Premier League has charged LCFC with an alleged breach of PSR

[davieG]

https://eflanalysis.com/transfers/leicester-city-tipped-to-make-30m-announcement-as-aiyawatt-srivaddhanaprabha-sets-transfer-budget/

 

Leicester City tipped to make £30m announcement as Aiyawatt Srivaddhanaprabha sets transfer budget
Ailsa Cowen
Thu 29 May 2025 19:15, UK
Finally free from the constraints of Profit and Sustainability Rules, Leicester City’s 2025-26 Championship campaign begins with a sense of financial freedom.

Relegated from the Premier League at the end of a miserable 2024-25 season, the Foxes are now aiming for an immediate bounce back to the top flight.

While the complete 2024-25 accounts are still under wraps, whispers suggest Leicester are in a significantly better financial position compared to previous Premier League years, where substantial losses led to PSR concerns.

However, this newfound financial breathing room does not mean a spending spree is incoming, especially with the threat of a potential points deduction for alleged past PSR breaches.

To understand the true picture of their summer strategy, we turn to our finance expert, Adam Williams, for his predicted financial forecast as Leicester City prepare for life back in the Championship.

Leicester City’s predicted budget for the upcoming season
In an EFL Analysis exclusive, we take a look at how PSR restraints will impact Leicester in 2025/26, as well as player sales and commercial losses, to come up with a rough budget the Foxes can use this summer.

Williams said: “2025-26 will be the first season for a while that Leicester are not under major PSR pressure. We do not have the accounts for 2024-25 yet, but we can deduce that the losses won’t be as heavy as previous seasons.

“Looking at their signings and the wage profile of players they brought in for 2024-25, they have not bet the farm on staying up necessarily.

“In 2023-24, their losses were a relatively modest £19m. If you add back PSR-exempt expenses, that probably swings to about minus £10m.

“They did make a net profit on player sales in cash terms of about £50m that season, compared to negative £36m this season, so that’s one discrepancy with trying to work out 2024-25’s figures, along with the wage bill rising after promotion. Amortisation, which is how clubs account for transfer fees paid over some time, will be somewhere around £60m.

“But I would suggest they will maybe make £175m in revenue. Because the new signings they made are amortised over five years whereas profit on the sales is booked immediately, as well as the fact that Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall was a ‘pure profit’ sale for PSR purposes, I reckon a loss of £30-40m sounds about right. Add back PSR-allowable expenditure and let us say it is £30m.”

So, what does that mean in simpler terms? Well, Leicester may need more money to come in before they spend, but that’s unlikely to come from those at the top.

Williams added: “They are at negative £40m and they will be allowed to lose up to £61m. I think player sales are inevitable and the transfer budget itself will depend on how strong they go in that department. Whatever they spend, I suspect they will have to earn first.

“I do not think the owners will want to put money in externally and it would not make business or PSR sense to do so.”

[fox_favourite]

15 minutes ago, davieG said:

https://eflanalysis.com/transfers/leicester-city-tipped-to-make-30m-announcement-as-aiyawatt-srivaddhanaprabha-sets-transfer-budget/

 

Leicester City tipped to make £30m announcement as Aiyawatt Srivaddhanaprabha sets transfer budget
Ailsa Cowen
Thu 29 May 2025 19:15, UK
Finally free from the constraints of Profit and Sustainability Rules, Leicester City’s 2025-26 Championship campaign begins with a sense of financial freedom.

Relegated from the Premier League at the end of a miserable 2024-25 season, the Foxes are now aiming for an immediate bounce back to the top flight.

While the complete 2024-25 accounts are still under wraps, whispers suggest Leicester are in a significantly better financial position compared to previous Premier League years, where substantial losses led to PSR concerns.

However, this newfound financial breathing room does not mean a spending spree is incoming, especially with the threat of a potential points deduction for alleged past PSR breaches.

To understand the true picture of their summer strategy, we turn to our finance expert, Adam Williams, for his predicted financial forecast as Leicester City prepare for life back in the Championship.

Leicester City’s predicted budget for the upcoming season
In an EFL Analysis exclusive, we take a look at how PSR restraints will impact Leicester in 2025/26, as well as player sales and commercial losses, to come up with a rough budget the Foxes can use this summer.

Williams said: “2025-26 will be the first season for a while that Leicester are not under major PSR pressure. We do not have the accounts for 2024-25 yet, but we can deduce that the losses won’t be as heavy as previous seasons.

“Looking at their signings and the wage profile of players they brought in for 2024-25, they have not bet the farm on staying up necessarily.

