Macquarie Loan for Parachute Payments Rolled Over

[Chrysalis]

1 hour ago, HarryDee8 said:

I think we owe them £98m

 

The sale of fatawu = max £20m

 

Sell belvior training ground. 

 

Any profit we make will have to go to them for the next few years. 

Sell seagrave you mean, not sure what the fascination is with it.

[HankMarvin]

17 minutes ago, FoxesTez said:

It will reduce the creditor position with would be beneficial in the event of administration, but that’s probably about it. Doesn’t help in anyway with fixing the cash flow issues that may see us heading towards administration.  

I think that’s a bit too simplistic.

Yes, reducing creditor exposure helps in an administration scenario, but it’s not just that.

 

Is there any reason why Top can’t step in and deal with the Macquarie Bank debt, so can directly improve cash flow & removes interest payments and repayment pressure.

So it replaces rigid debt with flexible owner funding?

 

Then it can reduce the risk of a cash crunch in the short term.

Or by issuing new shares and injecting cash through equity as opposed to converting?

 

 

 

Edited 22 April by HankMarvin

[Sly]

It’ll be interesting what he has to say. 
 

He does have his finger on the pulse in terms of football finances and I always find his analysis insightful. 
 

The bottom like is the loans we’ve taken allowed us to take annual payments we receive for player transfers early.
 

What this means in reality is the likes of Chelsea would have paid us the £30m for Dewsbury-Hall over a 4 year period, or the parachute payments we receive, we’ve taken the money upfront to run the club in a lump sum, rather than having the staggered payments. So now as we receive these payments from the Premier League or Chelsea for example in the case of KDH, to goes straight to McVampire loans. They’ll have taken a % chunk as well, so we haven’t realise the full value of our actual sales.

 

I’m not worried about the loans as they stand, as they’ll be offset by guaranteed income. 
 

It’s our running costs on a day to day basis, compared with future income that will now sink us.  
 

No one in their right mind is splurging on corporate hospitality, buying a season or match day ticket,  to watch League 1 football at Premier League prices. The “King Power Cult” will, however they’re just happy customers at this point. You aren’t filling a stadium with 32,000 of them. 
 

Anyone that has ever run a corporate business P&L will know that models should be run to assess the impact of scale in terms of running the stadium half empty, or full. 

 

The underlining basis is that we will have fixed an operating costs, such as energy, maintenance, leases, insurances and even salaries, that are potentially better diluted by 

 

Do you dilute these by lowering ticket prices, food prices etc, or continue on this continued path of self destruction? 
 

They’ll have modelled all this if they’ve got competent people in the background in terms of average spend on food, buying tat from the shop, offering parking facilities to people that turn up late, taking a % of the betting spend, basically fan day experience monetisation. 
 

Do you think the people that run our club, have even reviewed the impact this sort of stuff has on us? 

 

Basic table but we should have the data to do this correctly. 
 

Ticket £	Attendance	Ticket Rev	Fan Spend (£15pp)	Total Rev
32	19,000	£608k	£285k	£893k
30	21,000	£630k	£315k	£945k
20	25,000	£500k	£375k	£875k
15	32,000	£480k	£480k	£960k
10	32,000	£320k	£480k	£800k
5	32,000	£160k	£480k	£640k

 

[FoxesTez]

4 hours ago, HankMarvin said:

I think that’s a bit too simplistic.

Yes, reducing creditor exposure helps in an administration scenario, but it’s not just that.

 

Is there any reason why Top can’t step in and deal with the Macquarie Bank debt, so can directly improve cash flow & removes interest payments and repayment pressure.

So it replaces rigid debt with flexible owner funding?

 

Then it can reduce the risk of a cash crunch in the short term.

Or by issuing new shares and injecting cash through equity as opposed to converting?

 

 

 

I mean neither of those things are a debt for equity swap, so I’m not sure you can say my response was too simplistic in response to yours! 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

The next time bomb. Remember all those saying it was "normal" and that "every club does it". This is what will kill us.

[FoxesTez]

Keiran Maguire has confirmed that we will receive £2m cash in broadcast revenue next season. Parachute payments all going towards servicing debt as we knew. 
 

