Implications of relegation to league 1 (Mods can we condense all league 1 threads into one)

[Babylon]

1 minute ago, marketharboroughfox said:

Well the question of how much is answered by the documents filed in Companies House.

No they don’t.

[Gamble92]

1 hour ago, grobyfox1990 said:

My colleague (who is originally from near Leicester) is a Man U fan and is considering getting an ST next year to see some live football. We're back at that stage again, like the mid-late 2000s, a 22k attendance of which loads of people are there just coz.

Id argue we've had too many there "just coz" after the Premier League bandwagon.

 

I used to go on my own back in 2011 some times because no one would bother. If we are back to having 22,000 fans who give a **** then that's actually one good thing about all this shit. 

[marketharboroughfox]

4 minutes ago, Babylon said:

No they don’t.

MR01 Registration of a Charge

 

The 'receivables' are defined as the entire sum, are they not?

[Qwerty]

2 hours ago, CL Fox said:

Still defending them 🤣

No one’s defending them.  We’re all in the dark, trying to work out what will actually happen if we’re relegated.   Some facts paint a bleak picture, some aren’t quite so bad.  It doesn’t mean anyone is happy about how the club is being run. 

[OwnGoalJames]

Reading the comments in this thread makes for interesting thoughts.

 

My view is that, however our season ends, we are getting a mass exodus of players (12 players, if you include loans), which leaves an enormous void in the squad to be filled with a transfer budget of ... £?? ... So, at this point now the club should have modelled and mapped out the finances and be looking at who they're going to sign in both situations (staying up, going down). That said if we go down does GR stay or go? If we stay up, same question. 

 

Also in terms of personnel, we have players to get moved on anyway (for a fee if we can)

 

Then some cuts to the running of the club will be essential, because you can't run this Super Club style training facility in League 1. 

 

After that, who knows?  

[Gamble92]

Stuff like running costs of Seagrave. Can't issues like that be sorted by selling it to King Power? 

 

You see Chelsea selling hotels to their owners and all sorts. Why aren't we doing anything like this?

[marketharboroughfox]

4 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

Stuff like running costs of Seagrave. Can't issues like that be sorted by selling it to King Power? 

 

You see Chelsea selling hotels to their owners and all sorts. Why aren't we doing anything like this?

Think there's rules in place to clamp down on that sort of thing now.

[Stadt]

4 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

Stuff like running costs of Seagrave. Can't issues like that be sorted by selling it to King Power? 

 

You see Chelsea selling hotels to their owners and all sorts. Why aren't we doing anything like this?

Lack of will/imagination/funds

[davieG]

Just now, marketharboroughfox said:

Think there's rules in place to clamp down on that sort of thing now.

We'd surely still have to pay for the use of it and I'm also sure that would be vetted to ensure it was inline with rentals of that kind.

[Gamble92]

2 minutes ago, marketharboroughfox said:

Think there's rules in place to clamp down on that sort of thing now.

There would be just after it's allowed Chelsea to sign about 10 players on 50 year contracts. 

[marketharboroughfox]

1 minute ago, Gamble92 said:

There would be just after it's allowed Chelsea to sign about 10 players on 50 year contracts. 

Chelsea were the last major pisstakers to get in some piss taking before the gate was pulled up.

[Pliskin]

7 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

Stuff like running costs of Seagrave. Can't issues like that be sorted by selling it to King Power? 

 

You see Chelsea selling hotels to their owners and all sorts. Why aren't we doing anything like this?

Allegedly no, because King Power are struggling financially themselves. 
 

Haven’t they just borrowed a load of money off the Thai government to steady the ship? Won’t look very good buying training grounds and football stadiums. 
 

I was under the impression KP aren’t investing in the club any longer, it’s self funded and out of Top’s pocket…..

[Gamble92]

Just now, Pliskin said:

Allegedly no, because King Power are struggling financially themselves. 
 

Haven’t they just borrowed a load of money off the Thai government to steady the ship? Won’t look very good buying training grounds and football stadiums. 
 

I was under the impression KP aren’t investing in the club any longer, it’s self funded and out of Top’s pocket…..

That in itself is enough reason to admit enough is enough. 

 

It's always been a vanity project for them. The thought of not being able to show a few hundred Thais how devoted the idiots of Leicester are to him is enough to keep hold forever. 

 

He will 100% do a parade if we win League One by the way. Even if we win the League One Play Offs.

[Gamble92]

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, marketharboroughfox said:

MR01 Registration of a Charge

 

The 'receivables' are defined as the entire sum, are they not?

No.

 

Those are the security pledged against the loan, not the loan amount itself.

 

You only have to look back at previous registrations and tally them against loans in the accounts to see it isn’t the same thing. 

[The Year Of The Fox]

On 14/03/2026 at 21:39, Guest Jonboy1999 said:

I get why people are panicking, but let’s be real. Yes, the overheads are huge for League One, but parachute payments exist for exactly this reason. They’re still far bigger than what any normal League One club earns.  
 

We’ve also got valuable players, a stadium, commercial deals and a huge fanbase — selling a few players would cover a lot of losses. Wage cuts and squad changes happen every time a club drops a division.  

Relegation would hurt badly, but administration isn’t inevitable. People are overreacting.

1. Nobody knows whether we’ll even get a parachute payment next season or whether it’s going straight to Maquarie 

 

2. Which players of ours are valuable? Maybe Fatawu, but everything is relative and when it’s a very badly kept secret as to how skint we are, clubs will rightly put in minimal offers for the likes. If we go to L1, we’d be doing brilliantly getting £15m for Fatawu. 
 