“In 2023-24, their losses were a relatively modest £19m. If you add back PSR-exempt expenses, that probably swings to about minus £10m.

“They did make a net profit on player sales in cash terms of about £50m that season, compared to negative £36m this season, so that’s one discrepancy with trying to work out 2024-25’s figures, along with the wage bill rising after promotion. Amortisation, which is how clubs account for transfer fees paid over some time, will be somewhere around £60m.

“But I would suggest they will maybe make £175m in revenue. Because the new signings they made are amortised over five years whereas profit on the sales is booked immediately, as well as the fact that Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall was a ‘pure profit’ sale for PSR purposes, I reckon a loss of £30-40m sounds about right. Add back PSR-allowable expenditure and let us say it is £30m.”

So, what does that mean in simpler terms? Well, Leicester may need more money to come in before they spend, but that’s unlikely to come from those at the top.

Williams added: “They are at negative £40m and they will be allowed to lose up to £61m. I think player sales are inevitable and the transfer budget itself will depend on how strong they go in that department. Whatever they spend, I suspect they will have to earn first.

“I do not think the owners will want to put money in externally and it would not make business or PSR sense to do so.”

Interesting. So we're breaking free from PSR, yet have a points deduction coming and a loss. This means that we'll have to sell before we buy. 

 

To my simple minds this is a non article that conflicts itself. Nothing to see here

Edited 29 May 2025 by fox_favourite

[Chrysalis]

10 hours ago, lcfc_forever said:

Suggestion here that the punishment would apply next season, and minimum 12 points as the overspend is £17m (and mitigation only applies if overspend is below £15m) plus potential further punishment for aggravation - this would be very damaging:

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/leicester-minimum-point-deduction-guilty-psr-3720796

 

It's behind a paywall so can't share the full copy. 

 

Feels like having made the EPL look foolish for 22/23, they want to hammer us this time. 

Just added: But Stefan Borson says this is incorrect as we were a PL team for 2 of the 3 seasons, and as PL have jurisdiction, they’d apply their rules: 

 

 

 

12 points would at least prove the people still defending FFP, that the rules arent about keeping a club solvent, because if they were, then the rules would always cap out at the penalty for going into admin.

[Finnegan]

6 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

Interesting. So we're breaking free from PSR, yet have a points deduction coming and a loss. This means that we'll have to sell before we buy. 

 

To my simple minds this is a non article that conflicts itself. Nothing to see here

 

If we get a points deduction (IF) then it's getting penalised for previous seasons. 

 

We should be fairly in clear really with PSR moving forward. 

 

[Spudulike]

[Guest Bilo]

3 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

If we get a points deduction (IF) then it's getting penalised for previous seasons. 

 

We should be fairly in clear really with PSR moving forward. 

 

Plus, as I've said before, the points deduction would have to be pretty ****ing hefty for it to derail a promotion push. Sheffield United could have got a 20 point deduction and finished fifth. Leeds and Burnley could have got nine each and still been automatically promoted. There's little reason to suspect that the gap between the relegated sides and those currently in the Championship won't be broadly similar. 

[VLC86]

Relying on player sales sounds fun, I’m sure that goes well.

[Guest Bilo]

3 minutes ago, VLC86 said:

Relying on player sales sounds fun, I’m sure that goes well.

It depends on who we're selling. Hermansen likely to go, Faes apparently attracting interest as well as Ndidi. Not to mention the wages of Vardy, Ward and Iversen off the books, which will be close to £200k a week. This probably gives us a reasonable amount of elasticity if we buy well and promote some of the youngsters coming of age like Alves, Monga (sparingly), Evans, Nelson and Aluko.

[87fox]

So, as covered above, according to The Independent we're looking at a £17m+ overspend for the 2021 to 2024 3-year cycle.

 

But the issue of clarity on the "T" season in the rules has gone very quiet (first publicised around 8 months ago here).

 

I do wonder if our interpretation of the rules will be the main point of our argument at the tribunal:

• If we have allowed losses of £83m we have overspent by £17m – as alleged by the Premier League.
• If we have allowed losses of £105m (as the T wording seems to suggest – against all previous understanding) we are within the spending limit by £5m.

[VLC86]

Just now, Bilo said:

It depends on who we're selling. Hermansen likely to go, Faes apparently attracting interest as well as Ndidi. Not to mention the wages of Vardy, Ward and Iversen off the books, which will be close to £200k a week. This probably gives us a reasonable amount of elasticity if we buy well and promote some of the youngsters coming of age like Alves, Monga (sparingly), Evans, Nelson and Aluko.