It’s bleak. 

[Danizen]

26 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

The next time bomb. Remember all those saying it was "normal" and that "every club does it". This is what will kill us.

No one will be able to convince me that mortgaging our future PL TV money when we were already on incredibly shaky ground (and playing shit), wasn't akin to putting your house on a 20/1 shot. But if you put together a board of yes men, there's no one to speak up about this.

[Babylon]

23 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

The next time bomb. Remember all those saying it was "normal" and that "every club does it". This is what will kill us.

There is nothing inherently wrong with doing it. There wasn’t then, when first discussed and there isn’t now. 
 

All clubs barrow money they don’t have to be paid back later against some sort of security. For example, when you get promoted you don’t just get a big cheque for £150m. The money is paid in bits and pieces with a large chuck tied to appearances on TV and where you finish etc at the end of the season. 

 

So clubs will borrow money in some fashion, and then pay it back at the end of the season when the money comes in. Like you or me using a credit card and paying it off at the end of the month.

 

The problem here is that we’ve stopped paying them back. We spent the money on other things by the looks of it. We’ve then accumulated even more loans from them in the mean time.

 

The situation is now very very different looking at what we know (we never know for sure being a year behind in the accounting).

 

Plenty of clubs continue to borrow money without being in major financial difficulty. Borrowing money isn’t the issue, the total lack of financial responsibility and planning is, along with an apparent change in KP’s ability or want to take a loss. 

Getting promoted was the out handed on a plate. Yet we decided to not take it, spend that money on a load of rubbish and dug an even bigger financial hole. The mind actually boggles as to what they were all thinking.

 

I can honestly only think that Top has gas lit everyone that KP is the backstop and will always sort the finances, and they are told to not worry. Because I can’t believe so many people would be this moronic. 

 

 

 

[CL Fox]

21 minutes ago, Babylon said:

There is nothing inherently wrong with doing it. There wasn’t then, when first discussed and there isn’t now. 
 

All clubs barrow money they don’t have to be paid back later against some sort of security. For example, when you get promoted you don’t just get a big cheque for £150m. The money is paid in bits and pieces with a large chuck tied to appearances on TV and where you finish etc at the end of the season. 

 

So clubs will borrow money in some fashion, and then pay it back at the end of the season when the money comes in. Like you or me using a credit card and paying it off at the end of the month.

 

The problem here is that we’ve stopped paying them back. We spent the money on other things by the looks of it. We’ve then accumulated even more loans from them in the mean time.

 

The situation is now very very different looking at what we know (we never know for sure being a year behind in the accounting).

 

Plenty of clubs continue to borrow money without being in major financial difficulty. Borrowing money isn’t the issue, the total lack of financial responsibility and planning is, along with an apparent change in KP’s ability or want to take a loss. 

Getting promoted was the out handed on a plate. Yet we decided to not take it, spend that money on a load of rubbish and dug an even bigger financial hole. The mind actually boggles as to what they were all thinking.

 

I can honestly only think that Top has gas lit everyone that KP is the backstop and will always sort the finances, and they are told to not worry. Because I can’t believe so many people would be this moronic. 

 

 

 

I can very much believe they'd be this moronic. It's happened for years here.

[fox_favourite]

25 minutes ago, Babylon said:

There is nothing inherently wrong with doing it. There wasn’t then, when first discussed and there isn’t now. 
 

All clubs barrow money they don’t have to be paid back later against some sort of security. For example, when you get promoted you don’t just get a big cheque for £150m. The money is paid in bits and pieces with a large chuck tied to appearances on TV and where you finish etc at the end of the season. 

 

So clubs will borrow money in some fashion, and then pay it back at the end of the season when the money comes in. Like you or me using a credit card and paying it off at the end of the month.

 

The problem here is that we’ve stopped paying them back. We spent the money on other things by the looks of it. We’ve then accumulated even more loans from them in the mean time.

 

The situation is now very very different looking at what we know (we never know for sure being a year behind in the accounting).

