Could we go into Administration next season?

[PAULCFC]

18 minutes ago, Sly said:

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. 

Yes, i agree with you.It's a different thing selling a club in Belgium that was very close to relegation and no one outside Belgium or Leicester have known about.My point is that KP are hemoriging money yet Top wether it's just saving face or a connection to his dad is still in charge and i agree for involved the current regime need to go.Not sure how much Top is involved in Leuven,but it would be better if he sold us and concentrated their.

[orangecity23]

On 26/05/2026 at 19:52, davieG said:

As depresing as this list already is - there's even more that could have been added.

Amartey - 5 million

Soumare - only left in Jan (Kerfuffle), for practically nothing - so another 20 million ish lost

EDIT - forgot about Jonny Evans, another 3.5 million

 

In a years time:

Winks - 8 million

Vestergaard - 15 million

 

Skipp has many years left, but is functionally worthless

Faes will be another loss

Mavididi probably not worth close to what we bought him for

Coady was another loss

Kristiansen will be another zero worth exit when he goes

Edited 28 May by orangecity23
Evans

[LCFCJohn]

6 hours ago, orangecity23 said:

As depresing as this list already is - there's even more that could have been added.

Amartey - 5 million

Soumare - only left in Jan (Kerfuffle), for practically nothing - so another 20 million ish lost

EDIT - forgot about Jonny Evans, another 3.5 million

 

In a years time:

Winks - 8 million

Vestergaard - 15 million

 

Skipp has many years left, but is functionally worthless

Faes will be another loss

Mavididi probably not worth close to what we bought him for

Coady was another loss

Kristiansen will be another zero worth exit when he goes

Still blows my mind we extended Vestergaard!

 

You’re right there are more on the horizon. And that others like Coady and Soumare who have already gone are not listed here as they didn’t leave for ‘free’ but were a financial loss. I reckon Faes will be the latter and we will get something, maybe Mavididi too. Unsure on Skipp and Kristiansen. We will definitely make a loss but whether they go for free or we recoup something. Oh Winks might get a small amount. Or I doubt he will be with us in League 1.

 

Amartey was an ok utility player, just that we were operating at a higher level than his ability at the time. £5 mill wasn’t excessive but surely we could have recouped some of that.

 

I wouldn’t really count Evans though. It was a small fee for an experienced player. We knew we were paying for what we were getting (and we did get our monies worth from him) and it was not a signing to make profit on. 

[blue army 1988]

3 hours ago, LCFCJohn said:

Still blows my mind we extended Vestergaard!

 

You’re right there are more on the horizon. And that others like Coady and Soumare who have already gone are not listed here as they didn’t leave for ‘free’ but were a financial loss. I reckon Faes will be the latter and we will get something, maybe Mavididi too. Unsure on Skipp and Kristiansen. We will definitely make a loss but whether they go for free or we recoup something. Oh Winks might get a small amount. Or I doubt he will be with us in League 1.

 

Amartey was an ok utility player, just that we were operating at a higher level than his ability at the time. £5 mill wasn’t excessive but surely we could have recouped some of that.

 

I wouldn’t really count Evans though. It was a small fee for an experienced player. We knew we were paying for what we were getting (and we did get our monies worth from him) and it was not a signing to make profit on. 

It was Enzo who wanted the Vestergard contract.

Enzo really screwed us over in some places.

[LCFCJohn]

27 minutes ago, blue army 1988 said:

It was Enzo who wanted the Vestergard contract.

Enzo really screwed us over in some places.

It’s an unpopular opinion for many people who put him on a pedestal but I agree and have said the same many times. Winks as well. The other signings have offered on the pitch and not been ‘bad eggs’ like Winks is.

 

Even the signings that were good (Fatawu/Hermansen) or good for a spell (Mavididi) failed to address a couple of key areas, fragile mentality and leaders.

 

Its one of those where with unpopular managers, the good must have been the club or someone else and the bad must have been the manager whereas with Enzo, he gets credit for the good but people won’t attach the negatives to him.

[Terraloon]

13 hours 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. 

In one sense you are right in that known income ( not an invoice) has been drawn down in advance but call it whatever we want that money has to be repaid and at a cost.

