Owners have spent something like £50mil in buying the club and further investment in the playing squad and then investment in facilities. along with a loan to the club.

What the owners have done outside of the playing squad has been excellent and personally think its money well spent. But they backed Sven all the way last summer and personally I think that was a mistake. We went for broke and it didnt pay off. I don't think anyone will be doing what we did again now with the new fair play rules and I don't think Pearson would spend that kind of money on the players that were brought in.

Cheers for the interest hope thats helped.

By major overhaul, I think he means there will be a lot more going out than coming in! We have a massive squad with a lot of deadwood, we have already released 6 players with the possibility of a few high earners on their way I.e beckford and mills.
It is a loan yes, but the owners are not just using city as a toy, they have and continue to invest off the feild too and have recently had a long interview in which they reaffirm their ambition and love for the club so I don't think we are in any danger of being in trouble.
As for the fair play, I think Leicester will have their house in order for when it comes into play

Who are the six?

As already stated I think Pearson will put us back down to Earth and I think by August the following will not be Leicester players:

John Pantsil
Steve Howard
Matt Mills
Chris Weale
Tom Kennedy
Sol Bamba / Sean St Ledger
Jermaine Beckford
Tom Parkes

There will be more off than that blackpool

Robster, the players gone so far are; pantsil, tunchev, Howard, Oakley, moussa will not have contract renewed and the same for weale I believe.
I think there will be a lot more gone too, beckford, mills, st ledger, gally to start with!

I think the rest is hard to say without knowing whos coming in. Obviously with Vardy coming in, one of Vassell / Waghorn / Schlupp will also need to go, and I cant see it being the latter two.

I can see Hopper, Panayioutou, Byrne, Taft (already on loan) and possibly Schlupp all going out on loan.

Gally is contracted to 2015 so no clubs will be looking at him just yet and whilst Wellens is here (his best mate) I cant see him moving on, despite the sickening abuse our fans give him.

Financial figures are publicly provided retrospectively, so unfortunately you probably know as much detail about the last yearly figures as any of us.

Pearson has stated that there would NOT be a major overhaul over the summer but there would be some moment. I think any major changes that may occur are in reference, as mentioned above, to surplus being removed from the squad rather than one team being shipped out and another being brought in; in fact I'm 99% this is the case.

With regard to the owners approach, as mentioned, it is a new and inspiring structure that they are looking to build and one which is based around different streams of long-term/on-going revenue; modelled upon the ethos of self-sufficiency.

I'm pretty sure at some point during this past season, Susan Whelan stated that we were very close to being out of the red in terms of income against long term commitments (stadium, wages, etc).

However, we obviously still have a director's loan against us (which according to recent sources is for around half the money the owner's have stumped up)

If Pearson continues to bring in players sparingly for under or around £1m on moderate wages and looks to sell two or three high earners for a reasonable amount (in addition to wages we have already removed from the books); moving forward our debt should not increase and as the owners have come out and stated their commitment, should not be a major worry at the minute. Obviously though, it should be something we are constantly aware of and looking to reduce/remove (realisitically through the only solution possible - promotion).

*would be some movement

Thank you Trish. I didn't realise Tunch had actually gone. What a shame...I thought he looked as if he might make it at one stage, but presumably Pearson decided that his sharpness had gone. It would be nice if we were kept a bit more informed about such things, but Mr Grumpy doesn't give much away.

I am surprised by how many are convinced Beckford will leave in the summer.

There is undoubtedly an FFP implication in retaining players on (reportedly) around £40k per week but that being the case, who else (outside of the Premiership) could take on that liability ?

I don't know whether this opinion is clouded by the fact that Beckford doesn't run around enough but in terms of goal-scoring potential, he and Nugent remain our best chance.

If you are suggesting we rely on the likes of Waghorn, Schlupp or possibly Vardy to get the goals - welcome to another season of mid-table mediocrity.

Schlupp shows genuine promise but the others are un-proven and frankly not promising enough - you fill in the gaps.

Sometimes you have to be prepared to spend in the right areas. Generally, that means your forwards.

Prawn, I would hate to see beckford leave as he is the best goalscorer we have currently! I don't think he will leave due to money I have a feeling he doesn't want to play for us again and Pearson will ship him out!

Quite frankly I dont think we can afford the luxury of Beckford with FFP, and probably could find better value for money, but on the other hand no other club will take on his astronomical wages and he won't take a cut so we are stuck in limbo.

Waghorn is proven at this level... 13 goals in half a season under the manager we have in charge now

I wouldnt like to see Beckford leave but if he did, it would be good for the financial runnings of the club, and I dont believe he is an irreplaceable player of the team.

"... but the others are un-proven and frankly not promising enough - you fill in the gaps."

At the minute, I agree that Beckford and Nugent are possibly the best options with regard to goal scoring.

