Mr Popodopolous Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March (edited) 19 minutes ago, kenny said: I am convinced that we know that we are selling KDH before the June deadline to comply with PSR. We are also waiting on a tribunal for Nyoni which could be in the order of £7-10m including add-ons. I think we didn't want to submit a business plan as the club don't want the fans to know and are concerned that it will devalue KDH as we are low-balled. Its an odd rule that you are sanctioned before the offence has been committed but I suppose it stops clubs continuing to spend if they are already looking suspect. The Business Plan is an interesting element that the media haven't discussed by drawing on past cases enough. The PL appear to have no equivalent fwiw. Birmingham In 2017-18, Birmingham failed the 3 Years ending that year. As well as Points they were under a Business Plan. They got 7 pts for the overspend, 3 more for rising losses and 1 back for cooperation. (£9.5m over the £39m or something). The Business Plan was designed to keep them compliant in 2018-19 and 2019-20. Where the EFL went wrong was to not seek to attach some automatic deduction to it and to stipulate how Compliance should be achieved in a more Binding manner. Birmingham were agitating to get their full Embargo lifted to a softish one after FFP failed and adding Pedersen for a fee when under a Soft Embargo so the EFL arguably had more leverage in Summer 2018. Anyway they were charged with breaching this too some time between Summer 2019 and January 2020 by not selling Che Adams in particular in January 2019 and achieving compliance in late May by selling and leasing back St Andrews. EFL lost their case but Appealed and won! No Sanction was handed down but crucially they won the debate of Binding Commitment vs Best Endeavours in Summer 2020. Reading Much like Birmingham they failed but ran aground massively. £18-19m over £39m limits aka 12 point deduction territory. Like Birmingham they were Embargoed and latterly allowed to add players in very strict terms (6 signings max, No Fees, No Loan Fees, individual wages not exceeding £8.5k per week etc). There was an Agreed Decision whereby Reading got an immediate -6 and had targets to adhere to until end of June 2023 and a Suspended -6 which kicks in at the first sign of fail if either Upper Loss Limits of the Business Plan. It was that or the EFL would have pushed for -12 instantly at a Hearing. This Agreed Decision remained in play until June 2023 and Reading had to cut wage by and to £x, likewise with Amortisation and raise £x in Player Sale Profits. Had to do so in particular by January 2023. Failure to do sees RPTs and Player Sale Profits post March 1st removed from Business Plan and -6 kicks in automatically. However suspended deduction kicking in doesn't water down or remove obligation to comply with FFP for Year ending 2022-23 either ie that in itself can incur Sanctions. Edited 25 March by Mr Popodopolous 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March 1 minute ago, Ric Flair said: You may well be right given our standing in the game at the time a lot of these contracts were signed but if it were the case then surely we'd have pushed harder to get more players out the door last summer. The part that doesn't surprise me is us not planning on selling Fofana (which if we didn't would have led to a monumental PSR breach) and offering Jack Harrison £100k a week and Leeds £20m for him despite all the known issues that were to come. Are you sure it's cash in the bank because that wouldn't be paid up front anyway. Most accounts aren't done on a cash basis but transactional unless a very small company. It’s not cash in the bank but if the deal is signed and done pre 30/6 then the total income less amounts owed can be included in the positive column presumably there are questions as to whether despite the deal being agreed, was it signed by all parties in time. My guess is that if it was agreed in time then a commission would accept that as mitigation ref the size of the breach. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March (edited) The other bit about Business Plans is that the EFL can now, for their own clubs mainly, seek to.pre-empt breaches before they happen. In effect the idea is to prevent Breaches before they can occur with agreed Spending Plans etc. Up to 2 years in advance. More restrictive Powers available if clubs don't play ball. FFI exists at both levels but the PL are probably lighter touch with it. Edited 25 March by Mr Popodopolous 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ric Flair Posted 25 March Popular Post Share Posted 25 March It's abundantly clear if we fail to get promoted this season then we will be an EFL horror story for years to come. If we do come up, I can't help but feel we'd be best pushed to sell/pay off every single player who is on a salary north of £30k a week and then make EFL type signings as if we were a plucky new Championship side ala Ipswich and then likely go straight back down but with parachute payments secured to protect our future and with points deductions likely for the foreseeable it wouldn't matter if we didn't come back up immediately. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March 1 hour ago, st albans fox said: Just listened to Maguire’s podcast and he has us completely the wrong way around ffp - we didn’t vote for it (he agrees that we did) international re distribution of monies to rich six - we did vote for it (he states this is what’s changed since ffp was voted for) There have been numerous iterations of FFP, voted on. We certainly didn't vote on it originally, but since in the premier league I'm not sure, I'm presume we have. But that's a red herring, as to play in Europe; we need to follow their FFP, which always gets adapted to some level in the premier league. So it's like putting a gun to their head and then handing them the voting slip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambert09 Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March 2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: It's abundantly clear if we fail to get promoted this season then we will be an EFL horror story for years to come. If we do come up, I can't help but feel we'd be best pushed to sell/pay off every single player who is on a salary north of £30k a week and then make EFL type signings