Leicester Bid £3 /£5/£7.5 million for Ulloa

[Buzzer]

Oh, the injustice of it all.

 

[Richard Tiltmans Shin Pad]

A usual day in NSC i See! Home of the Binfest - ain't that the truth!

 

[foxedup]

Oh, the injustice of it all.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Cheers!

Yeah, I would imagine if you were anywhere close to struggling with FFP you would have been tempted with £4/5m.

Who was it who found him for you? Was it the scouting network you still have in place, or was it a Poyet contact (I'm presuming he signed for you under him).

I believe it was the scouting network (we have someone in Spain scouting for us) and it took well over year to track him down and secure the deal. He's been great for us, even half fit, injured and being the only striker left at the club who could stand up he still gave us 16goals (I think) this season. Financially we don't need to sell, but if you turn Leo's head then we may end up being forced to let him go, but the length of his contract puts us in a strong position in negotiating the fee I'd think.

 

[Sweeney Todd]

Leicester’s stadium cost £60 million. They had debts of £60m, which were wiped out when they went into administration, after the stadium was built. So if they didn’t get the stadium for nothing – and the two figures that I quoted are remarkably similar – then they got something else for nothing.

Anyway, regarding Ulloa, we have only two strikers at the club, and a fit Ulloa guarantees us a minimum of twenty-five goals a season, so why would we sell him?

 

[glasfryn]

Leicester’s stadium cost £60 million. They had debts of £60m, which were wiped out when they went into administration, after the stadium was built. So if they didn’t get the stadium for nothing – and the two figures that I quoted are remarkably similar – then they got something else for nothing.

Anyway, regarding Ulloa, we have only two strikers at the club, and a fit Ulloa guarantees us a minimum of twenty-five goals a season, so why would we sell him?

exactly this
so if they cannot come up with 10m they can piddle off
or maybe 9m and Nugent

 

[Icy Gull]

However much Leicester end up paying I think they'll be disappointed with Leo at Premier League level. Much the same as Sunderland fans are totally underwhelmed by Liam.

Neither are Premier League quality imo.

 

[London Irish]

However much Leicester end up paying I think they'll be disappointed with Leo at Premier League level. Much the same as Sunderland fans are totally underwhelmed by Liam.

Neither are Premier League quality imo.

Yes Bridcutt but you're wrong about Ulloa

 

[foxedup]

Leicester’s stadium cost £60 million. They had debts of £60m, which were wiped out when they went into administration, after the stadium was built. So if they didn’t get the stadium for nothing – and the two figures that I quoted are remarkably similar – then they got something else for nothing.

Well the stadium didn't cost £60m.

Secondly, not all debts were wiped out, in fact the vast majority weren't.

For example the stadium (which cost £37m - part funded in cash at time, part funded in borrowed money from Teachers) was only last season paid off by the new owners http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/L...eed-buy-King/story-18286999-detail/story.html

I believe a contractor unfortunately did lose out on substantial amount of money, but the stadium certainly did not come for free.

The debts that get reported also include the wages of ALL contracted players, for the length of their contracts. Which as you can imagine is a fairly large sum when people are sat on long contacts. For any players who remained they were paid the full amount they were owed.

I'm not saying the people who ran the club didn't do anything wrong, they did and that's clear for all to see. They weren't up to the job of running a football club, as so many people seem to be sadly. It pisses me off what they did to this club, promotion was short lived and we rotted for the next decade finally dropping into the third tier for the first time in our history.

The way the press reported it was also annoying, headline grabbing numbers chucked about, very little facts about what actually happened. It's frustrating when people say you got away with x, y and z, or you didn't try to get out of trouble and just dumped your debts... when the reality is somewhat different.

 

[foxedup]

exactly this
so if they cannot come up with 10m they can piddle off
or maybe 9m and Nugent

He's out of contract so you can have him for free! How about Gary Taylor Fletcher?

 

[fruitnveg]

That'll be a pass on GTF, thanks.

 

[foxedup]

That'll be a pass on GTF, thanks.

Damn it.

Actually as a squad player he wasn't half bad, massively unfit obviously but he had some of the best control and vision I have seen at times. A very smart player... shame he can't lay off the beer and kebabs.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Well the stadium didn't cost £60m.

Secondly, not all debts were wiped out, in fact the vast majority weren't.

For example the stadium (which cost £37m - part funded in cash at time, part funded in borrowed money from Teachers) was only last season paid off by the new owners http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/L...eed-buy-King/story-18286999-detail/story.html

I believe a contractor unfortunately did lose out on substantial amount of money, but the stadium certainly did not come for free.

The debts that get reported also include the wages of ALL contracted players, for the length of their contracts. Which as you can imagine is a fairly large sum when people are sat on long contacts. For any players who remained they were paid the full amount they were owed.

