Leicester City £100m action plan revealed in worst-case scenario

[Finnegan]

6 hours ago, Jordan said:

 

City didn’t get a punishment for one alleged breach that the EFL was investigating.

 

City and the EFL settled and agreed that City did not deliberately breach any rules and that City would pay the EFL £3.1m.

 

It might seem like semantics but this is a big distinction.

 

If we want to go all the way back to administration days then that’s such a different issue that it’s not even worth explaining.

 

As for Man City, they have been charged with 115 breaches over a multi year period. Everton have been charged with a major violation of FFP and while we are still light on the details, nobody has (or can) really conclusively explain where the over £300m loss has gone.

 

It’s also fair to note that these are different charges under a different league with different rules and different resolution processes than the EFL, and these cases could wind up in a much different outcome than City’s—namely, that Everton are found guilty and given a major sanction including a points deduction.

 

It would be a dereliction of duty for City’s board of directors, who are obligated to act in the best interests (including fiduciary interests) of the club, to not take action against Everton if Everton are found guilty and if there are legal recourses available to City to do so.

.

 

 

 

Don't let any of this get in the way of SemperEadem having generic moan about Top #58563747 this week. 

 

What a fvcking strange guy. 

 

[Wymsey]

Just now, Finnegan said:

 

Don't let any of this get in the way of SemperEadem having generic moan about Top #58563747 this week. 

 

What a fvcking strange guy. 

 

Did Top ban a planned tifo or something?..

[coolhandfox]

18 hours ago, MPH said:

 

well if we had been deducted 10 points for going into administration then that could have made a huge difference could it not have? For all intents and purposes it seems like we took a very easy route out of our issues by going into administration 

Impossible because that wasn't the rules then.

 

18 hours ago, MPH said:

plus in the 13-14 season we paid  millions in a settlement for breaching the FFP rules so you could argue , even if we operated within the rules for administration we certainly have no moral high ground to be critical of others. I mean, if we are talking about the letter of the law Man City have done nothing wrong as they were acquitted weren’t they?

Can't blame the current owner for something near on 20 years ago.

 

You must be talk about Man City with someone else as I haven't mentioned them.

Edited 30 October 2023 by coolhandfox

[MPH]

29 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Impossible because that wasn't the rules them.

 

Can't blame the current owner for something near on 20 years ago.

 

You must be talk about Man City with someone else as I haven't mentioned them.

I’m not blaming anyone. I’m simply talking about moral high ground. New owners or not, it was all done under the name of Leicester City. 

 

 

 

and just because you haven’t mentioned man city doesn’t mean I can’t?

Edited 29 October 2023 by MPH

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

Anyone who's looked into the tristellar deal knows that is dodgy as hell and we have no moral high ground to take here. Best not to deflect from the shambolic way the club was run last year and just be pleased they seem to have learnt some lessons.

[Jaspa]

Agree with Semper - leave it, it's a bad look. Their owner is off, their chairman is dearly departed. We weren't relegated because of them and as bent as their finances are, there's far worse in the Premier League.

 

If the crooks who ran them are gone, we shouldn't push Everton FC closer to liquidation for money. Historic football club with hundreds of thousands of supporters. I do however believe they deserve a relegation, might be good for them to be a big fish for a season or two.

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

Also Everton have spent barely anything for the last 3/4 years whereas villa, Newcastle, forest and many others have spent a small fortune. 

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

21 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

Didn't we get the appropriate punishment at the time? 

We agreed a payout with the efl, we were in the prem at the time so we did get away with it big time. 

[Daggers]

On 28/10/2023 at 14:39, MPH said:

 

I just don’t buy the blame game. We and we alone  are responsible for going down. We weren’t just bad we were truly awful and probably played the worst I have seen Leicester play in many  many years.  
 

we absolutely got what we deserved.

This. 
 

But we live in an age where fat people can sue McDonalds and idiot drivers can sue Ford. And Everton are *****, so **** them 😁

[coolhandfox]

2 hours ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

We agreed a payout with the efl, we were in the prem at the time so we did get away with it big time. 