as if we were a plucky new Championship side ala Ipswich and then likely go straight back down but with parachute payments secured to protect our future and with points deductions likely for the foreseeable it wouldn't matter if we didn't come back up immediately. I think we’d have to play the loan market the old fashion way. Not the loan to buy, just purely we know, they know, it’s just a season. We’ve avoided it for good reason in recent times but it’s the only way to really protect ourselves. Omari Hutchinson looks to be ready for the prem, players like that on a pure loan would make a lot of sense. Only issue is that so many clubs will be pressured to selling those type of players now to meet their own ffp issues. it’s a vicious cycle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcfc_forever Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March 51 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: You may well be right given our standing in the game at the time a lot of these contracts were signed but if it were the case then surely we'd have pushed harder to get more players out the door last summer. The part that doesn't surprise me is us not planning on selling Fofana (which if we didn't would have led to a monumental PSR breach) and offering Jack Harrison £100k a week and Leeds £20m for him despite all the known issues that were to come. Are you sure it's cash in the bank because that wouldn't be paid up front anyway. Most accounts aren't done on a cash basis but transactional unless a very small company. So much doesn't make sense. Why go for a manager like Maresca which was somewhat a risk when he hasn't got a proven track record (not that I'm not supportive of him, I'm a big fan of what he's done so far) when promotion was so important ahead of a proven manager like Farke, Parker etc that have got form for promotion? I even remember hearing or seeing somewhere that they chose him so he could build the club and the style, and promotion wasn't essential. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March Just now, Lambert09 said: I think we’d have to play the loan market the old fashion way. Not the loan to buy, just purely we know, they know, it’s just a season. We’ve avoided it for good reason in recent times but it’s the only way to really protect ourselves. Omari Hutchinson looks to be ready for the prem, players like that on a pure loan would make a lot of sense. Only issue is that so many clubs will be pressured to selling those type of players now to meet their own ffp issues. it’s a vicious cycle They're the sorts of signings that shouldn't command more than £30-40k a week off the bat as well if they were permanent signings. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambert09 Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March 1 hour ago, kenny said: I am convinced that we know that we are selling KDH before the June deadline to comply with PSR. We are also waiting on a tribunal for Nyoni which could be in the order of £7-10m including add-ons. I think we didn't want to submit a business plan as the club don't want the fans to know and are concerned that it will devalue KDH as we are low-balled. Its an odd rule that you are sanctioned before the offence has been committed but I suppose it stops clubs continuing to spend if they are already looking suspect. i like the optimism but we’d be lucky to get 2-3m for nyoni. 6m is the current highest ever receieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenny Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March Ipswich have published their FFP calculation which is summarised as above. It would be good if all clubs were forced to publish theirs. As I said earlier in the thread, the numbers they are declaring for Youth Development and Womens football are very small but our claims will be very big. I reckon we will be 'adding back' much higher sums to reflect the overheads on Seagrave and Belvoir drive. We now have a WSL side that is full of internationals so I suspect the wage bill for this will be at least £1m PA as well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UniFox21 Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March This is an interesting read, more things that I imagine will disappear 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramadaone Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March 38 minutes ago, Lambert09 said: i like the optimism but we’d be lucky to get 2-3m for nyoni. 6m is the current highest ever receieved. We will get way more than £2M for sure and probably break the £6M barrier but that could be tied up in all sorts of add on's so no idea how that works with FFP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March (edited) 43 minutes ago, kenny said: Ipswich have published their FFP calculation which is summarised as above. It would be good if all clubs were forced to publish theirs. As I said earlier in the thread, the numbers they are declaring for Youth Development and Womens football are very small but our claims will be very big. I reckon we will be 'adding back' much higher sums to reflect the overheads on Seagrave and Belvoir drive. We now have a WSL side that is full of internationals so I suspect the wage bill for this will be at least £1m PA as well. I reckon for Leicester it is probably around £25m per annum in FFP Allowables. Swiss Ramble said between £15-20m. Like you I applaud the transparency of Ipswich. Clubs should have to publish, but clubs vote on the Rules as of now and most wouldn't concur I expect. Edited 25 March by Mr Popodopolous 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March (edited) 10 minutes ago, ramadaone said: We will get way more than £2M for sure and probably break the £6M barrier but that could be tied up in all sorts of add on's so no idea how that works with FFP Add-ons accrue as they arise, become due and not before. Base fee would hit the P&L straight away, add-ons as and when they are hit. Edited 25 March by Mr Popodopolous 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March (edited) 35 minutes ago, UniFox21 said: This is an interesting read, more things that I imagine will disappear Ah interesting segue on all that. When Reading were under their Restrictive FFP Embargo in 2021-22 and 2022-23 they made some notable signings in that context. Rahman- £50k per week, Drinkwater- £120k per week. Season