 

Plenty of clubs continue to borrow money without being in major financial difficulty. Borrowing money isn’t the issue, the total lack of financial responsibility and planning is, along with an apparent change in KP’s ability or want to take a loss. 

Getting promoted was the out handed on a plate. Yet we decided to not take it, spend that money on a load of rubbish and dug an even bigger financial hole. The mind actually boggles as to what they were all thinking.

 

I can honestly only think that Top has gas lit everyone that KP is the backstop and will always sort the finances, and they are told to not worry. Because I can’t believe so many people would be this moronic. 

 

 

 

Didn't Top saying in his interview that they either didn't know what PSR was or didn't understand it, I can't remember which one. 

 

If that's the case, it's pure inept management of the finances, 

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

I still can’t get my head around how badly they handled (many things) the shot at redemption that Enzo gave them. That summer after promotion it’s like they went out to try and do it on the cheap but did so by throwing loads of money at it.

 

I’m a tiny bit heartened to hear that figures within the club are also unhappy with how things have been handled - so they are dissenting voices within. For example, how it’s come out about the disbelief that we went into the season with two first team strikers (and one being Ayew) and it took so long to replace Cifuentes.

 

But on Cifuentes, I believe we’re also seeing how some of the dynamics pan out at senior level. We’re now led to believe that Aiyawatt wanted to support Cifuentes, and he did that interview suggesting so. Then he’s pressured to sack him by senior people - who are these senior people? And who has an interest in trying to blame others for prolonged underperformance? Enter Mr Jon Rudkin the cancer at our club…

 

I want KP out as much as the rest of you, and we need strong leadership, but I do wonder what would happen if Aiyawatt replaces Rudkin with someone competent.

Edited 23 April by Wasyls Pec Deck

[lcfcbluearmy]

2 hours ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

I still can’t get my head around how badly they handled (many things) the shot at redemption that Enzo gave them. That summer after promotion it’s like they went out to try and do it on the cheap but did so by throwing loads of money at it.

 

I’m a tiny bit heartened to hear that figures within the club are also unhappy with how things have been handled - so they are dissenting voices within. For example, how it’s come out about the disbelief that we went into the season with two first team strikers (and one being Ayew) and it took so long to replace Cifuentes.

 

But on Cifuentes, I believe we’re also seeing how some of the dynamics pan out at senior level. We’re now led to believe that Aiyawatt wanted to support Cifuentes, and he did that interview suggesting so. Then he’s pressured to sack him by senior people - who are these senior people? And who has an interest in trying to blame others for prolonged underperformance? Enter Mr Jon Rudkin the cancer at our club…

 

I want KP out as much as the rest of you, and we need strong leadership, but I do wonder what would happen if Aiyawatt replaces Rudkin with someone competent.

I actually think if Aitawatt replaced Rudkin with someone competent we would be fine. He isn't a bad owner as such as in he has put the money in and supported the club. His main failing is continuously trusting people who are failing at there jobs and spending the money in the wrong places. 

 

The problem is though its been so clear for so long that Rudkin/senior management are the problem and he has done nothing about it and I have no faith that he will

[Pliskin]

On 22/04/2026 at 01:34, Chrysalis said:

Sell seagrave you mean, not sure what the fascination is with it.

Whats the point in selling it? It’s the one thing that may help produce the right talent to build a young team. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

On 22/04/2026 at 07:03, FoxesTez said:

Keiran Maguire has confirmed that we will receive £2m cash in broadcast revenue next season. Parachute payments all going towards servicing debt as we knew. 
 

It’s bleak. 

The worst thing is all the aggregator accounts posting it as if it's "breaking news". This stuff was reported at the time and no one wanted to know as it was bad news and they'd rather just bury their heads in the sand. 

 

When we get put into administration I think there will be a huge proportion of people that will genuinely be shocked and wonder how it's happened because they just aren't bothered enough to look into what's going on.

[Mickyblueeyes]

I thought Kevin Leicester lad Davies alongside Jon Leicester lad Rudkin did a sterling job on the finances to get us back to a position where we can build ? Which is why he got the CEO job ?

 

All this has taught me, Leicestershire schools might be ****ing shit.

