Relegation, League 1, financial implications

[Spudulike]

How the "Glass Ceiling" has dismantled Leicester City…
In 2016, Leicester City did the impossible. They shattered the status quo of English football, proving that a "small" club could not only compete but conquer. 

However, ten years on from that historic title, the narrative has shifted from fairy tales to financial ruins. As the BBC recently detailed, the Foxes are facing a staggering decline—relegated from the Premier League in 2025 and now, in 2026, finding themselves confirmed for a drop into League One.

While official reports often point to "mismanagement," a deeper look suggests a more calculated culprit: the Profit and Sustainability Regulations (PSR). Far from being a tool for "stability," PSR has become a financial guillotine for any mid-sized club daring to challenge the elite.

The Cost of Ambition
The trap is simple and deadly. When a club like Leicester breaks into the top six or qualifies for Europe, they must invest to compete. You cannot fight on four fronts with a Championship-level squad. Leicester did what any ambitious club would do: they bought talent and offered competitive wages to sustain their presence at the top.
The reality for any non-"Big Six" club is that European qualification isn't guaranteed every year. Without the massive, recurring commercial revenue of global giants like Manchester United or Liverpool, a single season out of Europe becomes a financial catastrophe under PSR rules.

Leicester’s recent accounts tell the story: a £71.1m loss in their 2024-25 relegation season, following years of heavy spending to maintain their status. Because PSR limits losses to roughly £35m a year (averaged), the moment the European TV money stopped, the club was already in breach. They weren't being "reckless"; they were being ambitious in a system designed to punish it.

The "Glass Ceiling" Policy…
PSR was introduced shortly after Leicester’s 2016 triumph. It is hard not to see this as a defensive wall built by the established elite. By limiting spending to a percentage of revenue, the rules ensure that those with the highest turnover stay at the top.

If a club invests to "better themselves," they are labeled a financial risk. If they don't invest, they get relegated. It is a "heads they win, tails you lose" scenario for the authorities. Leicester is the primary evidence: a club that challenged the top table is now facing bankruptcy because they tried to stay in the fight.

The League One Nightmare…
Now, the situation is critical. Leicester is heading to League One, but the players remain on Premier League level wages—contracts signed when the club was fighting to maintain its top-flight status. With PSR scheduled to be introduced to League One next season, Leicester is effectively being forced into a corner where bankruptcy isn't just a fear; it's a mathematical probability.

The authorities have created a system where a club’s past success becomes the weight that sinks them. High-earning players who were assets in a Premier League campaign side are now "toxic liabilities" under current financial rules.

A New Way Forward: The Bond System…

If the goal were truly "financial stability" rather than "elite protection," there are better ways. Instead of arbitrary spending caps that favor the rich, the league should implement a Bond System.

Contractual Guarantees: Owners who wish to invest should be allowed to, provided they place the total value of a player's contract into a secure bond held by the league.

Safety Net: If a club is relegated or an owner leaves, the money is already there to cover the wages. This ensures players are paid and the club doesn't go bust, regardless of league status.

True Competition:This allows owners with the means—like King Power—to back their ambition without fear of a "points deduction" or forced fire sales.

Conclusion
The downfall of Leicester City is not a failure of the club; it is a success of a system designed to keep "The Other 14" in their place. PSR hasn't saved football; it has sterilized it. If the authorities truly want a sustainable future, they must stop punishing ambition and start implementing solutions that protect clubs without killing their dreams. 

Until then, Leicester stands as a grim warning: in modern football, if you fly too close to the sun, the Premier League will clip your wings!
 

[Philkeavo]

https://theesk.org/2026/04/20/the-analysis-series-leicester-citys-fall-from-grace/
 

Apologies if already posted. It is a devastating read 😫

[ClaphamFox]

14 minutes ago, EastAnglianFox said:

 

We won't see a penny of the parachute payment, we've already taken a loan against it so it'll be heading straight to Macquarie bank unfortunately

Not necessarily true. The parachute payment will still count as revenue for SCMR purposes—the fact that we took a loan from Macquarie doesn't change that. So we have the scope to spend the parachute money on the squad and stay within the rules.

 

We also don't know whether the cash from the loan has been spent in full—some of it may still be held in reserve. And even if it has been spent, the owners could still make up the shortfall themselves and remain compliant with SCMR.

