Leicester boss Nigel Pearson told to offload FOUR high-earning stars in wage bill trim

[wurmer]

Boring boring boring - there's too many clubs willing to go for it and risk FFP fines or have Parachute money this season.

Can't see us being in the running unfortunately.

[sylofox]

I think we are doing all the right things to try to comply with FFP - while if we don't manage to offload the likes of Danns, Gally and St-Ledger it at least looks like we have tried if/when we fail the FFP break-even test

 

I think these sorts of things are taken into consideration when deciding on the punishment (i.e. the transfer embargo as well as the fine).  by the end of next season Danns / St ledger are out of contract so we stand a good chance of showing that even if we fail FFP this year, we won't next year.  This should aviod the transfer embargo (I think)

In future seasons maybe.

But I think first season clubs will be hit hard not like its a new rule no one knew about.

 

If they don't enforce it first year round they never will be able to enforce it.

Too much money involved and someone would take it to court if you let off clubs first season and hit hard the second.

[Super_horns]

I suppose at least we arnt gambling everything on going up this season, like teams such as Watford and Forest seem to be. If either of those dont go up this season they are in serious ****.

I am not sure we are money wise but it would be interesting to see what happens if we don't go up again...changes could happen.

[Raw Dykes]

err exactly what i said above. 100% above 10 million means a cap at that level doesn't it? the most you can gain from promotion is 10 million (if you break the FFP rules) in other words, regardless of how much the sky money is in reality.

No, that's not what you said.

That quote says the club pays a fine related to the amount they overspent. It mentioned nothing about Sky money.

[Babylon]

err exactly what i said above. 100% above 10 million means a cap at that level doesn't it? the most you can gain from promotion is 10 million (if you break the FFP rules) in other words, regardless of how much the sky money is in reality.

No it's not exactly what you said, the amounts have nothing to do with sky money, it's about how much you break FFP limits by. If you overspend by 10million, then you will be fined 100%.

Eg. Forest spend £15m more than allowed, fine next season equals 100% / £15m.

If forest over spent by 100k, their fine would be 1% / 1k.

And so on through a various number of percentages.

[Swiss_tony]

No it's not exactly what you said, the amounts have nothing to do with sky money, it's about how much you break FFP limits by. If you overspend by 10million, then you will be fined 100%.

Eg. Forest spend £15m more than allowed, fine next season equals 100% / £15m.

If forest over spent by 100k, their fine would be 1% / 1k.

And so on through a various number of percentages.

fair play you are right.

it kind of makes a mockery of the point of FFP. unless you overspend in your promotion season by more than  the amount you'll get in sky money, you'll always come out ahead even after breaking the rules. so what's the point?

[Mack]

, we've signed one and we'll sign others if we can shift the high earners. That's what we've imposed on ourselves.

Would you rather we gambled the future of the club on a shit or bust season and be put under an actual embargo if we fail?

Kasper and Wes will be out of contract and leave for a start, no doubt followed by the best of the rest. What chance do you think we'll have then?

 

You seem to forget we as a club are already in debt to these owners by enough to bankrupt the club if they walked away, so we are hardly in a secure situation over what has happened in recent years anyway.

The project was to reach the premier league, we are already hugely in debt to these people, so what has changed?

 

The worst of all for me is that we are 2/3 decent experienced players from a squad ready to challenge for automatic promotion, and now when we are so close we have suddenly lost our stomach for the fight because of a potential fine for making a financial loss.

fair play you are right.

it kind of makes a mockery of the point of FFP. unless you overspend in your promotion season by more than  the amount you'll get in sky money, you'll always come out ahead even after breaking the rules. so what's the point?

 

 

Exactly.

It's a calculated risk, just like what the owners have done already at the club, so why change now?

[Leicester_Numan]

You seem to forget we as a club are already in debt to these owners by enough to bankrupt the club if they walked away, so we are hardly in a secure situation over what has happened in recent years anyway.

The project was to reach the premier league, we are already hugely in debt to these people, so what has changed?

