Relegation, League 1, financial implications

[Terraloon]

23 hours ago, Stadt said:

I guess (literally) if club want to pay us in instalments we'd just factor that with Macquarie like we have been doing. If that doesn't count as income for the SCMP rules that seems incredibly punitive.

 

The rules between the leagues just haven't modelled a club imploding and failing to meet any of them. It shouldn't happen in the first place but it's genuinely difficult to get the house back in order. The precedent was there with Sunderland so they essentially should have stress tested PL-L1 situations with 2020s football finances in the fray, Luton scarcely count as they were operating from a League 1 cost basis anyway.

The difference I believe would be  if you factor as it were then all the cash would be in one year whereas the EF1 process would to be count as each annual or the like instalment is received. 
 

 

[Clever Fox]

1 hour ago, ronnup said:

 

That system doesn't work when your club is a pair of clown shoes, and young players get picked off like Nyoni for **** all. Until we are a proper prospect again its a waste of time. We will be producing prospects for Prem clubs who then **** off for nothing

The system does work. Look at Chelsea and Man city with lots of Juniors. 

I do agree the Club needs to be run right first. Then Clubs like us need to take a stand against poaching. 

By being smarter in their Contracts or legally challenge the current system. Which most fans agree is q failed system. 

We have a wonderful facility why not make maximum use of it.

Though sadly might have to wait until we get back on the right path. 

 

[Clever Fox]

1 hour ago, Ormondroyd8ftTall said:

Begrudgingly agree. Its just......Forest tho

Agreed, Who wants to be helping them. But business is business and needs must. And while both sets of Fans have rivalries. I'll bet at Corporate level the Clubs get on well. 

[Nickaj]

4 hours ago, cityfanlee23 said:

 

I have a gut feeling that we might be okay IF we are utterly ruthless in summer. We have quite a few players that are on relatively low wages that could do a decent job at that level, Evans, Page, Aluko, Nelson (probably will be sold but can’t see clubs clamouring to take him right now) Alves, Braybrooke, Silko, Maybe Golding and Marcal (1 year extension?) finally get a chance. 
 

 

As I've said previously on here, the players you list I would expect to be the players they would aim to sell because they represent pure profit in accounting terms..

I think they will want to rely on low cost "experienced" players at every opportunity.

Really hope I'm wrong........

[ronnup]

43 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

The system does work. Look at Chelsea and Man city with lots of Juniors. 

I do agree the Club needs to be run right first. Then Clubs like us need to take a stand against poaching. 

By being smarter in their Contracts or legally challenge the current system. Which most fans agree is q failed system. 

We have a wonderful facility why not make maximum use of it.

Though sadly might have to wait until we get back on the right path. 

 

 

You've missed the point 

 

Chelsea 

Man City

 

These are clubs young people want play at and will sign pro contracts at before being sold

[damolcfc]

3 hours ago, AKCJ said:

Sheffield Wednesday definitely wouldn't be favourites. I'd say they're much more likely to go down again than come back up.

To be fair I posted that before the further deduction news 🤪

[Terraloon]

2 hours ago, Clever Fox said:

The system does work. Look at Chelsea and Man city with lots of Juniors. 

I do agree the Club needs to be run right first. Then Clubs like us need to take a stand against poaching. 

By being smarter in their Contracts or legally challenge the current system. Which most fans agree is q failed system. 

We have a wonderful facility why not make maximum use of it.

Though sadly might have to wait until we get back on the right path. 

 

Not quite sure how the club can be smarter when it comes to contracts bearing in mind the earliest age a youngster can sign a professional contract is 17 and only then if they are not in full time education.

Before that age youngsters at age 16 can be offered scholarships but I believe that they can’t be paid anything save a fixed sum of up to a couple of hundred £s. 

No top prospect worth  their salt would sign a professional contract at a EFL 1 club if they knew a PL club was interested

 

 

[Clever Fox]

2 hours ago, ronnup said:

 

You've missed the point 

 

Chelsea 

Man City

 

These are clubs young people want play at and will sign pro contracts at before being sold

While these may be the elite Clubs.

Not everyone wants to sign for a big club. Some would be overcome by the pressure and others might see themselves not good enough for a big Club. 

The point is theres thousands of young kids starting out right now who will the backbone of Football for years to come. They may not all be Ronaldo or Harry Kane. 

