Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[PAULCFC]

5 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

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! 

Calling me stupid 🤪 Just like you I hope we are right about this whole shitstorm....but do you trust the current regime. 

[Guesty]

15 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...

 

 

 

 

Don't know. But Everton appealed and said no punishment should be worst than -9 (which is administration) and the appeal board agreed and reduced their suspension. Forest still got hit with -6 (reduced to 4) and I thought they had quite a good point/mitigation as to why they waited to sell Johnson. 

 

I could see more clubs going down this route. If it's only an extra 2/3 points fine. I mean Nick De Marco was Forest's lawyer so he's been through it with them. Whatever happened there looks like he's advised us to go down this route.

 

It's quite clear when they originally gave Everton -10 they hadn't thought these rules/punishments through properly. They haven't really left themselves anywhere to go if teams really fight it or try to wriggle out on technicalities. I imagine we're just trying to make sure any deduction happens next season.

[Mr Popodopolous]

The apparent -9 limitation is interesting as EFL Championship 3 year fail deductions can rise as high as 21.

 

Albeit that is for the very very worst cases and Clubs voted in more fixed but not entirely fixed or binding levels.

 

Essentially..dunno how it would cut across 2 divisions.

 

£39m 3 Year Limit

Excess of £15m+, so just under 40%..-12 prior to mitigating factors.

 

If the case merits no mitigation, then aggravation if needed can push it up to -21. Clubs voted for this in 2018.

Edited 25 March by Mr Popodopolous

[kenny]

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Just an example. Just trying to think of what Leicester's angle could be.

Im sure its an argument about how much is an acceptable cost in relation to youth and the womens side.

 

We have one of the top training grounds in world football and a premier league standard training ground for the womens side. I reckon we will be applying £20-30m of our losses against those and the PL/EFL have initially decided we are taking the piss.

 

So its over to a legal battle to decide what is and isn't applied to the areas of acceptable loss.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, kenny said:

Im sure its an argument about how much is an acceptable cost in relation to youth and the womens side.

 

We have one of the top training grounds in world football and a premier league standard training ground for the womens side. I reckon we will be applying £20-30m of our losses against those and the PL/EFL have initially decided we are taking the piss.

 

So its over to a legal battle to decide what is and isn't applied to the areas of acceptable loss.

Could be.

 

It is the Women's side as such and these Accounts are published that is excludable. I stick by my £25mish for total Allowable expenses in a year. Somewhere between £2.3-3.3m in a a Year. Albeit the charge or Embargo is for figures after these excluded.

 

The Women's side isn't t that huge albeit rising in the Grand Scheme. Accounts for last season aren't there yet.

 

Edited 25 March by Mr Popodopolous

[ClaphamFox]

20 minutes ago, Guesty said:

Don't know. But Everton appealed and said no punishment should be worst than -9 (which is administration) and the appeal board agreed and reduced their suspension. Forest still got hit with -6 (reduced to 4) and I thought they had quite a good point/mitigation as to why they waited to sell Johnson. 

 

I could see more clubs going down this route. If it's only an extra 2/3 points fine. I mean Nick De Marco was Forest's lawyer so he's been through it with them. Whatever happened there looks like he's advised us to go down this route.

 

It's quite clear when they originally gave Everton -10 they hadn't thought these rules/punishments through properly. They haven't really left themselves anywhere to go if teams really fight it or try to wriggle out on technicalities. I imagine we're just trying to make sure any deduction happens next season.

It's interesting that we have the same lawyer advising us as Forest did, but have adopted a completely different approach to the situation. He must feel our case is different for some reason, though nobody seems to know why...

Edited 25 March by ClaphamFox

[kenny]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Could be.

 

It is the Women's side as such and these Accounts are published that is excludable. I stick by my £25mish for total Allowable expenses in a year.

 

The Women's side isn't t that huge albeit rising in the Grand Scheme. Accounts for last season aren't there yet.

 

£2.8m loss is a fair chunk and I would guess we are applying other costs from the mens side ie use of Seagrave on occasions, sharing of coaches etc.

 

I don't follow the Womens team, but there is now a load of international players in the side now, so I suspect that has gone up considerably.

