Lambert09 Posted 22 January Posted 22 January I’m curious, does anyone else wonder if PSR unintentionally saved us from an even bigger crisis? without its introduction, we likely continued with unsustainable spending and the level at which we were hitting was always going to end in tears with one failure on the pitch. We are so poorly run that I can’t help but think that we would have screwed up eventually and gone down anyway. And given that the KP money dried up, imagine if we’d had 3 more years with that wage to turnover ratio. We’d be looking at 250m deficit or something similar. We were far from sustainable without a big investor and we clearly don’t have that. as awful as psr is, at least we were forced to take some form of corrective action before it was too late (if it isn’t already) 4
Dahnsouff Posted 22 January Posted 22 January 7 minutes ago, Lambert09 said: I’m curious, does anyone else wonder if PSR unintentionally saved us from an even bigger crisis? without its introduction, we likely continued with unsustainable spending and the level at which we were hitting was always going to end in tears with one failure on the pitch. We are so poorly run that I can’t help but think that we would have screwed up eventually and gone down anyway. And given that the KP money dried up, imagine if we’d had 3 more years with that wage to turnover ratio. We’d be looking at 250m deficit or something similar. We were far from sustainable without a big investor and we clearly don’t have that. as awful as psr is, at least we were forced to take some form of corrective action before it was too late (if it isn’t already) Horrible conclusion, but one it is hard to argue with due to our clear awful financial mismanagement. Saved us from ourselves? The ultimate indictment of our hubris. Yeah, agree that PSR is ass, but could it be true!? 1
kenny Posted 22 January Posted 22 January 12 minutes ago, Lambert09 said: I’m curious, does anyone else wonder if PSR unintentionally saved us from an even bigger crisis? without its introduction, we likely continued with unsustainable spending and the level at which we were hitting was always going to end in tears with one failure on the pitch. We are so poorly run that I can’t help but think that we would have screwed up eventually and gone down anyway. And given that the KP money dried up, imagine if we’d had 3 more years with that wage to turnover ratio. We’d be looking at 250m deficit or something similar. We were far from sustainable without a big investor and we clearly don’t have that. as awful as psr is, at least we were forced to take some form of corrective action before it was too late (if it isn’t already) Its devalued our players and stopped us spending to avoid relegation. We would have been better ignoring it and staying up, taking the 3 points like Forest and Everton. 4
Dahnsouff Posted 22 January Posted 22 January 16 minutes ago, kenny said: Its devalued our players and stopped us spending to avoid relegation. We would have been better ignoring it and staying up, taking the 3 points like Forest and Everton. Feels like that would require us to make better decisions with even more money. Not sure those odds are that great tbh.
Lambert09 Posted 22 January Posted 22 January (edited) 22 minutes ago, kenny said: Its devalued our players and stopped us spending to avoid relegation. We would have been better ignoring it and staying up, taking the 3 points like Forest and Everton. But what have the board shown you that would make you believe that we wouldn’t end up in a place like west ham or wolves anyway? Eventually it would have collapsed is my point. We were always going to get a couple of big calls wrong with the people we have in charge. Edited 22 January by Lambert09
5waller5 Posted 22 January Posted 22 January 34 minutes ago, Lambert09 said: I’m curious, does anyone else wonder if PSR unintentionally saved us from an even bigger crisis? without its introduction, we likely continued with unsustainable spending and the level at which we were hitting was always going to end in tears with one failure on the pitch. We are so poorly run that I can’t help but think that we would have screwed up eventually and gone down anyway. And given that the KP money dried up, imagine if we’d had 3 more years with that wage to turnover ratio. We’d be looking at 250m deficit or something similar. We were far from sustainable without a big investor and we clearly don’t have that. as awful as psr is, at least we were forced to take some form of corrective action before it was too late (if it isn’t already) That’s not an unintentional consequence, it’s literally what it’s there to do - stop clubs from unsustainable practices that put its existence at risk 1 1
Lambert09 Posted 22 January Posted 22 January Just now, 5waller5 said: That’s not an unintentional consequence, it’s literally what it’s there to do - stop clubs from unsustainable practices that put its existence at risk On paper yes, in reality they don’t give a damn and it’s just an excuse to keep clubs in their place
wardyfox86 Posted 22 January Posted 22 January 53 minutes ago, Lambert09 said: I’m curious, does anyone else wonder if PSR unintentionally saved us from an even bigger crisis? without its introduction, we likely continued with unsustainable spending and the level at which we were hitting was always going to end in tears with one failure on the pitch. We are so poorly run that I can’t help but think that we would have screwed up eventually and gone down anyway. And given that the KP money dried up, imagine if we’d had 3 more years with that wage to turnover ratio. We’d be looking at 250m deficit or something similar. We were far from sustainable without a big investor and we clearly don’t have that. as awful as psr is, at least we were forced to take some form of corrective action before it was too late (if it isn’t already) You mean PSR coming in and doing the job it's supposed to do? Crazy! Of course, the bigger teams have benefited AS A CONSEQUENCE, but it's ridiculous conspiracy to think that's a reason why it was introduced. Yes, it hampers ambition somewhat, but it also tried to deter reckless owners from wiping clubs off the face of the earth.
