Could we go into Administration next season?

[Claudio Fannieri]

23 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

I would say it’s about both. Compliance with PSR/SCMP is important because we don’t want to get in a cycle of annual points deductions—especially as we need to get out of League One as soon as possible. Cash flow is even more important because if we can’t pay the bills we’ll go into administration and get an even bigger points deduction. Does the club slash costs across the board and accept we may be stuck in League One for a while or spend a bit in an attempt to get back to the Championship straight away?

 

I don’t have any personal knowledge of the season ticket situation, but judging from reports it seems that around 20k may have renewed. If we end up with 22k in total that will be a decent number in League One (the last time we were down there we had around 14k). The challenge with trying to sell players quickly for PSR purposes is that our most saleable asset will be at the World Cup when the transfer window opens. Hopefully a few deals are agreed in advance…

I agree to a point regards points deductions, however my point is that the lack of cash flow is what will push us into administration, not a PSR breach. However continually losing money, £270m over 4 seasons and having a very high expenditure on wages, day to day running costs and future liabilities on transfer fees whilst factoring future revenues are all red flags. 
 

add this to greatly reduced revenue in league one, then I can genuinely foresee an issue in the next 12-18 months where we could be in administration as a result of not being able to service our day to day running costs. 

[ClaphamFox]

21 hours ago, Terraloon said:

The EFL 1 75% squad spend  is unlikely to be truly known till some time around Jan 2028 . It’s all well and good pointing to the lack of limits but if say £100 m was forthcoming and indeed £75m added to the playing budget that sort of investment could prove problematic if promotion was achieved and assessed in a later year  under PSR.

 

Balancing the numbers in 26/27 won’t be as easy as some think and should promotion not be achieved and the allowable % drops to 60% the challenge becomes even greater.
 

Till the 25/26 Championship numbers are finalised sometime later in 2026 or early 27 then the possibility remains an overspend of £61 million in the three years to 30/6/26 will result in a charge under the championship rules which could result in a points deduction that would be imposed even in EFL1. Let’s hope the numbers aren’t an issue.

 

The 26/27 season will be being assessed as we talk and there will have been all sorts of projections being submitted to target  compliance for 25/26 or before accounting year end maybe having to selling a player.

 

Hopefully there isn’t a pressing need to generate transfer  cash before 30/6 because any income received in the 25/26 year won’t count toward the 26/27 income.

I haven’t fully thought it through,  it might be advantageous to sell players in 25/26 but agree a payment plan whereby no cash is actually received til 26/27. That might, and I say might, work massively to the clubs advantage.

 

Don't Championship clubs have to submit a PSR projection for the current season to determine the likelihood of a breach? I remember the EFL believed (correctly, as it turned out) that we were heading for a breach in 2023/24 and tried to make us submit a business plan for that season, but we ended up not having to do that after winning an appeal. All of this was widely covered in the media, mainly because we were legally contesting it. There has been no indication so far that the EFL seeking to impose pre-emptive controls on us for 2025/26—do we dare assume that this means we aren't heading for a breach, or could it be simply that the EFL is actively intervening but it hasn't been leaked because we're not legally contesting it this time?

I suppose if there is a mad scramble to flog any players who might command a fee between 15-30 June, that will give us more of an idea.

Edited 5 May by ClaphamFox

[Globalfox]

Right now who knows. By my calculations if we do well then we might generate 25.8 M in matchday revenue under League 1rulrs. We can then spend 7.5million on the team plus any player sales revenue which I see as ma ing around 20M at best. The balance 7.5 M with Seagrave etc will need significant cost management as will many other parts of the club. What the owner could put in is unclear. If we cannot manage to 25M a year we deserve gointoadministration

 

 

 

 

[Paninistickers]

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

 

Well researched piece by a fella Paul Quinn - a month old, but the finances laid bare. 

[HankMarvin]

9 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

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

 

Well researched piece by a fella Paul Quinn - a month old, but the finances laid bare. 

Ground breaking stuff 

 

“Without a swift return to the Premier League or a stabilisation of King Power’s Thai operations, the  data suggests that Leicester City is at significant risk of a protracted decline into the lower tiers of English football, where its current infrastructure and debt levels would be fundamentally unsustainable”

[Claudio Fannieri]

8 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

Ground breaking stuff 

 

“Without a swift return to the Premier League or a stabilisation of King Power’s Thai operations, the  data suggests that Leicester City is at significant risk of a protracted decline into the lower tiers of English football, where its current infrastructure and debt levels would be fundamentally unsustainable”

But how dare we be worried or criticise we should be eternally grateful to King Power not question anything and be careful what we wish for ……

[davieG]

[OntarioFox]

8 minutes ago, davieG said:

If we'd made those sales it would have covered our expected TV Revenue in League One for *checks notes* 126 years

[Stadt]

2 hours ago, davieG said:

Not that we could/would have sold them all at their peak values but if you had to estimate probably about £320m?

