Terraloon

Ok there are mumblings about PSR but the “ victory “ won over jurisdiction is going to come back and bite big time. I fully expect the excesses of the last half a dozen year or so will impact next season and that will be key because the 25/26 season will be the season with the biggest % of turnover coming from parachute payments. To a large degree it’s why the bottom 3 in the PL would normally become favourites to make up the promotion favourites. Next season will be the best chance to gain promotion but if the club are subject to sanctions and even possibly a transfer ban that will be catastrophic By my back of fag packet calculation around 10% of the likely income in 25/26 will be interest wages in 23/24 were circa £56 million and that need to be significantly reduced if transfer income can’t be generated in the next 10 or so weeks. There aren’t players of the quality of Maddison or Barnes who generated some £70 million following the previous relegation season nor can I see any player matching the KDH fee. That will be key. PSR will impact not just because there probably is going to be a points deduction handed down from the PL but the thing that keeps popping back in my mind is the claim ( which we are told is still subject to arbitration) by LCFC that the PL didn’t have jurisdiction in 22/23 which by default means that the EFL now once again have LC as a member and limitation to deal with isn’t ant issue that could mean a sanction incoming . Add to that the PL do now have a role to play come next Jan and I fully expect charges to be made and with that a points deduction. But the biggest issue is the EFLs almost draconian approach and whilst I haven’t kept an eye on any EFL rule tweaks I would be amazed if the challenge’s won by the club when last a member and requirements around budgets etc will now be closed .

I am in two minds when it comes to JV being at the club next season. Not that I think he should but more what are the clubs options? Like most I cant see much sense relying on a near 40 year old but I genuinely believe that the club has painted itself into a very small corner where options are becoming even more limited. Of course the 24/25 financial numbers aren’t yet complete but in a way those numbers, even though boosted by TV monies probably will mean there won’t be much income that will be available to sign near players . Funds from transfers out will be small indeed the acceleration of KDHs money into 23/24 to put a band aid on that set of accounts means that somehow before the end of the accounting year transfer income needs to be generated at best to stand still but who honestly has put themselves into the shop window? The point I am trying to make is that there simply won’t be much money available to get new players in and whilst there is no way that JV will be offered top money but even though his ability is declining at apace ( forgive the pun) who is available at the sort of money that LCFC will be offering? So my guess the ball will be every much in JV court.

On the basis that there were 27 goals and 23 assists ( 4 penalties ) that’s 50 goal involvements so JV has been involved in a 20% . Still not too shabby but the low number of goals scored distorts massively

Read elsewhere that the PL had amended the PSR rules and the report in the Mercury outlines the changes and impacts. https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-city-face-psr-headache-10111788 The only bit I think maybe questionable in the report is the comments re 22/23. Not that the PL are unable to pursue, although the PLs appeal may have something more to add on that, but what worries me is the EFL have remained strangely quiet on this. I simply don’t think we have heard the last of 22/23 excesses. The fact fact that 24/25 will now fall under the jurisdiction of the PL which will as a ( even when relegated) mean the 3 year numbers include 22/23, 23/24 & 24/5 but for me an unknown if LCFC argument re 22/23 was that they were not a Pl club by default does that means that the EFL rules were applicable in other words the PL allowance of £35 million isn’t appropriate.?

Maresca himself made comment after the Bournemouth game as to where Leicester were against a Bournemouth team who had been significantly rotated and indeed had 20+ shots in the game. Had it been a league game the result wouldn’t have been a LFCFC victory as it was only won in extra time Irrespective and I can’t remember your comments re Maresca the overwhelming majority were glad to see him gone.

I just find this type of comment incredible. Just about every poster detested the style under Maresca I can’t recall reading any poster wanting the style to continue into 24/25. Ironically had the club wanted that style to continue then recruitment of a HC wedded to the same style would have been the option. Of course the players loved playing under Meresca they were winning and gained promotion but how would they have been if that style had been used this season but relegation and season long struggles were how it panned out ?

Enzo left first all intents days after the end of the 23/24 season. Most on here couldn’t wait to see the back of him so it’s total hypocrisy for the majority to point the finger now. Most clubs that loose the services of their manager are in a position to appoint another within days . Some of those appointments inevitably fail others don’t. Sometimes their predecessor had simply lost the plot others it’s because they aren’t up to it but when you drill down it’s more often than not the resources ( players ) simply aren’t up to standard and that’s the real issue at LCFC in season 24/25. When it comes to KDH he was leaving partly down to his ambition but it mainly revolves around the balance sheet . He in all probability would have been a starter had he stayed but from everything I have seen he is at best a lower PL team player at best.Would he have made a difference? Who knows Irrespective if he hadn’t been sold what would have been the consequences? Relegation is all but confirmed. With that relegation will come problems that weren’t there two seasons ago. The blame isn’t Chelsea’s the blame lies with LCFC hierarchy and as I said in another thread decisions made in seasons past will come back to haunt. When many were dancing a hop and a skip when the club avoided scrutiny I was concerned that those “victories” would ultimately be a negative. I did and still believe that it would have been better to face up to the excesses and take the medicine at the time . Now there will be no mitigation and if the EFL does indeed have jurisdiction or a PL sanction follows LCFC then promotion is going to be a huge challenge to say the least.

Or £200 in total over 3 with a max allowable of £80ish million

Sorry but I think you are way off. A lot depends on which league ends up with responsibility ( jurisdiction). I am far from sure which will be worse the EFL or the PL or the nightmare scenario where it’s a combination of both One way or the other the 20/21; 21/22; and 22/23 years will be looked at.If it’s the PL then 21/22; 22/23 and 23/24 will be assessed on top. If it’s the EFL at least you can’t be done in the same way but the EFL are far more proactive when it comes to what will be T25/26 I can’t see anyway this is going to end well at all.