 

So while the Macquarie loan complicates the picture, it does not remove our potential advantage.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

15 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

How the "Glass Ceiling" has dismantled Leicester City…
In 2016, Leicester City did the impossible. They shattered the status quo of English football, proving that a "small" club could not only compete but conquer. 

However, ten years on from that historic title, the narrative has shifted from fairy tales to financial ruins. As the BBC recently detailed, the Foxes are facing a staggering decline—relegated from the Premier League in 2025 and now, in 2026, finding themselves confirmed for a drop into League One.

While official reports often point to "mismanagement," a deeper look suggests a more calculated culprit: the Profit and Sustainability Regulations (PSR). Far from being a tool for "stability," PSR has become a financial guillotine for any mid-sized club daring to challenge the elite.

The Cost of Ambition
The trap is simple and deadly. When a club like Leicester breaks into the top six or qualifies for Europe, they must invest to compete. You cannot fight on four fronts with a Championship-level squad. Leicester did what any ambitious club would do: they bought talent and offered competitive wages to sustain their presence at the top.
The reality for any non-"Big Six" club is that European qualification isn't guaranteed every year. Without the massive, recurring commercial revenue of global giants like Manchester United or Liverpool, a single season out of Europe becomes a financial catastrophe under PSR rules.

Leicester’s recent accounts tell the story: a £71.1m loss in their 2024-25 relegation season, following years of heavy spending to maintain their status. Because PSR limits losses to roughly £35m a year (averaged), the moment the European TV money stopped, the club was already in breach. They weren't being "reckless"; they were being ambitious in a system designed to punish it.

The "Glass Ceiling" Policy…
PSR was introduced shortly after Leicester’s 2016 triumph. It is hard not to see this as a defensive wall built by the established elite. By limiting spending to a percentage of revenue, the rules ensure that those with the highest turnover stay at the top.

If a club invests to "better themselves," they are labeled a financial risk. If they don't invest, they get relegated. It is a "heads they win, tails you lose" scenario for the authorities. Leicester is the primary evidence: a club that challenged the top table is now facing bankruptcy because they tried to stay in the fight.

The League One Nightmare…
Now, the situation is critical. Leicester is heading to League One, but the players remain on Premier League level wages—contracts signed when the club was fighting to maintain its top-flight status. With PSR scheduled to be introduced to League One next season, Leicester is effectively being forced into a corner where bankruptcy isn't just a fear; it's a mathematical probability.

The authorities have created a system where a club’s past success becomes the weight that sinks them. High-earning players who were assets in a Premier League campaign side are now "toxic liabilities" under current financial rules.

A New Way Forward: The Bond System…

If the goal were truly "financial stability" rather than "elite protection," there are better ways. Instead of arbitrary spending caps that favor the rich, the league should implement a Bond System.

Contractual Guarantees: Owners who wish to invest should be allowed to, provided they place the total value of a player's contract into a secure bond held by the league.

Safety Net: If a club is relegated or an owner leaves, the money is already there to cover the wages. This ensures players are paid and the club doesn't go bust, regardless of league status.

True Competition:This allows owners with the means—like King Power—to back their ambition without fear of a "points deduction" or forced fire sales.

Conclusion
The downfall of Leicester City is not a failure of the club; it is a success of a system designed to keep "The Other 14" in their place. PSR hasn't saved football; it has sterilized it. If the authorities truly want a sustainable future, they must stop punishing ambition and start implementing solutions that protect clubs without killing their dreams. 

Until then, Leicester stands as a grim warning: in modern football, if you fly too close to the sun, the Premier League will clip your wings!
 

Conveniently missed out the bit about our 116% wages to turnover ratio I see.

[Blue ROI]

Will this be Project Reset 2.0 or 3?

[LCFCCKEANO]

Will the BEK sale be on this year or next’s books? 

[Corky]

48 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Not necessarily true. The parachute payment will still count as revenue for SCMR purposes—the fact that we took a loan from Macquarie doesn't change that. So we have the scope to spend the parachute money on the squad and stay within the rules.

 

We also don't know whether the cash from the loan has been spent in full—some of it may still be held in reserve. And even if it has been spent, the owners could still make up the shortfall themselves and remain compliant with SCMR.

