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

[Danizen]

5 minutes ago, jayfox26 said:

So are the EFL going to be coming after us or not?

If they do, it should be closer to, 'slap on the wrist' territory than the massive points deduction and embargo people were fearing. 

 

We've had three years of cutting back and making huge strides in the right direction, whereas other clubs have been making dodgy deals to skirt round the rules or simply sticking two fingers up at the rules and appealing their way to a minor points deduction. 

[87fox]

Context: Alongside our £19m loss last season, Ipswich lost £39m and Leeds lost £61m.

 

Further context: they hadn't lost £180m over the previous two seasons.

[Stadt]

We don’t have the same level of player trading to bail us out. Likely we have to sack the manager again and surely attendances actually drop this time.

 

Top’s natural course of action is obviously do nothing. Inept little shit.

[Terraloon]

43 minutes ago, Danizen said:

If they do, it should be closer to, 'slap on the wrist' territory than the massive points deduction and embargo people were fearing. 

 

We've had three years of cutting back and making huge strides in the right direction, whereas other clubs have been making dodgy deals to skirt round the rules or simply sticking two fingers up at the rules and appealing their way to a minor points deduction. 

Sorry but I think you are way off.

 

A lot depends on which league ends up with responsibility ( jurisdiction). I am far from sure which will be worse the EFL or the PL or the nightmare scenario where it’s a combination of both 
 

One way or the other the 20/21; 21/22; and 22/23 years will be looked at.If it’s the PL then 21/22; 22/23 and 23/24 will be assessed on top. If it’s the EFL at least you can’t be done in the same way but the EFL are far more proactive when it comes to what will be T25/26
 

I can’t see anyway this is going to end well at all.

 

 

 

 

[Terraloon]

33 minutes ago, 87fox said:

Context: Alongside our £19m loss last season, Ipswich lost £39m and Leeds lost £61m.

 

Further context: they hadn't lost £180m over the previous two seasons.

Or £200 in total over 3  with a max allowable of £80ish million

[DJ Barry Hammond]

3 hours ago, StanSP said:

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

A business doesn’t tend to want a large standing ‘cash’ balance - they would just want cash at hand to secure the day to day running over a foreseeable period.

 

Having large amounts of surplus cash on hand would be considered a waste - given it’s money that could be doing something else, such as paying down debt or investing in the business.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

9 hours ago, Jambiasso said:

A concern for me is wages still being over 100% of revenue and that we managed to make a loss despite parachute payments and making £71.8m profit on the sales of Barnes, Castagne and KDH (page 3 of the report)

Yeah the wages to turnover figure is the concern for me too.

 

But I suspect they’ll be a considerable amount of chunky salaries chalked off the wage bill come this season’s end.

[Globalfox]

Analyzing other clubs financials why does it take nearly 200 more staff to administrate Leicester than Man City..Do people employed by Man City work harder? Ignoring the football apparent mismanagement who actually looks at overall efficiency.

[LCFCCHRIS]

3 hours ago, Globalfox said:

Analyzing other clubs financials why does it take nearly 200 more staff to administrate Leicester than Man City..Do people employed by Man City work harder? Ignoring the football apparent mismanagement who actually looks at overall efficiency.

We need DOLE

Department of Leicester Efficiency 

[bmt]

3 hours ago, Globalfox said:

Analyzing other clubs financials why does it take nearly 200 more staff to administrate Leicester than Man City..Do people employed by Man City work harder? Ignoring the football apparent mismanagement who actually looks at overall efficiency.

I 100% agree with the point but presumably man city fudge the numbers by sharing city group staff

[bmt]

12 hours 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.

I know people get pissed off about high salaries but surely that's peanuts to a good club 

[Globalfox]

6 hours ago, bmt said:

I 100% agree with the point but presumably man city fudge the numbers by sharing city group staff

No it’s a like for like comparison and it has been that way for several years in fact the gap has increased. There would be no advantage to Man City to hide staff as their tax payments increase remember they make a profit. If you build a table of the EPL staff lists we stand out as overstaffed. These numbers in all cases exclude matchday only staff where guess what despite being bigger the numbers do not reflect the disparity. 

[lcfc278]

Yes we're getting relegated in the most pathetic way ever, but the board are going to use this experience as a strength in the coming years. 

[Terraloon]

Read elsewhere that the PL had amended the PSR rules and the report in the Mercury outlines the changes and impacts.

