urban.spaceman

Completely and totally agree. Recruitment over the last 6 years - especially since Rodgers arrived with Congleton - has been mostly appalling. Even the signings that were a success for a while became a millstone around our neck because of the absurd wages. But again, that is what it took to compete at the time, and was a successful strategy under the previous rules. What’s happened in the last 3 years is a combination of two major factors. 1. Terrible recruitment in terms of players and their contracts (wages/length), both in successful times pre-COVID and awful times afterwards and 2. Appallingly written rule changes that made our previously successful strategy our biggest weakness; by a demonstrably corrupt league that not only doesn’t hold other clubs to the same standard, that STILL hasn’t punished the Super League clubs for a far, far greater crime, that has repeatedly broken their own rules while failing abjectly to prove we broke any of theirs. Everyone on here is rightly angry about the former. So am I. But it baffles me that people seem so reticent about the latter. For me it’s the biggest cause of where we are now and it’s not even close. People should be ****ing incandescent about it.

Has anyone here watched The Pitt?

You’re in for a ****ing treat.

Art of the Deal bro

“You’re not taking the horse in the lift are ye?” ”Course I am ya eejit. The stairs would ****ing kill him”

Don’t tempt me Frodo.

Apparently we can’t sack him because of PSR so would have to wait until July 1st. Presumably they’ll announce it at the Open Top Bus parade to celebrate Ward’s contract renewal.

Found some: From September: The Premier League first referred the Club to an independent Commission in March 2024 for an alleged PSR breach relating to the assessment period ending 30 June 2023. The Commission dismissed the Club’s initial challenge to its jurisdiction to hear the case, but the Club’s challenge has now been upheld by an independent Appeal Board, which reversed the Commission’s finding. The full decision has been published at . Leicester City welcomes the Appeal Board’s comprehensive decision, which supports our consistently stated position that any action against the Club should be pursued in accordance with the applicable rules. To avoid any misunderstandings which may arise in light of the statement which has been issued by the Premier League in response to the appeal decision, Leicester City wishes to emphasise the finding of the Appeal Panel that, when considering the wording which is actually used in the Premier League rules (in accordance with established principles of English law) the Club did not breach the Premier League PSRs for the assessment period ending 30 June 2023. In its decision, the Appeal Board (which was made of up a panel of three experienced, senior lawyers, two of whom are former Court of Appeal judges) identifies flaws in the drafting of the Premier League’s rules. In challenging the Premier League’s attempts to charge Leicester City, the Club has simply sought to ensure (in the interests of providing consistency and certainty for all clubs) that the rules are applied based on how they are actually written. And last March: LCFC today releases the following statement. LCFC notes the publication today of the decision of the League Arbitration Panel (LAP). As the LAP decision records, the EFL wrote to the Premier League on 20 March 2024 (the day before the PL brought its PSR complaint against LCFC), stating that the EFL would ensure that any sanction imposed by a Premier League Disciplinary Commission against LCFC would take effect while LCFC was in the Championship, whilst also noting that any points deduction sought by the Premier League would need to be applied before 4 May 2024. However, after the Club challenged the EFL’s intention to act outside of its rules, the EFL subsequently unconditionally accepted that it does not in fact have any power, from any source, to impose a points deduction in the EFL which has been ordered by a Premier League Disciplinary Commission in relation to PSR. LCFC continues to try and co-operate constructively with both the Premier League and the EFL to reach a lawful resolution of any issues relating to PSR, in accordance with our consistent commitment that any charges against the Club should be properly and proportionately determined, in accordance with the applicable rules, by the right bodies, and at the right time. And the day before: Leicester City is surprised at the actions the Premier League has taken today. The Club is extremely disappointed that the Premier League has chosen to charge LCFC now, despite the Club’s efforts to engage constructively with the Premier League in relation to the matters that are the subject of this charge, even though LCFC is not currently a Premier League club. LCFC remains willing and eager to engage constructively with the Premier League and the EFL to seek the proper resolution of any potential charges, by the right bodies, and at the right time. The Club continues to take careful advice about its position and, if necessary, will continue to defend itself from any unlawful acts by the football authorities, should they seek to exercise jurisdiction where they cannot do so, as occurred earlier this year. LCFC has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to the P&S rules through its operating model over a considerable period, achieving compliance while pursuing sporting ambitions that are entirely credible given the consistent success that the Club has achieved in that time, both domestically and in European competition. As we continue to represent the Club’s position, we will continue to fight for the right of all clubs to pursue their ambitions, particularly where these have been reasonably and fairly established through sustained sporting achievement. The Club thanks its supporters for their understanding in this matter and for their continued support for our team, whose success on the pitch during the final weeks of the season remains our primary focus. ——————— Expressed in a club statement in legal speak but still, they were calling out both leagues about their fairness of their competition and the implementation of the rules AND were proven right at every time.

