King Power Out

[ACF]

Do some people not realise that KP are paying an 8.84% interest rate to Airports of Thailand, and had to stump up £32m as a guarantee after they requested to join an extended payments scheme?

[funkyrobot]

8 hours ago, CosbehFox said:

What’s the factual positives of our situation? 
 

What in our latest accounts was positive for the future of the club? 
 

Of those four players you’ve mentioned, two of them will have been subject to a financial package that no one other than the club and player will be subject to. Vestergaard will have needed a pay out and we are very likely to be paying a chunk of Winks wages for the rest of this year as a gap payment. That’s why he can’t speculate on wage bills / transfer fees. Notwithstanding we don’t have any factual evidence of their original individual wages. 
 

Maguire in one reply, ‘for balance’, mentioned the incoming £45 million transfer fees while equally he didn’t the fact that the incoming money to the club from sources such as TV, matchday ticket sales, merchandise, prize money is all significantly reduced. 

Maguire doesn’t mention £45m anywhere and we aren’t covering Winks wages, Cagliari paid a transfer fee. 

[VLC86]

1 minute ago, funkyrobot said:

Maguire doesn’t mention £45m anywhere and we aren’t covering Winks wages, Cagliari paid a transfer fee. 

Paying a transfer fee doesn’t mean we aren’t paying any of his wages btw. I have no idea if we are or not, but I suspect we have in the past with others (Coady is probably one) to get them out of the door.

[WanOak]

3 minutes ago, VLC86 said:

Paying a transfer fee doesn’t mean we aren’t paying any of his wages btw. I have no idea if we are or not, but I suspect we have in the past with others (Coady is probably one) to get them out of the door.

Rob Tanner answered about Cody, once the club has sold the player their contract terminated with us and a new contract signed elsewhere takes on all aspectsof that players wage, no wages come from us, same for Winks. We may have said here's a bit to leave but 100% we don't pay anything now.

[funkyrobot]

1 hour ago, Claudio Fannieri said:

It really does beggar belief the absolute naivety of some of our fanbase and the refusal to accept we are in financial meltdown.

 

Over the last 4 years published accounted we have lost close to £300m. That is over £1m per week …..whilst some of that will be amortisation etc a very hefty proportion will be physical expenditure, cash out of the door on wages, transfer payments due, day to day running costs etc etc 

 

We are using Macquarie bank as a facility to spend tomorrows (well future years) money to pay the running costs of today and its costing us £200k per week in interest payments. We have kicked the can down the road, but now we are running out of road. 
 

Yes some high earners have moved on but the damage is done we are paying so much out in interest payments to service the debt and we are doing it on the lowest revenues since 2008. We are still effectively running a premier league infrastructure on league one revenues whilst already losing a fortune and borrowing to the hilt. 
 

How anyone can twist Kieran Maguire’s comments to be some sort of click bait is beyond me. We are up to our necks in it and the next 3 or 4 years are going to be brutal whilst the club try to get back to some sort of financial stability. 

It’s beyond me how people can’t understand that Maguire continually drops this information in part for his social media traction. All I’ve said is he lights the touch paper and stands back and allows people to catastrophise without full facts. Look at the comments below his posts if you don’t believe me. 

[CosbehFox]

21 minutes ago, funkyrobot said:

Maguire doesn’t mention £45m anywhere and we aren’t covering Winks wages, Cagliari paid a transfer fee. 

 

If Winks is being paid £30k by Cagliari and we were paying £45k, we will have to pay him £15k per week for the remainder of his contract or pay him a fee which cancels that obligation. That’s contractural law 

[WanOak]

7 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

 

If Winks is being paid £30k by Cagliari and we were paying £45k, we will have to pay him £15k per week for the remainder of his contract or pay him a fee which cancels that obligation. That’s contractural law 

This is just untrue, he parted by mutual termination not like Vesty who had his contract terminated, therefore reaching a settlement under contract law, Winks however agreed a move, we got a fee and Cagliari gave a contract to him, didn't matter if Winks had 10 years left, we didn't have to pay him up.