The worst of all for me is that we are 2/3 decent experienced players from a squad ready to challenge for automatic promotion, and now when we are so close we have suddenly lost our stomach for the fight because of a potential fine for making a financial loss.

Exactly.

It's a calculated risk, just like what the owners have done already at the club, so why change now?

Why stop gambling now you say, they stopped gambling when they sacked Sven, they realised unlike you, that gambling guarantees nothing but failure and massive expense. To gamble and win you need luck, and we don't get any.

I'd much rather have the club run in the proper way so that we still have a club capable of challenging for promotion, your way would put us up shit creek and we'd end up back in league one.

You only seem to be looking at it from the point of view of taking the risk and winning, without seeing the heavy cost of failure. You need to see both sides of the argument, you might actually realise we're not really in a position to take the risk. Clubs with parachute payments can afford to gamble and lose, clubs with rich owners that haven't taken a Sven style risk like Forest and Leeds can gamble and lose. Watford are paying virtually nothing for their players and can lose. We'd be competing directly with clubs in a better position than us and crippling ourselves if we fail.

We have a squad capable of at least the play offs whilst getting our house in order, to me, that sounds pretty good compared to the probable alternative

[MC Prussian]

You seem to forget we as a club are already in debt to these owners by enough to bankrupt the club if they walked away, so we are hardly in a secure situation over what has happened in recent years anyway.

The project was to reach the premier league, we are already hugely in debt to these people, so what has changed?

 

The worst of all for me is that we are 2/3 decent experienced players from a squad ready to challenge for automatic promotion, and now when we are so close we have suddenly lost our stomach for the fight because of a potential fine for making a financial loss.

 

Exactly.

It's a calculated risk, just like what the owners have done already at the club, so why change now?

This is the bit that I don't understand. You assume that just because we've got to cut back on losses and play it safer than in previous years, we're suddenly toothless, bereft of any ambition whatsoever?

I'd love to follow your logic, but I just can't.

 

And who says we won't sign any more players or get some more season-long loans in? Does your pre-season stop two weeks before the first game of the season?

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

I like the way the article states that NP has been told he has to cut back, surely this is Terry Robinson's remit.

Exactly. As I said before, he is the man who will pull the strings, while Mr.P. will have to dance to his tune.

[Babylon]

You seem to forget we as a club are already in debt to these owners by enough to bankrupt the club if they walked away, so we are hardly in a secure situation over what has happened in recent years anyway.

The project was to reach the premier league, we are already hugely in debt to these people, so what has changed?

The worst of all for me is that we are 2/3 decent experienced players from a squad ready to challenge for automatic promotion, and now when we are so close we have suddenly lost our stomach for the fight because of a potential fine for making a financial loss.

Exactly.

It's a calculated risk, just like what the owners have done already at the club, so why change now?

Goodness me, would you advise a gambler to keep chasing his losses by betting more money the horses? Do you know how that usually works out?

[Shoe Seller]

I can think of someone 'earning!!' £1million a year we could offload and improve performances. I bet NP is not keen to take that step to trim the wagebill.

[Babylon]

I can think of someone 'earning!!' £1million a year we could offload and improve performances. I bet NP is not keen to take that step to trim the wagebill.

Like when we offloaded him for Sousa and Sven... worked out well.

[Mack]

Goodness me, would you advise a gambler to keep chasing his losses by betting more money the horses? Do you know how that usually works out?

 

This is not a blind desperate gamble by someone with an addiction, it's a business calculation.

If I had a business and i could rationally justify a calculated investment based on sensible opinion I'd do it.

Most people who have seen our team enough to form an opinion think we are a couple of experienced players short of a decent top end challenging side.

That doesn't mean those players have to cost xxxx million, just that we need the ability to acquire them to give us a change of achieving the goals set by our owners.

To go from having the funds tap streaming wide open to bolted down shut in my opinion is an over extreme measure in reaction to an awful new set of rules.

[Babylon]

Well yes it is a blind gamble as they have no idea at all whether adding a new player will work or not. When they arrived we were "a few players short" we're now probably 30 players and 100 million down the line and actually no better off than we were.

