drummindefender
Active Member
Made a loss of £34 million apparently.
Thank **** we are (hopefully) going up!
Thank **** we are (hopefully) going up!
2012/2013 Financial results
- Thread starter drummindefender
- Start date
- Status
Biffa Bacon
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Blaarev
Well-Known Member
Still confident (or still lying?)
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Leicester-City-confident-meeting-FFP-despite/story-20749866-detail/story.html
Babylon
Active Member
Well there are £12.4m worth of one of costs in there that won't be happening again (the loan and the player value changes). You can make a loss of £8m anyway, plus the club seem to be putting a value of £5m on the things that don't count towards FFP such as youth team spending. Plus they are saying revenues are back up again. Which after a quick calculation would mean we need to trim or find another £6.8m to comply.
drew
Active Member
Depends when the equity swap took place.
As it stands paying the potential fine (as a cash injection and equity swap) towards the clubs debts rather than to a charity would make more financial sense than paying the fine and carrying it as a further loss on the accounts.
Plus these accounts are for 2012/2013 so don't count towards FFP.
Biffa Bacon
Well-Known Member
That's why I modified my first post in this thread. I'm guessing that the club are currently working with their accountants to do anything that will make it appear that they are compliant this season.
Brown Nose
Well-Known Member
Firstly, those results are (yet again) horrific. Last season, we were losing more than £650k a week! I recall estimating something about half that size and getting dogs abuse for it. Turns out that I was being incredibly generous.
It appears that in NPs first full season back he hardly reduced the wage bill at all, despite the regular assertions that he was. It also makes it pretty obvious that we do still have one of the biggest wage bills in the league. It makes me relieved that we are at last getting some return on this enormous investment.
It's also notable that despite the massive benefit of converting the loans into equity, the owners have retained the stadium separately and it remains an asset that they own as opposed to the club.
The only way that the club will meet FFP is by some exceptionally creative accounting. As a business, we wouldn't last a month without our owners before going bust.
They've made an exceptionally expensive purchase with LCFC and I really hope we can sustain ourselves as a Premier League club for some years in order to give their acquisition, as well as us as a football club, some economic credibility.
It appears that in NPs first full season back he hardly reduced the wage bill at all, despite the regular assertions that he was. It also makes it pretty obvious that we do still have one of the biggest wage bills in the league. It makes me relieved that we are at last getting some return on this enormous investment.
It's also notable that despite the massive benefit of converting the loans into equity, the owners have retained the stadium separately and it remains an asset that they own as opposed to the club.
The only way that the club will meet FFP is by some exceptionally creative accounting. As a business, we wouldn't last a month without our owners before going bust.
They've made an exceptionally expensive purchase with LCFC and I really hope we can sustain ourselves as a Premier League club for some years in order to give their acquisition, as well as us as a football club, some economic credibility.
Hazzman
New Member
Still paying off numerous players and we only managed to loan out the big earners, therefore we were still paying a massive percentage of their wage. It's going to take years to clear all the errors away.
Nottingham Fox
Moderator
Or a matter of months when we have promotion confirmed.
Biffa Bacon
Well-Known Member
The problem is that if/when we go up a good portion of the money the club should be spending on squad improvement will be spent on paying off players, starting the season with a handicap.
Hazzman
New Member
What will we spend when we get there? Do we continue paying Championship wages?
Promotion bonuses for likes of Gally....
Last edited:
Macky
Gruntled Member
Did you? I don't recall that
FryattFox
Well-Known Member
:icon_bigg I almost wrote exactly the same thing. In fact, I distinctly recall saying the loss would probably be £25m+ depending on payoffs, etc, and don't remember anyone challenging me (or BN for that matter).
Last edited:
Foxes_Trust
Active Member
There has been some "re-phasing" of costs relating to players who signed contracts prior to the FFP rules being announced, meaning costs are transferred into the 2012/13 figures (non penalty trigger season) from later years (where penalties do apply), that is why as more clubs publish results you will see that their financial results got worse for last season. Clubs are making vague comments about exceptional costs (see Brighton statement), as I doubt the clubs or the Football League really want to reveal the amount of accounting "phasing adjustments" that are being allowed.
So NP did make a much greater level of savings, but this has been offset in the published figures
FryattFox
Well-Known Member
Are you saying that this has happened at LCFC or in the FL in general?
Miles Away
Well-Known Member
I have to admit, that approach makes lots of sense.
Brown Nose
Well-Known Member
Do you know if this also applies to other staff? It's being said elsewhere that City have transferred a lot of high earners (not players) off the City staff and employed them by King Power instead. That way, their costs can't be accounted against the club.
This whole FFP thing is a total fecking shambles isn't it. The only people that will benefit from it are accountants.
So NP did make a much greater level of savings, but this has been offset in the published figures
Last edited:
Real Sharapova
Well-Known Member
As has been said by the Foxes Trust, it is certain that as many costs as possible were accounted for in the results just published rather than them being reflected in the May 2014 figures. I am sure every other club that could be caught by FFP will do exactly the same.
Foxes_Trust
Active Member
At a number of Championship clubs that would not meet FFP without doing so (basically any club that had contracts which were signed prior to the FFP rules being announced, that went beyond the 2012/13 season).
Our understanding is that clubs have been in dialogue with the Football League negotiating what is and isn't allowed, so numerous changes have occurred as the conversations developed
- Status
Championship
| P | Pld | Pts | |
| 1 | Leicester | 45 | 97 |
| 2 | Ipswich | 45 | 93 |
| 3 | Leeds Utd | 45 | 90 |
| 4 | Southampton | 45 | 84 |
| 5 | Norwich City | 45 | 73 |
| 6 | West Brom | 45 | 72 |
| 7 | Hull City | 45 | 70 |
| 8 | Middlesbro | 45 | 66 |
| 9 | Coventry City | 45 | 64 |
| 10 | Preston | 45 | 63 |
| 11 | Bristol City | 45 | 62 |
| 12 | Cardiff City | 45 | 62 |
| 13 | Swansea City | 45 | 57 |
| 14 | Watford | 45 | 56 |
| 15 | Sunderland | 45 | 56 |
| 16 | Millwall | 45 | 56 |
| 17 | QPR | 45 | 53 |
| 18 | Stoke City | 45 | 53 |
| 19 | Blackburn | 45 | 50 |
| 20 | Sheffield W | 45 | 50 |
| 21 | Plymouth | 45 | 48 |
| 22 | Birmingham | 45 | 47 |
| 23 | Huddersfield | 45 | 45 |
| 24 | Rotherham Utd | 45 | 24 |