[CosbehFox]

5 minutes ago, WanOak said:

This is just untrue, he parted by mutual termination not like Vesty who had his contract terminated, therefore reaching a settlement under contract law, Winks however agreed a move, we got a fee and Cagliari gave a contract to him, didn't matter if Winks had 10 years left, we didn't have to pay him up.

Contractural law says otherwise. You have to bridge the gap for loss of earnings unless the player is covering that in a loyalty bonus. Which is still case in point. It’s not easy to assume there isn’t some financial obligation still in existence or that we haven’t had to pay which means it’s difficult to project financial forecasts 

Edited 14 hours ago by CosbehFox

[Officer Doofy]

Denise sits ate the back of the section, she is not a bot  

[WanOak]

13 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

Contractural law says otherwise. You have to bridge the gap for loss of earnings unless the player is covering that in a loyalty bonus. Which is still case in point. It’s not easy to assume there isn’t some financial obligation still in existence or that we haven’t had to pay which means it’s difficult to project financial forecasts 

There is no loss as Winks chose to accept the terms offered by the new club, remember a club came in and offered Winks, he (his agents) looked at this and accepted accepted and signed. Check contact law and the football laws governing transfers.

Remember not a termination, a mutually agreed transfer. A massive difference 

[CosbehFox]

1 minute ago, WanOak said:

There is no loss as Winks chose to accept the terms offered by the new club, remember a club came in and offered Winks, he (his agents) looked at this and accepted accepted and signed. Check contact law and the football laws governing transfers.

Remember not a termination, a mutually agreed transfer. A massive difference 

Sorry are we agreeing or disagreeing that we had to pay Winks some money? 

[Groby_Blue]

20 hours ago, dmayne7 said:

Spot on. I think the age of the internet distorts that.

What's that quote - the internet has given a voice to people who used to just shout at seagulls 

[Tommy G]

7 minutes ago, WanOak said:

There is no loss as Winks chose to accept the terms offered by the new club, remember a club came in and offered Winks, he (his agents) looked at this and accepted accepted and signed. Check contact law and the football laws governing transfers.

Remember not a termination, a mutually agreed transfer. A massive difference 

I think you're right here WanOak, I'm no lawyer but in the case of Winks you could apply that logic to all transfers where a player moves for less money that he is contracted to at his current club, the selling club doesn't have to cover any shortfall as he is effectively nullifying his agreement with lcfc in favour of his new club, therefore forsaking any existing contractual rights in return of a new contract with another club.

 

Vestergaard is a different story.   

[VLC86]

4 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

I think you're right here WanOak, I'm no lawyer but in the case of Winks you could apply that logic to all transfers where a player moves for less money that he is contracted to at his current club, the selling club doesn't have to cover any shortfall as he is effectively nullifying his agreement with lcfc in favour of his new club, therefore forsaking any existing contractual rights in return of a new contract with another club.

 

Vestergaard is a different story.   

I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that. A player could definitely get to the point of signing their new deal, and if the new contract with the new club is lower, refuse to sign it without the selling club coming to a settlement on the rest of it.

 

It would basically come down to how much the player wants out of the club. We still could have had to come to a settlement with the players that have left to bridge the difference in their wages.

[Stadt]

10 hours ago, funkyrobot said:

Exactly my point. So when Leicester City fans read it and declare the end of the club as we know it and opposition fans get ready to dance on our grave, let’s all take a moment and realise that whilst it’s bad and we are clearly in a bad place, that we should have a more balanced reaction knowing what KM’s true motives are. 

I don’t think Maguire has done anything wrong is what I was getting at 

[Tommy G]

4 minutes ago, VLC86 said:

I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that. A player could definitely get to the point of signing their new deal, and if the new contract with the new club is lower, refuse to sign it without the selling club coming to a settlement on the rest of it.

 

It would basically come down to how much the player wants out of the club. We still could have had to come to a settlement with the players that have left to bridge the difference in their wages.

At the same point we could just also bake that cost into the transfer fee we are after, if we know we might have to settle £xx with a player then add another £xx onto the fee when negotiating. Either way I think 99% of transfers are as I've described.  

