SCMP rules - Now Championship and League One

[Pita]

49 minutes ago, MPH said:

Top IS the happy go lucky Billionaire. 
 

besides, he’s got so much invested in us that there isn’t a price that anyone would pay that would be acceptable  to him until maybe we get back to the prem..

A happy go lucky billionaire who does not a a clue how to run the club 

[iancognito]

No idea how clubs are supposed to plan for the future when the rules seem to change every couple of years. We don't plan anyway but even the best run clubs will get caught out simply because they planned for one eventuality and then the goal posts moved.

[Terraloon]

14 hours ago, Scotch said:

The goalposts have moved on that front. Before we couldn't sell players for less than their book value as it would go down as a financial loss which would count against us in terms of PSR. 

Now, we can sell players for absolutely anything and although it will still be a financial loss, it won't see us fall foul of financial rulings. If players were willing, we could even terminate contracts and it not financially hurt us but rather align our wage bill with where it needs to be. 

 

Think of all the measly bids we've had over the years from Italian teams that were less than what was still on the books. We can no accept them.

Not 100% but very close to that %  I believe any loss( any sum received below book value) is included. 
 

A club can’t unilaterally terminate a players contract without penalty . Almost certainly the FA would , unless there was proof of gross misconduct, would step in.

 

[Scotch]

13 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Not 100% but very close to that %  I believe any loss( any sum received below book value) is included. 
 

A club can’t unilaterally terminate a players contract without penalty . Almost certainly the FA would , unless there was proof of gross misconduct, would step in.

 

Included in what? With the new rules, they only look to ensure a certain % of what was brought in has been spent so I'm not sure how a loss can affect that. 

 

Mutual terminations are absolutely allowed. I'm not sure why the FA would step in if both the player and the club wanted the contract to end. I don't have any examples at this level but there are certainly examples of it at PL level. 

[Terraloon]

3 hours ago, iancognito said:

No idea how clubs are supposed to plan for the future when the rules seem to change every couple of years. We don't plan anyway but even the best run clubs will get caught out simply because they planned for one eventuality and then the goal posts moved.

Football is an incredibly difficult business to try and budget. 
 

I have had limited input into production of a clubs albeit at non league. There the plans weren’t that complex as they only mainly  covered one year and very little was factored in re amortisation and likewise transfer income. Irrespective come seasons end the expenditure always was greater than had been budget for. 
 

A player suffering a significant injury meaning additional expense bringing in a loan player, sacking a manager, floodlights failure having to pay for police, extra pitch maintenance ( you would be staggered how much it cost just to water one pitch) . In a blink of an eye the planned budget was exceeded by a double digit variance.

 

But to a degree expenditure was the easiest part of the equation. Trying to get close to estimating income was far more complex. Exit  from cup competitions was interesting because one group within the directors wanted to budget for cup income matching previous seasons average, others wanted to treat such income as a bonus. To placate supporters expectations the former approach prevailed that led to increasing the player budget . A earlier exit than hoped for and indeed budgeted for all added the variance I mentioned earlier.

 

When it comes to Leicester what shocks me is just how dependent the club is on transfer income. Yes I know that PL broadcast income  be it as a PL club or a club in receipt of parachute payments but if you look at the last few years accounts there is always a note about the need for  transfer profit, and as we know the need isn’t just for the odd £1m the requirement is to deliver £10s of millions. That dependence may well work in a clubs favour for a decent length of time but at some point it will fail.

Football at most levels is a money pit. I personally think clubs have to be protected against themselves . FFP/PSR may, and I say may, have actually helped indeed the number of clubs suffering an insolvency event has dropped massively, but for me the SCMP is a far more logical attempt to control player costs and area of expenditure that most clubs allocate far too high a % of income.

 

Sorry if I offend anyone but people need to stop pointing fingers at the regulations or how they have impacted LC the simple fact is that the vast % of clubs don’t have the issues that the club currently face.
 

Go back to my comments about formulating a budget at non league level . The hope is that LC  budgeted for and included potential clauses past year one, two,& three  when it came to wages but that was only part of the player costs and fees still have to be honoured . There clearly hasn’t been any realistic approach to management of cash flow indeed the requirement to use facilities offered by that Aussie bank highlighted the poor management of budgets particularly when it came to generating income.

