Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
moore_94

2023/24 Financials (The Club made a pre-tax loss of £19.4M for the 12-months to 30 June 2024)

By moore_94, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Tommy G

Tommy G

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, AjcW said:

Fair enough, i'm pretty sure i've read it correctly.

 

It states clearly the highest paid director (which will naturally be the CEO) is on £250k, like you say it's probably the going rate, I just wanted to highlight to people who might not have known, how much the people who have got us in to this mess earn.

 

We have 9 directors listed on our "senior management" so that's where I got that from.

 

The 2.38m is directly from note 5 isn't it? 

No I think you might have mixed up £238K for £2.38m - which is SW emoluments, note 5 discloses all employees salaries including directors and won't split the other ''senior managers'' so it's not a case of just getting a number and dividing by 9. It's only stat directors where it's disclosed to protect people having their salaries all over the internet. 

 

I'd be staggered if anyone apart from players earn more than SW, so that put's Rudkin, CFO and anyone else senior on sub £200K most likely, which isn't the going rate for a club of our size and position, so just shows we are employing and settling for people who aren't up to it.

  • Like 4
aklaxon

aklaxon

Posted
Posted (edited)

HOLD ON commercial revenue for the last year we were in the Prem was £300k?! Yet in the Champo we brought in nearly £10mil.

WTF was the commercial team doing?!

Ryan Reynolds probably charges that for one advert.

We can have a go at Rudkin for his incompetence, quite rightly. But how on earth does a Premier League football team only bring in £300k in one year - that falls on the CEO and owner, right?!

 

Read the statement wrong... Rudkin, Whelan and Top are still clowns, though

Edited by aklaxon
AjcW

AjcW

Posted
Posted
Just now, Tommy G said:

No I think you might have mixed up £238K for £2.38m - which is SW emoluments, note 5 discloses all employees salaries including directors and won't split the other ''senior managers'' so it's not a case of just getting a number and dividing by 9. It's only stat directors where it's disclosed to protect people having their salaries all over the internet. 

 

I'd be staggered if anyone apart from players earn more than SW, so that put's Rudkin, CFO and anyone else senior on sub £200K most likely, which isn't the going rate for a club of our size and position, so just shows we are employing and settling for people who aren't up to it.

Fair do's mate, the wording is a bit weird and very different to accounts where I work so I've read that as a million figure not thousands, also how can that figure be 238k when it states below she gets £251k? Emoluments are meant to be everything including salary so unsure why the two figures are different.

Tommy G

Tommy G

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, AjcW said:

Fair do's mate, the wording is a bit weird and very different to accounts where I work so I've read that as a million figure not thousands, also how can that figure be 238k when it states below she gets £251k? Emoluments are meant to be everything including salary so unsure why the two figures are different.

Pension

  • Like 1
Skidmark

Skidmark

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, AjcW said:

Also we must be one of the only clubs in history to hire more administrative staff upon relegation lol 

 

Administration staff

24 - 424

23- 408  

 

As someone who knows someone who has recently gained a job at Seagrave, it's fair to say that there's a few people twiddling there thumbs up there. 

  • Haha 2
theessexfox

theessexfox

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, aklaxon said:

HOLD ON commercial revenue for the last year we were in the Prem was £300k?! Yet in the Champo we brought in nearly £10mil.

WTF was the commercial team doing?!

Ryan Reynolds probably charges that for one advert.

We can have a go at Rudkin for his incompetence, quite rightly. But how on earth does a Premier League football team only bring in £300k in one year - that falls on the CEO and owner, right?!

However, while broadcast rights revenue (£54.2M) and sponsorship revenue (£21.5M) were reduced as a direct result of absence from the top flight, gate receipts held firm (£18.4M in both 2024 and 2023) and other commercial revenues increased by £0.3M to £9.8M.
 

£9.5m -> £9.8m.

  • Like 1
ClaphamFox

ClaphamFox

Posted
Posted
Just now, theessexfox said:

However, while broadcast rights revenue (£54.2M) and sponsorship revenue (£21.5M) were reduced as a direct result of absence from the top flight, gate receipts held firm (£18.4M in both 2024 and 2023) and other commercial revenues increased by £0.3M to £9.8M.
 