kenny Posted 22 January Posted 22 January 37 minutes ago, Lambert09 said: But what have the board shown you that would make you believe that we wouldn’t end up in a place like west ham or wolves anyway? Eventually it would have collapsed is my point. We were always going to get a couple of big calls wrong with the people we have in charge. Had we bought a GK of any competence then the outcome would have been completely different. The decline would have happened as the board is clueless but it would have been less pronounced and I doubt we would have been relegated.
Chrysalis Posted 22 January Posted 22 January For the people asking where its going. A sensible club might have 60% of revenue on wages. So 100m revenue, 60m wages. This then leaves 40m in this example for amortisation, and other football expenses. But if you have 100m revenue, and wages that cost 106m. Then you have to make a 6m profit on player transfers to just to pay the wage bill, then further profit to cover amortisation and other footballing expenses. This is how you can end up selling a 40m player and still be broke. 3
UniFox21 Posted 23 January Posted 23 January The same reality where we spent nothing in January I see 1
LCFCCKEANO Posted 23 January Posted 23 January 19 minutes ago, UniFox21 said: The same reality where we spent nothing in January I see I’m in the market for a fresh Rolex, absolutely meaningless 1
Md9 Posted 23 January Posted 23 January 23 minutes ago, UniFox21 said: The same reality where we spent nothing in January I see He will end up with ayew getting a new contract and no new players
Sky Blues Posted 23 January Posted 23 January 23 hours ago, kenny said: Its devalued our players and stopped us spending to avoid relegation. We would have been better ignoring it and staying up, taking the 3 points like Forest and Everton. The players were, and are still not good enough. If they were good enough other clubs would be happy to pay for them.
kenny Posted 23 January Posted 23 January 1 hour ago, Sky Blues said: The players were, and are still not good enough. If they were good enough other clubs would be happy to pay for them. The ones that took us down are now regular scorers in Europe. If you are singling out ward or amartey, then fair enough. But the amount of cut price ex Leicester players in the top eschelons of the football pyramid is embarrassing. We couldn't afford £13m for Goodman at a time when we were awash with cash and he got nominated for the ballon'dor.
filbertway Posted 23 January Posted 23 January 3 hours ago, UniFox21 said: The same reality where we spent nothing in January I see Swear we've had the same from manager's in Jan for about 5 years now. Start of Jan: "We're looking to do some business we need players" End of Jan: "We don't have money to sign players" If people that work for the club could stop talking bollocks for 12 months and just be straight rather than admitting the truth when things look back then it'd be a lot easier to swallow.
LCFCJohn Posted 24 January Posted 24 January Can’t be bothered to copy them over but the FB fans are taking their defence of the club to a whole new level. On the Leicester City FC page, there is a graphic with all the players who left for free and the total cost (over £200mill). Most people on there are defending it! Pointing to all the fees brought in. Yeah great, hasn’t helped us avoid financial sh*t has it. Saying the club could do nothing. Yeah ok…. These people deserve everything that is coming.
ThurmastonFox Posted 24 January Posted 24 January Final score just said we’re expecting a 10 point deduction in the next week or so 1
MattFox Posted 24 January Posted 24 January 1 minute ago, ThurmastonFox said: Final score just said we’re expecting a 10 point deduction in the next week or so Guessing that’s why Aiyawatt’s in the country
Wymsey Posted 24 January Posted 24 January 1 minute ago, ThurmastonFox said: Final score just said we’re expecting a 10 point deduction in the next week or so Sounds excessive?.. Man City should be placed in League One, then?
Spudulike Posted 24 January Posted 24 January 8 minutes ago, ThurmastonFox said: Final score just said we’re expecting a 10 point deduction in the next week or so Just more wishful thinking and drama queens.
ClaphamFox Posted 24 January Posted 24 January 9 minutes ago, ThurmastonFox said: Final score just said we’re expecting a 10 point deduction in the next week or so BBC Final Score? Who said it? That would be a very odd thing for them to just casually mention given that nobody else seems to have got the story… 1 1
ThurmastonFox Posted 24 January Posted 24 January 10 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said: BBC Final Score? Who said it? That would be a very odd thing for them to just casually mention given that nobody else seems to have got the story… The match analyst. I thought it was a bit odd but said with conviction
when_you're_smiling Posted 24 January Posted 24 January 3 minutes ago, ThurmastonFox said: The match analyst. I thought it was a bit odd but said with conviction Who was it? Seems mad you’d have a journalist not have it as an exclusive and news article online rather than just drop it casually in the first half on Final Score.
Recommended Posts