Leicester City For Sale (Ongoing Thread)

[ClaphamFox]

31 minutes ago, Cropwellfox said:

Think charging the players to stay over in the holiday camp and last weekends heavy discount on full kit are pointers to the fact that the cupboard is basically now bare 

Neither of those things would make the slightest bit of difference to a club on the verge of administration. Kit discounts are normal retail behaviour and the Seagrave thing is presumably the club showing that the 'holiday camp' culture is over. Neither are remotely close to being evidence of imminent financial distress.

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, AjcW said:

£8.5m is probably the player wage bill for the next 4-5 months (as horrifying as that sounds) which may well be the remainder of their time here. 

I would have thought our wage bill is still approx 40m.
 

1 hour ago, themightyfin said:

My guess is this a a stop gap to avoid administration and to keep control before it’s taken out of his hands. 

He’s not put any new money in. It’s just debt owed to KP converted to shares.  Business’ go into admin because of a lack of cash flow or debts payable which are being chased. This doesn’t help either of those. 

 

 

[StevieH]

Ultimately he has done this for a specific reason being to keep club running for the time being or it's something the prospective buyer wants. Too coincidental that it's the day after bids required. He wouldn't have just done this for no reason. Worrying that supposedly 2 parties have walked away due to level of debt. Not sure Top would really want to take the club into administration with all that has happened with father etc. It's not a legacy I think he would want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lambert09]

41 minutes ago, StevieH said:

Ultimately he has done this for a specific reason being to keep club running for the time being or it's something the prospective buyer wants. Too coincidental that it's the day after bids required. He wouldn't have just done this for no reason. Worrying that supposedly 2 parties have walked away due to level of debt. Not sure Top would really want to take the club into administration with all that has happened with father etc. It's not a legacy I think he would want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nobody want it, it’s part of being terrible at running a club… which he simply is. Of course he wants the best for us and for himself he just isn’t capable 

[Stavros81]

If he really cared he’d drop the 200M and sell us for a bit cheaper yes he wants to make his money back but it’s his f**k ups that’s got us into this mess!!

Edited Tuesday at 15:47 by Stavros81

[AyewJoking]

stop ****ing about Khunt, its time to hit them with the lifetimes supply of donuts and Singha

[Paninistickers]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

I would have thought our wage bill is still approx 40m.
 

He’s not put any new money in. It’s just debt owed to KP converted to shares.  Business’ go into admin because of a lack of cash flow or debts payable which are being chased. This doesn’t help either of those. 

 

 

Not sure that's correct. I think the ownership - to huge surprise -  deposited the money into the bank account at the start of the season (the statement says as much) to cover the shortfall and comply with the financial rules. 

 

Surprising? Hugely. 

 

But the club went up for sale immediately after. As has been pointed out, the cash injection is from the family's view a necessary evil. And the conversion to equity is window dressing. That's not a criticism by the way. It's another (all too rare) logical business manoeuvre (similar to rejecting money for Louis Page - he's worth more as an asset than he was as a cash injection) 

 

 

[The Year Of The Fox]

1 hour ago, ScotFox1 said:

For what its worth.. TalkSport and Ben Jacobs from this lunchtime..

 

 

Ho hum!!

The reason they talk about future financial liabilities Simon is because all our future financial income is already tied up. Very simple.

[Ric Flair]

30 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Not sure that's correct. I think the ownership - to huge surprise -  deposited the money into the bank account at the start of the season (the statement says as much) to cover the shortfall and comply with the financial rules. 

 

Surprising? Hugely. 

 

But the club went up for sale immediately after. As has been pointed out, the cash injection is from the family's view a necessary evil. And the conversion to equity is window dressing. That's not a criticism by the way. It's another (all too rare) logical business manoeuvre (similar to rejecting money for Louis Page - he's worth more as an asset than he was as a cash injection) 

 

 

Yes, I heard something similar back in the summer and said as much. We evidently have to date proven how we will comply with the financial rules. But the fact it is real time and we will continue to have to do so makes it a huge problem for the owners if they are not willing or unable to continue to plug the losses themselves past the season.

 

Hence the sale needed sharpish maybe?

[Golden Fox]

2 hours ago, StevieH said:

Ultimately he has done this for a specific reason being to keep club running for the time being or it's something the prospective buyer wants. Too coincidental that it's the day after bids required. He wouldn't have just done this for no reason. Worrying that supposedly 2 parties have walked away due to level of debt. Not sure Top would really want to take the club into administration with all that has happened with father etc. It's not a legacy I think he would want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you look at the document, the filing was made on the 11th September - before the deadline. Companies House takes a couple of days to show filings.