£9.5m -> £9.8m.

It will be interesting to see whether they hold firm again next season.

Ian S

Ian S

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

It will be interesting to see whether they hold firm again next season.

I really doubt it.Feels very different this time.

The_77

The_77

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

No I think you might have mixed up £238K for £2.38m - which is SW emoluments, note 5 discloses all employees salaries including directors and won't split the other ''senior managers'' so it's not a case of just getting a number and dividing by 9. It's only stat directors where it's disclosed to protect people having their salaries all over the internet. 

 

I'd be staggered if anyone apart from players earn more than SW, so that put's Rudkin, CFO and anyone else senior on sub £200K most likely, which isn't the going rate for a club of our size and position, so just shows we are employing and settling for people who aren't up to it.

Everyone is putting way too much emphasis on our senior staff. Our DoF and CEO are King Power, this setup is by design. Top makes the decisions, not them.

  • Like 1
FoxFossil

FoxFossil

Posted
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

It will be interesting to see whether they hold firm again next season.

Truck load of Viagra needed for them to hold firm.

Edited by FoxFossil
ClaphamFox

ClaphamFox

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, FoxFossil said:

Truck load of Viagra needed for them to hold firm.

Would money spent on Viagra count as an allowable loss for PSR purposes?

 

Edited by ClaphamFox
  • Like 1
davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/breaking-leicester-city-announce-194m-10073736

 

Breaking: Leicester City announce £19.4m loss for 2023/24 and expect PSR discussions to continue
Leicester City's accounts for the 2023/24 season have been published, a campaign where they had to reduce costs massively following their fall into the Championship

ByJordan Blackwell
10:00, 2 APR 2025Updated11:27, 2 APR 2025


Leicester City expect continued discussions with the football authorities over profit and sustainability rules (PSR) after posting a loss of £19.4m for their Championship-winning season.

City’s accounts for the 2023/24 campaign have been published, showing the club have made a loss for a sixth straight season.

But the extent of the loss is considerably reduced compared to the previous two years, with City in the red to the tune of £92.5m in 2021/22 and £89.7m in 2022/23.

 

The Premier League announced in January that none of their clubs were to be charged with a breach of PSR for the three-year period ending with 2023/24, but added that City remained at risk pending the outcome of a legal case.

Last September, it was announced that Leicester had successfully appealed against a charge for the three-year period ending with 2022/23, arguing that the Premier League’s rules did not apply to them after relegation. The Premier League are appealing against that decision.

Now, City have said they expect discussions with the Premier League and EFL to continue but would not speculate on what a potential sanction may look like.

Their accounts read: “The club has been involved in certain regulatory proceedings with the Premier League and the EFL in relation to the extent to which their respective P&S (Profit and Sustainability) rules apply to the club, in the specific circumstances of the club’s relegation to the EFL Championship and its immediate promotion back to the Premier League.

“The club expects that it will continue to discuss such P&S rules with the relevant football regulators. If the club was ultimately found to have failed to achieve compliance with any P&S rules which were held to be applicable to the club in its specific circumstances then there would be a risk of sanction by the relevant governing body, but at the current time it is impracticable to estimate the likely impact of any such sanction.”

 

City helped their bid to meet PSR for the three-year period ending with 2023/24 by selling players and dramatically reducing their wage bill to cope with the considerable drop in revenue in the Championship.

They made £71.8m in player trading profits by selling Harvey Barnes to Newcastle, Timothy Castagne to Fulham and Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall to Chelsea, the latter deal coming just before the June 30 Premier League accounting deadline in 2024.

James Maddison’s sale to Tottenham, which came in the same summer as Barnes and Castagne’s exits, was factored into the previous accounts as that came prior to June 30, 2023.

Partly because of relegation clauses in player contracts, City’s wage bill fell to £107.2m, down from £205.8m. The wage-to-turnover ratio remains above 100 per cent though - at 101.6 per cent, but down from 116 per cent the year before.

It is estimated that the figure would have been around 90 per cent without the promotion bonuses earned by the squad and staff at the end of last season.