[Gamble92]

Does the 85m include what we are giving them from the parachute payments? So it will go down to 45m right? Is that wishful thinking 

[Foxin_Mad]

Do the parachute payments still class as turnover for this year, even though they go straight on the loans? 

 

The PSR in league 1 seems to be totally different. Its 60% of turnover on playing costs and 60% of investment on playing costs. Not that he would be in theory an owner could pump in 100 million, 60 million of that could be spent on playing costs from what I can tell? unless I am reading it wrong. Whether anyone has that or would be willing to put that in is a different matter.  There is also no restriction on investment in infrastructure from what I can tell. It largely depends on how you can classify things, id imagine aspects of seagrave and the stadium can be classified as infrastructure spending. 

 

In reality selling it makes no sense, to anyone else but another football club its a golf course, that already closed being a golf course. The club could look to diversify it, rent bits out, even rent rooms to opponents travelling the night before etc for income.

 

Not that they will but as above, they need to consider running the club more astutely, its simplistic to think higher prices mean more income,  actually along with other measures, reducing ticket prices etc could lead to more turnover, as now idiots wont just pay whatever the price will disappear as League 1 football is not for day trippers, they need to try and rebuild links with fans. Instead they will double down on their 'philosophy' whatever it is. 

[AjcW]

31 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

Does the 85m include what we are giving them from the parachute payments? So it will go down to 45m right? Is that wishful thinking 

I don't think they'll have any intention of paying Macquarie anything at the minute, they'll ask for it to rollover, Macquarie will say yes and double the interest.

[ClaphamFox]

12 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Do the parachute payments still class as turnover for this year, even though they go straight on the loans? 

 

The PSR in league 1 seems to be totally different. Its 60% of turnover on playing costs and 60% of investment on playing costs. Not that he would be in theory an owner could pump in 100 million, 60 million of that could be spent on playing costs from what I can tell? unless I am reading it wrong. Whether anyone has that or would be willing to put that in is a different matter.  There is also no restriction on investment in infrastructure from what I can tell. It largely depends on how you can classify things, id imagine aspects of seagrave and the stadium can be classified as infrastructure spending. 

 

In reality selling it makes no sense, to anyone else but another football club its a golf course, that already closed being a golf course. The club could look to diversify it, rent bits out, even rent rooms to opponents travelling the night before etc for income.

 

Not that they will but as above, they need to consider running the club more astutely, its simplistic to think higher prices mean more income,  actually along with other measures, reducing ticket prices etc could lead to more turnover, as now idiots wont just pay whatever the price will disappear as League 1 football is not for day trippers, they need to try and rebuild links with fans. Instead they will double down on their 'philosophy' whatever it is. 

Yes.

[Gamble92]

6 minutes ago, AjcW said:

I don't think they'll have any intention of paying Macquarie anything at the minute, they'll ask for it to rollover, Macquarie will say yes and double the interest.

 

1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said:

Yes.

Things are ****ing looking up lads 

[Officer Doofy]

Do Macquarie currently own any football clubs? 

Edited 23 April by Officer Doofy

[Babylon]

Kingpower need to take over the loans, get the club back to running on income, scouting up and coming talent for future sale at profit and and pray for a premier league return at some point to claw some cash back. You know, the basics. 

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, Officer Doofy said:

Do Macquarie currently own any football clubs? 

They might soon 

[st albans fox]

40 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

 

In reality selling it makes no sense, to anyone else but another football club its a golf course, that already closed being a golf course. The club could look to diversify it, rent bits out, even rent rooms to opponents travelling the night before etc for income.

 

This is a no brainer 

no idea why it hasn’t been done last two seasons with clubs playing in Europe v villa and forest 

 

well i do know 

symptomatic of the lack of foresight at the club and the inability or desire to face up to the mess we’re in. 

[Chelmofox]

22 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

This is a no brainer 

no idea why it hasn’t been done last two seasons with clubs playing in Europe v villa and forest 

 

well i do know 

symptomatic of the lack of foresight at the club and the inability or desire to face up to the mess we’re in. 

It seems like a lovely Spa. I'd stay for a night with the family.