 

So while the Macquarie loan complicates the picture, it does not remove our potential advantage.

Financially we need a reset but optically too. We have to change our wage structure, pay lower basic wages and incentivise. Is there the inclination, the will and the expertise to do so? I feel we are stuck in this short term risk cycle and will just attempt to blitz again and deal with it later.

[ClaphamFox]

Just now, Corky said:

Financially we need a reset but optically too. We have to change our wage structure, pay lower basic wages and incentivise. Is there the inclination, the will and the expertise to do so? I feel we are stuck in this short term risk cycle and will just attempt to blitz again and deal with it later.

It remains to be seen, but I'm cautiously optimistic that the appointment of Kevin Davies as CEO signals an intend to do just this. He has been credited with pushing hard for the club to move back towards a financially sustainable model and supposedly represented us extremely well at the November PSR hearing. If he lives up to this early promise, we may be in a much better place within the next few years.

[Claudio Fannieri]

4 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

It remains to be seen, but I'm cautiously optimistic that the appointment of Kevin Davies as CEO signals an intend to do just this. He has been credited with pushing hard for the club to move back towards a financially sustainable model and supposedly represented us extremely well at the November PSR hearing. If he lives up to this early promise, we may be in a much better place within the next few years.

I hope your optimism is realised however given we lost £20m on £105m revenue when we won the championship to then record a loss of £70m on £185m revenue in the premier league frightens me to death and all under his watch as Finance Director. That would suggest we have learnt nothing and his promotion is more aligned to his loyalty to the board / ownership. 

Edited 23 April by Claudio Fannieri

[Vestan Pance]

1 hour ago, Spudulike said:

How the "Glass Ceiling" has dismantled Leicester City…
In 2016, Leicester City did the impossible. They shattered the status quo of English football, proving that a "small" club could not only compete but conquer. 

However, ten years on from that historic title, the narrative has shifted from fairy tales to financial ruins. As the BBC recently detailed, the Foxes are facing a staggering decline—relegated from the Premier League in 2025 and now, in 2026, finding themselves confirmed for a drop into League One.

While official reports often point to "mismanagement," a deeper look suggests a more calculated culprit: the Profit and Sustainability Regulations (PSR). Far from being a tool for "stability," PSR has become a financial guillotine for any mid-sized club daring to challenge the elite.

The Cost of Ambition
The trap is simple and deadly. When a club like Leicester breaks into the top six or qualifies for Europe, they must invest to compete. You cannot fight on four fronts with a Championship-level squad. Leicester did what any ambitious club would do: they bought talent and offered competitive wages to sustain their presence at the top.
The reality for any non-"Big Six" club is that European qualification isn't guaranteed every year. Without the massive, recurring commercial revenue of global giants like Manchester United or Liverpool, a single season out of Europe becomes a financial catastrophe under PSR rules.

Leicester’s recent accounts tell the story: a £71.1m loss in their 2024-25 relegation season, following years of heavy spending to maintain their status. Because PSR limits losses to roughly £35m a year (averaged), the moment the European TV money stopped, the club was already in breach. They weren't being "reckless"; they were being ambitious in a system designed to punish it.

The "Glass Ceiling" Policy…
PSR was introduced shortly after Leicester’s 2016 triumph. It is hard not to see this as a defensive wall built by the established elite. By limiting spending to a percentage of revenue, the rules ensure that those with the highest turnover stay at the top.

If a club invests to "better themselves," they are labeled a financial risk. If they don't invest, they get relegated. It is a "heads they win, tails you lose" scenario for the authorities. Leicester is the primary evidence: a club that challenged the top table is now facing bankruptcy because they tried to stay in the fight.

The League One Nightmare…
Now, the situation is critical. Leicester is heading to League One, but the players remain on Premier League level wages—contracts signed when the club was fighting to maintain its top-flight status. With PSR scheduled to be introduced to League One next season, Leicester is effectively being forced into a corner where bankruptcy isn't just a fear; it's a mathematical probability.

The authorities have created a system where a club’s past success becomes the weight that sinks them. High-earning players who were assets in a Premier League campaign side are now "toxic liabilities" under current financial rules.

A New Way Forward: The Bond System…

If the goal were truly "financial stability" rather than "elite protection," there are better ways. Instead of arbitrary spending caps that favor the rich, the league should implement a Bond System.

