Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[kenny]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

Oh I agree. 

PL rules are that bad that they can barely govern by them themselves correctly. Hence the loopholes and clubs exploiting them. 

 

 

I like this one. We argue that we 'are not a club'. 

 

I'm inclined to agree when you look at what we've done off the pitch

Schroedinger FC?

[Lambert09]

is there any rumours about other clubs breaching in the latest accounts? 

 

Seemed like everyone was confident they did what was needed. 

 

Ludicrous that chelsea avoid one but they appear to have managed it. 

[volpeazzurro]

1 hour ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

I think there’s also a case to say it’s always worth exhausting all appeal avenues against the Premier League because they’re that incompetent you could well find they’ve broken their own rules during the process.

Whilst I agree, whatever the truth is, it's a mess that any vaguely competent owner and board could have avoided!

 

You can't overspend by the massive amount they have without knowing unless they're particularly stupid. It's probably the latter. 

[st albans fox]

methinks we’ve had this defence planned for some considerable time.  Now we’ve decided to try and meet 23/24 psr, we’re putting all our eggs in the ‘legal technicality defence’  basket 

 

Are we able to take this to CAS or a court of law ?  If so, the PL may be advised to come to a deal with us where we accept a 2 point deduction rather than spend considerable amounts on lawyers and potentially lose the case. 

[Mike Oxlong]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

Has the amount of the breach been confirmed?

I’d read £215 million over three seasons whereas permissible loss is £105 million for that period - source bbc sports app - can’t copy the link 

 

 

 

 

[Nalis]

1 hour ago, The Bear said:

So you lost the appeal. Now you're going to appeal the appeal? 

 

Surely that's it already. 

Nah we're in an infinite loop, like if you stick a piece of buttered bread butter side up on a cat's back and try to drop the cat/bread combo on the ground.

[Lambert09]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

methinks we’ve had this defence planned for some considerable time.  Now we’ve decided to try and meet 23/24 psr, we’re putting all our eggs in the ‘legal technicality defence’  basket 

 

Are we able to take this to CAS or a court of law ?  If so, the PL may be advised to come to a deal with us where we accept a 2 point deduction rather than spend considerable amounts on lawyers and potentially lose the case. 

if we could argue that we stopped trying to comply because we knew we were going down …. technically by law that would be a fair reason given the wording. 

 

But surely you’d need to prove that this was the reason and it would go against what we will have to try to prove to the league in our defence of the breach.

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I’d read £215 million over three seasons whereas permissible loss is £105 million for that period - source bbc sports app - can’t copy the link 

 

Less allowable losses for infrastructure and women’s team 

[kenny]

7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

methinks we’ve had this defence planned for some considerable time.  Now we’ve decided to try and meet 23/24 psr, we’re putting all our eggs in the ‘legal technicality defence’  basket 

 

Are we able to take this to CAS or a court of law ?  If so, the PL may be advised to come to a deal with us where we accept a 2 point deduction rather than spend considerable amounts on lawyers and potentially lose the case. 

This was all narrative building for when we submit our defence. We accept 2 points deduction even though the rules haven't been applied correctly etc.

[kenny]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

Less allowable losses for infrastructure and women’s team 

And youth development and charitable donations.

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

if we could argue that we stopped trying to comply because we knew we were going down …. technically by law that would be a fair reason given the wording. 

 

But surely you’d need to prove that this was the reason and it would go against what we will have to try to prove to the league in our defence of the breach.

It would also pose why we sold madders pre June 30 

although because the losses are three year running, it would not make a difference with 23/24 

[ClaphamFox]

19 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I’d read £215 million over three seasons whereas permissible loss is £105 million for that period - source bbc sports app - can’t copy the link 

 

 

 

 

The £215m is the overall financial loss, not the PSR loss. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Do we think we'll get another statement on this or just try and sweep it under the carpet?

[Mike Oxlong]

7 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

The £215m is the overall financial loss, not the PSR loss. 

Yeah St Albans made the point re deductible losses which I repped with a like 👍 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

56 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

Whilst I agree, whatever the truth is, it's a mess that any vaguely competent owner and board could have avoided!

 

You can't overspend by the massive amount they have without knowing unless they're particularly stupid. It's probably the latter. 

You say that, but one of the clear problems with PSR is how difficult it will be to account for.

 

Ultimately it requires projecting your profit and loss position - not only across one season, but across multiple seasons given the rolling 3-year criteria.

 

Having transfer fees that are amortised across the length of a contract doesn’t make this any easier either - it creates lingering draggy costs.

 

And of course this is all against income variables that can change dramatically depending on performance and other factors.

 

This stuff then becomes even harder due to the covid years where income flows were interrupted / deferred and you see huge upswings in other areas of your cost base due to inflation.

 

Oh - and we had the European seasons  during all this too, making estimating what a base ‘Premier League income only’ year would be like very difficult indeed.

Edited 4 July by DJ Barry Hammond

[SkuseMe]

2 hours ago, StriderHiryu said:

That's how I interpret it too.

