Less to that £180m than meets the eye?

Well, it seems from the first two comments here that people are assuming the owners are not including wages in their concept of 'spending'. Are you guys reading that £180m as being earmarked purely for the deficit on transfer deals, or what?

Weren't the words along the lines of "If we have to spend £180m to get there, that's something we're prepared to do." That's rather different to "We're blowing £180m over the next three years!" - which is what's been misreported.

I've never been concerned by these statements, and while Pearson's in charge we know that their money is safe anyway. However Pearson's team does in the Premiership, he won't waste tons of money on rubbish. But in regard to what you say, fatfox, I think you might be reading into their words a bit literally anyway. They were playing to the crowd in Thailand and more making the pledge that they will get behind their manager and their club.

I think this £180m figure is a bit of a herring rouge. I fully understand Fatfox's point that the owners could spend 180m without spending a penny if we stay in the prem, but like their authentic and honest interviews of the past I don't read in to this that they are trying to play anyone.

They are willing to spend their own cash for te enjoyment of the success of football. For this I'm grateful and I'm confident it won't change in the Prem.

It's often the case that when people talk about spending loads of money they somehow translate this to a transfer kitty. Wages and running costs suddenly become a zero on the balance sheet. It will be interesting to see how £180m translates into turnover and revenue next season.

As others have stated the owners were simply trying to articulate their commitment to the club. The sound bite could have been £100m, £250m or £550m, but it just so happened that the figure plucked out of the air was £180m. It makes for a good headline.

The recruitment, so far, doesn't indicate a departure from NP's usual pragmatism. Quite the contrary in fact. So I don't think we're the new Man City just yet.

I don't understand why anyone should form the impression that I am accusing them of "trying to play" us. I've said nothing of the sort.

I'll be honest, I didn't bother reading all of the OP. Can I just point out that at absolutely no point in their original interview with the Bangkok post did they say they'd be throwing 180m at getting us into the top 5 WITHIN three years.....


What they actually said was that they would like to stay in the Premiership for as long as possible, and, if we stabilise into a midtable premiership team after 3 years they want to go for the top five as they are ambitious people. They estimate that it would cost them around £180m to do so.


Not quite what the British press sensationalised the story into.....

So for those foxes out there wee'ing themselves with excitement need to calm down and for those foxes out there fearing a new era of Sven-like spending needn't worry either.....

Interesting point FF, but I think that the £180M figure over 3 years being similar to the minimum TV income over 3 years is probably a coincidence. Talking to Thai media the actual figure quoted was a bit of a soundbite at 10bn baht, which equates to £180M.

Given the background that they have already invested £100M+ in the club, I believe it was more likely to be intended to mean 10bn baht above and beyond the likely revenue from TV etc. This to take us to challenge the top 5 in 3 years (I don't quite read the quotes as you do JAF, although they are not entirely clear).

So for those who may still be panicking over this, the owners were just being ambitious but do realise that it would be a 'huge leap' with 'the next challenge for us as a club is to establish ourselves in the EPL' and 'of course, one step at the time'. Remember that we are not, unlike many other clubs, saddled with a mountain of debt from loans - this gives me confidence that the owners have the interests of the club at heart.

We do also have a management team in charge who are the antithesis of Sven's splash the cash approach, unearthing more of the Knocky standard of player at reasonable rates rather than the Bakayogos of the football world (who is only on a relatively short term 2 year contract by the way).

http://www.bangkokpost.com/most-recent/409485/leicester-city-desperate-to-capitalise

I'm sure they mentioned the 10bn baht (£180m) in this interview, but it doesn't appear in the article for dome reason. It was totally taken out of context by the British press though.

JAF: you've twice called the Bangkok Post article an "interview", and in one case the "original interview", as if to imply that other versions of the story have been 'lifted' from an exclusive Post conversation with Vichai. But in fact, all of the stories are merely differently handled reports of what was said at the same open press conference.

What usually happens with such PR events is that, instead of publishing every word uttered, different reporters/editors select different quotes for their stories. The 10bn baht //was// reported, but not in the Post. One of the quotes from Vichai that The Guardian chose to use was…

"We won't take the huge leap to challenge the league's top five clubs immediately. Do we have a chance to beat them? Yes, we have, but I think we need to establish our foothold in the league first and then we think about our next step. It will take a huge amount of money, possibly 10 billion Thai baht [£180m], to get there. But that doesn't put us off. I am asking for three years, and we'll be there."

So yes: there's your 10bn baht reference right enough, but there too are the top five and three years elements. You are, I suppose, choosing to interpret the "we'll be there" part as meaning it will take that long (and a big spend) just to "establish our foothold". But you can surely see why other people are interpreting Vichai as saying "in three years we intend to be challenging the top five".