Contractual Guarantees: Owners who wish to invest should be allowed to, provided they place the total value of a player's contract into a secure bond held by the league.

Safety Net: If a club is relegated or an owner leaves, the money is already there to cover the wages. This ensures players are paid and the club doesn't go bust, regardless of league status.

True Competition:This allows owners with the means—like King Power—to back their ambition without fear of a "points deduction" or forced fire sales.

Conclusion
The downfall of Leicester City is not a failure of the club; it is a success of a system designed to keep "The Other 14" in their place. PSR hasn't saved football; it has sterilized it. If the authorities truly want a sustainable future, they must stop punishing ambition and start implementing solutions that protect clubs without killing their dreams. 

Until then, Leicester stands as a grim warning: in modern football, if you fly too close to the sun, the Premier League will clip your wings!
 

That's not a great article. It doesn't factor in LCFC being a total basket case. I'd say PSR has been a factor, but a small one, it's certainly made our problems worse, but 90% of the reason for the mess is still in our boardroom.

[Les-TA-Jon]

1 hour ago, Spudulike said:

How the "Glass Ceiling" has dismantled Leicester City…

Saw this on some facebook post. There's some truth to it but it's largely nonsense. 

 

Quote

 

In 2016, Leicester City did the impossible. They shattered the status quo of English football, proving that a "small" club could not only compete but conquer. 

However, ten years on from that historic title, the narrative has shifted from fairy tales to financial ruins. As the BBC recently detailed, the Foxes are facing a staggering decline—relegated from the Premier League in 2025 and now, in 2026, finding themselves confirmed for a drop into League One.

While official reports often point to "mismanagement," a deeper look suggests a more calculated culprit: the Profit and Sustainability Regulations (PSR). Far from being a tool for "stability," PSR has become a financial guillotine for any mid-sized club daring to challenge the elite.

 

Except we are the only team to be hamstrung by PSR enough to tumble down the leagues...

 

Quote

The Cost of Ambition
The trap is simple and deadly. When a club like Leicester breaks into the top six or qualifies for Europe, they must invest to compete. You cannot fight on four fronts with a Championship-level squad. Leicester did what any ambitious club would do: they bought talent and offered competitive wages to sustain their presence at the top.
The reality for any non-"Big Six" club is that European qualification isn't guaranteed every year. Without the massive, recurring commercial revenue of global giants like Manchester United or Liverpool, a single season out of Europe becomes a financial catastrophe under PSR rules.

Correct - but it was largely ever thus, and this is not a PSR specific problem per se. 

 

Quote

Leicester’s recent accounts tell the story: a £71.1m loss in their 2024-25 relegation season, following years of heavy spending to maintain their status. Because PSR limits losses to roughly £35m a year (averaged), the moment the European TV money stopped, the club was already in breach. They weren't being "reckless"; they were being ambitious in a system designed to punish it.

They absolutely were - if your financial model relies on qualifying for europe every year then you know that not qualifying for europe is a big vulnerability. And everyone knows how competitive the PL is, so the likelihood of doing so is slim. So the club would have known they had constructed a house of cards. 

 

Look at some of the evidence the club put forward to the independent commission who decided on the 6 point deduction. The club budgeted that year (22/23) on the assumption they would finish 8th. That was based on having finished 8th, 5th and 5th in the preceding 3 seasons. And yet they knew that thing were on the wane under Rodgers and that the PL is incredibly competitive and that they would be making ZERO signings

 

Under those conditions how on earth was predicting an 8th place finish part of sensible planning? 

 

Note that finishing 18th instead of 8th cost the club £31m in reduced merit payments + the cost of sacking Rodgers and staff (rumoured to be at least £10m+) + the cost of appointing Dean Smith - all before you factor in the actual cost of relegation...

 

Quote

 

The "Glass Ceiling" Policy…
PSR was introduced shortly after Leicester’s 2016 triumph. It is hard not to see this as a defensive wall built by the established elite. By limiting spending to a percentage of revenue, the rules ensure that those with the highest turnover stay at the top.

If a club invests to "better themselves," they are labeled a financial risk. If they don't invest, they get relegated. It is a "heads they win, tails you lose" scenario for the authorities. Leicester is the primary evidence: a club that challenged the top table is now facing bankruptcy because they tried to stay in the fight.