loan each. Their cap without loan fees was £8.5k per week, at most they paid 10% collectively for the pair. Kieran Maguire said Chelsea covered all the wages for at least one. Marina Granovskaia > Kia Joobrachian < Dai Yongge. Essentially he was a mutual friend or Business client Idk of the 2. Same connection got Rahman (again) season long loan and potentially Casadei half-season. Under that tough Embargo. Dai Yongge is Chinese, Abramovich is Russian. You just wonder. Edited 25 March by Mr Popodopolous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramadaone Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March 6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Add-ons accrue as they arise, become due and not before. Base fee would hit the P&L straight away, add-ons as and when they are hit. Bearing in mind we have upset just about every footballing authority in England the Tribunial will probably be held when it least suits LCFC although will £6M really make much difference which ever year it is allocated in ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March 5 minutes ago, ramadaone said: Bearing in mind we have upset just about every footballing authority in England the Tribunial will probably be held when it least suits LCFC although will £6M really make much difference which ever year it is allocated in ? Could do, depends on the size of the Forecast Overspend. It all helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 25 March Author Share Posted 25 March Just listened to the Kevin Day/Kiaran Maguire podcast. They both seemed slightly taken aback by the aggressively defiant stance the club took in the press releases last week. They also highlighted the fact that we've said we'd like to have everything out in public but have been effectively gagged by the process. They interpreted this as the club wanting the PL/EFL to 'show their working' because it disputes their conclusions and wants to let the fans know what's going on. Is there any possibility that the club's aggressive stance is because we genuinely think the PL/FPL have got it wrong? Or do we know we're bang to rights and are just doing everything we can to avoid being punished this season? I assume we're being guided in our approach by Nick De Marco, who is very experienced in these matters. I just find it interesting that we've gone down the 'Ok then, let's have a scrap' route rather than Forest's 'Will you please reduce the punishment if we agree to co-operate?' route... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxin_Mad Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March I hope the club **** these corrupt shit heads up big style, absolutely sick of their big six jizzfest. Several of the big six are loaded up with more debt than we have ever had in a lifetime (this is sustainable) yet we are expected to sell our best players to them at costs they determine to meet 'the' 'rules' Get to ****! Hope we rip them a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAULCFC Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March Just a gut feeling,but i think we are bang to rights and all the squirming we are trying to do will just make it worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxin_Mad Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March 2 minutes ago, PAULCFC said: Just a gut feeling,but i think we are bang to rights and all the squirming we are trying to do will just make it worse. Sureley though unless you were incredibly stupid (which is possible), if you genuinely thought you had broken the rules, you would bend over and take it good and proper like Forest?? I think theres more too it. I hope theres some independant body out there and they turn this corrupt bag of shit upside down and shake out all the massive turds! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March 16 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said: Just listened to the Kevin Day/Kiaran Maguire podcast. They both seemed slightly taken aback by the aggressively defiant stance the club took in the press releases last week. They also highlighted the fact that we've said we'd like to have everything out in public but have been effectively gagged by the process. They interpreted this as the club wanting the PL/EFL to 'show their working' because it disputes their conclusions and wants to let the fans know what's going on. Is there any possibility that the club's aggressive stance is because we genuinely think the PL/FPL have got it wrong? Or do we know we're bang to rights and are just doing everything we can to avoid being punished this season? I assume we're being guided in our approach by Nick De Marco, who is very experienced in these matters. I just find it interesting that we've gone down the 'Ok then, let's have a scrap' route rather than Forest's 'Will you please reduce the punishment if we agree to co-operate?' route... By way of example, the working of the Club may show methods that are non-permissible by the Rules which are clear. I dunno selling a Training Ground as I mentioned before...Profit doesn't count towards the Calculations at EFL level and that is crystal clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 25 March Author Share Posted 25 March 1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said: By way of example, the working of the Club may show methods that are non-permissible by the Rules which are clear. I dunno selling a Training Ground as I mentioned before...Profit doesn't count towards the Calculations at EFL level and that is crystal clear. Thanks. Is there any evidence that the club has tried to include the sale of a fixed asset in its PSR calculation, or is that just an example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March Just now, ClaphamFox said: Thanks. Is there any evidence that the club has tried to include the sale of a fixed asset in its PSR calculation, or is that just an example? Just an example. Just trying to think of what Leicester's angle could be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 25 March Share Posted 25 March I’ve heard that we’re getting though this with a sale of our future media rights to the planet zog from 2035-2045 via a company up north called interstellar …… Sounds a bit dodgy but apparently rudders is working off something that he arranged a decade ago …. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts