| PSR 10:07 - Jan 8 with 4305 views | portmanking |
Swiss Ramble believes we're going to make a £37m loss in total over 21/22, 22/23 and 23/24, just £2m within the allowed £39m three-year loss.
They also state we'll need to lose no more than £36m in 24/25 to comply next year.
EDIT: They've also got Leicester *breaching* by £12m, despite the Maresca compensation and Dewsbury-Hall sale... [Post edited 8 Jan 10:08]
|  | | |  |
| PSR on 10:08 - Jan 8 with 4198 views | FrimleyBlue |
That's only an efl issue isnt it |  |
| |
| PSR on 10:17 - Jan 8 with 4064 views | DarkBrandon |
That's good, right?
The plan always was to spend up to, but not over the PSR limits.
I'm fascinated by how much we will spend now. Do we go up to the limit, or do we go significantly over it, know we can make a profit of at least £30m on sales of Hutchinson and Delap should we go down? Getting in a position where we have to sell would however weaken our negotiating position somewhat and expose us should either pickup a bad injury. |  | | |
| PSR on 10:24 - Jan 8 with 3932 views | FrimleyBlue |
| PSR on 10:17 - Jan 8 by DarkBrandon |
That's good, right?
The plan always was to spend up to, but not over the PSR limits.
I'm fascinated by how much we will spend now. Do we go up to the limit, or do we go significantly over it, know we can make a profit of at least £30m on sales of Hutchinson and Delap should we go down? Getting in a position where we have to sell would however weaken our negotiating position somewhat and expose us should either pickup a bad injury. |
whether its 2 mill or 50p under its still the correct result and well done town. | |
| |
| PSR on 11:12 - Jan 8 with 3467 views | portmanking |
| PSR on 10:17 - Jan 8 by DarkBrandon |
That's good, right?
The plan always was to spend up to, but not over the PSR limits.
I'm fascinated by how much we will spend now. Do we go up to the limit, or do we go significantly over it, know we can make a profit of at least £30m on sales of Hutchinson and Delap should we go down? Getting in a position where we have to sell would however weaken our negotiating position somewhat and expose us should either pickup a bad injury. |
Well yeah, it's good. It's definitely a good job we built the bulk of our squad in League 1 and didn't have to add too much last year.
What's the likelihood of making a £36-37m loss this year, though? That's what we have to bear in mind. | | | |
| PSR on 11:26 - Jan 8 with 3266 views | Pinewoodblue |
Leicester were among the clubs required to submit 2023/24 accounts by New Year’s Eve. Premier League are, I believe, due to announce next Monday if any have breached the rules. |  |
| |
| PSR on 11:28 - Jan 8 with 3236 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| PSR on 11:12 - Jan 8 by portmanking |
Well yeah, it's good. It's definitely a good job we built the bulk of our squad in League 1 and didn't have to add too much last year.
What's the likelihood of making a £36-37m loss this year, though? That's what we have to bear in mind. |
Our revenue is reportedly about £150m this year. We've spent just shy of £100m.
We've still got some headroom. |  |
| |
| PSR on 11:30 - Jan 8 with 3164 views | JakeITFC |
| PSR on 11:28 - Jan 8 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Our revenue is reportedly about £150m this year. We've spent just shy of £100m.
We've still got some headroom. |
Wage bill has probably doubled too - I think we are comfortable as it stands but it will be interesting to see our January business. Does very much create a need to sell quite a lot of players to restructure the squad in order to comply for 25/26 (in the event of relegation), but I guess that's a known variable nowadays. [Post edited 8 Jan 11:31]
|  | | |
| PSR on 11:38 - Jan 8 with 3008 views | Guthrum |
| PSR on 11:28 - Jan 8 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Our revenue is reportedly about £150m this year. We've spent just shy of £100m.
We've still got some headroom. |
And we're unlikely to have spent that much in a single lump, all on this year's accounts. Transfer fees will have been spread over the length of those contracts.
Plus (from the EFL perspective) we had a big investment during last season. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| PSR on 11:39 - Jan 8 with 2982 views | smithy69 |
| PSR on 11:28 - Jan 8 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Our revenue is reportedly about £150m this year. We've spent just shy of £100m.
We've still got some headroom. |
We haven’t spent any where near that I wouldn’t imagine
The value of the contract is spread over the period of time - so 15m over 5 years is just 3m a year for PSR - plus wages and bonuses
I think we will be fine | | | |
| PSR on 11:44 - Jan 8 with 2865 views | portmanking |
| PSR on 11:39 - Jan 8 by smithy69 |
We haven’t spent any where near that I wouldn’t imagine
The value of the contract is spread over the period of time - so 15m over 5 years is just 3m a year for PSR - plus wages and bonuses
I think we will be fine |
Is the amortisation used for PSR? I need to brush up on that. | | | |
| PSR on 11:45 - Jan 8 with 2848 views | SmithersJones |
| PSR on 10:17 - Jan 8 by DarkBrandon |
That's good, right?
The plan always was to spend up to, but not over the PSR limits.