 

This is incorrect. It's about allowable losses, not spending limited to a percentage of revenue. 

Leicester didn't get relegated due to lack of investment. They got relegated because they backed themselves into a financial corner and left themselves no room to freshen the team, then took too long to change the manager and when did they had no plan, wasted vital fixtures and then appointed someone who was worse. 

 

Quote

The League One Nightmare…
Now, the situation is critical. Leicester is heading to League One, but the players remain on Premier League level wages—contracts signed when the club was fighting to maintain its top-flight status. With PSR scheduled to be introduced to League One next season, Leicester is effectively being forced into a corner where bankruptcy isn't just a fear; it's a mathematical probability.

This is incorrect. There is no PSR in League One. 

 

Quote

The authorities have created a system where a club’s past success becomes the weight that sinks them. High-earning players who were assets in a Premier League campaign side are now "toxic liabilities" under current financial rules.

Only if they're crap players, managed by crap managers, allowed to stay at the club and lose all confidence and motivation. If they were 'assets in the Premier League' then surely they would be good enough to avoid relegation to League One? 

 

Quote

 

Conclusion
The downfall of Leicester City is not a failure of the club; it is a success of a system designed to keep "The Other 14" in their place. PSR hasn't saved football; it has sterilized it. If the authorities truly want a sustainable future, they must stop punishing ambition and start implementing solutions that protect clubs without killing their dreams. 

Until then, Leicester stands as a grim warning: in modern football, if you fly too close to the sun, the Premier League will clip your wings!

 

It absolutely is a failure of the club. They've had 3+ years and multiple windows to cut their cloth accordingly, remove deadwood, refreshen squad and change the model but haven't. And again - countless other clubs have been able to compete whilst adhering to the rules. 

Edited 23 April by Les-TA-Jon

[Twitcher]

1 hour ago, Spudulike said:

How the "Glass Ceiling" has dismantled Leicester City…
In 2016, Leicester City did the impossible. They shattered the status quo of English football, proving that a "small" club could not only compete but conquer. 

However, ten years on from that historic title, the narrative has shifted from fairy tales to financial ruins. As the BBC recently detailed, the Foxes are facing a staggering decline—relegated from the Premier League in 2025 and now, in 2026, finding themselves confirmed for a drop into League One.

While official reports often point to "mismanagement," a deeper look suggests a more calculated culprit: the Profit and Sustainability Regulations (PSR). Far from being a tool for "stability," PSR has become a financial guillotine for any mid-sized club daring to challenge the elite.

The Cost of Ambition
The trap is simple and deadly. When a club like Leicester breaks into the top six or qualifies for Europe, they must invest to compete. You cannot fight on four fronts with a Championship-level squad. Leicester did what any ambitious club would do: they bought talent and offered competitive wages to sustain their presence at the top.
The reality for any non-"Big Six" club is that European qualification isn't guaranteed every year. Without the massive, recurring commercial revenue of global giants like Manchester United or Liverpool, a single season out of Europe becomes a financial catastrophe under PSR rules.

Leicester’s recent accounts tell the story: a £71.1m loss in their 2024-25 relegation season, following years of heavy spending to maintain their status. Because PSR limits losses to roughly £35m a year (averaged), the moment the European TV money stopped, the club was already in breach. They weren't being "reckless"; they were being ambitious in a system designed to punish it.

The "Glass Ceiling" Policy…
PSR was introduced shortly after Leicester’s 2016 triumph. It is hard not to see this as a defensive wall built by the established elite. By limiting spending to a percentage of revenue, the rules ensure that those with the highest turnover stay at the top.

If a club invests to "better themselves," they are labeled a financial risk. If they don't invest, they get relegated. It is a "heads they win, tails you lose" scenario for the authorities. Leicester is the primary evidence: a club that challenged the top table is now facing bankruptcy because they tried to stay in the fight.

The League One Nightmare…
Now, the situation is critical. Leicester is heading to League One, but the players remain on Premier League level wages—contracts signed when the club was fighting to maintain its top-flight status. With PSR scheduled to be introduced to League One next season, Leicester is effectively being forced into a corner where bankruptcy isn't just a fear; it's a mathematical probability.

