of reply here. The fact the club haven't refuted anything in this piece confirms the club are absolutely in a sticky situation financially. As has been alluded several times by several posters on here, many of whom are very reliable (one in particular) the suggestion is the club are going to have to sell regardless of whether we go up or not, this situation all but confirms that.

 

 

As I said before, as far as I’m concerned the sooner Top ****s off with his mates, the better it is for the club. I lost any respect for him as an  “owner” after his ridiculously spoilt brat statement last year. It infuriates me whenever anyone calls him a great owner because he quite clearly isn’t. He’d have us promoting the local Thai whore house if it benefitted the KP group. 
 

HOWEVER, that paragraph I can’t agree with you. The article was (albeit opposite to Percy’s normal style) click baity. Yes, the club would’ve had right of reply but, the audit for this financial year is not complete. The club, in particular its GC would’ve had auditors queries on pending/potential claims - his reply, legal privilege etc. could be in prejudice by simply calling Percy out for the article. 
 

Any reply must be in line with the audit. It must be in line with the replies to the audit. That isn’t a “well John, if you’re saying that, we deny it all”. 
 

Look, there is no smoke without fire and it’s fairly ****ing obvious with the current ownership, the house has many rooms on fire but for an article BEFORE audited accounts to suggest we need to sell many to comply is (and I have a lot of respect for Percy articles) click bait - it’s not proper. There are senior people at the club who don’t have a clue yet. Its actually peculiar that he has chosen to write it at this stage given that his articles are usually held off until a decisive moment. Which brings the next question, who’s the source behind this one ? It certainly isn’t ITK within the club. 

[Qwerty]

9 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

We have done a Man City, found a technicality which will prevent them from proving we in breach of the rules.  This is only a delay though as we will be found out later.

If we was on track to be within the rules we would have complied.

My understanding is that “complying” involves creating a business plan that we have to agree to and stick to.  That would be almost impossible surely, for a club who don’t know if they’re going to get promoted. At a time of possible change, we wouldn’t want to be tied to a legally binding business plan if we didn’t have to be. 

[Claudio Fannieri]

24 minutes ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

I know you base your whole arguments on the basis that it's all speculation and no one has a clue but that's total bullshit tbh.

 

In any article written the club have a right of reply and can deny what's alleged, but in this case they've actually confirmed it. When they submitted the projections for the 23/24 season accounts they were on track to break FFP, that's in plain sight. The club have then got off from revealing their business plan to address this for the 23/24 season on a technicality, which has led the EFL to then release a statement saying they're going to change the rules which the club have confirmed with their own statement. 

 

In addition to this, I'm seeing Percy's name dragged through the mud and accusations that he's a 'click bait' journalist, which is pretty ****ing reductive and also hilarious given his track record with the club - he doesn't report shit, he never has done. For anyone unaware of journalistic practices as well, he'll have made the club aware he's producing the story and detailing what's in it - again, they have a right of reply here. The fact the club haven't refuted anything in this piece confirms the club are absolutely in a sticky situation financially. As has been alluded several times by several posters on here, many of whom are very reliable (one in particular) the suggestion is the club are going to have to sell regardless of whether we go up or not, this situation all but confirms that.

 

And then for the speculation - well your argument we can just make up a sponsorship on the basis that we're premier league is a really good one, and one that's never going to fly sadly. The premier league are all over stuff like this, particularly with Newcastle. They'll know our precarious financial situation and there's further stuff to this - from '26 betting companies are out, scrutiny against other deals that the club have done with companies with little information available... So to accuse others of wild speculation with this is bizarre when you yourself are speculating. Transfer income is the largest income for any football clubs P&L, our commercial revenue has topped £40m once (when we were in Europe) and given there's a large hole in the finances (as the projections suggested) the only way you're going to address this is selling a player, you're not going to be able to double your commercial revenue overnight on the basis that you're a premier league club. Well you can but you're not going to get away with it.

