6 point deduction - confirmed

[Terraloon]

42 minutes ago, cropstonfox said:

Knock it down and sell the land for housing 

Move back to belvoir drive. 

That should cover a few wages!

It simply isn’t as easy as that. 
 

Almost certainly the local plan designates   Seagrave an  employment/ recreational land/ sporting fields  or something along those lines  without doubt it is  not earmarked for housing. There are situations where a change to designated usage can be agreed  but it’s far from straight forward.

Add to that LC Council are obliged to keep a register of pitches in use ( within the least 3 years) almost certainly all the pitches at both Seagrave and Belvoir are included in that register. What that means is that if a planning application was made for either sites which entailed a reduction in the number of pitches then Sports England who have to be consulted and they  will object to planning that doesn’t entail a replacement pitch being put in place on another site

 

Let’s just suppose that they could demolish Seagrave and sell the land for housing then a sum of close to £100 m would need to be achieved to cover the loss of the asset and even then there would be issues around claiming PSR credit for selling a training ground.

 

To complicate matters even further Seagrave was built having received  a £91 million loan from KPI . A question I can’t answer is what are, if any,  the conditions attached to that  loan? 

 

Seagrave will prove financially to be a millstone around LC necks. My estimate is that it costs around £5 million a year to run , Charlie suggests it’s £15m. I hope he isn’t close to being right because the reality is that the clubs likely income in 26/27 and 27/28 won’t be able to justify close to the sum I mention and certainly not the £15m he suggests.

 

What would I do ?

 

Well explore the possibility of selling Belvoir. Could more pitches be developed at Seagrave to compensate? Could the WSL be accommodated at Seagrave? Will LC Council support any application for housing , will Sports England object and finally what will disposing of Belvoir look like in both in terms of cash from the sell but also how much will be saved in terms of annual running costs ?
 

 

[funkyrobot]

On 20/02/2026 at 07:43, st albans fox said:

Other clubs have fallen foul of psr whilst in the PL (like villa and Newcastle ) but they’ve found a creative way of traversing the problem. (Eg selling academy products to each other at inflated values).  The fact that our board were incapable of finding a way of kicking the psr can down the road is why we’re here.  our solution was to stop trading and hope the manager could keep the ship afloat in the higher reaches of the league.  naive and ultimately pretty much suicidal. 

I was addressing a sky blues fan continually highlighting the very worse case scenario. 

[Chrysalis]

On 20/02/2026 at 18:29, LeePhilpottsBaldSpot said:

Apologies if I'm being thick but wouldn't a new owner just cease the things draining money. Unless I'm misunderstanding contracts etc it's not like we have to continue making the mistakes of the past.

 

If we need to - move back into Belvoir Drive, sell off Seagrave (either to another club / the FA or just flatten it and sell the land for housing).

 

Women's team could sadly have to downgrade if it's losing money.

 

The £5m quoted for the youth set up seems worth it as a loss leader. Will give us players we don't need transfer fees and when the time comes sellable assets. We made £12m back on Kasey McAteer, £25m on KDH, £35m on Barnes, £45m on Chilwell, etc.

 

Probably yes.

I think Seagrave would be audited, and a decision made on to keep as is, shrink it to a more suitable size, or sell the lot.  Some fans are clearly going to take this hard, but any sane business person would do this.  
New salary regime with far less generous contracts, potentially existing players forced out the door aggressively.  
Potential downgrade of youth program to lower tier.  More likely I think if Seagrave sold.  
Reduced losses accepted on womens team, although I think current owners have already chosen this route given the low quality of the squad and lack of desire for it.  

[Chrysalis]

On 20/02/2026 at 22:44, funkyrobot said:

Parachute payments don’t stop. We have one left whether we are in L1 or The Championship next year. 

They already have stopped for us, they going to a bank we took a pay day loan from,   We wont see another penny.

[SheppyFox]

On 19/02/2026 at 22:12, Sky Blues said:

A long listen but for those that don't understand the situation it will be a real eye opener. To me this is why the appeal has been put in because the options are running out.

[Ric Flair]

On 21/02/2026 at 12:23, Terraloon said:

It simply isn’t as easy as that. 
 

Almost certainly the local plan designates   Seagrave an  employment/ recreational land/ sporting fields  or something along those lines  without doubt it is  not earmarked for housing. There are situations where a change to designated usage can be agreed  but it’s far from straight forward.

Add to that LC Council are obliged to keep a register of pitches in use ( within the least 3 years) almost certainly all the pitches at both Seagrave and Belvoir are included in that register. What that means is that if a planning application was made for either sites which entailed a reduction in the number of pitches then Sports England who have to be consulted and they  will object to planning that doesn’t entail a replacement pitch being put in place on another site

 

Let’s just suppose that they could demolish Seagrave and sell the land for housing then a sum of close to £100 m would need to be achieved to cover the loss of the asset and even then there would be issues around claiming PSR credit for selling a training ground.

 

To complicate matters even further Seagrave was built having received  a £91 million loan from KPI . A question I can’t answer is what are, if any,  the conditions attached to that  loan? 

 

Seagrave will prove financially to be a millstone around LC necks. My estimate is that it costs around £5 million a year to run , Charlie suggests it’s £15m. I hope he isn’t close to being right because the reality is that the clubs likely income in 26/27 and 27/28 won’t be able to justify close to the sum I mention and certainly not the £15m he suggests.

 

What would I do ?