 

Also, the money they were playing with before was technically our money as we have to pay them it all back at 8%... and now it will be their money they are gambling with, no loans allowed.

 

You want us to break the rules, which will lead to the very thing you are currently arguing against. Will you moan next season when we can't sign anyone because of the ban?

[Leicester_Numan]

I can think of someone 'earning!!' £1million a year we could offload and improve performances. I bet NP is not keen to take that step to trim the wagebill.

So we should sack him, pay him compensation and pay another club compensation for their manager, giving us an even harder task of complying with FFP, rather than wait for his contract to run out or to see if he gets us promotion in what is likely to be his last season if he doesn't?

I wish we had a financial genius like you in charge of players contracts, oh wait!

[wurmer]

Why stop gambling now you say, they stopped gambling when they sacked Sven, they realised unlike you, that gambling guarantees nothing but failure and massive expense. To gamble and win you need luck, and we don't get any.

I'd much rather have the club run in the proper way so that we still have a club capable of challenging for promotion, your way would put us up shit creek and we'd end up back in league one.

You only seem to be looking at it from the point of view of taking the risk and winning, without seeing the heavy cost of failure. You need to see both sides of the argument, you might actually realise we're not really in a position to take the risk. Clubs with parachute payments can afford to gamble and lose, clubs with rich owners that haven't taken a Sven style risk like Forest and Leeds can gamble and lose. Watford are paying virtually nothing for their players and can lose. We'd be competing directly with clubs in a better position than us and crippling ourselves if we fail.

We have a squad capable of at least the play offs whilst getting our house in order, to me, that sounds pretty good compared to the probable alternative

 

Disagree with the highlighted bit - we got into the playoffs despite being diabolical in the final 1/3 of the season.

[Mack]

Well yes it is a blind gamble as they have no idea at all whether adding a new player will work or not. When they arrived we were "a few players short" we're now probably 30 players and 100 million down the line and actually no better off than we were.

 

Also, the money they were playing with before was technically our money as we have to pay them it all back at 8%... and now it will be their money they are gambling with, no loans allowed.

 

You want us to break the rules, which will lead to the very thing you are currently arguing against. Will you moan next season when we can't sign anyone because of the ban?

 

I dont want us to break any rules for the sake of it.

What I do want is a progressive positive leadership at our club that sticks to the goals it originally set out.

 

Think about what will happen if we stand still. Are the clubs we are competing with also standing still?

Think about the amount of free transfers the clubs in our league have completed, some of which could have hugely benefited our squad yet we never seemed to be even in with a sniff of getting them.

 

Any business must have a goal, ours is to get up.

So why part way through that task, and not a million miles away from it, do we suddenly decide we no longer have the stomach for it?

 

And think about what will happen in another couple of years if we are a mid table championship side. Do you think our owners are remotely interested in that?

 

Surely the rational positive decision would have been to allow the acquisition of the players we feel we need within a reasonable structure. Because loaning in more kids just isn't going to get it done.

[Babylon]

I dont want us to break any rules for the sake of it.

What I do want is a progressive positive leadership at our club that sticks to the goals it originally set out.

But you do want us to break the rules?

 

Unless you haven't noticed, the rules of the game just changed. It doesn't mean they don't want the same thing.

 

 

Think about what will happen if we stand still. Are the clubs we are competing with also standing still?

We are only "standing still" because we have too many average players on large money. Pretty much every other club you'd consider a rival is not playing by the same restrictions we are, they have parachute payments. Bolton alone are due something like £17m this season alone, our whole turnover is £21m. That's why they aren't standing still.

 

 

Think about the amount of free transfers the clubs in our league have completed, some of which could have hugely benefited our squad yet we never seemed to be even in with a sniff of getting them.

How many times does it need explaining that a free transfer is not free. They could still cost you half a million in wages for someone half decent.

 

 

And think about what will happen in another couple of years if we are a mid table championship side. Do you think our owners are remotely interested in that?

Who says we will be a midtable championship side? We will still have one of the biggest budgets in the league as our turnover is quite big. The problem is that turnover is not being used wisely at this minute as we have too many players whose ability doesn't reflect what they get paid.