[CosbehFox]

9 minutes ago, VLC86 said:

I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that. A player could definitely get to the point of signing their new deal, and if the new contract with the new club is lower, refuse to sign it without the selling club coming to a settlement on the rest of it.

 

It would basically come down to how much the player wants out of the club. We still could have had to come to a settlement with the players that have left to bridge the difference in their wages.

That's my point and reading of it. And it's often stopped a deal. If they feel their stated loyalty bonus doesn't cover the shortfall, they want a settlement agreement. 

[Dan]

16 hours ago, LC1884FC said:

 

Absolute disgrace they are

[ealingfox]

'Not what we needed' is certainly one way of describing going from 5th in the top flight to the third tier in 4 seasons.

[VLC86]

42 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

At the same point we could just also bake that cost into the transfer fee we are after, if we know we might have to settle £xx with a player then add another £xx onto the fee when negotiating. Either way I think 99% of transfers are as I've described.  

Hmmm about that fee…. Did we DEFINITELY get one? I was told that senior players were told they could leave on a free if they could find another club.

 

I guess you might be right though, if Winks demanded £1m to leave (insert Dr Evil meme here) then we might have made them pay that fee.

Edited 12 hours ago by VLC86

[ACF]

22 minutes ago, Dan said:

Absolute disgrace they are

Convinced it’s a Thai Bot Farm

[lfu]

3 hours ago, WanOak said:

This is just untrue, he parted by mutual termination not like Vesty who had his contract terminated, therefore reaching a settlement under contract law, Winks however agreed a move, we got a fee and Cagliari gave a contract to him, didn't matter if Winks had 10 years left, we didn't have to pay him up.

Vestergaard left by mutual termination (both according to the OS and Danish media e.g. Bold "As Bold understands it, Jannik Vestergaard is currently negotiating a termination and compensation agreement with Leicester.")

But re. Winks, it is certainly the case that a player who transfers to another club but will receive a lower salary there can demand the selling club cover all or some of the shortfall (whether as a lump sum or salary contribution) as a tripartite agreement in order to make the move go through (Legalese isn't my strongsuit but I believe articles 51.1 and 64.20 in the EFL regulations cover this). We don't know if that's the case with Winks, considering Cagliari can presumably offer similar terms to what he would've been on with us after the two relegation-reductions, but it was reported by multiple sources (inc. John Percy) that we were indeed contributing to some of Coady's wages after we sold him to Wrexham – and it obviously made sense for us to do so as e.g. subsidising £15k/w but freeing up £40k/w in salary cost made more sense than keeping Coady around at £55k/w.

Unless you claim to be another vagueposting ITK and actually have information counter to this?

[fkas]

17 hours ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

Sorry but I have to call stuff like this out (even though I don’t think you meant to make such excuses for him) because it’s also as dangerous as the KPFC nonsense you see on Facebook.

 

Just because he looks like a child and can’t really hold a sentence in English does

not make him ‘naive’. There seems to be this free pass he gets of “oh, he seems a bit like a big kid so he’s harmless”. He’s not. He dictates an awful lot at the football club and he should be accountable, not given a free pass for being a bit ‘naive’.

 

And if he cared, why was he barely around last season and much of the one before? Why does he not communicate with the fan base regularly? Why did he shoot looks of disdain at Union FS when they held up banners telling him to act? Why has he still not stepped aside and said “you know what, I care about this so much that I can’t continue being in charge of it”?

 

I actually think the fact he doesn’t care enough is one of the biggest problems. He only wants to be there when he has nothing better to do and trusty Jon will take care of literally everything for him whilst he’s not.

 

This man has been, and continues to be, a danger to LCFC. He should be despised worse than the likes of Dennis Wise at our club. But if people keep saying he’s ‘naive’ or ‘badly advised’ then they’re just kidding themselves and not fronting up to the difficult reality of the situation.

It would be easier if he didn't care. He'd farm out the running of the club, stay away and quietly put it up for sale. The fact he's trying to run it and oversee the King Power business whilst that hits difficult times seems to be a case of spreading himself to thin. That and he doesn't seem to have the flair for business of his father. The fact he's accepted the need to sell the club at least 24 months too late (though I'm sure the instruction probably happened a few months ago) is an interesting sign.