EFL didn't have to agree on it, so there must have been an accord stuck. 

Edited 30 October 2023 by coolhandfox

[davieG]

‘https://therealefl.co.uk/2023/10/30/no-chance-pundit-slams-leicester-city-decision-following-ffp-breach-investigation/

 

No Chance’: Pundit Slams Leicester City Decision Following FFP Breach Investigation
October 30, 2023 Adam Scully Burnley, Championship News, Clubs, EFL, EFL Championship, Everton, Leeds United, Leicester City, News, Premier League 0
As featured on NewsNow: Football news
Football News 24/7 
TalkSPORT and former Crystal Palace chairman Simon Jordan has slated two Championship outfits following an investigation into Everton’s alleged breach of Financial Fair Play regulations.

As first reported by The Daily Mail, second-tier sides Leeds United and Leicester City will join Premier League club Burnley in taking legal action against the Toffees should the club be found guilty of exploiting FFP rules.

Clubs are only allowed to make a maximum of £105 million in losses over the course of three years but in March 2023, it was announced that Everton recorded losses of £371.8 million in that timescale.

The issue was referred to an independent commission but last week, the Premier League recommended that the Merseyside club should be hit with a 12-point deduction which would place them at the bottom of the top-flight table.

Furthermore, Leeds United, Burnley and Leicester City are looking to take a £300 million case against Everton should they be found guilty of breaching FFP as all three clubs were relegated during the Toffees’ supposed flaunting of UEFA’s rules.

However, speaking on talkSPORT on Monday morning, Simon Jordan has hit out against the three clubs, believing ‘they’ve got no chance’ of being successful in any lawsuit [quotes via MOT Leeds News]:

“No chance, no chance, no chance. They’ve got no chance. Everybody signs up to a covenant which is basically that the sanction of a breach has this consequence.

“Now they can make a case if they want and try and make a case through the legal system to try and suggest that this is a breach of the rules to which they signed up and the consequence of those rules. But any decent court case is going to refer them back to the industry that they came from and say what were the rules that you signed up to.

“The rules that you signed up to were that the punishment for financial breachers was this. You can’t then go and say ‘Well I don’t like the rules that I signed up to and I can’t do anything about changing those rules, so I’m now going to sue you for them.'”

Writer’s View

Jordan’s logic makes sense. All three clubs signed up to UEFA’s FFP covenant, stating that those who breach the rules will be punished by the governing body. Clubs can’t take matters into their own hands in this respect. If Everton were found not guilty, perhaps there could be a stronger case.

However, on the flip side, frustration from the trio is understandable. Everton lost three times more than they were allowed but managed to secure their status in the Premier League unpunished so far while the others were left to get relegated and deal with the financial windfall this brings.

[trooky]

12 points doesn't seem much for a £372 million dept.

 

Leeds were hit with a 25 point deduction in 2007, they had 10 points deducted in the championship when they went into voluntary administration and then hit with a further 15points at the start of the league 1 season.

 

I worked with a couple of Leeds fans and they're still really bitter about this punishment.

 

[The Doctor]

23 hours ago, MPH said:

 

you can dress it up how you like but if someone is acquitted of a crime they are still deemed ‘ not guilty’ so therefor ‘ they did nothing wrong’

 

 

even though we all know they did. What they did was morally wrong on all levels

You’ve really said nothing to  counter what I was saying.  
 

Also We know the rules  about the  10 point  deduction didn’t come in to place until after  our administration, but disagreeing with that part was never my argument and we can try and justify why did it but we really did take the east way out. We all know we did.

Just to establish then that the route that kept us from going under was "the easy way out" and leaves a black mark against us, so presumably you think we should have folded in 2003?

[MPH]

4 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Just to establish then that the route that kept us from going under was "the easy way out" and leaves a black mark against us, so presumably you think we should have folded in 2003?

