King Power Out

[DJ Barry Hammond]

57 minutes ago, Claudio Fannieri said:

Read my post again, I never said we wouldn’t have had a downturn, I said if we had would have been better placed to go again. 
 

We massive overspent on wages and stopped selling players at profit to reinvest which has financially crippled us. 

The model changed based on “having a go” at becoming a permanent fixture inside the top 8 - something these boards were all for in the moment.

 

But even if we had maintained the player trading model (and to a degree we have since) - there was no guarantee to continued success with that, which is what you claimed.

 

There is a very big ‘bubble’ on these boards that overlooks the massively changed landscape of the Premier League from 15/16 onwards, that coincides with the implementation of PSR.

 

Those financial requirements have massively benefited the clubs with strong revenue streams, with maybe the outliers being Brentford and Bournemouth in the current day… yet they may find a cyclical nature to their club’s relative performance over the coming years too.

[Stadt]

19 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

The model changed based on “having a go” at becoming a permanent fixture inside the top 8 - something these boards were all for in the moment.

 

But even if we had maintained the player trading model (and to a degree we have since) - there was no guarantee to continued success with that, which is what you claimed.

 

There is a very big ‘bubble’ on these boards that overlooks the massively changed landscape of the Premier League from 15/16 onwards, that coincides with the implementation of PSR.

 

Those financial requirements have massively benefited the clubs with strong revenue streams, with maybe the outliers being Brentford and Bournemouth in the current day… yet they may find a cyclical nature to their club’s relative performance over the coming years too.

What happened to us was a gigantic, quantum over correction not just coming back around in the cycle.

 

We could have spent much more on transfers but we just didn't have the wage bill under control, if we had competent executives we might have spent £30m in total on Soumare and maybe recoup £17m if we shifted him quickly. Instead it will be £20m in fees and probably £20m in wages... and he's leaving on a free. Rudkin has been a negative multiplier for any player trading in that for every £1 we spend he essentially turns it into £1.50 because we can't sell unwanted players, because they're on too much in the first instance and he's bad at generating interest or proactively hawking players around.

 

I could accept that PSR curtails ambition clubs if we ever bothered to attempt to comply with it and actually did cut our spending but we just ploughed on as before. Summer 2022 was perhaps the only window where that did happen but we certainly hadn't learned our lesson as we spent not far off £30m on Winks (will leave on a free), Coady (significant loss) and Cannon (somehow got a good fee) the following summer.

 

Whatever challenges PSR has foisted upon us, having an idiot for an owner and the idiot's dog running the show are far worse. We were spending 116% of our turnover on wages, what would it have been without PSR!

[Claudio Fannieri]

2 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

The model changed based on “having a go” at becoming a permanent fixture inside the top 8 - something these boards were all for in the moment.

 

But even if we had maintained the player trading model (and to a degree we have since) - there was no guarantee to continued success with that, which is what you claimed.

 

There is a very big ‘bubble’ on these boards that overlooks the massively changed landscape of the Premier League from 15/16 onwards, that coincides with the implementation of PSR.

 

Those financial requirements have massively benefited the clubs with strong revenue streams, with maybe the outliers being Brentford and Bournemouth in the current day… yet they may find a cyclical nature to their club’s relative performance over the coming years too.

Read my post again, I said retaining our model would have meant we would have been more stable and sustainable as a club I never mentioned success. 
 

we took a gamble to not sell an asset and paid top wages this led to players running down contracts so we had less saleable assets or value reduced. This has meant financially we were committed to long term expensive contracts that have massively hamstrung us. 
 

 

[Gamble92]

It's become very obvious now that the money to fund the club run out a few years ago and running costs have subsequently been funded by loans against transfers that were paid in installments.

 

So the "nothing to see here" kind of posts that were telling us how standard procedure this was for clubs were right on the one hand, but completely wrong for our situation. 

 

Not only have we taken them out against transfers in installments but TV money we won't now get. This means the next big sale (likely to be Fatawu) that might be £20-25m will have already been spent. So we'll all be weighing up potential new signings all summer and yet again we'll be asking where the moneys gone. 

 

Then we likely stay in this hole until there aren't any sellable assets. 

 

We are literally a case study on how to fold a club at this point. All this is basically because Top is trying to save face because his company has struggled so much. Not only that but he thinks the whole of Leicester owe him everything, even if it means our club ceasing to exist.

Edited 23 February by Gamble92

[ian__marshall]

The lads a class act and you can see he'll go on to be a top player for Man City. 

 

What's frustrating for me is that I think Monga looked equally promising (albeit in a different way) when he broke onto the scene but Marti has destroyed the lad. Hope he can recover under the right manager and get back on track although I'm worried that the damage is done.

 

I'm not saying he'd have been a world beater but I think we'd be looking at a very different player to the one we have today had Luke Thomas never been exposed to Brendan Rodgers.

 

The transition from youth football to men's football is a crucial period in terms of player development and it's critical that you have the right environment for them to continue developing, grow, and ultimately fulfil their potential. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

1 hour ago, Gamble92 said:

 

 

Not only have we taken them out against transfers in installments but TV money we won't now get. 

 

I don’t think this is true.

 

These Macquire loans are specifically advanced against guaranteed future income to the extent the monies due to be received from the Premier League can be assigned over to the bank so it goes directly to them (this is different from EFL rules that don’t allow this to be done for TV / Prize Money).

 

The only Macquire loan the club may have had that wasn’t secured against future income might have been the funds used to support the Seagrave development; but I think from memory King Power have since squared that debt via debt/equity swaps (I’m not looking through pages and pages of the clubs accounts again right now to confirm, but I’m almost certain this was confirmed by the club previously).