 

Generally in my experience nativity is more damaging than checking out in management. Those out their depth but insistent their overly ambitious plans will come to fruition do far more damage. Lack of care is far easier to mitigate as long as you have good subordinates who will run things you neglect.

 

Feel free to call out what you like but you're mistaken if you think I was giving him a get out of jail free card.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

8 minutes ago, fkas said:

It would be easier if he didn't care. He'd farm out the running of the club, stay away and quietly put it up for sale. The fact he's trying to run it and oversee the King Power business whilst that hits difficult times seems to be a case of spreading himself to thin. That and he doesn't seem to have the flair for business of his father. The fact he's accepted the need to sell the club at least 24 months too late (though I'm sure the instruction probably happened a few months ago) is an interesting sign.

 

Generally in my experience nativity is more damaging than checking out in management. Those out their depth but insistent their overly ambitious plans will come to fruition do far more damage. Lack of care is far easier to mitigate as long as you have good subordinates who will run things you neglect.

 

Feel free to call out what you like but you're mistaken if you think I was giving him a get out of jail free card.

I’m sorry but there are a couple of other KPFC sympathiser bingo card examples here:

 

1) doesn’t have the business flair of his father

 2) spread himself too thin looking after other parts of the King Power business

 

Add to “he’s naive and he’s been poorly advised” and you only need “this never would have happened without Covid which was completely unforeseen”, “he’s still grieving the tragic loss of his father” and “he was there for the success so must have had an impact on that” for a full house!

 

I personally struggle to credit any business owner who has been handed their empire with business acumen. It’s a bit like saying Prince Harry is a natural networker or a philanthropist - these opportunities have been granted and not earned.

 

Top is not spread too thin running other things unless you count bouncing around on a pony playing polo as a King Power job. He’s been moved aside in King Power because he’s shown himself to be the same in other roles as he has this one with the club: incompetent.

 

Finally, he’s sort of done an in between of the two scenarios you describe and the bit in bold. He’s stayed away (leaving the likes of Rudkin to run things for him - albeit without absolute decision making authority) and now put the club quietly up for sale but only because he literally has no other option (he’s not doing this because he’s had some great light bulb moment that he’s not capable).
 

However, despite staying away, he’s still maintained a huge amount of final sign off on even some of the smallest things. So it’s the worst case scenario: delegation without empowerment. And the fact the final say rests with the person least competent in having it, has been a recipe for disaster.

 

 

 

[Philkeavo]

5 minutes ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

I’m sorry but there are a couple of other KPFC sympathiser bingo card examples here:

 

1) doesn’t have the business flair of his father

 2) spread himself too thin looking after other parts of the King Power business

 

Add to “he’s naive and he’s been poorly advised” and you only need “this never would have happened without Covid which was completely unforeseen”, “he’s still grieving the tragic loss of his father” and “he was there for the success so must have had an impact on that” for a full house!

 

I personally struggle to credit any business owner who has been handed their empire with business acumen. It’s a bit like saying Prince Harry is a natural networker or a philanthropist - these opportunities have been granted and not earned.

 

Top is not spread too thin running other things unless you count bouncing around on a pony playing polo as a King Power job. He’s been moved aside in King Power because he’s shown himself to be the same in other roles as he has this one with the club: incompetent.

 

Finally, he’s sort of done an in between of the two scenarios you describe and the bit in bold. He’s stayed away (leaving the likes of Rudkin to run things for him - albeit without absolute decision making authority) and now put the club quietly up for sale but only because he literally has no other option (he’s not doing this because he’s had some great light bulb moment that he’s not capable).
 

However, despite staying away, he’s still maintained a huge amount of final sign off on even some of the smallest things. So it’s the worst case scenario: delegation without empowerment. And the fact the final say rests with the person least competent in having it, has been a recipe for disaster.

 

 

 

Well put, I find it astonishing anyone still defends him 👏

 

The evidence of his monumental failings and failures are everywhere.