Why can't we get lots of them in and improve them and see where it takes us. 

[Clever Fox]

21 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Not quite sure how the club can be smarter when it comes to contracts bearing in mind the earliest age a youngster can sign a professional contract is 17 and only then if they are not in full time education.

Before that age youngsters at age 16 can be offered scholarships but I believe that they can’t be paid anything save a fixed sum of up to a couple of hundred £s. 

No top prospect worth  their salt would sign a professional contract at a EFL 1 club if they knew a PL club was interested

 

 

You make some valid points, but we can still be smarter in dealing with players and parents. 

I also think there's a legal challenge to the current system not to far away. 

The big clubs can't be allowed to get away with fleecing the smaller clubs who in some cases has spent years developing these kids. 

The whole area needs to be re examined by the Regulator with a view to making it fairer to smaller Clubs. 

[Terraloon]

30 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

You make some valid points, but we can still be smarter in dealing with players and parents. 

I also think there's a legal challenge to the current system not to far away. 

The big clubs can't be allowed to get away with fleecing the smaller clubs who in some cases has spent years developing these kids. 

The whole area needs to be re examined by the Regulator with a view to making it fairer to smaller Clubs. 

The only legal challenge that is likely will enable academy youngsters, up to the point they sign a  binding professional contract, move from one academy to another without compensation of any sort being payable and that includes players signed under scholarship terms.Indeed the suggestion is that the Competition Commission will at some point be bought into the “ debate” legal opinion seems to be that it is even for those under 18 , considered to be a restraint of trade.
At this point in time an academy player aged 17 can sign a contract so long as 1) it’s countersigned by a parent 2) Once the players reaches 18 and therefore at the age he is legally qualified to sign in his own right the club have to get the player to sign again. If not the contract is almost certainly, on application to be voided.

As for the Regulator these type of matters aren’t even close to their remit

Edited 16 April by Terraloon

[FoxinNotts]

7 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

We need a massive sponsorship deal for seagrave....how and who would fund that? 

I think a large company local company like PepsiCo should be approached.

 

Love to see Walkers crisps on the shirt again. Thing along with their other brands like Pepsi and say Cheetos would look great on the shirts as well

[FoxinNotts]

Just now, FoxinNotts said:

I think a large company local company like PepsiCo should be approached.

 

Love to see Walkers crisps on the shirt again. along with their other brands like Pepsi and say Cheetos would look great on the shirts as well

 

[Pliskin]

I had an interesting conversation today with an affiliate of the club. They do a fair bit of work at Seagrave. 
 

They claim, with all of he hidden figures behind Seagrave, it’s costing in excess of £50m to run, so, if this is the case, we could be losing a-lot more than just £40-50m a year as a standard, it’s probably closer to £70m to £80m…. Whereas this isn’t necessarily an issue at league one level for the league, it will be for us. We won’t be making enough money to keep Seagrave running, let alone cover the rest of the outgoings. 
 

This is what will kill us, Top has to be willing to plug the gap, but, I don’t think he will…… 

Edited 16 April by Pliskin

[Ric Flair]

9 hours ago, Ormondroyd8ftTall said:

I've heard a disgusting rumour, from my mate who works across the EFL, that we are exploring the possibility of Forest renting Seagrave next season.

 

If this has any legs, I honestly don't know, just what I've been told.

I think this is fallacy, what's in it for Forest? What happens if we are in a position to want it back again, they go back to a disused training ground? I can well see us offering it for sale or in the manner England offer St George's out but the latter probably does little in terms of solve a major financial problem.

[HankMarvin]

Forest don’t even know what division they will be in, very much doubt they are thinking about additional costs at this stage 

[drew]

7 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

I had an interesting conversation today with an affiliate of the club. They do a fair bit of work at Seagrave. 
 

They claim, with all of he hidden figures behind Seagrave, it’s costing in excess of £50m to run, so, if this is the case, we could be losing a-lot more than just £40-50m a year as a standard, it’s probably closer to £70m to £80m…. Whereas this isn’t necessarily an issue at league one level for the league, it will be for us. We won’t be making enough money to keep Seagrave running, let alone cover the rest of the outgoings. 
 

This is what will kill us, Top has to be willing to plug the gap, but, I don’t think he will…… 

Drop a zero off those estimates. 