Same and it surely won't work on this occasion. Time to drop the appeals and face up to this. 

 

Precedent is set now that 3 points is the starting point for a breach, with further penalty points then added for significant or severe breaches. A significant breach adds 3 points, as Forest and Everton found out, but Forest's punishment was reduced by 2 points on account of their "excellent cooperation". Everton breached by about £20M and Forest by about £35M, with both classed as "significant".

 

Our breach was £108M minus allowable deductions, so in the £50M-£80M range? It wouldn't surprise me if the eventual figure is labelled a severe breach, especially given how hostile we've been throughout the process, but we at least haven't falsified figures TMK. 8-9 points would be my guess.

 

I don't believe the penalty for administration is pertinent in setting a ceiling or guide for PSR breaches. The financial mismanagement / jeopardy is much more severe in those circumstances, yes, but it's a different charge to breaching the PL's competition rules. If Man City are found guilty on most of their 115 counts, for instance, it would be wishful thinking of them to argue the punishment must be below 9 points because they remain solvent.

 

[Ian S]

1 hour ago, The Bear said:

So you lost the appeal. Now you're going to appeal the appeal? 

 

Surely that's it already. 

What’s it got to do with you 😉

[Jattdogg]

End of the day no point speculating on how many points we will lose as nobody has a clue what the epl will do. 

 

Heck, the epl probably has no fecking clue.

 

Enjoy the calm before the storm and accept the deductions when announced.

[Southcoastfox08]

53 minutes ago, kenny said:

And youth development and charitable donations.

Do Danny wards wages count as charitable?

[volpeazzurro]

27 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

You say that, but one of the clear problems with PSR is how difficult it will be to account for.

 

Ultimately it requires projecting your profit and loss position - not only across one season, but across multiple seasons given the rolling 3-year criteria.

 

Having transfer fees that are amortised across the length of a contract doesn’t make this any easier either - it creates lingering draggy costs.

 

And of course this is all against income variables that can change dramatically depending on performance and other factors.

 

This stuff then becomes even harder due to the covid years where income flows were interrupted / deferred and you see huge upswings in other areas of your cost base due to inflation.

 

Oh - and we had the European seasons  during all this too, making estimating what a base ‘Premier League income only’ year would be like very difficult indeed.

It's exactly the same for every other Premiership team. No excuses, basic business. Any business has to juggle and rationalise finances.

 

They would know at the start of every season what their income would be from television/media sources, gate receipts, other sponsorship and perhaps player sales. They would know what current players wages would be. All this would be known before committing to buying any more players and also committing to some further ridiculous wages and contracts.

 

Even then, your allowed to be several millions out! If the vast majority of Premiership clubs are able to do it and work out the vaguaries of amortisation also then so should our lot be. The book stop firstly with Top and then those below him. If the numpty takes the same cavalier approach with the family's business empire then his Dad's legacy is going to eventually go down the pan. I doubt he does.

[Jonezy]

I still have no clue.... Modern football is a mess.

[Terraloon]

5 minutes ago, SkuseMe said:

Same and it surely won't work on this occasion. Time to drop the appeals and face up to this. 

 

Precedent is set now that 3 points is the starting point for a breach, with further penalty points then added for significant or severe breaches. A significant breach adds 3 points, as Forest and Everton found out, but Forest's punishment was reduced by 2 points on account of their "excellent cooperation". Everton breached by about £20M and Forest by about £35M, with both classed as "significant".

 

Our breach was £108M minus allowable deductions, so in the £50M-£80M range? It wouldn't surprise me if the eventual figure is labelled a severe breach, especially given how hostile we've been throughout the process, but we at least haven't falsified figures TMK. 8-9 points would be my guess.

 

I don't believe the penalty for administration is pertinent in setting a ceiling or guide for PSR breaches. The financial mismanagement / jeopardy is much more severe in those circumstances, yes, but it's a different charge to breaching the PL's competition rules. If Man City are found guilty on most of their 115 counts, for instance, it would be wishful thinking of them to argue the punishment must be below 9 points because they remain solvent.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dahnsouff]

String it out into we drop into the Championship and do the whole cycle again?  

[DJ Barry Hammond]

14 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

It's exactly the same for every other Premiership team. No excuses, basic business. Any business has to juggle and rationalise finances.

 

They would know at the start of every season what their income would be from television/media sources, gate receipts, other sponsorship and perhaps player sales. They would know what current players wages would be. All this would be known before committing to buying any more players and also committing to some further ridiculous wages and contracts.

 

Even then, your allowed to be several millions out! If the vast majority of Premiership clubs are able to do it and work out the vaguaries of amortisation also then so should our lot be. The book stop firstly with Top and then those below him. If the numpty takes the same cavalier approach with the family's business empire then his Dad's legacy is going to eventually go down the pan. I doubt he does.

2 confirmed breaches, 1 further pending and a host of clubs using ‘workarounds’ show how difficult these rules are to account for.

[richardsfoxes]

Hopefully its only like 4 points or something.