About that…

 

In all seriousness, that £200k a week off the wage bill still probably has us top of the table so there will need to be much more of that in my opinion.

 

Last time we were in the division, wernt Vardy’s wages more than the entire squad at Cov?

 

To put us in a good position we will probably need Wout, Vestergaard, Justin, Coady, Daka, Soumare, Ndidi and Winks to be gone. 

[AKCJ]

4 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

If we get a points deduction (IF) then it's getting penalised for previous seasons. 

 

We should be fairly in clear really with PSR moving forward. 

 

The important thing for this summer is to set the framework moving forward so we're never flying this close to PSR punishments again.

 

The summer of 2022 set us back 10 years because we couldn't go out and buy players for the squad refresh we so obviously needed.

 

If the limit is £30m then we shouldn't be looking to spend £30m because if and when it all goes tits up, what then?

[Foxes96]

9 minutes ago, 87fox said:

So, as covered above, according to The Independent we're looking at a £17m+ overspend for the 2021 to 2024 3-year cycle.

 

But the issue of clarity on the "T" season in the rules has gone very quiet (first publicised around 8 months ago here).

 

I do wonder if our interpretation of the rules will be the main point of our argument at the tribunal:

• If we have allowed losses of £83m we have overspent by £17m – as alleged by the Premier League.
• If we have allowed losses of £105m (as the T wording seems to suggest – against all previous understanding) we are within the spending limit by £5m.

This would make sense as previous belief was because of KDH and Enzo monies we had just avoided a breach, for 3 year period ending 23/24. But if the lower 83m figure is applied that could be why the PL/ EFL think we’ve breached

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Sell before we buy for the 7th window in a row. 

 

"King Power are experienced businessmen!" 

[fox_favourite]

3 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Sell before we buy for the 7th window in a row. 

 

"King Power are experienced businessmen!" 

We do seem very reactive in everything we do rather than pro active, last season was a prime example. From manager choices, players signed and decisions from start to finish.

 

Though I do feel psr is a con on smaller clubs 

 

That is not the way to run a business. 

 

"We have confirmed our place in the Championship for next season." Will stick with me for a long time. 

 

They should already have a plan to what's going to happen, but alas I fear we don't. 

Edited 30 May 2025 by fox_favourite

[Pliskin]

Ignore any articles. It ultimately comes down to a decision, it was touted we were getting a minimum of 12 points last time, and it never materialised. 

[Motty]

Surely you can't be deducted more points than for going into administration as has been mentioned before.

It'll be like a bank charging you £25 for going £5 overdrawn. Whoops

[teblin]

I'd be very very surprised if we got as many as 12 point. Most of the punishment dealt out with PSR has ultimately not really impacted the outcome of a season for teams. If it were to do so, I think its where PSR becomes anti competition.

 

Might be that they want to make an example of us, but I think it will be around 6 points.

[davieG]

Are we waiting for this season to officially end before sacking Ruud?

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

Are we waiting for this season to officially end before sacking Ruud?

Yeah - the polo season 

[AKCJ]

6 minutes ago, davieG said:

Are we waiting for this season to officially end before sacking Ruud?

Yeah, autumn.

[urban.spaceman]

13 hours ago, john ridley said:

We deserve  all we get .

Bollocks. 

[john ridley]

2 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Bollocks. 

Why is it bollocks? We've  been poorly  run for years despite all this  self sustainable crap they keep coming out with .All this is through  bad management with the culprits  still in place .Until  there's a big change this will crop up every  year till all these silly contracts handed out have gone .No sympathy,**** em .

[Pliskin]

2 minutes ago, john ridley said:

Why is it bollocks? We've  been poorly  run for years despite all this  self sustainable crap they keep coming out with .All this is through  bad management with the culprits  still in place .Until  there's a big change this will crop up every  year till all these silly contracts handed out have gone .No sympathy,**** em .

Where’s this is true…. This latest debacle is frankly a farce…. We’ve been cleared once so they change the rules and have another go. Regardless how badly we’re run, let’s not hide unfair processes which this clearly is at the moment. 

[Jattdogg]

Scenes when they comes back and give us +12 for their poorly written rules.

[NorthernFox]

We are getting this right up the hoop. The absolute max they can get away with. They don't like it up em Mr Mainwaring!! So price will be paid. Still interested to see what (if anything) happens to Chelsea/Man City. Boo to them. You would think 2 relegations were bad enough ffs.