 | Forum
Reply | Daylight fading, or speculate to accumulate? – 24/25 Accounts
at 08:10 20 Feb 2026
The one thing we do know is that the post reporting date events do say the difference between our buying and selling over the summer was £1.5m. If we are producing a scenario with reduced sales, the purchase must come down too, or do you see it another way?
With regard to the Eze sell-on, we were all happily talking about 20% of the transfer fee for most of his time at Palace. Using that (£12m) would put the cost of our summer signings near the ball park figures that were flying around in the summer.
We'll have a better idea this time next year. [Post edited 20 Feb 8:18]
|
| Forum
Reply | Daylight fading, or speculate to accumulate? – 24/25 Accounts
at 21:54 19 Feb 2026
I think this is right for your numbers .......
Profit from player sales (Eze and Kelman) - £9m
Therefore, the acquisition cost of the summer purchases - £10.5m
All on 4-year contracts – annual amortisation £2.625m
Annual salary increase - £2.5m (bearing in mind that players have left too)
Edwards & Obikwu – cost £5.5m – annual amortisation £1.375 – annual salary £1m
For what it is worth, I don't agree with these numbers but understand your reason for asking. |
| Forum
Reply | Daylight fading, or speculate to accumulate? – 24/25 Accounts
at 20:52 19 Feb 2026
Old Pedro, the numbers do suggest that, but there are assumptions in there.
We can only work with the number we have. If, for example, the sponsorship has stepped up again this season, you and I wouldn't be aware of that yet. [Post edited 19 Feb 21:55]
|
| Forum
Reply | Daylight fading, or speculate to accumulate? – 24/25 Accounts
at 20:10 19 Feb 2026
Thanks Hunter. Will do, leave it with me.
You did pick up on the fact that we were still owed over £2m for player sales as shown in the Cash Flow regarding players’ registrations table?
If you comment is based on the profit generated from these sales, we'd have to look back to see when Dykes' contract was extended as his remaining book value would have then been amortised over the extended term. |
| Forum
Reply | Leicester City
at 20:38 5 Feb 2026
From what I can glean, the independent commission’s logic for setting the point deduction is as follows.
Leicester are an EFL club, so the EFL sanctioning guideline should apply. These state:
The penalty for breaching of the 3 season P&S reporting rules is a deduction of 12 points to commence in the season following the breach.
The following number of points shall be deducted from the 12 points
9 points if the breach is less than £2.0m
8 points if between £2m and £4m
7 points if between £4m and £6m
6 points if between £6m and £8m
5 points if between £8m and £10m
4 points if between £10m and £12.5m
3 points if between £12.5m and £15m
No deduction if the breach is greater than £15m
Then the balance shall be further reduced if the loss in the final season is less than the season(s) before.
Arguing that those reductions are based on an upper loss limit of £39m and that Leicester was actually £83m because two of those season were spent in the Premier League, they worked out the percentage overspends based on that scale.
Leicester’s breach was £20.8m which is an overspend of 25%, so equivalent to £9.75m against a £39m limit, therefore they got a 5 point deduction from the original 12.
This was reduced by 1 further point as their losses were reducing, hence 6 points. [Post edited 5 Feb 21:23]
|
| Forum
Reply | Rating for this Summers Transfer Window
at 10:41 2 Sep 2025
I totally agree Hunter that we'd be made to put ourselves back in to that position, but I don't think we were even before the Eze money.
The cost of living increases are significant. £2.5m for last season (I believe designed to replace the last of the Covid allowances that was rolling out) and now £3.5m per season increase. The increase in TV revenue will become apparent in the next set of accounts, but IIRC is at least £2m and, of course, the cost of our player purchases will be amortised.
The sale of Kelman (and Armstrong last season) is important, but as you so rightly say, this has to continue. [Post edited 2 Sep 2025 10:41]
|
| Forum
Reply | Rating for this Summers Transfer Window
at 06:33 2 Sep 2025
"Concerns are where on earth we've got the money from to stay within PSR rules but thats probably a concern for further down the line and may well be a gamble that the rules are going to change. We do seem to have signed a few players who shouldn't need replacing within 6 months which would be progress on previous years"
I haven't got any concerns regarding FFP Dave. As was pointed out by Padulas Shampoo, there is a significant loss (around £7m more than the following season's loss) rolling out of our equation. In addition to this, there is the increase in revenue from the new Sky TV deal which came into effect last season to be considered and, as from this season, the cost of living increase in the FFP disallowables. |
| Forum
Reply | And breathe... - Simon Dorset's annual deep dive into the accounts
at 19:49 27 Feb 2025
It is an increased allowance due to inflation. £2.5m
It currently applies only to this season (24/25) which will, or course, remain in the FFP calculation for the following two season. It would hardly be a shock if it became permanent. |
| Forum
Reply | And breathe... - Simon Dorset's annual deep dive into the accounts
at 14:23 27 Feb 2025
The disallowable costs comprise expenditure on infrastructure projects, depreciation of fixed assets, youth development, community schemes and women’s football
The opening of the training facility (a fixed asset) has seen a measurable rise in depreciation, and the cost of the academy has risen. Whether this is genuine or having the academy and first team sharing facility has blurred the edges is open to interpretation. |
| Forum
Reply | And breathe... - Simon Dorset's annual deep dive into the accounts
at 13:00 27 Feb 2025
We did Myke.
Our losses, after allowances, were £37,705,000, we were allowed to lose, £39,000,000. We snuck under by £1,295,000.
Never in doubt..... |
| Forum
Reply | And breathe... - Simon Dorset's annual deep dive into the accounts
at 23:11 26 Feb 2025
Leicester extended their accounting period and so straddled two seasons. Perfectly acceptable in the business world, but only allowed due to badly written FFP regulations. I'm sure the regs used to say that for clubs whose accounting periods didn't end in May, June of July, they had to prepare FFP returned to 30th June. |
| | SimonD
|
Site Scores| Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 0 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
