ClaphamFox Posted 13 August Author Share Posted 13 August 4 minutes ago, Vlad the Fox said: They’ll get ours out the way first. They’ll want to get our punishment in first before they let man city get away scot-free. If they’re really planning to start Man City’s next month, they won’t time to do ours first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UniFox21 Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August I Can't tell if this is a new story, a rehash of old stuff or what. We're just stuffed again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August 15 hours ago, urban.spaceman said: Ours shouldn't be held until after this. Yep I have long said everything should be dealt with in chronological order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August 1 hour ago, UniFox21 said: I Can't tell if this is a new story, a rehash of old stuff or what. We're just stuffed again Pretty much expected. One of the reasons I didnt want us to sell KDH, as ultimately we dont have the means to plug the gap he vacated, better to just take the risk with the rules on it. But I think KP were more worried about their reputation than our competitiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 13 August Author Share Posted 13 August 4 minutes ago, Chrysalis said: Yep I have long said everything should be dealt with in chronological order. I wonder whether we’ve successfully argued that Man City’s must be held first because the outcome will have a direct impact on our defence - ie, if Man City are found guilty of serious rule breaches in either of the seasons we finished 5th, that would mean we were denied CL money - and ended up breaching PSR - directly as a result of their cheating. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moore_94 Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August 1 hour ago, UniFox21 said: I Can't tell if this is a new story, a rehash of old stuff or what. We're just stuffed again PSR-wise we have only reinvested about £5m of the £40m we got for KDH and Enzo haven’t we? “Not much left” yet about to spend about £10m on loans for Hlozek and Zaha and also offered over £20m for Ioannidis There is clearly some budget there for us to use The Athletic said the other day that our budget for the season was £40-£50m but didn’t bother to make a distinction as to whether or not that included the KDH money 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoboFox Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August 23 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said: I wonder whether we’ve successfully argued that Man City’s must be held first because the outcome will have a direct impact on our defence - ie, if Man City are found guilty of serious rule breaches in either of the seasons we finished 5th, that would mean we were denied CL money - and ended up breaching PSR - directly as a result of their cheating. We'll hear the outcome of ours first because when 115 Charges FC inevitably get found to have done absolutely nothing wrong next year, the Premier League will be hoping we're already the responsibility of the EFL having being dicked with a ten pointer which sealed our fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcfcsnow Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August 23 minutes ago, moore_94 said: PSR-wise we have only reinvested about £5m of the £40m we got for KDH and Enzo haven’t we? 15-20m on wages for Ndidi and Vestergaards new 3 year contracts when they should have been let go, did the same with Choudhury last season and Reid will be another hinderance we can't shift. We cause our own problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolhandfox Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August The club isn't give Athletic a update its finances it's all guess work. They need stuff to fill column space. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moore_94 Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August 23 minutes ago, lcfcsnow said: 15-20m on wages for Ndidi and Vestergaards new 3 year contracts when they should have been let go, did the same with Choudhury last season and Reid will be another hinderance we can't shift. We cause our own problems Those wages wouldn’t really take anything out of that budget though, and we have actually freed up quite a bit of wages with those who have left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim1974 Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August (edited) 6 hours ago, ClaphamFox said: I wonder whether we’ve successfully argued that Man City’s must be held first because the outcome will have a direct impact on our defence - ie, if Man City are found guilty of serious rule breaches in either of the seasons we finished 5th, that would mean we were denied CL money - and ended up breaching PSR - directly as a result of their cheating. Their financial charges are only up to 2017/18 , so have no bearing on our top 5 finishes. The subsequent charges going beyond 2018 are for failure to comply with the investigation. Edited 13 August by Tim1974 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August (edited) Ours and Man City’s punishments and situations are very different to say Everton or Forests. While both of those clubs were undeniable in a relegation battle they should have had enough to stay up, of which they did, quite comfortably in the end. We are likely to be up against it as it is, at the other end of the spectrum Man City are going to be in a title race. I don’t think they want “blood on their hands” whereby any sanctions to potentially be used to say “it relegated Leicester” or it “cost Man City the title”. A side note - they’ll never have the bollocks to relegate or even severely punish Man City. Edited 13 August by Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACF Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August Why haven’t we sold off Belvoir Drive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosbehFox Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August 1 hour ago, ACF said: Why haven’t we sold off Belvoir Drive? We can’t. It’s complex. We have the long term leasehold, YMCA have the freehold. Assumed sporting covenant on it as well 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenny Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August 6 minutes ago, CosbehFox said: We can’t. It’s complex. We have the long term leasehold, YMCA have the freehold. Assumed sporting covenant on it as well Also whats it worth? With planning permission for housing £3-5 million is my guess. It barely touches the sides of football finance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosbehFox Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August 6 minutes ago, kenny said: Also whats it worth? With planning permission for housing £3-5 million is my guess. It barely touches the sides of football finance. Not the easiest site either with differing levels 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenny Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August 1 minute ago, CosbehFox said: Not the easiest site either with differing levels Its worth more as a professional training ground to be re-sold to an internal company in PSR terms than a housing sale. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holly B Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August 2 hours ago, kenny said: Its worth more as a professional training ground to be re-sold to an internal company in PSR terms than a housing sale. Wonder if the tigers would be interested if their current facility could be redeveloped?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox forever Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August 2 hours ago, kenny said: Also whats it worth? With planning permission for housing £3-5 million is my guess. It barely touches the sides of football finance. They tried to sell in 90s for housing together with YMCA ground plus adjacent Banks Sports ground. Planning was refused. Main problem was due to amount of houses that could be built the access roads were not considered suitable/ able to cope with increase traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenny Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August Just now, Fox forever said: They tried to sell in 90s for housing together with YMCA ground plus adjacent Banks Sports ground. Planning was refused. Main problem was due to amount of houses that could be built the access roads were not considered suitable/ able to cope with increase traffic. Those are issues that can be resolved. It's more than football money is in a different league to land near the Saff. The value of the land would pay vardys wages for a couple of months so it's hardly worth doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August 4 minutes ago, kenny said: Those are issues that can be resolved. It's more than football money is in a different league to land near the Saff. The value of the land would pay vardys wages for a couple of months so it's hardly worth doing. Vardy should buy it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moore_94 Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormfox Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August 6 hours ago, moore_94 said: PSR-wise we have only reinvested about £5m of the £40m we got for KDH and Enzo haven’t we? “Not much left” yet about to spend about £10m on loans for Hlozek and Zaha and also offered over £20m for Ioannidis There is clearly some budget there for us to use The Athletic said the other day that our budget for the season was £40-£50m but didn’t bother to make a distinction as to whether or not that included the KDH money You forgot the £12m on Okoli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moore_94 Posted 13 August Share Posted 13 August https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/08/13/leicester-city-fc-premier-league-spending-rules-profit/ Sources have claimed that the sanctions could be significant, though Leicester believe they have a strong and realistic defence and are hopeful of being deducted no more than six points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts