Macquarie Loan for Parachute Payments Rolled Over

[Wink84]

14 hours ago, HankMarvin said:

Nope definitely not tried to find “loopholes” 👀

 

 

“Leicester City will pay the Football League £3.1m after settling a Financial Fair Play (FFP) disputefrom the 2013/14 season when the club won the Championship.

The Foxes exceeded the permitted £8m loss when they won promotion.

They posted a loss of £20.8m but said £13m of it was "allowable" as it included promotion and academy costs.

The EFL said, external that Leicester "did not make any deliberate attempt to infringe the rules or to deceive".

It added: "The dispute arose out of genuine differences of interpretation of the rules between the parties”

 

A familiar defence, there was also the shady Trestellar deal, which allowed the club to spend £36m on wages.

£5m more than their total income before getting promoted   

 

So we have history of paying more in wages than our turnover under Vichai, Top just following in his dad's footsteps but had his pants pulled down.

[HankMarvin]

15 minutes ago, Wink84 said:

So we have history of paying more in wages than our turnover under Vichai, Top just following in his dad's footsteps but had his pants pulled down.

And dodgy sponsorship deals 

[Sky Blues]

4 hours ago, Lineker's Left Foot said:

So that was our fault that ITV Digital collapsed?

 

Also after perusing your forum, I have found that Leicester fans get barracked on Sky Blues Talk for having a genuine discussion.

 

Think you get an ‘easy ride’ here.  Looks like your fans are full of so much vitriol for us 😂

ITV digital? Our club was hit the hardest by it. When we went down so did ITV digital at the same time.

 

It's a lot better for me on here since it was noticed I'm not here to take the p1ss. Half my family are Leicester and the other Coventry. Both sides have their idiots. Look on here how many hate Coventry. And for what? A local rivalry that lots say isn't local rivalry? 

[Sky Blues]

1 hour ago, coolhandfox said:

The big issue I have with PSR fans are spending more time talking about clubs accounts, PSR rules, than talking about the actual football.  

 

 

You have more important things to talk about than the football itself. 

[VLC86]

49 minutes ago, Wink84 said:

So we have history of paying more in wages than our turnover under Vichai, Top just following in his dad's footsteps but had his pants pulled down.

We always have under them, which is why they “cleared the debt” a few times, just now they won’t.

Edited 16 January by VLC86

[coolhandfox]

33 minutes ago, Sky Blues said:

You have more important things to talk about than the football itself. 

That's my point, it shouldn't be that way for fans of any club. 

 

Anyway why weren't you on here when you were shit......

[filbertway]

45 minutes ago, Sky Blues said:

You have more important things to talk about than the football itself. 

Even if we didn't, I'd rather talk about anything else at the minute, to be fair haha.

 

What XI are you expecting tomorrow? Will the new boys get a start?

[Gamble92]

2 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

The big issue I have with PSR fans are spending more time talking about clubs accounts, PSR rules, than talking about the actual football.  

 

 

And we're paying for it too. The amount of clubs that have used this as the reason for ticket prices and it makes the fans comply because they're doing what's "best for the club".

 

Then for your money you get to watch all the academy players get sold and replaced by eleven men with no attachment whatsoever to the badge. Love it. 

[Robo61]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

Even if we didn't, I'd rather talk about anything else at the minute, to be fair haha.

 

What XI are you expecting tomorrow? Will the new boys get a start?

Have I missed something??

[Manwell Pablo]

4 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

Have I missed something??

 

Clearly yes. 

[filbertway]

41 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

Have I missed something??

I was asking the Cov fan if their new signings are likely to start  

 

[Chrysalis]

14 hours ago, Sky Blues said:

There's been 2 different sets of rule changes directly because of what your club has done. The first one gave you a big financial boost when you didn't have to pay the full amount for your ground when going into administration. 

 

It seems the biggest complaint is other clubs have found more lucrative loopholes or you're worse off because another club survived relegation when using the same loophole. 