[Silva Fox]

41 minutes ago, FoxinNotts said:

I think a large company local company like PepsiCo should be approached.

 

Love to see Walkers crisps on the shirt again. Thing along with their other brands like Pepsi and say Cheetos would look great on the shirts as well

Cheetos would be appropriate! 

[Clever Fox]

58 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

The only legal challenge that is likely will enable academy youngsters, up to the point they sign a  binding professional contract, move from one academy to another without compensation of any sort being payable and that includes players signed under scholarship terms.Indeed the suggestion is that the Competition Commission will at some point be bought into the “ debate” legal opinion seems to be that it is even for those under 18 , considered to be a restraint of trade.
At this point in time an academy player aged 17 can sign a contract so long as 1) it’s countersigned by a parent 2) Once the players reaches 18 and therefore at the age he is legally qualified to sign in his own right the club have to get the player to sign again. If not the contract is almost certainly, on application to be voided.

As for the Regulator these type of matters aren’t even close to their remit

Agreed with what you say, I'm sure the regulator is busy but I would have thought his remit is to looks at all issues in Football and make recommendations where he sees fit. 

I understand under 18s are not allowed to sign Contracts for good reason in most cases. 

But Football is a special industry, and so maybe special conditions need to be made help parents and young players. Then as you say maybe sign a new Contract at 18.

Like I said some Club is going to challenge it based on the measly compensation being currently offered. 

[Ormondroyd8ftTall]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I think this is fallacy, what's in it for Forest? What happens if we are in a position to want it back again, they go back to a disused training ground? I can well see us offering it for sale or in the manner England offer St George's out but the latter probably does little in terms of solve a major financial problem.

Forest would get an upgrade on a training set-up wouldn't they. I dont know the state of their current set-up to be honest and I suppose it asks the question, what do they then do with theirs.

 

They could well buy it though couldn't they.

 

[ACF]

9 hours ago, FoxinNotts said:

I think a large company local company like PepsiCo should be approached.

 

Love to see Walkers crisps on the shirt again. Thing along with their other brands like Pepsi and say Cheetos would look great on the shirts as well

Coming from someone who’s in marketing for an exceptionally large global food/drink company

 

Why on earth would PepsiCo say yes?

[Claudio Fannieri]

I think Forest are looking to upgrade their existing training facilities, so a year of renting Seagrave could work for all parties, they get a state of the art facility for 12 months whilst  developing their own and we get some cash and remove the cost burden for 12 months whilst trying to win promotion back to the championship. 

[Terraloon]

Just a simple google search points to the fact that just over a year ago there was a multi million pound upgrade of Forests training ground.

 

I doubt that having invested so heavily that there would be any plans to look to vacate their upgraded facility.

 

The facts are the facts and they are Seagrave was and will forever be a luxury that LCFC simply can’t afford , and that fact be it costing £5 million, £10 million , £15 million or whatever nor sadly  I suspect as long as PL football is absent will it be enough to ensure top talent from the academy decide to stick around.

 

 

[Cropwellfox]

3 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Just a simple google search points to the fact that just over a year ago there was a multi million pound upgrade of Forests training ground.

 

I doubt that having invested so heavily that there would be any plans to look to vacate their upgraded facility.

 

The facts are the facts and they are Seagrave was and will forever be a luxury that LCFC simply can’t afford , and that fact be it costing £5 million, £10 million , £15 million or whatever nor sadly  I suspect as long as PL football is absent will it be enough to ensure top talent from the academy decide to stick around.

 

 

Most likely thing would be for the club to mothball a significant part of the site and keep many of the facilities ticking over so they don’t fall into disrepair. Just sums up the ineptitude and hubris of the ownership and senior executives at this club that we end up with two training bases in completely different parts of the county, and both men’s and womens teams nowhere near the top level 

 

[Gazza M]

1 hour ago, Claudio Fannieri said:

I think Forest are looking to upgrade their existing training facilities, so a year of renting Seagrave could work for all parties, they get a state of the art facility for 12 months whilst  developing their own and we get some cash and remove the cost burden for 12 months whilst trying to win promotion back to the championship. 

Would rather we sold to the FA then them b##stards. 

[Pliskin]

We’re not renting or selling Seagrave…..

 

What is under consideration is selling Belvoir drive and relocating the female squad.