I'm fascinated by how much we will spend now. Do we go up to the limit, or do we go significantly over it, know we can make a profit of at least £30m on sales of Hutchinson and Delap should we go down? Getting in a position where we have to sell would however weaken our negotiating position somewhat and expose us should either pickup a bad injury. |
The thing about your latter point is that if we go down we’ll be selling players regardless of PSR, but we don’t want to get in the situation where we stay up but still have to sell our best players. Wouldn’t surprise me, in that scenario, if we see Edmundson, Harness etc moving permanently before 30 June. | | | |
| PSR on 11:45 - Jan 8 with 2825 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| PSR on 11:39 - Jan 8 by smithy69 |
We haven’t spent any where near that I wouldn’t imagine
The value of the contract is spread over the period of time - so 15m over 5 years is just 3m a year for PSR - plus wages and bonuses
I think we will be fine |
Exactly it will mostly be amortised over several seasons (in the way that Chelsea were able to spend the same amount as the economy of a small country).
Plus my understanding is the PL and EFL rules are different- hence Leicester escaped justice (for now) | | | |
| PSR on 11:47 - Jan 8 with 2782 views | tonybied |
| PSR on 11:39 - Jan 8 by smithy69 |
We haven’t spent any where near that I wouldn’t imagine
The value of the contract is spread over the period of time - so 15m over 5 years is just 3m a year for PSR - plus wages and bonuses
I think we will be fine |
Yep, the club signed most of the players we paid big bucks for on four-year contracts, so the fees will be spread over the next four years. We should be fine. Chances are we are not going to be able to hang on to Delap, regardless of the division we are in next year, and we are highly likely to make a very healthy profit from that deal (if the Man City deal included a matching clause rather than a buy-back one, of course!). |  | | |
| PSR on 11:49 - Jan 8 with 2748 views | portmanking |
| PSR on 11:45 - Jan 8 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Exactly it will mostly be amortised over several seasons (in the way that Chelsea were able to spend the same amount as the economy of a small country).
Plus my understanding is the PL and EFL rules are different- hence Leicester escaped justice (for now) |
Yep, looks like amortisation can occur up to 5 years maximum.
In which case, most of our £100m+ will go down as -£20m for 24/25 rather than -£100m?
Of course, we'd have the issue of -£20m being on the balance sheet for the subsequent four seasons without selling the assets on, but that's always likely in the event of relegation anyhow. | | | |
| PSR on 11:54 - Jan 8 with 2603 views | tractorboy1978 |
| PSR on 11:44 - Jan 8 by portmanking |
Is the amortisation used for PSR? I need to brush up on that. |
Yes, fees are spread over the length of the contract.
So as an example, Delap £15m over 5 years is £3m per season being released to the P&L in the accounts. He will be sitting on our books come 30th June at £12m. If we sold him before 30th June for £50m we would realise a £38m profit in our accounts for the year ended 30 June 2024. | | | |
| PSR on 11:57 - Jan 8 with 2514 views | berkstractorboy |
| PSR on 11:49 - Jan 8 by portmanking |
Yep, looks like amortisation can occur up to 5 years maximum.
In which case, most of our £100m+ will go down as -£20m for 24/25 rather than -£100m?
Of course, we'd have the issue of -£20m being on the balance sheet for the subsequent four seasons without selling the assets on, but that's always likely in the event of relegation anyhow. |
And possible parachute payments to help with the hefty amortisation on the balance sheet for a few years.
I don't think I have ever felt so reassured that the club is in safe hands and absolutely got the right people of the financial side to manage this stuff to manage the risk vs reward without compromising the long term future. | | | |
| PSR on 12:01 - Jan 8 with 2437 views | portmanking |
| PSR on 11:57 - Jan 8 by berkstractorboy |
And possible parachute payments to help with the hefty amortisation on the balance sheet for a few years.
I don't think I have ever felt so reassured that the club is in safe hands and absolutely got the right people of the financial side to manage this stuff to manage the risk vs reward without compromising the long term future. |
Thinking about it, it does also give us plenty of headroom to invest in Jan. Another £50m invested now would only be a further £10m for the 24/25 books. Given that we're a couple of goals from safety, instead of 9-10 points, the term speculate to accumulate is never more fitting than now, it seems. | | | |
| PSR on 12:16 - Jan 8 with 2206 views | berkstractorboy |
| PSR on 12:01 - Jan 8 by portmanking |
Thinking about it, it does also give us plenty of headroom to invest in Jan. Another £50m invested now would only be a further £10m for the 24/25 books. Given that we're a couple of goals from safety, instead of 9-10 points, the term speculate to accumulate is never more fitting than now, it seems. |
Definitely think we are in the parameters where we would invest to stay up unlike Saints who must know there is no hope.
Will be interesting to see if Leicester have money to invest in Jan pending the upcoming announcements on potential breaches and could they get a transfer embargo as part of any sanctions? I guess for them they know they are heading for punishment if they drop back to EFL, but if any PL punishment is points next season I guess they will gamble and deal with it later. Would like to think the PL will ensure any punishment has to come in this season and Leicester must already have an asterisk against their name regarding PSR misdemeanours! | | | |
| PSR on 12:16 - Jan 8 with 2202 views | NeverSayDie |
| PSR on 12:01 - Jan 8 by portmanking |
Thinking about it, it does also give us plenty of headroom to invest in Jan. Another £50m invested now would only be a further £10m for the 24/25 books. Given that we're a couple of goals from safety, instead of 9-10 points, the term speculate to accumulate is never more fitting than now, it seems. |
Many loopholes and creative accounting practices exist, such as the “loan with an obligation to buy” (ala Cajuste) become very popular for clubs as players come into the final months/year of their contract/amortised period, as the purchaser effectively gains an extra year to spread the purchase cost over (thus keeping the powder dry for future signings) and the selling club is able to register the sale as pure profit, as opposed to having to offset the sale against purchase price of the player, as is required by the rules whilst said player is in-contract. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