I dont suggest going down this road, as it indicates sour grapes plus like many other people you are misinformed.

 

The ground has been fully paid for, the admin actually made us pay more since we had to pay rent for a number of years and then later purchased it back. (We also were hamstrung financially for a period of time after, including the EPL season where our TV money was largely unavailable for us to spend, there was no mythical financial boost).

 

I also doubt the rules were done because of us, you know there has been a fair few clubs going into admin, before and after our own admin, and there is this problem that the big clubs want their position protected, so FFP was invented to maintain the status quo, but pretending it was about keeping clubs solvent.  People such as yourself have fell for this.

 

Why do some people have an obsession with us?  Because we happened to get promoted in a season we went into admin.  

When we talk about loopholes, we didnt exploit any as there was no FFP at the time, whilst now during PSR/FFP we have clubs exploiting loopholes.  But yeah PSR in itself is basically legalised cheating, X club is allowed to spend more because they have bigger revenue.

 

If the system was truly about keeping clubs solvent, it would take account of debt, if the system was truly about being fair, then every club would have the same salary cap and spending limit, not something based on revenues.

I dont know what is going through your mind that makes you think your admin was some kind of honourable thing, and ours was with the intent of taking advantage.

Edited 16 January by Chrysalis

[davieG]

9 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

I dont suggest going down this road, as it indicates sour grapes plus like many other people you are misinformed.

 

Lets ignore that your own Club has been in administration.

 

The ground has been fully paid for, the admin actually made us pay more since we have to pay rent for a number of years and then later purchased it back.

 

I also doubt the rules were done because of us, you know there has been a fair few clubs going into admin, before and after our own admin, and there is this problem that the big clubs want their position protected, so FFP was invented to maintain the status quo, but pretending it was about keeping clubs solvent.  People such as yourself have fell for this.

 

Why do some people have an obsession with us?  Because we happened to get promoted in a season we went into admin.  

When we talk about loopholes, we didnt exploit any as there was no FFP at the time, whilst now during PSR/FFP we have clubs exploiting loopholes.  But yeah PSR in itself is basically legalised cheating, X club is allowed to spend more because they have bigger revenue.

 

If the system was truly about keeping clubs solvent, it would take account of debt, if the system was truly about being fair, then every club would have the same salary cap and spending limit, not something based on revenues.

I dont know what is going through your mind that makes you think your admin was some kind of honourable thing, and ours was with the intent of taking advantage.

Club	Entered administration/CVA	Exited administration/CVA	League(s)	Deduction(s)
Bradford City	1983	1983 (Old company dissolved)[23]	Third Division	None
Charlton Athletic	February 1984[24][25]	March 1984[nb 1] (Old company dissolved)[26]	Second Division	None
Chelsea	Administrative Receiver appointed: 14 May 1993[27]	August 1992[27] (Old company dissolved)[28]	Premier League	None
Middlesbrough	21 May 1986	July 1986[29][nb 2] (Old company dissolved)[30]	Third Division	None
Tranmere Rovers	1987[31]	1987[32]	Fourth Division	None
Newport County	1989[33]	February 1989 Dissolved[33]	Football Conference	None
Walsall	1990	−	−	None
Northampton Town	1992	−	−	None
Kettering Town	1992	−	−	None
Aldershot	1992	−	−	None
Maidstone United	1992	−	−	None
Hartlepool United	1994	−	−	None
Barnet	1994	−	−	None
Exeter City	1994	−	−	None
Gillingham	1995	−	−	None
Doncaster Rovers	1997	−	−	None
Millwall	21 January 1997	June 1997 (Old company dissolved)[34]	Second Division	None
Bournemouth	1997	−	−	None
Crystal Palace	1998	July 2000	Second Division	None
Chester City	October 1998[35]	July 1999[36]	Third Division	None
Portsmouth	1998	1999	Second Division	None
Hull City	7 February 2001[37]	12 March 2001[38][nb 3]	Third Division	None
Queens Park Rangers	2 April 2001[40]	17 November 2002[41]	First Division	None
Bury	1 March 2002[42]	−	Second Division Third Division	None
Halifax Town	9 April 2002[43]	March 2003[44]	Third Division Football Conference	None
Bradford City	16 May 2002[45]	1 August 2002[46]	First Division	None
Notts County	June 2002	December 2003[47] (Old company dissolved)[48]	Third Division	None
Barnsley	3 October 2002[49]	25 October 2003[50]	Second Division	None
Leicester City	21 October 2002[51]	16 November 2004[52] (Old company in liquidation)[53]	First Division	None
Port Vale	16 December 2002[54]	2003 (Old company dissolved)[55]	Second Division	None
York City	18 December 2002[56]	26 March 2003[57] (Old company dissolved)[58]	Third Division	None
Luton Town	2003[59]	2003	Second Division	None
Derby County	20 October 2003[60]	20 October 2003[60]	Championship	None[nb 4]
Ipswich Town[nb 5]	10 February 2003[64]	30 May 2003[65]	First Division	None
Wimbledon	5 June 2003[66]	21 June 2004[67] (As MK Dons)	First Division	None
Oldham Athletic	August 2003[68]	26 May 2004[69] (Old company dissolved)[70]	Second Division	None
Darlington	23 December 2003[71]	26 May 2004[72]	Third Division	None
Bradford City	27 February 2004[73]	10 December 2004[74] (Old company dissolved)[75]	First Division League One	None
Wrexham	3 December 2004[13]	3 August 2006[76]	League One League Two	−10 pts
Cambridge United	29 April 2005[77]	22 July 2005[78]	League Two	−10 pts
Rotherham United	13 May 2006[79]	???	League One	−10 pts
Crawley Town	5 June 2006[80]	10 August 2007[81]	Conference National	−6 pts[nb 6]
Boston United	25 April 2007[83]	20 May 2008[84]	League Two	−10 pts[nb 7]
Leeds United	4 May 2007[86]	11 July 2007[87] (Old company dissolved)[88]	Championship League One	−10 pts −15 pts[nb 8]
Luton Town	22 November 2007[90]	28 July 2008[91] (Old company dissolved)[92]	League One League Two	−10 pts −20 pts[nb 9]
Bournemouth	8 February 2008[94]	18 July 2008[95] (Old company dissolved)[96]	League One League Two	−10 pts −17 pts[nb 10]
Rotherham United	18 March 2008[98]	2008[1] (Old company dissolved)[99]	League Two	−10 pts −17 pts[nb 11]
Halifax Town	26 March 2008[100]	13 June 2008[101]	Conference National	−10 pts
Darlington	25 February 2009[102]	7 August 2009[103]	League Two	−10 pts
Southampton	2 April 2009[104][105]	8 July 2009[106]	Championship League One	N/A −10 pts[nb 12]
Stockport County	30 April 2009[107]	18 June 2010[108]	League One	−10 pts
Chester City	17 May 2009[35]	10 March 2010[nb 13] Dissolved	Conference National	−25 pts[nb 14]
Northwich Victoria	15 May 2009[114]	16 May 2010[115][nb 15]	Conference National	−10 pts[nb 16]
Farsley Celtic	30 June 2009[119]	10 March 2010 Dissolved[120]	Conference North	−10 pts[121]
Salisbury City	3 September 2009[122]	26 February 2010[123][124]	Conference National	−10 pts[nb 17]
Weymouth	28 October 2009[126]	27 November 2009[127]	Conference South	None
Crystal Palace	26 January 2010[128]	20 August 2010[129] (Old company dissolved)[130]	Championship	−10 pts
Portsmouth	26 February 2010[16]	24 October 2010[131] (Old company dissolved)[132]	Premier League	−9 pts
Plymouth Argyle	4 March 2011[133]	31 October 2011[134] (Old company dissolved)[135]	League One	−10 pts
Rushden and Diamonds	7 July 2011[136]	8 July 2011 Dissolved[137]	Conference National	None
Darlington	3 January 2012[138]	21 June 2012 Dissolved[139]	Conference National	−10 pts
Portsmouth	17 February 2012[140]	19 April 2013[141] (Old company dissolved)[142]	Championship	−10 pts
Port Vale	9 March 2012[143]	20 November 2012[144] (Old company dissolved)[145]	League Two	−10 pts
Coventry City	21 March 2013[146]	14 June 2013[147] (Old company dissolved)[148]	League One League One	−10 pts[146][149] −10 pts[150]
Aldershot Town	2 May 2013[151]	31 July 2014 (Old company dissolved)[152]	League Two Conference National	N/A -10 pts
Bolton Wanderers	13 May 2019[153]	28 August 2019[154] (Old company in liquidation)[155]	Championship League One	N/A −12 pts[156]
Bury	18 July 2019[157]	CVA terminated on 9 March 2020; new CVA sought.[158]	League One	−12 pts[159]
Rhyl	27 April 2020[160]	27 April 2020 Dissolved[160]	Cymru North	None[nb 18]
Wigan Athletic	1 July 2020[161]	30 March 2021[162] (Old company in liquidation)[163]	Championship League One	−12 pts[161] N/A
Bury	27 November 2020[164]	1 May 2022[165]	N/A	N/A
Derby County	22 September 2021[166]	1 July 2022[167]	Championship	−12 pts[166]
Torquay United	5 April 2024[168]	31 May 2024[169]	National League South	−10 pts[170]
Sheffield Wednesday	24 October 2025[171]		Championship	–12 pts[172]
Farsley Celtic	18 December 2025[173]	18 December 2025 (liquidated; phoenix club FC Farsley was created)[173]	N/A	N/A
Harlow Town	9 January 2026[174]		Spartan South Midlands League Premier Division	TBD