[Spudulike]

20 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

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! 

We have been very quick to point fingers at our club based only on rumours and speculation. Just the opposite of how the Everton fans reacted. It's the Leicester way. 

 

Perhaps the accusers have overreached and misinterpreted their own regulations. We don't yet know but I suspect that we have a better legal team than them. 

[StanSP]

1 minute ago, Spudulike said:

We have been very quick to point fingers at our club based only on rumours and speculation. Just the opposite of how the Everton fans reacted. It's the Leicester way. 

Plenty of Everton fans don't like their owners either or how their club has been ran last 4-5 years. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

29 minutes ago, kenny said:

£2.8m loss is a fair chunk and I would guess we are applying other costs from the mens side ie use of Seagrave on occasions, sharing of coaches etc.

 

I don't follow the Womens team, but there is now a load of international players in the side now, so I suspect that has gone up considerably.

There are specific criteria for what can and can't count for certain Allowables.

 

I still stand by my overall view of £25m or so for a typical year in respect of FFP Allowables. Some individual areas maybe a bit higher, some a bit lower.

 

Basic terms for tbis year.

£35m, £35m and £13m

£25m + £25m + £25m

+£1.4m (Covid claim in 2021-22).

£159.4m in aggregated Pre Tax Loss to this year could be the limit.

 

Minus £92.4m already accounted for in 2021-22.

 

The one that surprises me still is a potential to last year. Given the higher Loss Limits, the Lower starting point and the bigger Covid stuff.

Edited 25 March by Mr Popodopolous

[davieG]

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/who-nick-de-marco-lionel-9188270

 

Who is Nick De Marco? The 'Lionel Messi of sports barristers' representing Leicester City
The lawyer has already successfully represented City before in their dispute with the EFL over the winter, and his services have been employed again for their legal proceedings

ByJordan Blackwell
16:20, 25 MAR 2024

The name Nick De Marco is becoming a familiar one both in the world of English football and in the world of Leicester City.

The sports barrister has represented more than 45 clubs across the Premier League and EFL, and one of his latest assignments is to help City in their battle with the governing bodies. On Friday, having been charged with an alleged breach of Profit and Sustainability Rules by the Premier League and having been placed under a transfer embargo by the EFL, City announced they were issuing legal proceedings against both.

De Marco certainly has experience in representing clubs in their fights with the Premier League and EFL, and is successful. He has been described by football finance expert Kieran Maguire as the “football law version of Lionel Messi”.

 

 

 

In 2020, De Marco helped Sheffield Wednesday in their battle with the EFL over PSR, first managing to defer a points deduction, then getting it reduced from 12 points to six. In the same year, he also helped Stevenage avoid a points deduction, and managed the same with Derby County a year later. He then worked alongside Newcastle and Mike Ashley to help in their dispute with the Premier League over the Saudi takeover of the club.

De Marco’s services were sought by a number of clubs to look into potential compensation claims against Everton after they were charged by the Premier League over PSR breaches. He then represented Nottingham Forest after charges were brought against them, with City’s neighbours receiving just a four-point deduction earlier this month.

Even before the current cases City are set to go through, De Marco has already been successful in defending the club. They won their appeal against the EFL in January when the governing body tried to subject the club to a business plan.

City have said in their statements that they fighting "for the right of all clubs to pursue their ambitions" and in De Marco they have a lawyer who has spoken out against the nature of the regulations. He told the Sports Law Podcast this year: "Financial Fair Play rules in football are not justified on the basis of competitive balance and there's a very strong argument that they are antithetical too because what they do is they allow you to spend more if you earn more so they protect the status quo."

To figuratively suggest De Marco wrote the book on football law would be underplaying it. He literally wrote the book, with the 1,000-page ‘Football and the Law’ published in 2022.

[Guesty]

1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said:

It's interesting that we have the same lawyer advising us as Forest did, but have gone down a completely different path in our approach. He must feel our case is different for some reason, though nobody seems to know why...

Yeah it is. It might be we have no mitigation, so f**k it, roll the dice.

