Relegation, League 1, financial implications

[BigGibbo]

If we sell Seagrave to Forest, that's the redline from which we never recover.

 

That would immediately make Forest the sponge for all of the talent we were due to get and consign us to just another football league team going forward.

 

We'd have essentially bankrupted ourselves to build the future of midlands football then given it to our rivals for pennies on the pound.

 

Tops whole family would be persona non grata at that point.

[Terraloon]

Trying to get a handle on any of this is incredibly difficult.

 

Seagrave has a book value of around £100 m. 
 

If LC own Seagrave outright without any sort of loan/ mortgage secured against it there would be nothing to stop it being sold and cash put into the business  however sell it for less than that £100m then there would be a need to show the loss in the accounts. No one is going to pay more than that £100m if just say KP paid £120m then it’s unlikely that a commercial valuation wouldn’t  even get close to the £100m. That would cause issues from a related  party standpoint. Also I would imagine that the cash would be discounted under the EFL rules.

Confused ? I know I am!

Edited 22 April by Terraloon

[Gamble92]

Selling Seagrave is just something Forest fans are coming up with. 

 

Only reason we would do that is not to pay operating costs and for how much it would set us back selling it, we wouldn't even consider it. 

 

Everyone seems to forget they can still be relegated too.

[john ridley]

Did Maguire also say on the talksport clip we  still owe  £80 million still on transfers ,or did I mis heard him?

[desertfox2]

6 minutes ago, john ridley said:

Did Maguire also say on the talksport clip we  still owe  £80 million still on transfers ,or did I mis heard him?

Yes. 81m he said.

[Blue ROI]

10 minutes ago, BigGibbo said:

If we sell Seagrave to Forest, that's the redline from which we never recover.

 

That would immediately make Forest the sponge for all of the talent we were due to get and consign us to just another football league team going forward.

 

We'd have essentially bankrupted ourselves to build the future of midlands football then given it to our rivals for pennies on the pound.

 

Tops whole family would be persona non grata at that point.

I'd say we're long past that point now.

 

Top lost the wider room long ago.

 

 

[john ridley]

6 minutes ago, desertfox2 said:

Yes. 81m he said.

****ing hell

[Terraloon]

6 minutes ago, desertfox2 said:

Yes. 81m he said.

In the latest accounts, bear in mind they are up to 30/6/25 so close to a year out of date.

In the creditors due within one year the sum was £53, 156m and after one year £28.232m so £81,388,000

Two things the first number will almost certainly have been reduced but we know another chunk will have been added following transfers in.

[Corky]

We are going to see how invested Aiyawatt is, emotionally and financially, in this club in the near future. If he is bothered he will seek guidance and assistance.....

[Terraloon]

4 hours ago, Globalfox said:

Yes it may be a percentage as per the books the bit we do not know is actual dates or amounts. I have my own doubts but he was emphatic about it. Be sure if later it turns out not to be true I will be the first to call him out.

Not quite sure how to read the attached which was included in the accounts. 
 

My initial thoughts are that these aren’t just re 25/26 parachute payments

[Merchant_Banker]

37 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Seagrave has a book value of around £100 m. 
 

If LC own Seagrave outright without any sort of loan/ mortgage secured against it there would be nothing to stop it being sold and cash put into the business  

If Seagrave is owned outright then can we not borrow against that asset, i.e. remortgage it? I know this is only kicking the can down the road and would depend on the current cashflow situation, but might be a short-term option.

[Cropwellfox]

We need to accept administration and the likely relegation to league two, clear the decks as much as possible and hope someone without the huge volume of debt sees us as a project. These debts are going to be hanging over the club for the next decade otherwise and by that point we’ll be similar to Bradford City, years in league two and struggling in league one. 

[BigGibbo]

27 minutes ago, Blue ROI said:

I'd say we're long past that point now.

 

Top lost the wider room long ago.

 

 

Possibly, but in the unlikely event that he had a damascene conversion, sacked/demoted Rudkin and got the right people in to turn us back around, then it would just be a few bad seasons in the greater scheme of things. 

 

It's not that we are in League One that is the problem, I was a season ticket holder the last time we were there, it's that we are freefalling with no end in sight, no accountability up to now and no credible plan to go forward.

[1972 Fox]

49 minutes ago, BigGibbo said:

If we sell Seagrave to Forest, that's the redline from which we never recover.

 

That would immediately make Forest the sponge for all of the talent we were due to get and consign us to just another football league team going forward.

 

We'd have essentially bankrupted ourselves to build the future of midlands football then given it to our rivals for pennies on the pound.

 

Tops whole family would be persona non grata at that point.

[BigGibbo]

1 minute ago, 1972 Fox said:

🤮🖕

[CarolinaFox]

Top will need to find a minority stakeholder to partner with unless he and King Power have more money to directly sink into the club.