[tylesta]

14 hours ago, Sky Blues said:

There's been 2 different sets of rule changes directly because of what your club has done. The first one gave you a big financial boost when you didn't have to pay the full amount for your ground when going into administration. 

 

It seems the biggest complaint is other clubs have found more lucrative loopholes or you're worse off because another club survived relegation when using the same loophole. 

We had to pay rent as a American hedge fund owned the ground we dindt own the ground until 2013

[tylesta]

4 hours ago, Sky Blues said:

You have more important things to talk about than the football itself. 

Why you on this thread anyway ?

[Terraloon]

1 hour ago, Chrysalis said:

I dont suggest going down this road, as it indicates sour grapes plus like many other people you are misinformed.

 

The ground has been fully paid for, the admin actually made us pay more since we had to pay rent for a number of years and then later purchased it back. (We also were hamstrung financially for a period of time after, including the EPL season where our TV money was largely unavailable for us to spend, there was no mythical financial boost).

 

I also doubt the rules were done because of us, you know there has been a fair few clubs going into admin, before and after our own admin, and there is this problem that the big clubs want their position protected, so FFP was invented to maintain the status quo, but pretending it was about keeping clubs solvent.  People such as yourself have fell for this.

 

Why do some people have an obsession with us?  Because we happened to get promoted in a season we went into admin.  

When we talk about loopholes, we didnt exploit any as there was no FFP at the time, whilst now during PSR/FFP we have clubs exploiting loopholes.  But yeah PSR in itself is basically legalised cheating, X club is allowed to spend more because they have bigger revenue.

 

If the system was truly about keeping clubs solvent, it would take account of debt, if the system was truly about being fair, then every club would have the same salary cap and spending limit, not something based on revenues.

I dont know what is going through your mind that makes you think your admin was some kind of honourable thing, and ours was with the intent of taking advantage.