3. Our commercial deals are shite now, never mind after dropping down to the third tier. Unless the sponsors are a new brand of dog shit bags, or toilet roll, who’d want to be associated with us?

 

4. Are you sure we’ll have relegation clauses in contracts concerning relegation to L1? We were too stupid and arrogant to not think of relegation from the PL 3 years ago being a possibility, so why will that have changed now?

 

Its not overreacting, its called being au fait with the situation 

[Winstonthedog]

4 hours ago, Tommy G said:

No he's trying to explain some basic finances

If we managed to get the basics of playing football right .. the finances would take care of themselves 

[Terraloon]

1 hour ago, marketharboroughfox said:

Think there's rules in place to clamp down on that sort of thing now.

 

1 hour ago, Gamble92 said:

There would be just after it's allowed Chelsea to sign about 10 players on 50 year contracts. 

It appears to me that some still haven’t grasped the facts that there isn’t any rule ( save for those under 18) that stops you signing a player on a 10 year, 6 year or however a long a contract can be agreed between the club and the player. What is forbidden is that you can only speak the period over which a fee can be amortised. 
Similarly there is no rule that forbids a club from selling its stadium, its woman’s team etc . What is forbidden is that you can’t claim the income for PSR purposes.

 

[jayfox26]

2 hours ago, Gamble92 said:

Id argue we've had too many there "just coz" after the Premier League bandwagon.

 

I used to go on my own back in 2011 some times because no one would bother. If we are back to having 22,000 fans who give a **** then that's actually one good thing about all this shit. 

There's a fair few of that 22k that dont give a fck, or they wouldn't still support Top and KP.  I just don't see how some of these people can call themselves Leicester fans if they dont actively want rid of Top and KP. The 2 things dont go together.

[marketharboroughfox]

7 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

 

It appears to me that some still haven’t grasped the facts that there isn’t any rule ( save for those under 18) that stops you signing a player on a 10 year, 6 year or however a long a contract can be agreed between the club and the player. What is forbidden is that you can only speak the period over which a fee can be amortised. 
Similarly there is no rule that forbids a club from selling its stadium, its woman’s team etc . What is forbidden is that you can’t claim the income for PSR purposes.

 

In fairness I wasn't trying to claim that a club couldn't offer a contract of whatever length they wanted, but that the length over which it 'counts' for FFP has an upper limit which has come in more or less as a direct consequence of what Chelsea were doing.

 

Though on selling the women's team, Birmingham are doing just that I believe.

[Terraloon]

22 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

1. Nobody knows whether we’ll even get a parachute payment next season or whether it’s going straight to Maquarie 

 

2. Which players of ours are valuable? Maybe Fatawu, but everything is relative and when it’s a very badly kept secret as to how skint we are, clubs will rightly put in minimal offers for the likes. If we go to L1, we’d be doing brilliantly getting £15m for Fatawu. 
 

3. Our commercial deals are shite now, never mind after dropping down to the third tier. Unless the sponsors are a new brand of dog shit bags, or toilet roll, who’d want to be associated with us?

 

4. Are you sure we’ll have relegation clauses in contracts concerning relegation to L1? We were too stupid and arrogant to not think of relegation from the PL 3 years ago being a possibility, so why will that have changed now?

 

Its not overreacting, its called being au fait with the situation 

1) The registering of a further charge for me wouldn’t have been needed if the bulk of the 26/27 parachute payments hadn’t already been advanced. But you are right we can’t be sure either way.

2) I agree . Think some are in for quite a shock as to just how low in value the players potential fees have dropped

3) Again I agree . There is absolutely no way that commercial deals won’t reduce in attraction and consequently values will continue to drop 

4) Time will tell but I suspect contracts when signed as a PL club the likelihood of LC becoming a EFL club wasn’t even in any ones wildest thoughts.

[Gamble92]

17 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

 

It appears to me that some still haven’t grasped the facts that there isn’t any rule ( save for those under 18) that stops you signing a player on a 10 year, 6 year or however a long a contract can be agreed between the club and the player. What is forbidden is that you can only speak the period over which a fee can be amortised. 
Similarly there is no rule that forbids a club from selling its stadium, its woman’s team etc . What is forbidden is that you can’t claim the income for PSR purposes.

 

Well we might need to do it just so the running costs alone don't cripple us.

 

What a time to be a Leicester City fan.

[damolcfc]

Might end up with 

Walkers Crisps 

Back on our shirts 😊

[Terraloon]

15 minutes ago, marketharboroughfox said:

In fairness I wasn't trying to claim that a club couldn't offer a contract of whatever length they wanted, but that the length over which it 'counts' for FFP has an upper limit which has come in more or less as a direct consequence of what Chelsea were doing.

 

Though on selling the women's team, Birmingham are doing just that I believe.

If you look both internationally and indeed domestically Chelsea were no where close to the first club to sign players on contracts over 5 years. 
 

What is forgotten that club after club were and have  amortised players fees for periods way in excess of 5 years even if the initial contract was only 5 years. 
 

There actually isn’t any accounting justification in limiting the time depreciation ( amortisation) should be over indeed it negatively impacts every club and by my calculations idc the inability of clubs to in effect reduce a players squad cost by extending the contract post 5 years will start to impact add to that if say you have amortisation costs for an extended contract over 5 years then those costs can’t be amortised for FFP purposes at all.

 

 

Edited 16 March by Terraloon

[Leicesterpool]

I don't think the club would fold even TOP as bad he is wouldn't allow, my guess he hang on to the club as long as possible before he will have no choice but to sell when and where we will be that's anyone's guess. I do think once Leicester is put on the market there will be a lot of interested parties on the table.