 

Where LC find themselves isn’t of anyone’s else’s making

 

[Terraloon]

53 minutes ago, Scotch said:

Included in what? With the new rules, they only look to ensure a certain % of what was brought in has been spent so I'm not sure how a loss can affect that. 

 

Mutual terminations are absolutely allowed. I'm not sure why the FA would step in if both the player and the club wanted the contract to end. I don't have any examples at this level but there are certainly examples of it at PL level. 

The player trading  numbers count toward the squad costs. 
 

If you look at the EFL rules when it comes to squad costs they talk about transfer loss being included.

 

The new protocols have made  absolutely no difference about clubs agreeing with a player to mutually agree cancelling a contract but as I said a club can’t unilaterally cancel a contract 

 

 

Edited 17 May by Terraloon

[Pliskin]

4 hours ago, iancognito said:

No idea how clubs are supposed to plan for the future when the rules seem to change every couple of years. We don't plan anyway but even the best run clubs will get caught out simply because they planned for one eventuality and then the goal posts moved.

They’ve only changed these rules because of Birmingham and Wrexham. They have to emend the rules because teams largely abuse them. And they’re clearly not very good writing up rules to begin with.

 

SCMP has been in play for about 15 years…..

[Terraloon]

1 minute ago, Pliskin said:

They’ve only changed these rules because of Birmingham and Wrexham. They have to emend the rules because teams largely abuse them. And they’re clearly not very good writing up rules to begin with.

 

SCMP has been in play for about 15 years…..

The changes in terms of the allowable % be in allowable spend or indeed owners equity input was a compromise many clubs wanted the reduction down to 40%.

[Pliskin]

Yes, they emend the rules every time someone abuses them. No doubt, if IF Top is is vaguely interested in saving the club we will likely abuse it and they alter things again. What is it, 75% of our revenue can be spent on player wages and only 60% of I checked revenue can count to that? 

[Les-TA-Jon]

2 hours ago, Pliskin said:

Yes, they emend the rules every time someone abuses them. No doubt, if IF Top is is vaguely interested in saving the club we will likely abuse it and they alter things again. What is it, 75% of our revenue can be spent on player wages and only 60% of I checked revenue can count to that? 

L1 rules have actually gotten tighter with the new vote. 
 

Now only 50% of turnover can go on player/squad costs and only 50% of owner injection is allowable

 

(Newly relegated clubs allowed 65% of turnover on squad costs for first year only)

[Ric Flair]

We really have to get out of this shit hole at the first time of asking again, oh god.

[Lesta Legend]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

We really have to get out of this shit hole at the first time of asking again, oh god.

Manderic’s parting gift was to appoint Pearson and his team. A capable team and the rest is history. King Power nearly messed up by letting him go that first time.

 

I honestly fear for the future. 
 

It is so important for getting the manager right and this will only get there by also structural reform of the internals at the club and get this in place very quickly. 
 

Pearson went in with Walsh and clearly was able to target players who’ll they’ll have been aware of probably before they joined the club. He then changed the culture and set high standards. My worry is we’ll keep with the disjointed organisational structure headed by Rudkin with recruitment still relying on agents. 
 

Any manager expected to hit the ground running should by rights be in there now and fighting tooth and nail to ensure we get the right profile of player and not the dross presented by an agency.

 

It wouldn’t be a bad idea to even call on the likes of Pearson to provide a consultancy on a transition period to work with everyone. But that’s pie in the sky. 
 

I honestly believe they’re still on holiday and while  maybe McCarron may be doing something (we as usual can only guess what) decisions will be made once off their jollies. 
 

And if we aren’t going to get our arse in order and pragmatically make sound decisions like Pearson did on a limited budget. KP will have to spend millions, with the new parameters set I can’t see we will do either. Charlie Methven I fear is right. 

[davieG]

off the pitch the finance department needs to be stripping out areas of waste or were not necessary.

 

Maybe shut down the heated swimming pool and do a Ranieri  - opened when you get to 40 points or what ever the target is in League 1 but generally bring a little hardship / need to earn culture.