 

Well explore the possibility of selling Belvoir. Could more pitches be developed at Seagrave to compensate? Could the WSL be accommodated at Seagrave? Will LC Council support any application for housing , will Sports England object and finally what will disposing of Belvoir look like in both in terms of cash from the sell but also how much will be saved in terms of annual running costs ?
 

 

Seagrave to me, seems to be a King Power problem as much as Leicester's. We are all very concerned that should we drop and invariably fall in to admin then having Seagrave could be what tips us in to being unsalvagable. But what is owed to KP for that gaff would perhaps have to ge cut loose if we went in to admin and they might be better off trying to reclaim it as a separate entity and selling it off later down the line but maybe i'm being naive.

[AaronH]

Kieran Maguire on the overlap thing saying there could be more charges coming to us from the EFL this season

[K789]

6 hours ago, AaronH said:

Kieran Maguire on the overlap thing saying there could be more charges coming to us from the EFL this season

Oh terrific. On what grounds now

[dannythefox]

7 hours ago, AaronH said:

Kieran Maguire on the overlap thing saying there could be more charges coming to us from the EFL this season

What for, isn’t this because the PL still want to punish us but the EFL need to place the charges but that’s not how the rules work. 

[ClaphamFox]

7 hours ago, AaronH said:

Kieran Maguire on the overlap thing saying there could be more charges coming to us from the EFL this season

For which period?

[HankMarvin]

“Potentially further charges from the EFL later this season”

[Pita]

Just shows the mess the muppets have got us into 

[dannythefox]

40 minutes ago, dannythefox said:

What for, isn’t this because the PL still want to punish us but the EFL need to place the charges but that’s not how the rules work. 

I’ve just watched it.👍🏻

[coolhandfox]

8 hours ago, AaronH said:

Kieran Maguire on the overlap thing saying there could be more charges coming to us from the EFL this season

He has no idea really.

 

[fox_favourite]

Inside the EFL head quarters - "ah, bum. Leicester have appointed Rowett. They actually have a chance of surviving. Solicitors, please find another way we can deduct points from Leicester City so we can punish the scum further!" Oh, and 'leak it to that finance guy that I saw on TalkSport. Let's wait until near the end to see where they are and punish if needed. (Evil laugh)

 

Solicitors - "you okay?"

[BKLFox]

8 hours ago, AaronH said:

Kieran Maguire on the overlap thing saying there could be more charges coming to us from the EFL this season

He’s also saying that Man C could be looking at between 40-60pts deductions, not sure id hold my breath just yet.

[Spudulike]

They'll be thinking up some new rule so they can charge us retrospectively (again).

[stu]

Confirmed no breach for 24/25.

 

Confirms the club statement for compliance for Y25 as part of the points deduction press release, which the majority seemed to miss.

[eblair]

13 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

He has no idea really.

 

He does, he gets insights from the clubs, the lawyers and accountants that circle round football

[ClaphamFox]

48 minutes ago, stu said:

Confirmed no breach for 24/25.

 

Confirms the club statement for compliance for Y25 as part of the points deduction press release, which the majority seemed to miss.

The article refers to the current 20 PL clubs. Maguire believes we might still be charged for 24/25, although I’m confused by this because —like you—I was also under the impression that the recent points deduction announcement confirmed we hadn’t breached for that period. 

[ian__marshall]

10 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

The article refers to the current 20 PL clubs. Maguire believes we might still be charged for 24/25, although I’m confused by this because —like you—I was also under the impression that the recent points deduction announcement confirmed we hadn’t breached for that period. 

Wasn't it confirmed last season that as per this statement, none of the teams had breached. If so, I'm unsure why we would now be under scrutiny after the PL issued their previous statement. 

[Terraloon]

4 minutes ago, ian__marshall said:

Wasn't it confirmed last season that as per this statement, none of the teams had breached. If so, I'm unsure why we would now be under scrutiny after the PL issued their previous statement. 

Leicester in 25/26 are  affiliated to the EFL . So any 24/25 charge would have to be announced by the EFL . The PL statement made reference to the 20 PL clubs that played  in the PL for the 25/26 season.

 

If you remember the PL charged LC under EFL rules having taken over the investigation that was commenced in the EFL, the rules allow that investigation to follow clubs as they move either up or down from the PL. 

 

I have always stated that I think it’s 50-50 if there will be a 24/25 charge but if the PL started an investigation into LC for 24/25 and if the numbers exceed the allowable then the EFL would carry on the investigation and if there are any charges they would be in accord with the PL rulebook. 
 

 

 

[stu]

25 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

The article refers to the current 20 PL clubs. Maguire believes we might still be charged for 24/25, although I’m confused by this because —like you—I was also under the impression that the recent points deduction announcement confirmed we hadn’t breached for that period. 

It states “All 20 Premier League clubs have avoided breaches of PSR for last season”.

 

I admit the wording is ambiguous, but I don’t think it categorically means all current premier league teams.

[UniFox21]

At this point wish we'd just done some dodgy accounting and sold the women's team etc to a different holding company 

[ClaphamFox]

6 minutes ago, stu said:

It states “All 20 Premier League clubs have avoided breaches of PSR for last season”.

 

I admit the wording is ambiguous, but I don’t think it categorically means all current premier league teams.

Maguire posted the link to the Times article, yet he has confirmed this morning that he thinks the EFL may charge us for 24/25 when our appeal against the six-point deduction has been heard. So it's fair to assume that he believes the 20 clubs referred to in the article are the current PL clubs, not last season's.

 

It makes me wonder if the club is aware that it could face charges for 24/25 and wants to avoid any possibility of a further points deduction this season, and so has appealed the six-point deduction to ensure that any charge from the EFL gets dragged into next season...