But with 9 goals in 39 league games (plus 0 in 10 at this level for Leeds) in comparison to Waghorn's 12 in 43 in 2009/10, Beckford is objectively no more proven at this level (Beckford 1 in 5.4 at this level, Waghorn 1 in 4.6; this is with out promoting the argument that far more games for Martyn were sub appearances and out of position)

Obviously we can all have our subjective opinions on which players 'may' or may not' have the most potential (i.e. Beckford has shown super finishing at a lower level. Or...Beckford is 29 this year; how long do you wait for his potential at higher levels of football), but if Nigel feels he can find a striker who can contribute as much as or more (in relation to goals and in other areas) than Beckford, for less than the huge amount of money he is probably on, one can't really blame him for looking at this option.

Perhaps opinions criticising Beckford are 'clouded' by an unfair comparison to Nugent's work rate, but perhaps his valuation to Leicester City is 'clouded' by his record at a lower level.

Although; there is nothing but rumours to suggest Beckford is going or wants to go, or indeed to imply Pearson wants him out or would be willing to sell him.

Re: Vardy. I would point out that Beckford signed for Leeds from a semi-professional team in a lower league than Fleetwood and his scoring record wasn't as good as Vardy's.

RE: Beckford, I think the choice is simple - him or Nugent. I don't think we can afford both, so I would say keep Nugent. I think Konchesky will be on his was; aging, expensive, decent season even if defensively caught-out often. A lower PL team would be interested, and decent left-backs do come around often (hence Pearson bidding for Ezek).

Konchesky is only 30, not particularly old for a defender and one of our best three players this year and definitely the most consistent through the season IMO.

I'm not sure about all these times he is apparently caught out, unless it refers to when he is overlapping and the left winger isn't dropping back?

Generally still astounded when I see (admittedly few and far between) comments about getting rid of Konchesky.

I'm not really sure good quality left back are ten a penny and don't know who Ezek is?? (unless it refers to Fryers, the 19 year old who has played around 70 minutes of league football)

You are being selective in your stat's KTF!

Beckford's league goals 98 in 185 games (including the Premiership)
Waghorn; 19 in 50.

So objectively, Beckford is a better bet than Waghorn.

Indeed they are selective. I selected the stats that were relevant for the point I was making.

Perhaps it came across as convoluted however. I'm not sure one can be objectively 'better' than the other if it's a gamble or projection, surely?

Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion and one could look at Beckford's ability at a lower level or the fact Waghorn scored more in a full season at this level at a much younger age, or the fact Waghorn had a better midfield behind him that Beckford, or that Beckford is perhaps less dynamic....

My own opinion isn't that Waghorn is 'better'.

But I was merely commenting on the point that if Waghorn is 'unproven' at this level, so is Beckford; objectively speaking.

I have no inclination to suggest we should get rid of Beckford because we have Waghorn, but I would also struggle to argue the point that with Vardy, Waghorn, Schlupp (and possibly Vassell) we would be definitely/likely to finish mid-table in comparison to a higher finish with Beckford instead of all/some of these.

But Beckford got 8 in 15 in the Premiership, which suggests he is also capable at the next level.

But we should just agree to disagree KTF. Lest we come across to our fellow 606's as a pair of grumpy old gits - which I would personally accept !

"But Beckford got 8 in 15 in the Premiership, which suggests he is also capable at the next level."

Wellll......(Sven?), 8 in 34 appearances in the Premiership, but 8 goals is still 8 goals at the top level, and it would be a factor that would slip in to my 3rd paragraph above about pro's and con's.

I do agree that 'potentially' Beckford has more chance of scoring more goals at this level than some of the others here, but objectively could Vassell, Schlupp and/or Waghorn equal or better his record this year of 9 in 39? I think it's probable any if not all could. But I also agree it's possible that Beckford could surpass their scoring rate in 2012/13, but will Pearson feel his wage (of probably 3/4 mill a year) is worth the fact he 'may'?. I probably would, at least until Jan, but it's certainly not a cut and dry argument.

But as you say, perhaps time to move on..!

Don't get me wrong. I don't think he is worth £40k pw - I don't think any player is at this level and these kind of wages are killing football. But on the basis that no-one else will pay him these amounts of money, surely we need to persist with (and not alienate) such a player?

I'm not suggesting for one minute that you fall into the anti-Beckford camp KTF. But my original point was to ask why so many appear keen to see the back of someone who has a decent pedigree.

I know the top-earners are an issue in terms of FFP, but getting rid of them at below market value would create an immediate loss on the books, which I am sure must effect the overall £6m target figure.

Personally (and I know I am in the minority) I want to see Beckford and Nugent together in a proper 4-4-2 next year, subject to the usual "toys out of pram" issues that may well occur betwixt manager and player !