Depending on the interpretation, City’s wage bill of £107.2m may be the biggest-ever in the Championship. There have been previous suggestions that Fulham, at £90m, hold the record, but Newcastle, in 2016/17, had a wage bill of £112.2m, although that was inflated by “onerous contract provisions”.

 

The reason City are still above 100 per cent is because their turnover reduced massively in the Championship, with falling broadcast and sponsorship payments meaning they made £105.3m, down from £177.3m the year before.

However, revenue from gate receipts remained the same, with City fans still packing out the King Power Stadium in the Championship.

While they made considerable profits on player trading, City did also bolster their squad in the summer of 2023 with an outlay of £61.5m on player registrations, with Harry Winks, Conor Coady, Mads Hermansen, Stephy Mavididi, and Tom Cannon all joining the club.

In these accounts, City's total debt stands at £206m, up from £179m the year before. However, it does not include the debt-to-equity transfer made by chairman Aiyawatt 'Top' Srivaddhanaprabha in January of this year, which converted all of the debt owed to King Power or the chairman himself into shares, effectively writing off £124m of that £206m.

In a statement, chief executive Susan Whelan said: “Operating outside of the Premier League during the 2023/24 season required some obvious adjustments compared with previous years.

“However, we achieved success on the pitch and attained promotion and the Championship title at the end of the season.

“As a club, we still have work to do to return to the consistent heights of the last 15 years and the ability to successfully adapt to different challenges is a strength we will rely on as we build for future seasons.

“Thank you to our supporters, staff and partners for the vital roles they play in the club’s development, for the loyalty they continually demonstrate and for the passion that will fuel our future progress.”

ramboacdc

ramboacdc

Posted
Posted

GPT'd it like I did last year if anyone wants the highlights. 

 

Performance Summary (FY24)

  • League: Relegated to the EFL Championship but won the league and secured promotion back to the Premier League.

  • Financial Loss Before Tax: £19.4m loss — a significant improvement from the £89.5m loss in FY23.

  • Turnover: £105.3m (↓ from £177.3m in FY23) — main cause was relegation reducing broadcasting/sponsorship.

    • Broadcasting: £54.2m (↓ from £114.5m)

    • Sponsorship: £21.5m (↓ from £32.1m)

    • Gate Receipts: Steady at £18.4m

    • Commercial Revenue: £9.8m (↑ from £9.5m)

🔵 Expenses & Profit

  • Staff Costs: £107.2m (↓ from £205.8m)

  • Amortisation (player registrations): £45.6m (↓ from £74.7m)

  • Operating Loss (pre player sales): £35.4m (↓ from £80.2m)

  • Player Sales Profit: £71.8m from sales of Barnes, Castagne, Dewsbury-Hall

  • Other Operating Income: £12.7m from manager departure settlement & commercial dispute

🔵 Cash Flow & Liquidity

  • Net Cash Outflow: £1.1m (↓ from £26m outflow in FY23)

  • Cash at Year-End: £7.1m

  • Support from Owners: £36.5m in loans from King Power International

  • Total Net Assets: £57.1m

🔵 Asset Valuation

  • Playing Squad (book value): £107.0m

  • Market Value of Squad (est.): £253.5m

  • King Power Stadium Valuation: £45.3m

  • Seagrave Training Ground: Held at historical cost

🔵 Environmental Impact

  • CO2 Emissions Scope 1, 2, 3 (tCO2e): Total 3,435 — consistent YoY

  • Efficiency: Emissions per m² = 0.05

  • Initiatives:

    • LED lighting, plastic reduction, solar energy plans

    • Biodiversity features at facilities (e.g. bee hives)

🔵 Outlook & Risk Factors

  • Promotion to Premier League is expected to restore revenue.

  • Plans to develop King Power Stadium and surrounding site.

  • Regulatory uncertainties around Profitability & Sustainability (P&S) rules may pose risks.

  • Potential sanctions if non-compliance with P&S is found, but outcome is unknown.

🔵 Key Risks Noted

  • Dependence on league status for revenue.

  • Market volatility in player values.

  • Evolving governance from FIFA, UEFA, UK Govt.

  • Ongoing reliance on financial support from owners.

