Spend Spend Spend

[TheStig]

22 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I think we'll try and move all high earner on where we can. Players with very little/no book value like Ricardo and Justin could be moved on for small fees just to get the wages off the books.

Would it be possible for the players (that have plenty) to forfeit 2 months payments - and have it paid in installements over the months after July 1st - or wouldn´t it make a difference?

[Chelmofox]

5 minutes ago, TheStig said:

Would it be possible for the players (that have plenty) to forfeit 2 months payments - and have it paid in installements over the months after July 1st - or wouldn´t it make a difference?

We could also pay them in Amazon vouchers and account for them as gifts in 2025. Sure Hamza wouldn't mind being paid in Chang?

 

Being silly aside, I would imagine contracts cover how you get paid (like any employment contract does), so anything like that is just fiddling outgoings unless you get them to sign an amended contract. But as you are asking them for worse terms (i,e not getting paid), im not sure why anyone would sign it.

[TheStig]

3 hours ago, Chelmofox said:

We could also pay them in Amazon vouchers and account for them as gifts in 2025. Sure Hamza wouldn't mind being paid in Chang?

 

Being silly aside, I would imagine contracts cover how you get paid (like any employment contract does), so anything like that is just fiddling outgoings unless you get them to sign an amended contract. But as you are asking them for worse terms (i,e not getting paid), im not sure why anyone would sign it.

Ok just asking 

 

[Babylon]

15 hours ago, Ian Nacho said:

Better off getting points deductions in the prem than risk going down as seen by forest and Everton this year. 

We got relegated with the biggest wage budget outside the elite. The risk is there even if we spend, and if we did go down we'd be well and truly f*****.

 

 

[Tom12345]

On 27/04/2024 at 19:56, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

The rules are based on the assumption that ‘excessive’ spend equals sporting advantage. We bucked that trend in spectacular fashion. So if we gained no sporting advantage, and had the spend of a team that matched our previous league position (ie 7th or 8th, which we did), why should we be punished? 

Exactly. We got relegated! We did not stay in the EPL at someone else’s expense, like Everton did.

 

We have already been “punished” not only by not getting our expected return - at least a 8th finish - but relegation and losing a fair part of our first team. We spent a year in the Championship. Is that not enough “punishment”?

 

The rules are truly fu*ked that clubs like ours still get punished. If you are down, the rules are designed to make sure you are never ever up again.

Edited 29 April by Tom12345

[LeePhilpottsBaldSpot]

Does an embargo and points penalty await the next time we are in the Championship? If so, even less incentive to comply with Premier League FFP!

 

Even playing it safe, I think we could stay up next season starting on -6. The vast majority of clubs would have stayed up this season with a 10 point deduction - Bournemouth and Wolves would have been fine with a 20 point deduction! So starting on something like -6 does not mean we're doomed.

 

If a relegation didn't come with a double punishment, I'd rather risk that while playing it safe and only spending what we earn (/save from expired contracts).

Edited 29 April by LeePhilpottsBaldSpot

[oxford blue]

According to DM we will be spared transfer embargo

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13362035/Leicester-sign-players-summer-transfer-EFL-Premier-League.html

 

There is a fine line between trying to comply with FFP and the quality of the team which will need to be better next season. I am of the view we keep as many key  players as possible(including KDH)  Everton (and probably Forest) have shown points deductions does not necessarily mean relegation. 

[Dahnsouff]

17 minutes ago, Tom12345 said:

Exactly. We got relegated! We did not stay in the EPL at someone else’s expense, like Everton did.

 

We have already been “punished” not only by not getting our expected return - at least a 8th finish - but relegation and losing a fair part of our first team. We spent a year in the Championship. Is that not enough “punishment”?

 

The rules are truly fu*ked that clubs like ours still get punished. If you are down, the rules are designed to make sure you are never ever up again.

Not sure the old  they had nothing worth stealing anyway defence will hold much water.  

[indierich06]

20 hours ago, Babylon said:

If we spend we are likely to get three points deductions in ever increasing severity. We’ve already broken 22/23, have admitted we are likely to break 23/24, and overspending next season could mean a 24/25 breach also.

 

We are signed up to the fast track scheme now we are promoted. So we multiple punishments in one season.

 

Meaning likely relegation, a financial shit show again and trouble with the league again.

 

This is THE opportunity to get it all back under control. 

 

I remember not long ago posting about the hypocrisy of our fans who knew we were overspending and said nothing. Now a huge number are actively saying do it again despite slating the club for financial mismanagement. It’s baffling. 

 

My post was a bit tongue in cheek, but I genuinely feel like we're in a lose-lose situation. If we don't reinforce the squad, we're almost certainly going down with the points deduction we're likely to receive, which will put the club at risk financially. But if we do reinforce to the level we probably need, then we likely get punished again and the cycle continues.