 

Tielemans, Soyuncu, Pereira alone all would have peaked over £50m at one stage.

Rudkin has probably cost the club about a billion pounds.

[Corky]

Several of those players were here between 5 and 8 years too. 

[jayfox26]

3 hours ago, davieG said:

Other than Tielemans, Soyuncu and Ricardo, its not our failure to sell them thats the problem, its the fact we signed them in the first place. Tielemans we definitely should have made some money but Ricardo has been a good servant and was never likely to be sold for a decent fee with the injury issues hes had. Soyuncu we could have made some money but his form dropped off a cliff, possibly because of mis management by Rodgers. The rest were all on obscene wages vs their actual ability which makes it near on impossible to sell them. 

[Chrysalis]

I think the main issue has always been wages, but it is true we have a player trading issue where unless we can make a nice profit on a player on book value, we just wont sell them.  We then just extend the financial pain paying the high wages until contract ends.

[Clever Fox]

That report makes for very sad reading. The level of incompetance goe's from year to year.  With KP also struggling we can't expect much financial help from them.

 

All of this is down to one man. Unless Top takes action he's going to be left owning is it 40% of nothing and the Banks will take over.

 

And Banks are only interested in one thing, that's getting their money back with little thought for the Club or Fans. 

 

We're in for a Roller Coaster of a season, that only the right Mangerial appointment can bring hope.

[Pliskin]

39 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

That report makes for very sad reading. The level of incompetance goe's from year to year.  With KP also struggling we can't expect much financial help from them.

 

All of this is down to one man. Unless Top takes action he's going to be left owning is it 40% of nothing and the Banks will take over.

 

And Banks are only interested in one thing, that's getting their money back with little thought for the Club or Fans. 

 

We're in for a Roller Coaster of a season, that only the right Mangerial appointment can bring hope.

Unfortunately there’s one way this ends. 
 

Regardless of the people Top employs around him, the bottom line is he and Rudkin are incompetent. Rudkin is an academy coach, not a director of football, and he no business being involved in vital decisions around the clubs financial operation. Any good people will either be poached, or leave through sheer frustration. 
 

It’s been said that Rudkin is impossible to work with, and Top is a complete no show 90% of the time. 
 

In short, we are ****ed. We’re in the midst of a decline that’s spiralling out of control, next season is going to be ugly, very, very ugly. 

[Paninistickers]

53 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

That report makes for very sad reading. The level of incompetance goe's from year to year.  With KP also struggling we can't expect much financial help from them.

 

All of this is down to one man. Unless Top takes action he's going to be left owning is it 40% of nothing and the Banks will take over.

 

And Banks are only interested in one thing, that's getting their money back with little thought for the Club or Fans. 

 

We're in for a Roller Coaster of a season, that only the right Mangerial appointment can bring hope.

Mate, we don't really owe any serious money to 'banks' - if indeed any. 

 

It's liquidity that's the issue. Pay the staff. The players.  The taxman. Cutting the grass. Keeping the lights on (literally). And, perhaps most concerning, transfer fee instalments likely due on Bilal, Fatawu, Hermansen, Skipp, Stephy, Souttar, VK. 

 

Unless the owner has magically developed an IQ above SEN level and attracts 100m or so in cash, the club will be taken off him under insolvency laws representing the clubs and players and staff and taxman we can't pay. Not the banks. 

 

 

[Gazza M]

Its very sad but it feels a way of getting rid of Top and Rudkin. Never thought I could wish that on my own club but would take it now. 

[Vestan Pance]

21 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Mate, we don't really owe any serious money to 'banks' - if indeed any. 

 

It's liquidity that's the issue. Pay the staff. The players.  The taxman. Cutting the grass. Keeping the lights on (literally). And, perhaps most concerning, transfer fee instalments likely due on Bilal, Fatawu, Hermansen, Skipp, Stephy, Souttar, VK. 

 

Unless the owner has magically developed an IQ above SEN level and attracts 100m or so in cash, the club will be taken off him under insolvency laws representing the clubs and players and staff and taxman we can't pay. Not the banks. 

 

 

We owe Macquerie Bank and estimated £85m.

[Paninistickers]

11 minutes ago, Vestan Pance said:

We owe Macquerie Bank and estimated £85m.

We do and we don't. This has been discussed. 

 

The PL money and various transfer instalments owed to us go to them. We've basically guaranteed it, so technically yes, we owe them. In reality, it's only a problem if the PL or West Ham (Hermansen) or Stuttgart (Bilal) or Chelsea (KDH) go bust. 

 

So the Macquirie debts are basically irrelevant

[Vestan Pance]

1 minute ago, Paninistickers said:

We do and we don't. This has been discussed. 

 

The PL money and various transfer instalments owed to us go to them. We've basically guaranteed it, so technically yes, we owe them. In reality, it's only a problem if the PL or West Ham (Hermansen) or Stuttgart (Bilal) or Chelsea (KDH) go bust. 