The authorities have created a system where a club’s past success becomes the weight that sinks them. High-earning players who were assets in a Premier League campaign side are now "toxic liabilities" under current financial rules.

A New Way Forward: The Bond System…

If the goal were truly "financial stability" rather than "elite protection," there are better ways. Instead of arbitrary spending caps that favor the rich, the league should implement a Bond System.

Contractual Guarantees: Owners who wish to invest should be allowed to, provided they place the total value of a player's contract into a secure bond held by the league.

Safety Net: If a club is relegated or an owner leaves, the money is already there to cover the wages. This ensures players are paid and the club doesn't go bust, regardless of league status.

True Competition:This allows owners with the means—like King Power—to back their ambition without fear of a "points deduction" or forced fire sales.

Conclusion
The downfall of Leicester City is not a failure of the club; it is a success of a system designed to keep "The Other 14" in their place. PSR hasn't saved football; it has sterilized it. If the authorities truly want a sustainable future, they must stop punishing ambition and start implementing solutions that protect clubs without killing their dreams. 

Until then, Leicester stands as a grim warning: in modern football, if you fly too close to the sun, the Premier League will clip your wings!
 

Bournemouth

[TheGoldenGod]

Just listened to The Overlaps latest episode and at the very last moment of a 1h 20m episode right when they are wrapping up...Jill Scott says "you know what, we didn't mention Leicester getting relegated to League One"... and they basically don't talk about it.

 

I felt that was quite poetic really. This ownership have made us an irrelevance....bit like a "oh yeah...oh well". KING POWER OUT.

[Terraloon]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

Not necessarily true. The parachute payment will still count as revenue for SCMR purposes—the fact that we took a loan from Macquarie doesn't change that. So we have the scope to spend the parachute money on the squad and stay within the rules.

 

We also don't know whether the cash from the loan has been spent in full—some of it may still be held in reserve. And even if it has been spent, the owners could still make up the shortfall themselves and remain compliant with SCMR.

 

So while the Macquarie loan complicates the picture, it does not remove our potential advantage.

We discussed this yesterday and whilst I can’t say 100% you are wrong if the arrangement with Macquarie is in fact deemed to be of the type referred to in the guidelines and if any sum of the 26/27 has in fact been drawn from the facility then it is highly likely that sum is indeed discoumted

 

Forward Financing:

1.16.1 Distributions - If Premier League Distributions which are relevant to the Reporting Period (a

Parachute Payment for example) have been received by the Club in Cash in a prior Reporting

Period as a result of ‘forward financing’’, the amounts received in the earlier period may not be

included in the calculation of Relevant Turnover.

Guidance:

If a Club is relegated from the Premier League at the end of Season;

Competes in the Championship is Season 2024/25 but is relegated to League One at the end of that

Season; and

Forward finances 100% of its Year 1 Parachute Payment from the Premier League and 70% of its Year 2

Parachute Payment, receiving those amounts during Season 2025/26

IT FOLLOWS THAT

The Club will only be able to include 30% of the Year 2 Parachute Payment within the calculation for

Relevant Turnover for Season 2026/27, its first in League One.

 

Edited 23 April by Terraloon

[ClaphamFox]

44 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

We discussed this yesterday and whilst I can’t say 100% you are wrong if the arrangement with Macquarie is in fact deemed to be of the type referred to in the guidelines and if any sum of the 26/27 has in fact been drawn from the facility then it is highly likely that sum is indeed discoumted

 

 

Forward Financing:

1.16.1 Distributions - If Premier League Distributions which are relevant to the Reporting Period (a

Parachute Payment for example) have been received by the Club in Cash in a prior Reporting

Period as a result of ‘forward financing’’, the amounts received in the earlier period may not be

included in the calculation of Relevant Turnover.

Guidance:

If a Club is relegated from the Premier League at the end of Season;

Competes in the Championship is Season 2024/25 but is relegated to League One at the end of that

Season; and

Forward finances 100% of its Year 1 Parachute Payment from the Premier League and 70% of its Year 2

Parachute Payment, receiving those amounts during Season 2025/26

IT FOLLOWS THAT

The Club will only be able to include 30% of the Year 2 Parachute Payment within the calculation for

Relevant Turnover for Season 2026/27, its first in League One.

 

Do we have any idea of how much has been drawn down already?