 

In the meantime, these arbitrary deadlines mean that bigger clubs can force you to accept low-ball bids for your best talent in order to meet your financial targets - no more holding out for big money like we did with Fofana, Maguire, Mahrez etc when clubs know you need the money in this year's accounts - if Dewsbury-Hall is going to go, he will need to go by the end of June, so that's not exactly going to allow us to play hardball, or encourage any clubs to spend big. And then the clubs that can afford to throw money around are skewing the market by paying exorbitant transfer fees for average players, with the trickle down effect being that everyone has to end up paying bigger fees overall.

 

How do we a) abide by the rules and b) hold onto to decent players and generally be competitive? Because those are two goals that, for a growing number of clubs, are not compatible with eachother. Most clubs don't have a setup like Brighton and aren't able to uncover the same kind of prospects - we certainly don't any more when you look at our average recruitment over the last few seasons. It seemingly only takes a bad window, or sacking a manager to put you at risk of falling foul of PSR, so more and more clubs are going to fall foul of this.

 

FFP has always been a joke, but these new rules are genuinely broken to the point that they're going to lock smaller teams into a cycle of either 'overspending' (based on the arbitrary rules) or just existing to be asset stripped while the likes of Man City, Liverpool, Arsenal et al batter them every week on their inevitable march towards the title every single season - if it wasn't football we'd be calling it a monopoly, and talking about the absolutely flagrant disregard of basic competition law.

[Number 6]

We've seen what happens when you gamble on a certain footballing scenario and miss out - it would be complete madness to brazenly ignore the rules again, it's time to get the house in order as a priority. This is the only route to being able to spend money again in the future (hopefully more wisely this time!).

 

This doesn't mean no spending either of course. But we need to seek out some cheaper talent, take a few lower priced gambles, free agents and loans. If we want to spend then it should be by offloading the likes of Daka, Souttar, Iversen, Kristiansen, Soumare.

[indierich06]

25 minutes ago, indierich06 said:

My post was a bit tongue in cheek, but I genuinely feel like we're in a lose-lose situation. If we don't reinforce the squad, we're almost certainly going down with the points deduction we're likely to receive, which will put the club at risk financially. But if we do reinforce to the level we probably need, then we likely get punished again and the cycle continues.

 

In the meantime, these arbitrary deadlines mean that bigger clubs can force you to accept low-ball bids for your best talent in order to meet your financial targets - no more holding out for big money like we did with Fofana, Maguire, Mahrez etc when clubs know you need the money in this year's accounts - if Dewsbury-Hall is going to go, he will need to go by the end of June, so that's not exactly going to allow us to play hardball, or encourage any clubs to spend big. And then the clubs that can afford to throw money around are skewing the market by paying exorbitant transfer fees for average players, with the trickle down effect being that everyone has to end up paying bigger fees overall.

 

How do we a) abide by the rules and b) hold onto to decent players and generally be competitive? Because those are two goals that, for a growing number of clubs, are not compatible with eachother. Most clubs don't have a setup like Brighton and aren't able to uncover the same kind of prospects - we certainly don't any more when you look at our average recruitment over the last few seasons. It seemingly only takes a bad window, or sacking a manager to put you at risk of falling foul of PSR, so more and more clubs are going to fall foul of this.

 

FFP has always been a joke, but these new rules are genuinely broken to the point that they're going to lock smaller teams into a cycle of either 'overspending' (based on the arbitrary rules) or just existing to be asset stripped while the likes of Man City, Liverpool, Arsenal et al batter them every week on their inevitable march towards the title every single season - if it wasn't football we'd be calling it a monopoly, and talking about the absolutely flagrant disregard of basic competition law.

EDIT: From reading up this afternoon, it seems like PSR is going to be replaced with a salary and wage cap based on 5x TV revenue of the bottom placed club. Hopefully that puts an end to all this PSR nonsense. 

 

[lcfcbluearmy]

I don't think we will spend big or sell a huge amount of players. I am expecting a few fringe players to be sold already rumours over Kristiansen for £15 million and soumare probably £5-10 million maybe soutter £5-10 million, other fringe players released e.g. Thomas, Preat, ihanacho released. That's quite a bit off the wage bill and £20-30 m towards clearing ffp for this season.

 

Hopefully this will be enough if not maybe 1 big sale. Then bring in fatawu, renew Vardy, Vestergaard and Ndidis contracts.

 

The Rest will probably be loans and free transfers. But this keeps the core of the squad together and gives us a decent chance of staying up then hopefully we can kick on from there!

[leicesterseddon]

2 hours ago, Tom12345 said:

Exactly. We got relegated! We did not stay in the EPL at someone else’s expense, like Everton did.

 

We have already been “punished” not only by not getting our expected return - at least a 8th finish - but relegation and losing a fair part of our first team. We spent a year in the Championship. Is that not enough “punishment”?

 

The rules are truly fu*ked that clubs like ours still get punished. If you are down, the rules are designed to make sure you are never ever up again.

I find this a very weak argument to be honest 

 

Basically saying the financial controls don’t matter as long as you spend the money badly (!)

 

Also the PSR rules aren’t just about stopping unfair sporting advantage - they are more to protect clubs from themselves, essentially, by overspending