Our revenue was down because of COVID (which happened to everyone else) and our failure to qualify for the Champions League. Before the rule change, it wouldn’t have mattered, No. Not only am I saying that the rules are unfair on EVERY non “big six” club, others are saying it too. The PREMIER LEAGUE themselves admitted their rules were poorly written. Both the Premier League and the EFL REPEATEDLY broke their own rules in pursuing us while failing pretty publicly to prove that we’d broken any of theirs. We’re talking about a league that stated in the last legal case we won against them that clubs should be held accountable as close to the season the alleged breaches occurred in as possible. The same league that took 10 years to even START investigating Manchester City, 5 years before finally bringing charges, and 2 years after that still haven’t concluded proceedings. Failures over a decade and a half that have had a direct impact on us. The same league that gives PSR advantages and allowances to Manchester United and Chelsea that aren’t privy to anyone else then try to claim with a straight face that Leicester tried to gain an unfair advantage in a season in which they were relegated. The rules are explicitly unfair and have been for decades, and no other club has been restricted in by them as much as us. No. It’s not. See above. That’s what it took to be ambitious and challenge at the top of the table at the time and which proved to be successful until the rules were tightened. I agree. Partly. Everything to do with rules that some clubs have to follow being implemented in different ways to different clubs. I have not said that. The following was in a club statement in March 2024 after we won one of the panels against the EFL. “We reaffirm the Club’s position that we will continue to fight for the right of Leicester City and all clubs to pursue their ambitions, particularly where these have been reasonably and fairly established through sustained sporting achievement.” That’s pretty much my belief. PSR, they claimed, is designed to prevent irresponsible owners loading clubs with debt then leaving them. We have a clear history of sustained sporting achievement under an ownership with a proven track record of investment in the club, its infrastructure and the community. If a club not only can’t progress after fairly winning the league, an FA Cup, challenging in Europe AND building a world class training facility at the same time, because of rules “designed” to prevent clubs going under from owners that do the opposite, then there’s something wrong with those rules. I agree that he’s on an outrageous amount. I’ve said repeatedly the club have made appalling signings and wage decisions. All I’ve ever wanted is the right to fair competition. We have not had that.

I’m off down the bookies.

Completely agree. Rudkin and Whelan still being in their posts is utterly reprehensible. PSR destroyed us, they failed to deal with it and have been chasing their tails ever since. Unfortunately there is a complete lack of awareness or even reticence to this fact. Nobody cares if it’s not happening to their club, What should be happening, if there’s going to be any change in the sport, is people like @Foxes_Trust and national fan groups campaigning on and spreading awareness of the broadcasting landscape; how it is ripping off consumers by forcing them to subscribe to three separate broadcasters, making us pay three times the amount our peers abroad do for access to only 52% of the product. It’s literally what upholds the current system - and possibly breaks competition law. Remove the “my club” tribal aspect and inform people about the this absurd extortion.

There’s still 5 years of the 20s left - there’s still time for them to do it again

We’d spent money - within the rules - to reach the Champions League. When the rules changed and the financial equation shifted - at the same time as a global pandemic and our failure to reach the Champions League - our revenue plummeted, which wouldn’t have mattered under the previous rules. This whole hot mess is the perfect storm of specific and unique circumstances happening at the same time. It could ONLY happen to us.

It wasn’t irresponsible at the time. It was a strategy under a particular set of rules that had proven to be successful. Agreed Haven’t said that. Or that. Again, before the rules changed NONE of the other clubs in the Premier League had been competing with the top 6. Under Puel we’d been spending money well within our means to compete with the biggest clubs and we achieved that. None of the clubs anyone’s mentioned have had any trouble with PSR because they had been happy to just be in the league and stay comfortable. As I said before. The club are culpable for a hell of a lot of things and should be held accountable. But you absolutely cannot have an honest discussion about the situation without considering the entire facts.

How many times do I have to say the club’s decision making on signings and contracts has been utterly appalling? Exclusively blaming the club and refusing to acknowledge the actual cause of our demise ironically lets the Premier League off the hook. You can’t have an honest discussion about the club’s culpability without looking at the actual circumstances.

We’ve won more trophies in the last 9 years than they have in the last quarter of a century. Their last league title was closer to the reign of QUEEN VICTORIA than it is to present day. We will literally win another major trophy again before Tottenham.

Can we please have one about the Premier League and PSR?

None of those clubs had been spending any where near the amount of money we were (within the rules) to challenge at the top of the league at the time the rules changed. That’s why they’re always compliant.

The decision making 4-5 years ago was within the confines of entirely different rules. When the PSR threshold tightened in 2020/21/22 we’d been spending money within a system - that had already restricted our earnings and spending power - that we’d developed a strategy to develop and grow. And it was working. Top 3 for most of 2 seasons, League Cup semi finalists, FA Cup winners, Europa Conference League semi finalists. We’d achieved success and were growing, so had been spending - albeit poorly - within that framework. Before the rules changed, we’d already “broken” them. (Turns out, we didn’t) The squad we’d built to break into the top 5, win trophies and compete in the top end of Europe, became a millstone around our neck because not only couldn’t we sell them to any other clubs - who now couldn’t spend as much money either - we also couldn’t replace any of them like-for-like. These are the same rules that the Premier League and EFL are both on record as stating they’re poorly written. BOTH leagues have explicitly and repeatedly broken their OWN RULES while at the same time failing to prove we’ve broken any of theirs. Blame the club all you want - they (especially Rudkin) have a LOT to answer for. But I’m sick of people pretending that we’re not dealing with hostile, incompetent and clearly corrupt leagues.

I refute that. I absolutely agree. But nobody cares about the unfairness until it happens to their club. The amount of ignorance about our case - even going back to administration 20 ****ing years ago - is unbelievable

“Club owned by a multi billionaire with demonstrable record of investment can’t afford to sack failing manager” What truly ****ing absurd times we live in.

Guarantee you Rudkin gives him a new contract.

I can’t remember which one specifically but the club stated consternation at the Premier League’s rules and the state of competition in a statement after we won one of the panels. I’ll look for it later. But I desperately want the club to kick up a fuss about it. Sue the *****.

Also, our win against the Premier League in September was pretty hilarious at the time. They admitted they were incompetent and proved they were corrupt at the same time. Cvnts.