[Corky]

These articles about PSR aren't really written in support of ourselves, more of a nod to not liking the current system, we achieved then declined and linking the two which is nowhere near the whole story.

[HankMarvin]

18 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Do we have any idea of how much has been drawn down already?

 

edit

 

Borrowing to Pay "Grocery Bills": Analysis from Kieran Maguire and the BBC highlights that the club has been using "tomorrow's money to pay for today".

The loan funds were immediately required to cover a cash-flow deficit caused by high wages and outstanding transfer fee instalments.

Resulting Cash Void: Because the bank (Macquarie) has already provided the advance, the actual cash that will reach the club's bank account when the Premier League pays out in 2026/27 is expected to be as little as £2 million.

Liquidity Crisis: Accounts as of June 2025 showed the club’s cash balance had dwindled to just £4.5 million, emphasizing the immediate need for the January 2026 "cash boost" from the Macquarie loan refresh. 

Edited 23 April by HankMarvin

[Chrysalis]

15 hours ago, 1972 Fox said:

Then within a few years their players develop the same issues, lack of fitness, poor mentality, thinking they made the big time etc.

[Les-TA-Jon]

57 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

 

edit

 

Borrowing to Pay "Grocery Bills": Analysis from Kieran Maguire and the BBC highlights that the club has been using "tomorrow's money to pay for today".

The loan funds were immediately required to cover a cash-flow deficit caused by high wages and outstanding transfer fee instalments.

Resulting Cash Void: Because the bank (Macquarie) has already provided the advance, the actual cash that will reach the club's bank account when the Premier League pays out in 2026/27 is expected to be as little as £2 million.

Liquidity Crisis: Accounts as of June 2025 showed the club’s cash balance had dwindled to just £4.5 million, emphasizing the immediate need for the January 2026 "cash boost" from the Macquarie loan refresh. 

Presumably this is why there's things like delayed Christmas pay for staff and rumours of various suppliers not being paid creeping in...

[Bazly]

3 hours ago, Spudulike said:

the Profit and Sustainability Regulations (PSR). Far from being a tool for "stability," PSR has become a financial guillotine for any mid-sized club daring to challenge the elite.

 

Leicester City FC have achieved nothing that hasn't been tested before by Blackburn Rovers, Bolton and Leeds United. It proves you can buy a temporary fix but at the undeniable cost of long term decline. It is certain another club will try the same recipe, Wrexham possibly?

[Les-TA-Jon]

53 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Then within a few years their players develop the same issues, lack of fitness, poor mentality, thinking they made the big time etc.

I really don't get this excuse. Isn't Seagrave comparable to some of the facilities at the 'big clubs'? 

[ClaphamFox]

13 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

I really don't get this excuse. Isn't Seagrave comparable to some of the facilities at the 'big clubs'? 

It is, and our spectacular decline in recent years has nothing to do with it.

[southfox66]

if the board has any brains at all, they need to be offloading every player that is on over 50k a week, ideally clear out all the dead wood ,then you analysis the stats of all the top players in league one this season of the sides not promoted to the championship and build a team with a core of player that have a proven record this season in league one and add acedemy player plus young premier loanees, so you going to team that can compete at this level for a fraction of the cost of our current. Take as an example Dom Ballard he get about £7500 a week only 21 so has potential for the future, scored over 20 goals in 38 games this season, you wont get Daka getting that amount of goals at 75k a week.

[Tommy G]

4 minutes ago, southfox66 said:

if the board has any brains at all, they need to be offloading every player that is on over 50k a week, ideally clear out all the dead wood ,then you analysis the stats of all the top players in league one this season of the sides not promoted to the championship and build a team with a core of player that have a proven record this season in league one and add acedemy player plus young premier loanees, so you going to team that can compete at this level for a fraction of the cost of our current. Take as an example Dom Ballard he get about £7500 a week only 21 so has potential for the future, scored over 20 goals in 38 games this season, you wont get Daka getting that amount of goals at 75k a week.

Most players in L1 are paid at most between £5-£15K a week, so your £50K threshold is way off. 

[HankMarvin]

6 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Most players in L1 are paid at most between £5-£15K a week, so your £50K threshold is way off. 

It’s also not quite as easy as “offload every player on 50k plus” it’s like trying to flog a banged up old shit heap of a car for £20k