Some of this I don’t believe you are 100% correct

 

The ground according to the last accounts ( yes they are over a year out of date ) wasn’t at that point paid for by LCFC it was subject to an HP agreement with KP. The accounts in question state that the balance owing at that point circa £26 m has to be paid in full by June 26

 

You say that PSR is basically legalised cheating  yet it was the clubs that voted for it but your point about spending more because of bigger revenues not quite sure that really makes sense because the allowable losses at all levels are the same for all clubs within their respective leagues. There is a valid argument that the allowable losses should be a % of turnover as opposed to fixed numbers the fact it isn’t gives a greater advantage to clubs with  smaller turnover 
 

You then talk about all clubs having the same salary cap and spending limit but how would you determine the cap ? Would you be ok with say LCFC only being allowed to spend the same as the lowest income generating club in the Championship? Bear in mind that it no doubt costs far more to run LCFC than it does say Oxford but how would that play out if spending was equalised ?
Maybe if we want a truly competitive competition should the cap be based on a Div2 club ?
 

I personally think that any club going into administration ,(do we mean standard administration or a pre packed type ?) shouldn’t just  face automatic points deduction they should be relegated.

 

 

 

[Corky]

We have had some questionable practices in the past but I don't think we originally set out to break these PSR rules. We gambled on staying near the top and failed whilst also being hit at the time the Premier League started to take action after a decade of these regulations. But then we could have been hit harder for what happened the decade before.

 

The incompetence of this regime (failing to sack Rodgers, ridiculous contracts, failure to recoup significant money, failing to grow the club organically through commercial deals and increasing the stadium capacity) deserves all it gets, though. We wasted a great chance to stay as a relative Premier League force. We are the first to call out others as well.

[Sky Blues]

6 hours ago, filbertway said:

Even if we didn't, I'd rather talk about anything else at the minute, to be fair haha.

 

What XI are you expecting tomorrow? Will the new boys get a start?

It's difficult to name our side. We've had a lot of injuries and the flu had a big effect on us. We couldn't even fill the bench last game. Thomas is out suspended and Kesler Hayden is injured so not sure what the defence is going to be. Esse should start. He played well against Stoke in the cup. Our midfield has had injuries but a few will be back for this game. Too early for Thomas Asante as he is just back in training after being out injured for ages. Might be Simms up front as our normal main striker Wright hasn't scored for 14 games 😆 He has been unlucky though. We haven't been playing Simms much but he is getting a goal a game when started. 

 

Sorry I can't help much but we just don't know who will be ready and fit enough. 

[Sky Blues]

3 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

I dont suggest going down this road, as it indicates sour grapes plus like many other people you are misinformed.

 

The ground has been fully paid for, the admin actually made us pay more since we had to pay rent for a number of years and then later purchased it back. (We also were hamstrung financially for a period of time after, including the EPL season where our TV money was largely unavailable for us to spend, there was no mythical financial boost).

 

I also doubt the rules were done because of us, you know there has been a fair few clubs going into admin, before and after our own admin, and there is this problem that the big clubs want their position protected, so FFP was invented to maintain the status quo, but pretending it was about keeping clubs solvent.  People such as yourself have fell for this.

 

Why do some people have an obsession with us?  Because we happened to get promoted in a season we went into admin.  

When we talk about loopholes, we didnt exploit any as there was no FFP at the time, whilst now during PSR/FFP we have clubs exploiting loopholes.  But yeah PSR in itself is basically legalised cheating, X club is allowed to spend more because they have bigger revenue.

 

If the system was truly about keeping clubs solvent, it would take account of debt, if the system was truly about being fair, then every club would have the same salary cap and spending limit, not something based on revenues.

I dont know what is going through your mind that makes you think your admin was some kind of honourable thing, and ours was with the intent of taking advantage.

It still doesn't change the fact that they changed the rules for points deductions on administration after you went into administration with massive debts. 

 

I don't agree with the way they deal with it now. A club that's skint loses 10 points so their attendances get hit costing them money. On top of this the club would then be in danger of getting relegated. It's kicking a club when it's down. 