 

 

Surely the rational positive decision would have been to allow the acquisition of the players we feel we need within a reasonable structure. Because loaning in more kids just isn't going to get it done.

No it's not rational, it's irrational. Rational is getting your house in order, getting shit players off your books who earn a fortune and spending what you earn. That's rational, Irrational is chucking millions of pounds at players that guarantee you nothing in the end as they have already learned.

[Mack]

But you do want us to break the rules?

 

Unless you haven't noticed, the rules of the game just changed. It doesn't mean they don't want the same thing.

 

 

We are only "standing still" because we have too many average players on large money. Pretty much every other club you'd consider a rival is not playing by the same restrictions we are, they have parachute payments. Bolton alone are due something like £17m this season alone, our whole turnover is £21m. That's why they aren't standing still.

 

 

How many times does it need explaining that a free transfer is not free. They could still cost you half a million in wages for someone half decent.

 

 

Who says we will be a midtable championship side? We will still have one of the biggest budgets in the league as our turnover is quite big. The problem is that turnover is not being used wisely at this minute as we have too many players whose ability doesn't reflect what they get paid.

 

 

No it's not rational, it's irrational. Rational is getting your house in order, getting shit players off your books who earn a fortune and spending what you earn. That's rational, Irrational is chucking millions of pounds at players that guarantee you nothing in the end as they have already learned.

 

It's the old toe the club line or get in an argument with Babylon scenario.

You have contradicted yourself in your own statements above by firstly saying we cant compete with the clubs receiving parachute payments and then saying we have one of the largest budgets in the league.

 

If you manage / run a business you have to take calculated risks. Without risk there can be no reward.

Of course some are happy stacking shelves / answering phones / being a slave to someone else for fixed monthly pay, but will they ever get rich?

If they win the lottery maybe.... when they are 646646456564654 years old............................

 

Am I asking too much to see the shortcomings of last season rectified within a justifiable financial structure? Obviously.

[Leicester_Numan]

It's the old toe the club line or get in an argument with Babylon scenario.

You have contradicted yourself in your own statements above by firstly saying we cant compete with the clubs receiving parachute payments and then saying we have one of the largest budgets in the league.

If you manage / run a business you have to take calculated risks. Without risk there can be no reward.

Of course some are happy stacking shelves / answering phones / being a slave to someone else for fixed monthly pay, but will they ever get rich?

If they win the lottery maybe.... when they are 646646456564654 years old............................

Am I asking too much to see the shortcomings of last season rectified within a justifiable financial structure? Obviously.

That wasn't a contradiction, we will have one of the bigger budgets in the league once the high earners are finally off the books. That will give us an advantage over virtually every club not in receipt of parachute payments.

And by the way, it's not toe the club line or get in an argument with Babylon it's talk shit and get in an argument with Babylon.

He's one of the few that actually talk sense on here

[Ric Flair]

The question nobody has asked is, even if we don't sign anymore players this season and don't sell any either, will we make a bigger loss than £8 million?

[sylofox]

It's the old toe the club line or get in an argument with Babylon scenario.

You have contradicted yourself in your own statements above by firstly saying we cant compete with the clubs receiving parachute payments and then saying we have one of the largest budgets in the league.

 

If you manage / run a business you have to take calculated risks. Without risk there can be no reward.

Of course some are happy stacking shelves / answering phones / being a slave to someone else for fixed monthly pay, but will they ever get rich?

If they win the lottery maybe.... when they are 646646456564654 years old............................

 

Am I asking too much to see the shortcomings of last season rectified within a justifiable financial structure? Obviously.

No hde has not we have one of the largest budgets excluding parachute payments that we don't get.

 

Babs give up some people are just a lost cause.

[Leicester_Numan]

The question nobody has asked is, even if we don't sign anymore players this season and don't sell any either, will we make a bigger loss than £8 million?

Well this is what none of us know yet

[Lionator]

The question nobody has asked is, even if we don't sign anymore players this season and don't sell any either, will we make a bigger loss than £8 million?

 

At the end of the day, our owners are billionaires and they seem like decent people, FFP is the problem not the debt.