[Claudio Fannieri]

I do wonder what impact the non sale of the likes of Souttar, Faes, Okoli and Nelson. I imagine in our summer cash flow projections and budgets we anticipated all 4 would be sold and their large wages off the books, to me that is a sizeable hole in our forecast and a hefty wedge in wages we need to find each week/month. 

[hackneyfox]

2 hours ago, StevieH said:

Ultimately he has done this for a specific reason being to keep club running for the time being or it's something the prospective buyer wants. Too coincidental that it's the day after bids required. He wouldn't have just done this for no reason. Worrying that supposedly 2 parties have walked away due to level of debt. Not sure Top would really want to take the club into administration with all that has happened with father etc. It's not a legacy I think he would want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who has mentioned that two parties have supposedly walked away?

[Stavros81]

12 minutes ago, hackneyfox said:

Who has mentioned that two parties have supposedly walked away?

Ben Jacob’s 🤷🏻‍♂️

[hackneyfox]

Just now, Stavros81 said:

Ben Jacob’s 🤷🏻‍♂️

He has a contact in Citi Bank?

 

I'm inclined to think he's spouting bullshit.

[Headcase]

18 minutes ago, Claudio Fannieri said:

I do wonder what impact the non sale of the likes of Souttar, Faes, Okoli and Nelson. I imagine in our summer cash flow projections and budgets we anticipated all 4 would be sold and their large wages off the books, to me that is a sizeable hole in our forecast and a hefty wedge in wages we need to find each week/month. 

Tielemans... was a huge loss in both respects

[Stavros81]

3 minutes ago, hackneyfox said:

He has a contact in Citi Bank?

 

I'm inclined to think he's spouting bullshit.

Exactly all bullshit. Talkshite love spouting about us they have some sort of hidden agenda against us!! 

[hackneyfox]

1 minute ago, Stavros81 said:

Exactly all bullshit. Talkshite love spouting about us they have some sort of hidden agenda against us!! 

Then it gets quoted on here and within a couple more posts it's a fact.

[slymunn]

31 minutes ago, Claudio Fannieri said:

I do wonder what impact the non sale of the likes of Souttar, Faes, Okoli and Nelson. I imagine in our summer cash flow projections and budgets we anticipated all 4 would be sold and their large wages off the books, to me that is a sizeable hole in our forecast and a hefty wedge in wages we need to find each week/month. 

If that was such a pressing issue they would have sold Page to cover it. 

[HankMarvin]

1 hour ago, Claudio Fannieri said:

I do wonder what impact the non sale of the likes of Souttar, Faes, Okoli and Nelson. I imagine in our summer cash flow projections and budgets we anticipated all 4 would be sold and their large wages off the books, to me that is a sizeable hole in our forecast and a hefty wedge in wages we need to find each week/month. 

If things were that tight they simply would not have 

1 been adding to the wage bill

2 spending millions 

[davieG]

So two have walked away due to the level of debt and the others are reluctant to get involved because they don't know the size of the debt

 

Hmmm

[fox_favourite]

12 minutes ago, davieG said:

So two have walked away due to the level of debt and the others are reluctant to get involved because they don't know the size of the debt

 

Hmmm

It's going well then. 

[Pliskin]

I think we might be ****ed. 

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Not sure that's correct. I think the ownership - to huge surprise -  deposited the money into the bank account at the start of the season (the statement says as much) to cover the shortfall and comply with the financial rules. 

 

Surprising? Hugely. 

 

But the club went up for sale immediately after. As has been pointed out, the cash injection is from the family's view a necessary evil. And the conversion to equity is window dressing. That's not a criticism by the way. It's another (all too rare) logical business manoeuvre (similar to rejecting money for Louis Page - he's worth more as an asset than he was as a cash injection) 

 

 

Sorry

was under the impression it was straight debt for equity but the statement does refer to the value of funding having been supplied. 
 

a very specific amount 

wonder if that’s what they’re allowed to invest as cash this season?  I’m sure someone said there were no limits but that can’t be right. 

 

[moore_94]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

Sorry

was under the impression it was straight debt for equity but the statement does refer to the value of funding having been supplied. 
 

a very specific amount 

wonder if that’s what they’re allowed to invest as cash this season?  I’m sure someone said there were no limits but that can’t be right. 

 

no limits but only 65% will count towards SCR

[Pliskin]

The only person who can save us now is Obe Wan Kenobi.