 

You mention Chelsea but KDH has been sold on by them.

 

I have only just got around to reading the article by but the Esk but it’s this bit that struck me

 

The  picture for 2026 is one of systemic risk. Relegation to League One will represent a devastating new low. Financed by parachute payments that are not accounted for in the 2025 statement, the club would see its solidarity payments drop to a mere 12.6% basic rate in League One, a fraction of the £30-50 million it currently receives. Such an outcome would likely necessitate the total liquidation of the squad’s remaining market value to service the high-interest Macquarie debt.

 

 

[Paninistickers]

4 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

that money has to be repaid and at a cost.

Yes, it has to be repaid, but it's covered. Money is owed to us - transfers and PL parachutes - but it won't now come to us. It bypasses us and the monies due go direct to Macquirie.

 

The only way we are liable is if, say, the PL defaults on its payment. The club will have underwritten that risk. At which point Macquirie can ask us for what it's due. But that's an extremely unlikely scenario. Therefore the Macquirie debt isn't of pressing concern. Liquidity is. 

 

Back of fag packet maths, we will need around 40m-50m at least to function next season. I don't think we have it. And I can only guess they are relying (praying) on player sales to finance that. 

 

Additionally, and possibly the biggest existential risk we have, is we may well still owe instalments on Bilal, Hermansen, Mavididi, VK, Souttar, Skipp. This has been mentioned a couple of times in the media, Inc the Charlie Methven interview. 

 

My original point anyways is posters on here fearing 'the banks'. They are, in my view, the least of our problems. 

[Terraloon]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

Yes, it has to be repaid, but it's covered. Money is owed to us - transfers and PL parachutes - but it won't now come to us. It bypasses us and the monies due go direct to Macquirie.

 

The only way we are liable is if, say, the PL defaults on its payment. The club will have underwritten that risk. At which point Macquirie can ask us for what it's due. But that's an extremely unlikely scenario. Therefore the Macquirie debt isn't of pressing concern. Liquidity is. 

 

Back of fag packet maths, we will need around 40m-50m at least to function next season. I don't think we have it. And I can only guess they are relying (praying) on player sales to finance that. 

 

Additionally, and possibly the biggest existential risk we have, is we may well still owe instalments on Bilal, Hermansen, Mavididi, VK, Souttar, Skipp. This has been mentioned a couple of times in the media, Inc the Charlie Methven interview. 

 

My original point anyways is posters on here fearing 'the banks'. They are, in my view, the least of our problems. 

What we need to do is look at income v expenditure not what the numbers in the accounts will look like.

 

The banks have taken security against just about everything up till June 27 by which time I would guess that little to no parachute, transfer fees, or income of any note can be borrowed against. As we know that come that date at very best LCFC will at best be a Championship club , a club competing without parachute payments against clubs who will be getting significant monies to aid there wage bill against the % target
 

You are probably right about not having £40-50 m but by my back of a fag packet calculation I think it’s closer to £80-£90m

 

Some basic costs which in the accounts are deemed to be administrative will come to a minimum of £23 m even then only  if significant savings are made. These costs have been in excess of that sum , significantly more so circa £25-£26m. With additional numbers being added due to increases in utility costs, business rates insurances etc I think even £23m will be a significant challenge 
 

There will be sums due to be paid in respect of historical transfers in. I guess these will be , with interest, around £12-£15 m 

 

Before we even look at first team wages paying for the academy players and support staff, woman’s players and support staff medical staff , maintenance staff, club administration staff etc is anyone’s guess but I very much doubt there would be much change from £15 m

So best case scenario before first team players and coaching staff it’s circa £53m 

 

There is still the debate about what does or doesn’t count in terms of SCMP football revenue particularly around parachute monies but from the three main income streams match day , sponsors and commercial it’s hard to see how it was going to get close to £50m income my guess it’s more likely to be closer to £40m

 

 

Edited 28 May by Terraloon

[Pliskin]

2 hours ago, blue army 1988 said:

It was Enzo who wanted the Vestergard contract.

Enzo really screwed us over in some places.

Did he? Because we know what Top is like throwing around big contracts following success, could well have been him who offered him a new deal with the approval of Enzo.