 

So this situation is pretty ****ing worrying for the ones that care about the club, that put their heart and soul into supporting the club and spend their hard earned cash following the club up and down the country. I can't put this any better than what @CosbehFox said yesterday, this a grave situation that impacts things far wider than the club and those highly paid executives and owner who've made decisions that have led us into this mess should face questions, including the bloke in charge of the football operation (which is the biggest department in the entire football club with the clue being in the name) who takes home an annual salary most of us won't earn in our lifetimes and is in charge of one of the things we hold most dear should face some scrutiny.

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 fantastic post and very eloquently and respectfully articulated 

[An Away Move]

I think we are one KDH sale away from complying with FFP under EPL rules. As far as the EFL are concerned if we go up they cannot sanction us. Am I right? If so this is a lot of noise over nothing. We have tightened our belts when Everton and Forest did not, which arguably cost us relegation. We’ve been sailing close to the wind, but this Summer we should have more freedom to operate as a lot of wages will be off the books. The only massively concerning thing is if we don’t go up. It really is shit or bust re: promotion now. 

[st albans fox]

To those people saying we can just sell players this June to stay in line, I posted yesterday evening those who were pure profit and would makes sense to sell.   To get decent money in thats basically JJ.  There’s no one else who will bring in double figures.  We must assume that KDH leaving is a given but with the whole world and his wife knowing the hole we’re in we won’t get what he’s worth.  Forget bidding wars - they don’t happen. 
 

could see both KDH and JJ both having to be sold in June 

 

I will assume that we are under the 105m rolling three year loss to June 23 because otherwise surely we would have accelerated Barnes’ transfer to newcastle.  With June sales we may well get in under the reduced rolling total of £98m to end June 2024 and avoid an in season sanction next March/april. 
 

the efl numbers that bring about their business plan rules being enacted would affect loads of clubs in the championship. We’ve only been highlighted because we argued it didn’t apply to us.  Be sure that soton and Leeds were asked (and clearly they complied) 

 

so we may well be able to keep the wolf from the door come July (if we do go up). But beyond then , the cupboard is pretty bare re sale income and we will have to do some amazing buying to have a hope of staying up. 

[Muzzy_no7]

Surely one of or our key defence will be that we were relegated while Everton survived despite being in clear breach for all the years PRIOR.

 

Add to it that Forest survived while clearly making an absolute mockery of the rules. 

 

This cost us millions in income, reduced transfer fee’s received etc. 

[An Away Move]

2 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Surely one of or our key defence will be that we were relegated while Everton survived despite being in clear breach for all the years PRIOR.

 

Add to it that Forest survived while clearly making an absolute mockery of the rules. 

 

This cost us millions in income, reduced transfer fee’s received etc. 

This also applies to Man City taking up one of Champions League places in the seasons we came 5th. 

[Muzzy_no7]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

To those people saying we can just sell players this June to stay in line, I posted yesterday evening those who were pure profit and would makes sense to sell.   To get decent money in thats basically JJ.  There’s no one else who will bring in double figures.  We must assume that KDH leaving is a given but with the whole world and his wife knowing the hole we’re in we won’t get what he’s worth.  Forget bidding wars - they don’t happen. 
 

could see both KDH and JJ both having to be sold in June 

 

I will assume that we are under the 105m rolling three year loss to June 23 because otherwise surely we would have accelerated Barnes’ transfer to newcastle.  With June sales we may well get in under the reduced rolling total of £98m to end June 2024 and avoid an in season sanction next March/april. 
 

the efl numbers that bring about their business plan rules being enacted would affect loads of clubs in the championship. We’ve only been highlighted because we argued it didn’t apply to us.  Be sure that soton and Leeds were asked (and clearly they complied) 

 

so we may well be able to keep the wolf from the door come July (if we do go up). But beyond then , the cupboard is pretty bare re sale income and we will have to do some amazing buying to have a hope of staying up. 

I’d assume we would get 35m+ for KDH.