🔵 Other Highlights

  • No dividend paid.

  • Charitable Donations: £518k, ↑ from £69k.

  • LCFC Women retained WSL status.

  • Fan Engagement: New Fan Advisory Board and Fan Consultative Committees.

  • Employees: Advanced PLEDIS rating for diversity/inclusion. Living wage guaranteed.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
MattFox

MattFox

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Skidmark said:

As someone who knows someone who has recently gained a job at Seagrave, it's fair to say that there's a few people twiddling there thumbs up there. 

There’s a turf academy and a private golf course up their FFS


Honestly the amount of money they waste on it is laughable 

 

Royston.

Royston.

Posted
Posted
On 31/03/2025 at 22:16, davieG said:

Chelsea report £128.4m profit after sale of women's team

 

Chelsea's statement on Monday pointed to how the club improved their financial health, avoiding breaking Premier League's profit and sustainability rules (PSR).

The position was strengthened in the previous financial results by the sale of two hotels by Chelsea FC Holdings Ltd to BlueCo 22 Properties Ltd, a deal between companies under the control of the Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital ownership.

That £76.5m sale meant Chelsea made a loss of £89.9m instead of £166.4m in their 2022-23 accounts.

Chelsea may have made an even greater gain with the sale of the women's team to BlueCo, with that 2024 transaction worth either part or all of the £198.7m "profit on disposal of subsidiaries" mentioned in the club accounts.

Without that, Chelsea may have made a significant loss.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cn91dg34pzqo

If they sell their womens team does that mean they just wont have a womens team?

 

Will the new owners have to change the name?

Royston.

Royston.

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Skidmark said:

As someone who knows someone who has recently gained a job at Seagrave, it's fair to say that there's a few people twiddling there thumbs up there. 

Get Top down there, he'll put those thumbs to good use

fox_favourite

fox_favourite

Posted
Posted

Here is my simpleton take on PSR and financial stuff:

 

PSR is a big joke. If you have higher revenue streams you can spend. But other clubs can't get the bigger revenues because they cant invest in their squad to compete to get the opportunity to create the revenue streams to invest in the squad. It keeps the big clubs big and the little clubs scrapping. 

 

I know it's simplistic, as I'm not an accountant but the whole thing winds me up. 

 

Ah well. I'll go back to my cage. 

Footballwipe

Footballwipe

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Is it me or does this seem very low for a club in the PL? 

It's certainly come down after a big spike

 

2019: £11.5m

2020: £41.1m

2021: £50.5m

2022: £34.2m

2023: £8.2m

2024: £7.1m

 

As a comparable, Brighton have £18.4m based on their most recent accounts.

Parker Pen

Parker Pen

Posted
Posted
On 01/04/2025 at 08:36, Finnegan said:

 

We're all laughing but this is ****ing grotesque. 

 

On every level. 

 

We're getting relegated because rules designed to protect Chelsea and co vastly limit the money we can spend. We have owners that can afford to build one of the most advanced training facilities in the world and who consistently turn their loans in to equity yet apparently we couldn't let them spend another twenty odd million on players this year that might have kept us up for "our own good" because "sustainability."

 

Meanwhile Chelsea can make hundreds of millions of losses one year and make it back the next by sham selling their own women's team to themselves. 

 

Everyone's wound up about Man City and their dodgy sponsorship deals but time after time Chelsea have the brass ones to do shit like this, over valued back scratching sales to Saudi, selling youth players for inflated fees, selling buildings to themselves et all and just completely get away with it. 

 

****ing rank. It winds me up that the British are so apathetic about injustice being done to themselves that we'd all just have a laugh at the black humour of it instead of ****ing marching on FA HQ like we should. 

 

Edit before the inevitable apologists chime up: just because we've made bad transfer decisions it doesn't mean this isn't an enormous injustice. The two aren't mutually exclusive. 

 

I agree! Chelsea’s false accounting is different level and they have been getting away with it since before Man City started their financial shenanigans.
Yes we have been creative with our finances and some of our decisions in recent years have been terrible and Top and his cronies need to be held to account.  But It’s an absolute disgrace that we have to compete against Cartel level bias. Games gone!

  • Like 2

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...