 

no, that’s not what I said. There were less consequences for us to go into administration. . I think we went into administration only a couple of months after building our stadium and also without cutting into our playing budgets.  I’m sure we would have done things very differently had we had a consequence hanging over our head.-  perhaps either not benefiting of the long term financial benefits of having a new stadium or a cut in our playing budget as I’m very sure we  didn’t prepare for what could happen. far more sensible/ fair of our current owners to wait until we can afford the expansion, for example.. or maybe they are aware of the consequence of not doing so?

 

 

 

( we finished second that year and maybe the team finishing 3rd could have cause for complaints at missing out of the prem)

Edited 30 October 2023 by MPH

[orangecity23]

43 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

( we finished second that year and maybe the team finishing 3rd could have cause for complaints at missing out of the prem)

It was Neil Warnock's Sheffield United. He complained. A lot. Demanded a points deduction. We finished 12 points ahead of them - so a 10 point deduction would have done naff all. Also, bare in mind, we went into admin partly because ITV digital collapsed and the league lost its TV revenue - a bit unprecedented.

 

Fast forward many years. Neil Warniock is Crystal Palace manager. They went into admin. Warnock complained the 10 points deduction was "unfair".

[fuchsntf]

5 hours ago, trooky said:

12 points doesn't seem much for a £372 million dept.

 

Leeds were hit with a 25 point deduction in 2007, they had 10 points deducted in the championship when they went into voluntary administration and then hit with a further 15points at the start of the league 1 season.

 

I worked with a couple of Leeds fans and they're still really bitter about this punishment.

 

 

 

Yes.. IT does sort of stick in the throat, and One has sympathy for Leeds, no matter what our personal sporting thoughts to one & each other is.. 

[MPH]

42 minutes ago, orangecity23 said:

It was Neil Warnock's Sheffield United. He complained. A lot. Demanded a points deduction. We finished 12 points ahead of them - so a 10 point deduction would have done naff all. Also, bare in mind, we went into admin partly because ITV digital collapsed and the league lost its TV revenue - a bit unprecedented.

 

Fast forward many years. Neil Warniock is Crystal Palace manager. They went into admin. Warnock complained the 10 points deduction was "unfair".

 

I don’t think I just meant the 10 point deduction.. I mentioned about how the lack of a consequence   over the whole season may have effected our playing budget, possibly… and who knows how many points  difference that could have made? I think we knew exactly what we were doing and where it was all heading.

[The Doctor]

7 hours ago, MPH said:

 

no, that’s not what I said. There were less consequences for us to go into administration. . I think we went into administration only a couple of months after building our stadium and also without cutting into our playing budgets.  I’m sure we would have done things very differently had we had a consequence hanging over our head.-  perhaps either not benefiting of the long term financial benefits of having a new stadium or a cut in our playing budget as I’m very sure we  didn’t prepare for what could happen. far more sensible/ fair of our current owners to wait until we can afford the expansion, for example.. or maybe they are aware of the consequence of not doing so?

 

 

 

( we finished second that year and maybe the team finishing 3rd could have cause for complaints at missing out of the prem)

The stadium was built while we were in the premier league and was affordable, it would have remained serviceable on relegation had sky not engaged in underhand business practices to take down ITVDigital at the cost of all football league clubs. We were not able to sign any players that summer besides free transfers for summerbee and McKinley and everyone was up for sale, and went into administration after Eric Hall, wises scumbag lawyer, pushed a winding up petition against us after concluding his case. If you're saying we shouldn't have gone into administration the way we did, you're arguing either we should have sold the newly completed stadium and played on Viccy Park or that we should have accepted the winding up petition and gone out of business. Neither of which are particularly reasonable?

 

We didn't gleefully rack up debts we couldn't afford, we were hit by a perfect storm of relegation, a financial crisis for the entire football league pyramid and a scumbag lawyer and player, and despite that we finished 12 points clear of 3rd, so even if a points deduction was in place we'd still have been promoted. 

