davieG Posted 10 March 2013 Share Posted 10 March 2013 Foxblogger - http://foxblogger.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/what-leicester-citys-finances-mean-for-nigel-pearsons-future/? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 10 March 2013 Share Posted 10 March 2013 Reading that makes it sound as if we're in deep trouble. Genuinely worried now. The Thais are banking on promotion soon, could be disastrous if we don't get to the PL quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unreachable Posted 10 March 2013 Share Posted 10 March 2013 Why start another thread about our finances? Moderators please merge. http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/topic/86527-another-146m-pumped-into-leicester-city-so-far-this-season-by-kpi/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LCFC FOX Posted 10 March 2013 Share Posted 10 March 2013 Are we the Next Plymouth, Portsmouth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Fox Posted 10 March 2013 Share Posted 10 March 2013 Why start another thread about our finances? Moderators please merge. http://www.foxestalk...-season-by-kpi/ Because people are finally coming to the realization that it is a promotion or excessive punishments scenario should we remain in this division next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_star Posted 10 March 2013 Share Posted 10 March 2013 Because people are finally coming to the realization that it is a promotion or excessive punishments scenario should we remain in this division next season. If it was someone else who'd blown £100m we'd all be saying. Good! They deserve it! How stupid does anyone have to be to run up £50m of debt... in addition to the £50m for the initial buyout & stadium combined? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 10 March 2013 Share Posted 10 March 2013 If we can keep turnover at around the £20m mark, then we can afford to spend about £10m on wages. That's a 24-man squad on an average of £8k per week. I think it's pretty obvious that's what Nigel has been building towards since his time here. The owners are also going to effectively clear the existing debt by converting it to equity. So actually it looks as if the club are taking prudent steps towards complying with the FFP, planning for the future assuming we're not getting promoted. It doesn't look like they're gambling on getting promoted to me at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted 10 March 2013 Share Posted 10 March 2013 Why start another thread about our finances? Moderatorsplease merge. http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/topic/86527-another-146m-pumped-into-leicester-city-so-far-this-season-by-kpi/ .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col city fan Posted 10 March 2013 Share Posted 10 March 2013 Fascinating article so thanks for that. Three main points for me: 1. The Sven project was obviously planned to end in promotion. The club threw a fortune, both in terms of salaries AND transfer fees to gain instant success.... And are now living with the consequences. 2. Although Pearson has offloaded some players, don't forget that Beckford and Danns are only out on loan. When Beckford returns, his reported c. 30k per week will hit very very hard. This surely represents Beckford as City's worst ever signing, in terms of value for money? 3. In order to meet FFP next year, Pearson will have to offload a few more players on big salaries or we probably will be hit by the financial penalties. Its simple to see why promotion, on purely financial terms is the ONLY way to meaningfully up any of this debt. : scary shit........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les-TA-Jon Posted 10 March 2013 Share Posted 10 March 2013 This all just says to me that the owners are more than likely to keep Pearson until the end of the season, not sack him. Sacking him now would mean compensation fees, new manager contracts etc, increased player turnover. I think people are over reacting in saying that we're in a completely deterministic 'Up or Bust' scenario. I think if that was the case then we would have spent more in january. I still think that even if we don't go up this season we could keep pearson, build on what is still a very reasonable season and really challenge for autos next year. Reading lost in the playoffs, kept their nerve and McDermot, where are they now eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyFromLE Posted 10 March 2013 Share Posted 10 March 2013 This all just says to me that the owners are more than likely to keep Pearson until the end of the season, not sack him. Sacking him now would mean compensation fees, new manager contracts etc, increased player turnover. I think people are over reacting in saying that we're in a completely deterministic 'Up or Bust' scenario. I think if that was the case then we would have spent more in january. I still think that even if we don't go up this season we could keep pearson, build on what is still a very reasonable season and really challenge for autos next year. Reading lost in the playoffs, kept their nerve and McDermot, where are they now eh? I really hope this is the way that the Thai's see it. I think the Pearson Out Brigade need to put their gripe against Pearson to one side, and decide what is best for the club financially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col city fan Posted 10 March 2013 Share Posted 10 March 2013 This all just says to me that the owners are more than likely to keep Pearson until the end of the season, not sack him. Sacking him now would mean compensation fees, new manager contracts etc, increased player turnover. I think people are over reacting in saying that we're in a completely deterministic 'Up or Bust' scenario. I think if that was the case then we would have spent more in january. I still think that even if we don't go up this season we could keep pearson, build on what is still a very reasonable season and really challenge for autos next year. Reading lost in the playoffs, kept their nerve and McDermot, where are they now eh? Come on! There are simply two sides to this coin? If the owners strongly feel that Pearson has 'shot his bolt' and that bringing someone else in now is going to stir up momentum again, then they could certainly choose to take this decision. Paying off Pearson's contract vis-a-vis the financial reward of promotion would be small potatoes in the big scheme of things. Put emotion to one side for a moment. Financially, this isn't about whether 'we like Nige' or 'we don't like Nige'... If the Thais are the shrewd businessmen we all expect them to be (although let's face it, they fooked-up BIG STYLE with Sven) then they will surely be looking at this bad run of results and weighing up whether to keep Pearson or not. I know I would if I was in their position and thinking in purely financial terms. There are two sides to this coin as you surely know!