 

The fact that EFL and EPL have different rules and punishments doesn't help - and they don't seem to have fully thought through what happens to relegated teams. They don't seem to communicate well with each other and in some cases seem to make it up as they go along (which when lawyers get involved can be a real issue). For all we know, maybe there is some technicality (we can dream). Maybe we were worried they might slap us with a big deduction now to disrupt our season (knowing full well we can successfully appeal it) just cause they're pi**ed off at us. So we've tried to avoid it.

 

Just me personally and I'm sure this is looking through some blue tinted specs. But I do think if you get relegated it should be factored in to any punishment. 

[CosbehFox]

Btw Nick Di Marco is very public on Twitter. Comes across as a sound fella. The replies to his tweets are a bit sick inducing though. Basically grown blokes thanking him cos their football club spent too much money or was sold to a barbaric regime 

[StanSP]

Imagine if we're that fvcked up that even Nick di Marco can't be arsed with us

 

[LFox99]

https://theathletic.com/5353603/2024/03/25/nottingham-forest-points-deduction-appeal/ 

So much about Forest going a different route

 

Nottingham Forest have decided to appeal against the four-point deduction for breaching the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR).

The club’s legal team, led by Nick De Marco QC, believe the punishment is excessive and will put forward a new case outlining their grievances with the initial judgement.

Edited 25 March by LFox99

[Dahnsouff]

That’s a bit surprising, come on Everton, do your thing.

[UniFox21]

12 minutes ago, LFox99 said:

https://theathletic.com/5353603/2024/03/25/nottingham-forest-points-deduction-appeal/ 

So much about Forest going a different route

 

Nottingham Forest have decided to appeal against the four-point deduction for breaching the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR).

The club’s legal team, led by Nick De Marco QC, believe the punishment is excessive and will put forward a new case outlining their grievances with the initial judgement.

So surely that removes their cooperation points 

[LFox99]

1 minute ago, UniFox21 said:

So surely that removes their cooperation points 

yup, most likely

[Bert]

8 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

So surely that removes their cooperation points 

Not sure it would. They were given -4 because of their co-operation. Appealing doesn’t mean they’re not co-operating?

[st albans fox]

Clever - we both have the same brief so request additional time to consider our options as he’s also busy Tuesdays aswell ….

[Terraloon]

3 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

This is an interesting read, more things that I imagine will disappear

 

 

As none of Buck, Abromavich and Granovskaia are no longer involved with football in any capacity they can call them as witness but there is absolutely no way in which they can be force them to attend nor dare I say can any assumptions be made if they refuse. The PL or FA will have to have evidence to a level that will stand on its own before any charge would be made.

[Bert]

30 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Imagine if we're that fvcked up that even Nick di Marco can't be arsed with us

 

With an expected ULL of £84m 😂 you couldn’t blame him. 

[ClaphamFox]

16 minutes ago, LFox99 said:

yup, most likely

Apparently not:

 

 

[K789]

1 hour ago, kenny said:

£2.8m loss is a fair chunk and I would guess we are applying other costs from the mens side ie use of Seagrave on occasions, sharing of coaches etc.

 

I don't follow the Womens team, but there is now a load of international players in the side now, so I suspect that has gone up considerably.

They have, loss forecast at 7 to 8.mill this year

[Mr Weller 2]

On 24/03/2024 at 10:02, Ric Flair said:

Here's another one who doesn't get it. The reason very few clubs will ever break through is because of the vast gap in commercial revenue from the elite and everyone else in the PL.

 

As I've repeatedly said, remove PSR and the elite will blow EVERYONE out the water by a scale larger than they already do. It will inflate transfer fees and wages even more so and leave the rest even more vulnerable to players being taken from them, the last 10 years has been a marked shift in PL teams being better equipped to refuse or at least get massive fees for players in this scenario. Prior to that they were powerless and the fees modest.

 

I stand by what I've said, if the club have spoken out about PSR in the past then that's admirable and should give our stance we are taking now more weight, if they haven't then it hubris.

You’re really not listening are you? FFP and PSR punish good owners as well as bad. The idea is to punish the bad owners who recklessly mortgage their club up to the hilt it and then walk away when it collapses.

 

Punishing the good owners just protects the big six.