 

Throw in some proper non-football team building, like a team hike/race up Peny Fan in the Brecon Beacons and in bivouacking.

 

Emphasise this is League one get promoted and some luxuries will return.

[5waller5]

34 minutes ago, davieG said:

 

 

Throw in some proper non-football team building, like a team hike/race up Peny Fan in the Brecon Beacons and in bivouacking.

 

Imagine our current squad reaction! 😂

[VG Fox]

1 hour ago, 5waller5 said:

Imagine our current squad reaction! 😂

They wouldn't last 30mins (I'm being generous) on the breacons in wintery conditions

[whoareyaaa]

18 hours ago, Bert said:

Just bin all financial rules. 
 

The big clubs pretty much get away with spending what they want anyway which is why it was thought to be a good idea to create a level playing field per se. 

It was only brought in to protect the big clubs 

[Qwerty]

21 hours ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Boltons wage budget in league one has been around 10m according to reports. 
 

That is without our much larger revenue + 1 more season of parachute payments ‘on the books’.

 

Think we are allowed 75% of revenue as wages (60+15).

These new rules appear to drop our allowance to 65% I think.

It’s basically going to make it harder for rich owners to swan in, bulk up the first team and get promoted, without investing in the academy, “fixtures and fittings” etc.   

I think it’s worse for us than it would have been, because compared to other League 1 teams, we have a rich owner. 

[Qwerty]

1 hour ago, whoareyaaa said:

It was only brought in to protect the big clubs 

Exactly.  It’s dressed up a being a way of preventing teams from going bankrupt by overspending, but it’s ended up being a charter for the rich teams.  It ensures that the rich teams stay at the top, and the smaller teams can only compete if they get lucky. 

[Scotch]

6 minutes ago, Qwerty said:

These new rules appear to drop our allowance to 65% I think.

It’s basically going to make it harder for rich owners to swan in, bulk up the first team and get promoted, without investing in the academy, “fixtures and fittings” etc.   

I think it’s worse for us than it would have been, because compared to other League 1 teams, we have a rich owner. 

Someone on hear said it's 85% in your first season down to give you time to adjust. Not sure of it is true or not. 

[stu]

4 hours ago, Scotch said:

Someone on hear said it's 85% in your first season down to give you time to adjust. Not sure of it is true or not. 

It was 75%, the new rules has reduced that to 65% for clubs relegated from the Championship.

Edited 17 May by stu

[Terraloon]

2 hours ago, Qwerty said:

Exactly.  It’s dressed up a being a way of preventing teams from going bankrupt by overspending, but it’s ended up being a charter for the rich teams.  It ensures that the rich teams stay at the top, and the smaller teams can only compete if they get lucky. 

Please don’t get sucked into the narrative about stiffing ambition or stopping a club over spending the simple question is did the rules place  brakes on LC spending ? LC spent far more than it could afford and the reality is that despite the rules LCs financial state isn’t close to healthy  and that’s because of the clubs mismanagement.
 

The reality is that when it comes to football normally prudent and successful business people  get sucked into to chasing a dream and whilst  many owners are very rich by and large the bigger the club the richer the owner . Top is a pauper when it comes to comparing him to the likes of the owners of City, Arsenal, Newcastle etc but not just that when it comes to those big clubs whose owners aren’t quite as rich their clubs generate significantly more income.

 

How are  LC ever going to complete financially with clubs who generate more from a front of shirt sponsorship than Leicester do from every sponsorship the club has ? 

 

 Even then Leicesters relegation from the PL wasn’t down to not spending more than a whole bunch of clubs with less income it came about because the money was wasted. 
 

If you then look at the 25/26  season spending big and spending far more than a whole bunch of clubs didn’t mean that the bigger club in the championship , a club with far more income and spending more didn’t lead to  promotion indeed it as we know lead to relegation . Again it wasn’t not having the fund it was down to wasting money .

 

Edited 17 May by Terraloon

[Qwerty]

2 hours ago, Terraloon said:

Please don’t get sucked into the narrative about stiffing ambition or stopping a club over spending the simple question is did the rules place  brakes on LC spending ? LC spent far more than it could afford and the reality is that despite the rules LCs financial state isn’t close to healthy  and that’s because of the clubs mismanagement.
 

