Den økonomiske hverdagen, blir det bedre?

[stian]

Denne var verdt å hente frem igjen! God lesning om det som ser ut som veldig fornuftig klubbdrift.

Det som er litt interessant er å fortsette «current output of one high-value academy product every two years". Har vi virkelig dette? Jeg skjønner ikke helt hvem de regner med i dette regnestykket, men det må nesten inkludere de talentene som snappes av City &co i veldig ung alder. Dette kan klubben umulig være interessert i, da er åpenbart Gray-varianten å foretrekke.

Det mest lukrative må være å komme seg opp i næringskjeden som utviklingsarena for unge spillere. Da er det overgangen til A-laget som er nøkkelen, og det nåløyet har virket veldig trangt til nå. Det er ikke mange av unggutta som har fått prøvd seg i cupen engang under Farke. Håpet den siste generasjonen vi har stjålet fra City, Utd. Og Liverpool kan snu denne trenden. Og så kan vi drømme om å raide akademiet til Tottenham hvis de rykker ned.

[Asbjørn]

Eg er fortsatt i læringsmodus mht hva det nye SRC gjør med finansene våre.
På waccoe er det noen som forteller om konsekvensene, så er vel ikke alt som skrives fakta.
Men here goes:

.............

That's because PSR is a 3 year period with a £105m loss limit.

SCR is 1 year in isolation. So you have to either naturally grow your revenues or sell players with the net profit made against the amortised spend split across the next 3 years of accounts

In 2 years time we will have 1 new stand. In 4 years we will have 2 stands completed and 52 or 53k capacity in the premier league with state of the art corporate facilities and amenities to bleed everyone dry which will lock us into the top 10

.................

We're already in the top 10 - even our Championship commercial revenues would have us in 9th position on last season's Premier League accounts. The stadium will give us a chance of moving from 9th to 7th (depending on what Everton's stadium has done for them), but we'd need European football for that, so the benefit is probably more about extending the gap between us and those below us.

The issue with SCR seems to be that it slows the pace of squad churn - whether for us or Brentford/Bournemouth or Chelsea/Villa - because you can't massively inflate your immediate spending allowance with player sales and have to take a longer-term view of growth and squad building.

[Josch]

In 2 years time we will have 1 new stand. In 4 years we will have 2 stands completed and 52 or 53k capacity in the premier league with state of the art corporate facilities and amenities to bleed everyone dry which will lock us into the top 10.

Nå må jeg si at jeg kan dette dårlig med dagens regler. Men en Arsenal-supporter sa at betaling for nytt stadion (Emirates) satte begrensninger for spillerkjøp de neste årene. Utbygging av stadion skal nemlig betales, og det er en kostnad i flere år (f.eks lån). Om det er regler for dette vedr spillerkjøp vet jeg ikke, men økte byggekostnader i noen år slipper man ikke unna selv om det blir lov i forhold til fair play å ha større spiller budsjett.

Billettinntekter er jo drift, men hva med betaling for utvidelse av stadion?

[Asbjørn]

In 2 years time we will have 1 new stand. In 4 years we will have 2 stands completed and 52 or 53k capacity in the premier league with state of the art corporate facilities and amenities to bleed everyone dry which will lock us into the top 10.

Nå må jeg si at jeg kan dette dårlig med dagens regler. Men en Arsenal-supporter sa at betaling for nytt stadion (Emirates) satte begrensninger for spillerkjøp de neste årene. Utbygging av stadion skal nemlig betales, og det er en kostnad i flere år (f.eks lån). Om det er regler for dette vedr spillerkjøp vet jeg ikke, men økte byggekostnader i noen år slipper man ikke unna selv om det blir lov i forhold til fair play å ha større spiller budsjett.

Billettinntekter er jo drift, men hva med betaling for utvidelse av stadion?

SCR står for Squad Cost Ratio og handler altså om hva spillerstallen koster. I PL kan en handle for 85% av SCR, i Europacup faktisk bare 70% av dette (men hvordan dette beregnes er ikke helt likt). Som du skriver, billettinntekter er drift, Leeds og lag med små stadioner stemte imot innføringen (det krevde 2/3 flertall så det var på nippet det ble innført - seks imot og 14 for). Leeds vil tjene på dette på sikt (i forhold til de gamle reglene) men det tar noen år før vi har stor stadion, derfor ville en ha noen presiseringer mht de første årene... Bournemouth, Brighton, Crystal Palace vil få begrensninger i hva de gjør).

[Hallgeir *]

Tar dette innlegget under økonomi-fanen her - fant ingen bedre.

Dette har det blitt skrevet en del om før, men nå er det reelt at Leeds tar Leicester City "til retten".