It wasn’t better though Absolutely no real threat going forward . You can’t go into games hoping that you will get that “ luck” if you show no ambition Chelsea are managing the games up to the International Break” it should have been an opportunity to at least go for it but what we saw was a team that were looking to capitalise on a mistake rather than forcing one Pathetic

That’s not correct. The PL do “ charge” if that’s what you want to call it and then a IC is appointed by a chap called Murray Rosen KC who is independent of the PL structure. The IC is made of 3 qualified individuals from the pool that Rosen has available they certainly aren’t all solicitors . That IC will weigh up the evidence and make a ruling Appeals for all intents and purposes another IC who will look at the first ICs assessment and ruling .

That is my guess as well. There’s no doubt that for the 23/24 trading year (T) that there will indeed be a full £35 million allowance likewise T-2 will be deemed to be a full £35 but it’s that T-1 year is the issue .

https://jobsinfootball.com/blog/premier-league-parachute-payments/ you certainly do watch the video entitled the harsh reality’s of relegation

Just a thought if the accepted argument was / is that LCFC wasn’t within the PLs jurisdiction for 22/23 will the PL be arguing that the allowable deductions and indeed the £35 million allowable excess isn’t relevant more that the allowable have to be in accord with the EFL rule book.Will City have won a battle but will that victory come back and bite on the bum ? Surely it can’t be argued that LCFC weren’t affiliated to any league . Or can it ? Just another point is that the parachute payment in 23/24 will have been circa £40 /£45 million which is around £65-70 million short of the sum received in the 22/23 season https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-citys-111m-boost-parachute-8481558 By my back of a fag packet calculation even if the allowable sum is £105 million(3x£35 million) and say deductibles amount to say £ 20 million Pa making £165 million going into the 23/24 season for PSR calculations there was circa £15-£20 million to make up so even a£1 loss would see a breech

Not quite sure where you have watched your football but had that been a Leicester break the vast majority would be spitting feathers and righty so. Again not sure what game you were watching but Chelsea were in total and utter cruise control save a few isolated incidents Leicester offered little to nothing going forward if you couldn’t see that the chasim in class and the fact that Chelsea simply didn’t need to play with any greater intensity then you clearly have fallen into the same trap as Cooper who is in complete denial

Sorry but you simply haven’t watched the same game. Chelsea were a country mile better they didn’t need to break into a sweat . The players were screaming for a red which wasn’t given but most referees would have given. The second goal came about because Chelsea just move the ball with so much ease the player being down is not even secondary it clearly wasn’t a serious injury so why should the ref stop play?

Before this one issue is finally resolved there will be four stages and this is the first. An appeal will probably be frivolous and the actual question re the PSR breaches will almost certainly be proven and so to an appeal which again will probably just be a delaying tactic. For me the written reasons produced by the IC didn’t seem that complementary in terms of assessing the case put forward by City it will be difficult to argue that there has been expected co operation and that in itself will compound the matter.

It is indeed but I can only think that a decision was taken at the point of the IC being set up that Sheffield Utd were going to be relegated in effect meaning that had the PL taken over then any points deduction would be rendered meaningless. Indeed Sheffield’s main case at the IC was all about which league had jurisdiction an argument they didn’t win You have to remember that the PL already have charged city with two things Exceeding PSR limits and non submission of accounts those charges will almost certainly be proven as matter of fact. You then have the likely ( not guaranteed) EFL charge which by the sounds of it will depend on what happens over the next two days and that investigation will almost certainly be under PL jurisdiction. I keep making the point that all City did when it challenged the EFL initially re the requirement to submit a business plan by 31/12 was kick the can down the road and yes had it submitted one then in all likelihood the transfer embargo would have been in place in January but as we know now no players were bought in in the January window. Come 31/3/24 that illusive business plan was submitted and yes there was confirmation through arbitration that a sanction handed down by a PL points deduction couldn’t be imposed by the EFL but that realistically could have been settled without referral to a panel that action by City was criticised by the arbiters. In any sort of relationship in football you have to build up goodwill. Of course you don’t let yourself get walked over but City were always going to have to submit accounts so why make a song and dance about not copying in the PL. Had the PL got then on time there was no way that they could be charged under the enhanced 2023 rules so it really was no more than a pyrrhic victory.

I suspect it hasn’t Almost certainly it would take that sort of majority to get the rule changed but that I very much doubt is going to happen . As for a vote to stop it happening again I very much doubt that will happen.

In accord with EFL rules by 31/3 each season clubs have to submit their calculations for T-1, T-2 based on the figures already submitted in 23/24 that mean T-1 was 22/23 & T-2 was 21/22 but they also have to provide in year numbers for T which was 23/24. Based on the numbers submitted the EFL and no doubt City were estimating that there was going to be a breech in 23/24 in effect the process re T was commenced and as we know as a consequence of that a transfer embargo was put in place

Take a look at page 142 https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2024/03/04/0910e1b3-f94a-41a5-9818-6e1b5c961a9a/PL_Handbook_2023-24_DIGITAL_26.02.24-v3.pdf E77&E78 The problem for the PL was at the time (6/6/23) when City ceased to be a PL club there wasn’t any outstanding charge or investigation outstanding. That meant that within the PL rules there was no way that the matter could follow city into the EFL. So fast forward 12 months and their is an investigation matter outstanding against City under EFL jurisdiction so in accord with the PLs rules tat investigation can be now be taken over by the PL.

The change of rules re away teams getting a share of the gate receipts happened in 1983 some 9 years before the formation of the PL

But all that has done is delay matters.

Missed the for Chelsea bit whoops

I thought that and to be honest had Sterling been close to clinical it would have been done and dusted by half time