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king richard 1066 Posted 10 March 2013 Share Posted 10 March 2013 lets face it it make or brake season if we dont make there is going to be a lot of player going beging not juust us but a lot of other clubs as well this will not work when there will be players out of work as clubs cannot pay them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiritwalker Posted 10 March 2013 Share Posted 10 March 2013 This all just says to me that the owners are more than likely to keep Pearson until the end of the season, not sack him. Sacking him now would mean compensation fees, new manager contracts etc, increased player turnover. I think people are over reacting in saying that we're in a completely deterministic 'Up or Bust' scenario. I think if that was the case then we would have spent more in january. I still think that even if we don't go up this season we could keep pearson, build on what is still a very reasonable season and really challenge for autos next year. Reading lost in the playoffs, kept their nerve and McDermot, where are they now eh? You make some very good points. I guess it just depends if the owners believe that NP can eventually deliver promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dog_4 Posted 10 March 2013 Share Posted 10 March 2013 What a stupid article! That's the hole reason they brought him back! To sort out this financial mess! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJS Posted 10 March 2013 Share Posted 10 March 2013 Giving a manager more than £10m to spend is definitely what I'd do if I wanted to get my club out of a financial mess. The Derby County model is the way to do that. Probably not a terribly popular thing to say on here but they are running that club superbly in financial terms and Clough is doing a good job for them. They've had to give up on any hope of promotion to get it done though. Our owners want it both ways. It isn't an impossible task but it's a bloody difficult one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les-TA-Jon Posted 12 March 2013 Share Posted 12 March 2013 Come on! There are simply two sides to this coin? If the owners strongly feel that Pearson has 'shot his bolt' and that bringing someone else in now is going to stir up momentum again, then they could certainly choose to take this decision. Paying off Pearson's contract vis-a-vis the financial reward of promotion would be small potatoes in the big scheme of things. Put emotion to one side for a moment. Financially, this isn't about whether 'we like Nige' or 'we don't like Nige'... If the Thais are the shrewd businessmen we all expect them to be (although let's face it, they fooked-up BIG STYLE with Sven) then they will surely be looking at this bad run of results and weighing up whether to keep Pearson or not. I know I would if I was in their position and thinking in purely financial terms. There are two sides to this coin as you surely know!! Col - I'm not being emotional about Pearson. Foxestalk is far too simplistic and deterministic with lots of things - currently it's that we're in a 'Up or Bust' scenario and that Pearson should definitely be in or out. I admire Pearson - he managers the football side of things whilst also concentrating on the long term sustainability of the squad, he takes a long term view of the game, despite knowing that the game is in many ways influenced by short term pressures and in this way he often puts the long term success of a team ahead of keeping his own job. This takes balls. He's great at staying calm and level headed win or lose, which generally translates to a settled and level headed squad. Obviously he's got his faults: The well documented lack of a plan B, over reliance on 4-4-2, and now over the course of this season his squad has been shown to have little strength in depth. Plus he's failing to address this current slide. I completly understand and know that in no uncertain terms that the Thais will be considering his position - as they should. If you all remember - when they sacked Sven they cited that they had been analysing a huge amount of statistics and elements relating to his performance long before that decision. Given that the owners seem to have become even more 'football savvy' since then, I see no reason why Pearson isn't under the same or greater level of scrutiny. My point still stands though that given the financial situation of the club, changing the manager now would leave the new man with even less to work with and even more pressure on promotion. There's no reason why we can't build on this season, make a few key adjustments to the squad over the summer and then genuinely challenge for autos next year. Of course the thing is that there's equally no reason why any of that would happen if we kept Pearson either. The Thai's will currently be judging whether to: - Stick with NP and make the aforementioned push next season, built on the foundations of this season's success and contiunity (assuming that sticking with NP will result in no promotion) OR - Change managers, relying on the 'new gaffa bonus' to gain promotion this season My concern is that whilst I believe we're not in a deterministic 'Up or Bust' scenario this season, it's rapidly approaching it, and if we change management now and it doesn't result in promotion then I think it would bring that scenario forward/exacerbate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_star Posted 12 March 2013 Share Posted 12 March 2013 Col - I'm not being emotional about Pearson. Foxestalk is far too simplistic and deterministic with lots of things - currently it's that we're in a 'Up or Bust' scenario and that Pearson should definitely be in or out. I admire Pearson - he managers the football side of things whilst also concentrating on the long term sustainability of the squad, he takes a long term view of the game, despite knowing that the game is in many ways influenced by short term pressures and in this way he often puts the long term success of a team ahead of keeping his own job. This takes balls. He's great at staying calm and level headed win or lose, which generally translates to a settled and level headed squad. Obviously he's got his faults: The well documented lack of a plan B, over reliance on 4-4-2, and now over the course of this season his squad has been shown to have little strength in depth. Plus he's failing to address this current slide. I completly understand and know that in no uncertain terms that the Thais will be considering his position - as they should. If you all remember - when they sacked Sven they cited that they had been analysing a huge amount of statistics and elements relating to his performance long before that decision. Given that the owners seem to have become even more 'football savvy' since then, I see no reason why Pearson isn't under the same or greater level of scrutiny. My point still stands though that given the financial situation of the club, changing the manager now would leave the new man with even less to work with and even more pressure on promotion. There's no reason why we can't build on this season, make a few key adjustments to the squad over the summer and then genuinely challenge for autos next year. Of course the thing is that there's equally no reason why any of that would happen if we kept Pearson either. The Thai's will currently be judging whether to: - Stick with NP and make the aforementioned push next season, built on the foundations of this season's success and contiunity (assuming that sticking with NP will result in no promotion) OR - Change managers, relying on the 'new gaffa bonus' to gain promotion this season My concern is that whilst I believe we're not in a deterministic 'Up or Bust' scenario this season, it's rapidly approaching it, and if we change management now and it doesn't result in promotion then I think it would bring that scenario forward/exacerbate it. If they're going to gamble everything on the possibility of a new manager bounce then I fear for our future... Whilst I'm happy they'll carry on supporting us and the ridiculous debt they've built up in our name (if only to get their money back) I can't ever see us amounting to anything under them if they're going to live one run to the next. Very few clubs amount to anything without a well thought out plan that is stuck to despite the temporary nature of form, if we write off the Sousa/Sven era as them naively wanting a name manager & hoping throwing unsustainable money at it will result in promotion followed by 100m shirt buyers in Thailand and realise they rectified this by appointing Pearson who they know to have the skillset of not being a short-term prospect but instead building something. If Pearson is to be disposed of at this stupid time of the season & they appoint a shortterm manager what does it mean for next season, if we do make it up? Presumably the person appointed because of a specialism of short term approach would be given a longer contract and untold millions to spend, that thought doesn't fill me with hope. That situation would be even worse if we didn't make it, because presumably the short term manager will be let go & someone else appointed for the following season faced with a squad where some high earners will still probably need paying off in order to get their unsustainable wages off the books and the remainder of the squad signed by a manager unceremoniously sacked. It's just not how you manage people and get the best out of them. If we don't make it up, I'd be far more confident with the owners holding their nerve, allowing the manager to continue his job especially as his skills are perfectly matched to this financial situation we've been found in. They of course have every right to review his performance and expect a similar uplift as we've seen this season. And any sane owners, directors or manager would work to a plan of continuous improvement rather than flitting from one moment to the next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les-TA-Jon Posted 12 March 2013 Share Posted 12 March 2013 Exactly cc_star. It's for those reasons and the ones in my posts that make me think that, currently the owners are more likely to keep Pearson that sack him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Posted 12 March 2013 Share Posted 12 March 2013 article is poorly written. Its only FFP thats messed us up, as financially we sound, all debt is about to be turned into equity, and KP are funding the club with petty cash, its FFP that screwed us over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 12 March 2013 Share Posted 12 March 2013 Nearing 100m debt is sound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Posted 12 March 2013 Share Posted 12 March 2013 Did you read. what do you think turning into equity means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hankey Posted 12 March 2013 Share Posted 12 March 2013 Pearson will be out if promotion isn't achieved, it's as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 12 March 2013 Share Posted 12 March 2013 Does turning it into equity make it all go away, is it like fairy dust? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 12 March 2013 Share Posted 12 March 2013 Nearing 100m debt is sound? I wouldn't describe it as sound necessarily but this so called debt is money which the owners owe to themselves and can write off whenever they like, which is effectively what they will have done when they convert it to equity. The other poster is correct. FFP has screwed us over. I'm slightly surprised that the owners appear to be content to stick around, since they're really going to be powerless in terms of helping ua get promoted going forward. Does turning it into equity make it all go away, is it like fairy dust? Effectively it makes the debt disappear, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.