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7447624/2026/07/15/leeds-leicester-legal-action-psr-financial-rules/?unlocked_article_code=1.x1A.VWPd.6ZkEW0JYF8RH&source=athletic_user_shared_gift_article_copylink&smid=url-share-ta&fbclid=IwY2xjawTEs35leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEe8q-LZmsondpKUcwG4FGa9E3bdFjNygDi6GfLcJYn0YOXgk0IeA_VsbZLEyg_aem_KLJX-SrCrMVjVV9ta8RHXw

LUFC Legacy:

We missed out on over £100m in TV rights, commercial deals, proper signings  and lost our stars all because they cooked the books and got away with a pathetic slap on the wrist after they got promoted.
The Burnley vs Everton precedent changes everything. The fact that Burnley got £35m proves the courts finally recognize that financial doping has direct, devastating sporting consequences for the clubs who actually play by the rules. Leicester have already been found guilty and docked points anyway, so they haven't got a leg to stand on.
We completely bottled the playoffs, granted, but we shouldn't have even been in them. If Leicester had been forced to field a squad within the actual PSR limits, we finish in the automatic spots. Simple as.
Glad the board are actually fighting our corner for once. Take them to the cleaners. Marching On Together

[Josch]

We missed out on over £100m in TV rights, commercial deals, proper signings  and lost our stars all because they cooked the books and got away with a pathetic slap on the wrist after they got promoted.
   

Hadde vært fint om man kunne avsløre juks rett etter sesongslutt og justert ch.ship tabellen før ny PL startet. Nå blir det et vanvittig regnestykke der de ovennevnte faktorer må tas med og betales ut penger. Teoretisk kunne Leeds fortsatt vært i ch.ship og ikke vært sikker på å rykke opp selv om de får penger etter jukset som erstatning.

Leicester burde i 2024 blitt plassert i league 2 med minus 15 poeng og Leeds rykket opp i den sesong jukset skjedde.

Denne ordningen med massiv fotballøkonomi, gullkantet PL og erstatning flere år i etterkant gjør at det sportslige blir helt borte. I en annen idrett ville man disket nr 1 og nr 3 rykket opp til plass nr 2 ganske fort. Sånn burde det vært i fotball også.

[Asbjørn]

Squad Cost Ratio - hva det betyr for Leeds.

Craig her forklarer ved hjelp av Joffy og hans potensielle avgang til Hull for £4,5m i første omgang, samt bortgang av lønnsutgiftene hans.

Det er ikke sikkert tallene her er nøyaktige, men jeg tror det gir et bra bilde:

Looks like we still have very good headroom for SCR: ChatGPT numbers look accurate:

Yes. I've now checked Leeds' current 2026/27 position rather than using the earlier simplified example, and there is a significant difference.

A current independent SCR model puts Leeds at roughly:

Football income: £177m

Current squad costs: £164m

SCR: 92.4%

85% Green Threshold: £151m

115% Red Threshold: £204m

Room before the Red Threshold: about £40m

The model already includes Pascal Struijk's £19m sale, with an estimated £13m book profit.



What happens if Gelhardt goes for £4.5m?

Current reports suggest Leeds could get around £4–4.5m for Joe Gelhardt.

Because Gelhardt's remaining book value is likely very small, I'll use £4.5m profit as the working assumption.

That gives Leeds two benefits:

£4.5m additional player-trading profit/income

Removal of Gelhardt's annual squad costs — the current model estimates approximately £1m wages + £2m amortisation = £3m.

So, very roughly, the sale could improve Leeds' available SCR position by around £8m.

So how much could Leeds spend on a striker?

This is where it gets interesting.

Leeds currently have approximately £40m of headroom to the 115% Red Threshold.

After Gelhardt:

£40m + ~£8m = ~£48m

of additional annual squad-cost capacity.

But that doesn't mean Leeds can buy a £48m striker.

The transfer fee is amortised over the player's contract.

For example: £30m striker

Suppose Leeds buy a striker for £30m on a five-year contract.

Transfer amortisation:

£30m ÷ 5 = £6m per year

Suppose his wages are £4m a year.

His approximate annual SCR cost becomes:

£6m + £4m = £10m

So a £30m striker would use only around £10m of the £48m headroom.

That leaves approximately:

£38m

of Red-Threshold headroom.

£40m striker

Five-year deal:

Transfer amortisation: £8m

Wages, say: £4m

Total annual SCR cost: ~£12m

That would still leave Leeds with around £36m of Red-Threshold headroom.

And remember that Leeds have already spent around £40m on James Trafford, on a five-year contract.  The Trafford deal therefore contributes roughly £8m per year of amortisation, before his wages and other costs.

But there's an even more interesting point

The £40m headroom figure already reflects the Trafford signing in the current model.

So we're not looking at:

£40m available before Trafford.

We're looking at approximately:

£40m available after Trafford, Muharemovic, Wilson, Struijk etc.

That's why I think Leeds are actually in a reasonably strong position to make another substantial signing.

My estimate

If Gelhardt leaves for £4–4.5m, I'd put Leeds' approximate ability to add another striker at:

Striker fee 5-year amortisatio Assumed wages  Annual SCR costApprox. Headroom rem.

£20m           £4m                £3m             £7m        ~£41m

£25m           £5m                £3m             £8m        ~£40m

£30m           £6m                £4m             £10m        ~£38m

£40m           £8m                £4m             £12m        ~£36m

£50m           £10m               £5m             £15m         ~£33m

*Very approximate, because the actual SCR calculation also incorporates player-trading profit, bonuses, agents' fees, contract details and other squad costs.

Therefore...

A £30–40m striker is absolutely plausible from an SCR perspective.

In fact, I wouldn't regard £40m as the financial ceiling for Leeds. The bigger constraint is likely to be cash flow, ownership appetite and the club's desired squad-cost position, rather than SCR alone.

And this is where Gelhardt is particularly useful: selling a low-book-value player can simultaneously increase the denominator and reduce the numerator.

.