[Gamble92]

On 15/04/2026 at 09:03, Pliskin said:

https://www.efl.com/governance/financial-regulation/
 

 

 

I mean there is already a thread open about this. 
 

 

In essence, if Top is willing to plow money into the club, to cover the natural losses, and we can successfully get rid of all of the high earners, then we won’t necessarily be at threat. And we could do some form of rebuild. 
 

 

But it all hinges if Top is willing to plow money into the club.

I can't imagine that he won't do this. I know everyone is saying he won't, but why would he hold onto the club and not fund it? There's no saving face in keeping it and being the owner as it goes bankrupt. 

[BigGibbo]

6 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

I can't imagine that he won't do this. I know everyone is saying he won't, but why would he hold onto the club and not fund it? There's no saving face in keeping it and being the owner as it goes bankrupt. 

Based on his feeble "I'll try" response when asked about investment, I'm not sure it's up to him.

 

He's clinging onto the club for his dad's memory, but King Power are in financial turmoil even without the Leicester problem and I don't think his mum and the KP stakeholders are willing to/can let him keep throwing money into the blackhole that we have become under his leadership.

[st albans fox]

51 minutes ago, 1972 Fox said:

I mean if it has the same effect on them that it has on us then why not ?  We can buy it back in 2030 ……

[Mickyblueeyes]

1 hour ago, CarolinaFox said:

Top will need to find a minority stakeholder to partner with unless he and King Power have more money to directly sink into the club.

If you have money to invest. Why would you put it into a business with a man child as majority shareholder who has been ousted from a cash cow in his home country and already significantly reduced the value of his other business. No one is part investing into this club with the ***** here

[HankMarvin]

If they got some dodgy £50m sponsorship over 5/10 year deal could they get all the money straight away and then the 75 percent revenue is a lot bigger.

is there any guidance about maximum sponsorship.

 

edit 

must be FMV

Edited 22 April by HankMarvin

[Tom12345]

This has been a catastrophic failure on the part of the club management.

 

However, how much is this due to the so called financial “fair” play rules? The rules are designed to protect the top clubs, but punish those who tried to catch them. Leicester City tried to catch up to them, and that involved spending a lot of money, but in order to have any chance, the club needed to spend way more than they earned. The club is responsible for the poor decisions they made in that regard too, but the rules effectively makes it impossible for any club to catch up unless you are absolutely sure you will get there.

 

No matter how good any club management is though, it is always a gamble. In our case the gamble failed. Yet, when the gamble failed, the club not only suffered from the natural consequences of that, but the FSR punish you even further via years of restrictions, points deductions and other penalties. Yes, the club made poor decisions, but the club was not allowed by the rules to rectify them as we we were so restricted and the rules punished us further by the 6 point deduction.

 

So, how much of our downfall was due to the financial “unfair” rules?

[fox_favourite]

1 hour ago, Tom12345 said:

This has been a catastrophic failure on the part of the club management.

 

However, how much is this due to the so called financial “fair” play rules? The rules are designed to protect the top clubs, but punish those who tried to catch them. Leicester City tried to catch up to them, and that involved spending a lot of money, but in order to have any chance, the club needed to spend way more than they earned. The club is responsible for the poor decisions they made in that regard too, but the rules effectively makes it impossible for any club to catch up unless you are absolutely sure you will get there.

 

No matter how good any club management is though, it is always a gamble. In our case the gamble failed. Yet, when the gamble failed, the club not only suffered from the natural consequences of that, but the FSR punish you even further via years of restrictions, points deductions and other penalties. Yes, the club made poor decisions, but the club was not allowed by the rules to rectify them as we we were so restricted and the rules punished us further by the 6 point deduction.

 

So, how much of our downfall was due to the financial “unfair” rules?

Normally I'd agree it's the rules as I do think they're ridiculous. Sheffield Wednesday, for instance, shouldn't get another points deduction and Chelsea should have. 

 

But in our case it's 10% the rules 90% mismanagement and ineptness that is why we're in this position. It wasn't the rules that gave stupid contracts to average players. It wasn't the rules that spent £25m on a player that we didn't really need and was over priced. It wasn't the rules that has seen nearly £200m go for free. That is on the club, not any rules. They never planned for the worse case scenario and instead just continually borrowed, and that has now caught up with us. 

 

That ended up being quite ranty.   my bad., and not aimed at you. Just my frustration with the club. 

[Cat Burger]

35 million Macquarie loan this year and we still owe 80 million on transfers? How in f***'s name has Kevin Davies been promoted?
Unbelievable. 

[LCFCCHRIS]

Surely you'd take an insurance job "kitchen fire" before selling it to those tw@s