 

JJ I’m really not sure anyone pays us more than 15m with his prior injuries and inconsistency. 
 

Nelson has significant value.

 

Faes maybe? 
 

Hermansen certainly 25m+
 

Jakub probably 7.5m+
 

I’d suggest we might be able to make profits on the likes of Cannon and Mavididi.  

[K789]

We may also be 1 x trey nyoni 5 mill from Liverpool away. Tribunal must be soon.  Who knows 

[Tommy G]

1 hour ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

I know you base your whole arguments on the basis that it's all speculation and no one has a clue but that's total bullshit tbh.

 

In any article written the club have a right of reply and can deny what's alleged, but in this case they've actually confirmed it. When they submitted the projections for the 23/24 season accounts they were on track to break FFP, that's in plain sight. The club have then got off from revealing their business plan to address this for the 23/24 season on a technicality, which has led the EFL to then release a statement saying they're going to change the rules which the club have confirmed with their own statement. 

 

In addition to this, I'm seeing Percy's name dragged through the mud and accusations that he's a 'click bait' journalist, which is pretty ****ing reductive and also hilarious given his track record with the club - he doesn't report shit, he never has done. For anyone unaware of journalistic practices as well, he'll have made the club aware he's producing the story and detailing what's in it - again, they have a right of reply here. The fact the club haven't refuted anything in this piece confirms the club are absolutely in a sticky situation financially. As has been alluded several times by several posters on here, many of whom are very reliable (one in particular) the suggestion is the club are going to have to sell regardless of whether we go up or not, this situation all but confirms that.

 

And then for the speculation - well your argument we can just make up a sponsorship on the basis that we're premier league is a really good one, and one that's never going to fly sadly. The premier league are all over stuff like this, particularly with Newcastle. They'll know our precarious financial situation and there's further stuff to this - from '26 betting companies are out, scrutiny against other deals that the club have done with companies with little information available... So to accuse others of wild speculation with this is bizarre when you yourself are speculating. Transfer income is the largest income for any football clubs P&L, our commercial revenue has topped £40m once (when we were in Europe) and given there's a large hole in the finances (as the projections suggested) the only way you're going to address this is selling a player, you're not going to be able to double your commercial revenue overnight on the basis that you're a premier league club. Well you can but you're not going to get away with it.

 

So this situation is pretty ****ing worrying for the ones that care about the club, that put their heart and soul into supporting the club and spend their hard earned cash following the club up and down the country. I can't put this any better than what @CosbehFox said yesterday, this a grave situation that impacts things far wider than the club and those highly paid executives and owner who've made decisions that have led us into this mess should face questions, including the bloke in charge of the football operation (which is the biggest department in the entire football club with the clue being in the name) who takes home an annual salary most of us won't earn in our lifetimes and is in charge of one of the things we hold most dear should face some scrutiny.

Just to pick up on one sentence that you sensationalise. Susan Whelan earnt £327K last year as the highest paid director, which for a c£200m+ operation is below market rate - I supect she will be topped up elsewhere.

 

Given she is the CEO there will be a decent gap between her and Rudkin. Let's say he's on £200K - most people will earn that in less than 10 years based on ave average salary of £30K - I know you think Rudkin is the equivalent of Putin but half the issue with your posts is you sensationalise them for a reaction and idiots like me feel the neeed to correct you. 

Edited 7 March by Tommy G

[Chocolate Teapot]

2 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Just to pick up on one sentence that you sensationalise. Susan Whelan earnt £327K last year as the highest paid director, which for a c£200m+ operation is below market rate - I supect she will be topped up elsewhere.

 

Given she is ther CEO there will be a decent gap between her and Rudkin. Let's say he's on £200K - most people will earn that in less than 10 years based on ave average salary of £30K - I know you think Rudkin is the equivalent of Putin but half the issue with your posts is you sensationalise them for a reaction and idiots like me feel the neeed to correct you. 

Sensationalizing you say?