[Bablemikey]

2 hours ago, Gamble92 said:

We are literally a case study on how to fold a club at this point. All this is basically because Top is trying to save face because his company has struggled so much. Not only that but he thinks the whole of Leicester owe him everything, even if it means our club ceasing to exist.

I don't think this is true. I suspect that a lack of interest and competency are the fundamental issues. There has been nothing to suggest that Top has either the business acumen or has put the expertise in place to run a successful football club. 

[The Year Of The Fox]

8 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

This is nonsense.

 

The ‘player trading’ model is rife with clubs having dramatic peaks and troughs in overall team performance - and has no grounding in “guaranteeing success.”

 

Southampton were doing ‘player trading’ long before we started it - and look at their history of promotions / relegations etc.

 

Also pay attention to what’s happening at Palace, Brighton and Wolves at the moment - all clubs that have regularly cashed in on prominent players assets and are showing signs of going through the growing pains of that process.

 

The same 3 clubs who’s fans aren’t waiting for relegations, PSR failings and points deductions before showing unrest.

[Gamble92]

5 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

I don’t think this is true.

 

These Macquire loans are specifically advanced against guaranteed future income to the extent the monies due to be received from the Premier League can be assigned over to the bank so it goes directly to them (this is different from EFL rules that don’t allow this to be done for TV / Prize Money).

 

The only Macquire loan the club may have had that wasn’t secured against future income might have been the funds used to support the Seagrave development; but I think from memory King Power have since squared that debt via debt/equity swaps (I’m not looking through pages and pages of the clubs accounts again right now to confirm, but I’m almost certain this was confirmed by the club previously).

We have taken it against TV money as well as transfers. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

11 hours ago, Gamble92 said:

We have taken it against TV money as well as transfers. 

I didn’t deny that - but your suggestion was we’ve taken out loans against monies we won’t now receive, which I do not believe to be the case given how these loans are structured.

 

My understanding for TV rights / parachute payments is that the club will receive a lump sum from the bank - and assign the future payments over to the bank who receive the monies when actually due directly from the Premier League.

 

Macquire are not interested in high risk, unsecured loans; they’re quite happy with these very profitable, highly secured advances that have pretty much guaranteed repayment schedules.

[AjcW]

7 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

I didn’t deny that - but your suggestion was we’ve taken out loans against monies we won’t now receive, which I do not believe to be the case given how these loans are structured.

 

My understanding for TV rights / parachute payments is that the club will receive a lump sum from the bank - and assign the future payments over to the bank who receive the monies when actually due directly from the Premier League.

 

Macquire are not interested in high risk, unsecured loans; they’re quite happy with these very profitable, highly secured advances that have pretty much guaranteed repayment schedules.

They're secured against Premier League TV money and parachute payments over a certain time period. Have you thought about what they're secured against if we're in league one and those payments are no longer received/achievable? 

[Gamble92]

34 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

I didn’t deny that - but your suggestion was we’ve taken out loans against monies we won’t now receive, which I do not believe to be the case given how these loans are structured.

 

My understanding for TV rights / parachute payments is that the club will receive a lump sum from the bank - and assign the future payments over to the bank who receive the monies when actually due directly from the Premier League.

 

Macquire are not interested in high risk, unsecured loans; they’re quite happy with these very profitable, highly secured advances that have pretty much guaranteed repayment schedules.

Are they guaranteed for a League One team paying back money they have already spent to pay the wage bill they can't afford the year before?

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Those Heskey comments are so thick. But then again he's on the payroll so of course he's going to say that. 

 

Anthony probably had a word in his ear. 

[CL Fox]

1 minute ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Those Heskey comments are so thick. But then again he's on the payroll so of course he's going to say that. 

 

Anthony probably had a word in his ear. 

Rudkin tried to replace Birch with Emile at one point 🤣

[Katy]

10 minutes ago, CL Fox said:

Rudkin tried to replace Birch with Emile at one point 🤣

Love Emile but he’s definitely had a charisma bypass. 

[CL Fox]

27 minutes ago, Katy said:

Love Emile but he’s definitely had a charisma bypass. 

Yeah and he's not even a Leicester fan - supported Liverpool all his life. Brilliant person but unfortunately as with many of our ex players they've done well put of top and rudkin so won't criticise them.

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, AjcW said:

They're secured against Premier League TV money and parachute payments over a certain time period. Have you thought about what they're secured against if we're in league one and those payments are no longer received/achievable? 

 

 

STOP BEING SENSIBLE!!!

 

It has no place in this forum.

 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

9 hours ago, Gamble92 said:

Are they guaranteed for a League One team paying back money they have already spent to pay the wage bill they can't afford the year before?

Yes, because the monies due are assigned to the bank as I already explained.

[Pita]

9 hours ago, CL Fox said:

Rudkin tried to replace Birch with Emile at one point 🤣

🤣🤣🤣

[DJ Barry Hammond]

7 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

 

 

STOP BEING SENSIBLE!!!

 

It has no place in this forum.

 

Being factually incorrect is sensible? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[SecretPro]

Couple of wins and this thread will disappear onto page 19 rapid. 

[Silva Fox]

40 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Couple of wins and this thread will disappear onto page 19 rapid. 

Not this season!

[Lionator]

Another data point for these guys being imbeciles is the 3 halves since the fist 45 at Stoke. We wasted 3 absolutely winnable games when the right manager was literally saying come get me. 

[foxfanazer]

Despite people being giddy about two draws in our last two games, we must press on with getting these frauds out

[Katy]

8 hours ago, SecretPro said:

Couple of wins and this thread will disappear onto page 19 rapid. 

Nope!