 

So the Macquirie debts are basically irrelevant

I'm sorry but this is total nonsense, the debts to a bank are not irrelevant. The money has to be paid, where the money comes from is irrelevant. You said it yourself "technically yes" Leicester City owe the money, this agreement has nothing to do with West Ham or the Premier League.

[Paninistickers]

1 minute ago, Vestan Pance said:

I'm sorry but this is total nonsense, the debts to a bank are not irrelevant. The money has to be paid, where the money comes from is irrelevant. You said it yourself "technically yes" Leicester City owe the money, this agreement has nothing to do with West Ham or the Premier League.

Sorry pal, but you're wrong on this. It's factoring. Invoice finance. 

 

We've basically sold the debt..

 

Businesses do that for cashflow issues. You are owed 100 quid and can't fanny about waiting for the client to pay, so you 'sell' the invoice for 90 quid to a bank. And additionally, you have to underwrite it (so as to avoid a business flogging a dodgy invoice to the factoring company where you know the client won't pay) 

 

You're gonna have to trust me on this. That's how it works. 

 

Technically yes we owe Macquirie the money because we have said, for example,.if Chelsea don't pay their bill - we will.

 

Point is, the money we owe to Macquirie is covered. Liquidity is the issue. Not Macquirie. 

[Clever Fox]

11 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Mate, we don't really owe any serious money to 'banks' - if indeed any. 

 

It's liquidity that's the issue. Pay the staff. The players.  The taxman. Cutting the grass. Keeping the lights on (literally). And, perhaps most concerning, transfer fee instalments likely due on Bilal, Fatawu, Hermansen, Skipp, Stephy, Souttar, VK. 

 

Unless the owner has magically developed an IQ above SEN level and attracts 100m or so in cash, the club will be taken off him under insolvency laws representing the clubs and players and staff and taxman we can't pay. Not the banks. 

 

 

I agree liquidity is the short term problem, but didn't we borrow to build Seagrave. which has little equity value.  The big problem is we cant use the Prem money because it's already been spent. 

All they were doing was kicking the can down the road rather than face up to doing the right thing. Which is also why Susan left.                                                                     

If Top wouldn't listen to the one person who was there from the start of KP is a Money person and knows the duty free business inside out, Then he's some form or Cretin.

I can understand pushing the boat out a little in 2016 even if they did f---k that up also.

For someone who comes from a proud race of people a people in Thailand He must be the laughing stock of Thailand now .

Top is displaying a special level of incompetance.  My guess he's paralysed with fear for doing the wrong thing and refusing to open his eyes.

Sadly he may lose everything before he really sees or understands the problem.

 

[Vestan Pance]

50 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Sorry pal, but you're wrong on this. It's factoring. Invoice finance. 

 

We've basically sold the debt..

 

Businesses do that for cashflow issues. You are owed 100 quid and can't fanny about waiting for the client to pay, so you 'sell' the invoice for 90 quid to a bank. And additionally, you have to underwrite it (so as to avoid a business flogging a dodgy invoice to the factoring company where you know the client won't pay) 

 

You're gonna have to trust me on this. That's how it works. 

 

Technically yes we owe Macquirie the money because we have said, for example,.if Chelsea don't pay their bill - we will.

 

Point is, the money we owe to Macquirie is covered. Liquidity is the issue. Not Macquirie. 

Nope, I've run enough business to know the money is owed to a bank. Call it what you like the money is owed. It's a payday loan nothing more. 

[Sly]

8 minutes ago, Vestan Pance said:

Nope, I've run enough business to know the money is owed to a bank. Call it what you like the money is owed. It's a payday loan nothing more. 

It can be done both ways but in fairness.

 

If we are factoring, it blows my mind that we are using Vampire bank, rather than utilising the King Power finances. 
 

Unless King Power has cut the money on a vanity project / money pit, which isn’t great either way.

 

We will finance the El Khannous and Fatawu sales I’d imagine. 

[PAULCFC]

1 minute ago, Sly said:

It can be done both ways but in fairness.

 

If we are factoring, it blows my mind that we are using Vampire bank, rather than utilising the King Power finances. 
 

Unless King Power has cut the money on a vanity project / money pit, which isn’t great either way.

 

We will finance the El Khannous and Fatawu sales I’d imagine. 

I'd imagine that Top has been cut away from running KP for the exact reasons he is doing at our club now........from what i've read his mother(who is in charge of a failing buisness) is not interested in football at all.......our club is just a plaything to keep Top out of the way from the KP buisness,buy a few horses,but just keep him away!

[Sly]

3 minutes ago, PAULCFC said:

I'd imagine that Top has been cut away from running KP for the exact reasons he is doing at our club now........from what i've read his mother(who is in charge of a failing buisness) is not interested in football at all.......our club is just a plaything to keep Top out of the way from the KP buisness,buy a few horses,but just keep him away!

If you want a play thing, it’s much cheaper running a club in Belgium, than in England. 
 

At some point, he needs to cut loose and sell us.