[filbertway]

28 minutes ago, Sky Blues said:

It's difficult to name our side. We've had a lot of injuries and the flu had a big effect on us. We couldn't even fill the bench last game. Thomas is out suspended and Kesler Hayden is injured so not sure what the defence is going to be. Esse should start. He played well against Stoke in the cup. Our midfield has had injuries but a few will be back for this game. Too early for Thomas Asante as he is just back in training after being out injured for ages. Might be Simms up front as our normal main striker Wright hasn't scored for 14 games 😆 He has been unlucky though. We haven't been playing Simms much but he is getting a goal a game when started. 

 

Sorry I can't help much but we just don't know who will be ready and fit enough. 

Sorry Marti I tried for you.

 

Haha all good. At least one of your worries isn't "Will it be at left back Luke Thomas or Hamza Choudhury?"

 

[CL Fox]

40 minutes ago, Sky Blues said:

It still doesn't change the fact that they changed the rules for points deductions on administration after you went into administration with massive debts. 

 

I don't agree with the way they deal with it now. A club that's skint loses 10 points so their attendances get hit costing them money. On top of this the club would then be in danger of getting relegated. It's kicking a club when it's down. 

We still would have been promoted with a 10 point deduction.

[Terraloon]

51 minutes ago, Sky Blues said:

It still doesn't change the fact that they changed the rules for points deductions on administration after you went into administration with massive debts. 

 

I don't agree with the way they deal with it now. A club that's skint loses 10 points so their attendances get hit costing them money. On top of this the club would then be in danger of getting relegated. It's kicking a club when it's down. 

 

A club that’s squint is usually because they have spent more than they can afford . Often spending  without any fear of sanction not caring about how the supporters or owners of other clubs that live within their means feel or even trade. Of course the entity should be impacted as I said in an earlier post I would relegate  as a matter of course any club that suffers an insolvency event. 

 

Most clubs historically that got into problems do so because they overspend on players wages. What then happens the clubs owners start to juggle with debt often however it’s the taxman that used to go to the bottom of the list.

 

So how would you deal with clubs that have overspent ? Or would you be ok with such clubs just carrying on regardless?

 

 

Edited 16 January by Terraloon

[Sky Blues]

7 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

 

A club that’s squint because they have spent more than they can afford . Spending without any fear of sanction not caring about how the supporters or owners of other clubs that live within their means .

 

Most clubs historically that got into problems do so because they overspend on players wages. What then happens the clubs owners start to juggle with debt often however it’s the taxman that used to go to the bottom of the list.

 

So how would you deal with clubs that have overspent ? 

 

 

I'd put proper spending restraints on clubs that constantly overspend. 1, 2 or 3 seasons depending on how bad the overspend is where all new players would be free agents. The only loans allowed would be without a loan fee. A limit on wages for new players, maybe the average wage for the level the club is at. This includes loans. 

[Staff]

1 hour ago, Sky Blues said:

It still doesn't change the fact that they changed the rules for points deductions on administration after you went into administration with massive debts. 

 

I don't agree with the way they deal with it now. A club that's skint loses 10 points so their attendances get hit costing them money. On top of this the club would then be in danger of getting relegated. It's kicking a club when it's down. 

9 teams went into administration after we did before anyone received a points deduction, so not sure it was because of us tbh 

[Terraloon]

4 minutes ago, Sky Blues said:

I'd put proper spending restraints on clubs that constantly overspend. 1, 2 or 3 seasons depending on how bad the overspend is where all new players would be free agents. The only loans allowed would be without a loan fee. A limit on wages for new players, maybe the average wage for the level the club is at. This includes loans. 

 

What would constitute an overspend ? An accounting loss would you make allowances for “ good spending on things like infrastructure?

 

Seems to me you are advocating 

 

1) Keep a version of FFP. Particularly the requirement to produce and live within an agreed business plan.

2) Ignore FIFA regulations around stability of contracts

3) Set conditions that would almost certainly mean no club would ever allow a player of theirs go out on loan to the struggling club

I think what you have demonstrated is that there are massive issues whichever or whatever method you try and adopt to try and keep clubs financially stable.