I'm not saying the people who ran the club didn't do anything wrong, they did and that's clear for all to see. They weren't up to the job of running a football club, as so many people seem to be sadly. It pisses me off what they did to this club, promotion was short lived and we rotted for the next decade finally dropping into the third tier for the first time in our history.

The way the press reported it was also annoying, headline grabbing numbers chucked about, very little facts about what actually happened. It's frustrating when people say you got away with x, y and z, or you didn't try to get out of trouble and just dumped your debts... when the reality is somewhat different.

Is this, part of a recent Guardian report correct?



Leicester City

Ownership

100% owned by King Power International, registered in Thailand, owned by Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha

Turnover £19.6m

8th highest in the league

Wage bill £26.1m

5th highest in the league

Wage as a proportion of turnover 133%

Directors’ pay £142,000; there were 5 directors; highest paid received £133,000

Loss before tax £34m

Net debt £111.3m

Interest payable £7.2m

Accounts for the year to 31 May 2013

State they’re in

Standout spenders of the Championship, finally promoted this season. King Power, the Thai-owned duty free conglomerate, bought the club in 2010, explaining “The takeover will internationally promote the reputation of Thailand and the capability of a Thai company to strengthen an English football club.” During 2012-13 King Power provided £80m further loans. While the club say they sought to cut costs since, they are expected to have made another huge loss, fail the financial fair play rules they now oppose, and incur a fine


If so it hardly represents attempting to adhere to FFP.

 

[foxedup]

Is this, part of a recent Guardian report correct?

Simple answer, no it is not.


More complicated answer is as follows.

There are now no debts, other than the £17m we owe to the owners company for buying the stadium back (he did so to save £1m a year in interest to the Teachers Fund). The rest was converted to equity, ie wiped out.

Again, similar to the reporting they take an artistic license to the books themselves. Yes, LAST seasons books was a loss of £34m. But what they don't tell you is £7m of that was interest on what at the time was loaned from the owner. That interest was not paid out, but added to the debt (which was then wiped out). So whilst the books shows a £7m loss, no money went out of the club and never will do.

It also doesn't tell you that £5m of the loss was down to a squad revaluation. Eg. Rather than putting down the players as assets of say £14m, they went down as £9m. So whilst this shows in the books as a loss, again no money actually went out of the door and ever will do. Nothing more than paper shuffling.

I was also told that the accounts included historic debts, eg money outstanding on previous transfers, wages to players owned to players who were gone elsewhere.

This season we've sold off players like Beckford, Wellens, Waghorn, Danns and Gallagher out on loan all year (some of them being our highest earners last season), which will drop the losses.

I could go through the whole lot, but I think from previous calculations we looked roughly about £6m away from reaching FFP prior to player sales this year, increased revenues etc. The club have repeated consistently that they believe we will meet FFP this season.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

but he had some of the best control and vision I have seen at times.

A gifted player. Both a pleasure and annoying to watch in equal measure.

 

[albionite]

He's out of contract so you can have him for free! How about Gary Taylor Fletcher?

Is he rubbish now? Remember him being quite good for Blackpool

 

[fruitnveg]

 

[Napper]

Need 6 mil at least and one of their players to soften blow

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Simple answer, no it is not.


More complicated answer is as follows.

There are now no debts, other than the £17m we owe to the owners company for buying the stadium back (he did so to save £1m a year in interest to the Teachers Fund). The rest was converted to equity, ie wiped out.

Again, similar to the reporting they take an artistic license to the books themselves. Yes, LAST seasons books was a loss of £34m. But what they don't tell you is £7m of that was interest on what at the time was loaned from the owner. That interest was not paid out, but added to the debt (which was then wiped out). So whilst the books shows a £7m loss, no money went out of the club and never will do.

It also doesn't tell you that £5m of the loss was down to a squad revaluation. Eg. Rather than putting down the players as assets of say £14m, they went down as £9m. So whilst this shows in the books as a loss, again no money actually went out of the door and ever will do. Nothing more than paper shuffling.

I was also told that the accounts included historic debts, eg money outstanding on previous transfers, wages to players owned to players who were gone elsewhere.

This season we've sold off players like Beckford, Wellens, Waghorn, Danns and Gallagher out on loan all year (some of them being our highest earners last season), which will drop the losses.

I could go through the whole lot, but I think from previous calculations we looked roughly about £6m away from reaching FFP prior to player sales this year, increased revenues etc. The club have repeated consistently that they believe we will meet FFP this season.

Elsewhere I've seen that the owners have written off the debts but have since loaned 35 million of which some will be used to purchase the ground.

 

[Icy Gull]

Yes Bridcutt but you're wrong about Ulloa

We're gonna find out who's right as he going to be playing there with Leicester next season