 

 

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-city-face-psr-headache-10111788

 

The only bit I think maybe questionable in the report is the comments re 22/23. Not that the PL are unable to pursue, although the PLs appeal may have something more to add  on that, but what worries me is the EFL have remained strangely quiet on this.

 

I simply don’t think we have heard the last of 22/23 excesses. The fact fact that 24/25 will now  fall under the jurisdiction of the PL which will as a ( even when relegated)  mean the 3 year numbers include 22/23, 23/24 & 24/5 but for me an unknown if LCFC argument re 22/23 was that they were not a Pl club by default does  that means that the EFL rules were applicable in other words the PL allowance of £35 million isn’t appropriate.?
 

 

 

[Danizen]

Surely, this just closes the loophole going forward. You can't just change the rules then apply them retrospectively. 

 

We were the last to get away with it similar to how we avoided a points deduction when we went into administration.

 

 

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, Danizen said:

Surely, this just closes the loophole going forward. You can't just change the rules then apply them retrospectively. 

 

We were the last to get away with it similar to how we avoided a points deduction when we went into administration.

 

 

Correct - it means we couldn’t try the same trick again for this season 

[squidsworth]

A simple solution to get compliant in times like these would be to make players redundant like most other industries would do to their employees if they were struggling financially. One of the biggest issues is we're saddled with players earning huge wages, that we have no way of moving on, which makes it very difficult to do anything in retrospect about psr.  So if we could get rid of some of them by paying legal redundancy, the problem goes away.

It might also help to motivate a few to do more than they have been doing too.

But it's just another perk in the life a top level pro footballer I guess, they can sit on their arses and contribute to a clubs decline without any penalty at all.

[Danizen]

26 minutes ago, squidsworth said:

A simple solution to get compliant in times like these would be to make players redundant like most other industries would do to their employees if they were struggling financially. One of the biggest issues is we're saddled with players earning huge wages, that we have no way of moving on, which makes it very difficult to do anything in retrospect about psr.  So if we could get rid of some of them by paying legal redundancy, the problem goes away.

It might also help to motivate a few to do more than they have been doing too.

But it's just another perk in the life a top level pro footballer I guess, they can sit on their arses and contribute to a clubs decline without any penalty at all.

The PFA would have an absolute meltdown but clubs do need to break player power.

 

Over the course of about 15 years the TV deal got more and more lucrative. The problem is, the club's didn't get to keep that money. Player's wage rises outstripping the TV money so it ended up being a net loss for almost every PL club. The simple retort to that is, 'the club's didn't have to offer those wages' but the truth is, they did if they wanted to sign anyone. If one club doesn't pay it, there's another five that will (and then some).

 

Break clauses should be the norm and also, loyalty bonuses need to be reshaped so a player can't moan about joining another club, sulk, threaten to go on strike, be tapped up by 'third parties' and then still bank millions from their loyalty bonus because they didn't formally request a transfer. 

[Gamble92]

We got Winks on 90k a week and Coady on 70k but some of you are going after the Admin staff 😭

[jmono84]

On 31/03/2025 at 15:25, AjcW said:

Whenever this is released, you can guarantee they won't provide this handy and easy to understand article on the website like Spurs have done.

 

https://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/2025/march/financial-results-year-ended-30-june-2024/ 

£110m - £120m match receipts? How much do they charge??!!

[Lako42]

10 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

We got Winks on 90k a week and Coady on 70k but some of you are going after the Admin staff 😭

Welcome to Britain 

[Dahnsouff]

13 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

We got Winks on 90k a week and Coady on 70k but some of you are going after the Admin staff 😭

Do admin staff have multi year contracts too then?  

[Richard]

I've always thought Rudkin running the KP stables was just a way of giving him more salary off the clubs books

[coolhandfox]

You can't amend rules and apply the retrospectively, it would never stand up in court.

 

The 22/23 breach is done dusted.

 

 

[stu]

13 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

You can't amend rules and apply the retrospectively, it would never stand up in court.

 

The 22/23 breach is done dusted.

 

 

Surely depends if the Football League believe they have the authority to dish out a punishment to us on the basis we argued we were not a Premier League club when the breach occurred.

 

The recent Athletic article on the Premier League closing the loopholes we exploited claim that that the Football League are ready to take action when we get relegated.

Whether they legally can remains to be seen, however the point being I don’t think anyone can confidently say the 22/23 breach is done and dusted.