[MPH]

3 hours ago, The Doctor said:

The stadium was built while we were in the premier league and was affordable, it would have remained serviceable on relegation had sky not engaged in underhand business practices to take down ITVDigital at the cost of all football league clubs. We were not able to sign any players that summer besides free transfers for summerbee and McKinley and everyone was up for sale, and went into administration after Eric Hall, wises scumbag lawyer, pushed a winding up petition against us after concluding his case. If you're saying we shouldn't have gone into administration the way we did, you're arguing either we should have sold the newly completed stadium and played on Viccy Park or that we should have accepted the winding up petition and gone out of business. Neither of which are particularly reasonable?

 

We didn't gleefully rack up debts we couldn't afford, we were hit by a perfect storm of relegation, a financial crisis for the entire football league pyramid and a scumbag lawyer and player, and despite that we finished 12 points clear of 3rd, so even if a points deduction was in place we'd still have been promoted. 

 

if the sky digital was such a main issue then other clubs would have gone into administration too would they not? 
 

and you’ve already mentioned we would have finished 2nd  with the point’s deduction but I explained that had we budgeted better ( without the sky digital money like every other club managed to do) then we would have had a smaller playing budget ( spent ,was money) and probably wouldn’t have accumulated  as many points.

 

ijust don’t buy the argument we were the only team that season effected by the issues around - every other team managed to avoid administration that season except amazingly tea treat striving for the riches of the premier league. 
 

spend, get to the prem, go into administration, restructure debts and pay them with our prem money.

 

 

it’s pretty obvious that’s what our plan was.

[The Doctor]

2 hours ago, MPH said:

 

if the sky digital was such a main issue then other clubs would have gone into administration too would they not? 
 

and you’ve already mentioned we would have finished 2nd  with the point’s deduction but I explained that had we budgeted better ( without the sky digital money like every other club managed to do) then we would have had a smaller playing budget ( spent ,was money) and probably wouldn’t have accumulated  as many points.

 

ijust don’t buy the argument we were the only team that season effected by the issues around - every other team managed to avoid administration that season except amazingly tea treat striving for the riches of the premier league. 
 

spend, get to the prem, go into administration, restructure debts and pay them with our prem money.

 

 

it’s pretty obvious that’s what our plan was.

Because the other clubs weren't relegated from the premier league with a brand new stadium acting as millstone around their necks? We budgeted as a premier league club, commissioned and build the ground as a premier league club and got relegated just as it was completed 

[MPH]

8 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Because the other clubs weren't relegated from the premier league with a brand new stadium acting as millstone around their necks? We budgeted as a premier league club, commissioned and build the ground as a premier league club and got relegated just as it was completed 

 

 

so bad planning and badly run club then that didn't prepare for possible relegation?

[The Doctor]

4 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

so bad planning and badly run club then that didn't prepare for possible relegation?

Didn't prepare for both relegation and the collapse of a major TV deal occuring at exactly the same time, nor anticipated getting sued for sacking a player for committing GBH, then the players lawyer being the one who refused a repayment plan and pushed a winding up petition against the club, forcing it into administration. As I said earlier, it was a perfect storm of a situation. Like pointing at all the businesses that could have survived Brexit, or could have survived a pandemic, but couldn't survive both, and accusing them of being irresponsible.

[MPH]

2 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Didn't prepare for both relegation and the collapse of a major TV deal occuring at exactly the same time, nor anticipated getting sued for sacking a player for committing GBH, then the players lawyer being the one who refused a repayment plan and pushed a winding up petition against the club, forcing it into administration. As I said earlier, it was a perfect storm of a situation. Like pointing at all the businesses that could have survived Brexit, or could have survived a pandemic, but couldn't survive both, and accusing them of being irresponsible.

did the other relegated clubs go into administration?

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

On 29/10/2023 at 19:10, Finnegan said:

 

Don't let any of this get in the way of SemperEadem having generic moan about Top #58563747 this week. 

 

What a fvcking strange guy. 

 

Don't let any of this get in the way of Finnegan making a thread about him and having a completely unnecessary pop at someone #58563747 this week. 

[The Doctor]

12 minutes ago, MPH said:

did the other relegated clubs go into administration?

Did the other relegated clubs also get relegated just as they'd built a new stadium and then get sued by a former player for unfair dismissal?