The reality is that when it comes to football normally prudent and successful business people  get sucked into to chasing a dream and whilst  many owners are very rich by and large the bigger the club the richer the owner . Top is a pauper when it comes to comparing him to the likes of the owners of City, Arsenal, Newcastle etc but not just that when it comes to those big clubs whose owners aren’t quite as rich their clubs generate significantly more income.

 

How are  LC ever going to complete financially with clubs who generate more from a front of shirt sponsorship than Leicester do from every sponsorship the club has ? 

 

 Even then Leicesters relegation from the PL wasn’t down to not spending more than a whole bunch of clubs with less income it came about because the money was wasted. 
 

If you then look at the 25/26  season spending big and spending far more than a whole bunch of clubs didn’t mean that the bigger club in the championship , a club with far more income and spending more didn’t lead to  promotion indeed it as we know lead to relegation . Again it wasn’t not having the fund it was down to wasting money .

 

I agree, but the fact remains that without the punishment of a points deduction, we wouldn’t have been relegated, and would be in a far healthier financial position.  The way the punishments are devised seems counterintuitive.  Fines and points deductions lead struggling clubs to struggle even more, and be at even more risk of bankruptcy. I think transfer bans would be better.  
 

Punishing a club that has overspent by relegating them doesn’t help anyone, which is what PSR is claiming to do. 

[Terraloon]

10 hours ago, Qwerty said:

I agree, but the fact remains that without the punishment of a points deduction, we wouldn’t have been relegated, and would be in a far healthier financial position.  The way the punishments are devised seems counterintuitive.  Fines and points deductions lead struggling clubs to struggle even more, and be at even more risk of bankruptcy. I think transfer bans would be better.  
 

Punishing a club that has overspent by relegating them doesn’t help anyone, which is what PSR is claiming to do. 

Sorry but we simply don’t know how the last  game would have played out had relegation not already been confirmed. In that final game all the pressure was off as far as Blackburn were concerned. Similarly how anxious were LC players going into that game knowing that relegation was fact ? I would suggest they went into the game with no jeopardy.

 

Of course the result could have been exactly the same but I for one don’t seek any solace in the claim that there wouldn’t have been relegation without the points deduction. The simple fact was that the club should never have been in the position where firstly a points deduction should have occurred but more importantly six points shouldn’t have made a difference between survival and relegation. Compared to every other club in the  relegation zone you could multiply by probably 5 fold the wages spent by Leicester compared to others.

 

When it comes to sanctions every man and their dog knows if you don’t comply with PSR you get a points deduction. Leicester dodged getting a sanction earlier but did the club take heed? Nope let’s still spend and have a guess what was inevitable !

We all can agree that a points deduction in a financial context has a significant impact but there are mainly two different scenarios 1) Overspending in accord with the rules( this is what we are talking about re Leicester ) and 2) Matters around an insolvency event.

 

Looking at 1) a fine as was stated in the very first PL case against Everton a fine really isn’t going to have that great an impact but a points deduction would  or at least it should act as a deterrent but just as important a points deduction in acknowledges the compliance of all those clubs that did restrict spending and complied. 

Moving to 2) I have a bit of trouble even allowing a club suffering an insolvency event to survive in the same league. Administration and a CVA in many ways is a cop out. Entering these types of insolvency has significant impact on creditors who don’t fall into the category of football creditors particularly  local suppliers and the tax authorities. I realise that a double digit points deduction often leads to relegation but sorry I would go even further and relegate a club entering an insolvency event but I would go even further and bar all directors of a club entering the any types of insolvency event from any future involvement with a club.

You have to factor in the power of a deterrent and a simple points deduction and maybe a transfer embargo doesn’t tip the balance

 

 

 

Edited 18 May by Terraloon

[Pliskin]

On 16/05/2026 at 21:24, Pita said:

A happy go lucky billionaire who does not a a clue how to run the club 

Is he even a billionaire anymore? 

[Les-TA-Jon]

10 hours ago, Qwerty said:

I agree, but the fact remains that without the punishment of a points deduction, we wouldn’t have been relegated

Relegated with the points deduction = Topkin's fault because of mismanagement

 

Edited 18 May by Les-TA-Jon