Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[Reg Vardy]

24 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

There is no one at the wheel.  If we have broken the rules then These guys have allowed it to happen form miles away.

Same was said about Vardy at the time

[StanSP]

24 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

1) The three-year period ending June 2023, which ended in our relegation. We’ll find out about this very soon as our accounts for 2022/23 are about to be published and the PL is, according to reports, preparing to charge us next week. However, at the hearing we will argue, with some justification, that we made more of an effort than some of our rivals to stay within the rules and that we got relegated as a result, so we’ve already been punished for this. 

I did wonder this as well - what advantage did we gain over other teams considering we still ended up getting relegated? It's embarrassing for us in that respect. 

[foxfanazer]

5 minutes ago, StanSP said:

I did wonder this as well - what advantage did we gain over other teams considering we still ended up getting relegated? It's embarrassing for us in that respect. 

I see what you're saying but I'm not sure we could really use that as a valid argument. Just further shows our incompetence that we didn't stay within the parameters and still couldn't stay up. Brendan is a fraud

[StanSP]

8 minutes ago, foxfanazer said:

I see what you're saying but I'm not sure we could really use that as a valid argument. Just further shows our incompetence that we didn't stay within the parameters and still couldn't stay up. Brendan is a fraud

Yep, that's the embarrassing and shameful thing. 

 

Maybe we should invoice Rodgers for his incompetence. 

[st albans fox]

56 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

So in summary, we potentially face charges for two separate periods:

 

1) The three-year period ending June 2023, which ended in our relegation. We’ll find out about this very soon as our accounts for 2022/23 are about to be published and the PL is, according to reports, preparing to charge us next week. However, at the hearing we will argue, with some justification, that we made more of an effort than some of our rivals to stay within the rules and that we got relegated as a result, so we’ve already been punished for this. 

 

2) The three-year period ending June 2024. For this charge - if it comes - we will argue that the FL should not be looking at the previous two seasons because they were under a different set of rules (ie, a higher overspend limit) and that we did not know when we overspent in 2021/22 that we would face a much lower limit in a couple of seasons’ time. In addition, as the current financial period has more than three months to run, we can still potentially avoid a charge by generating additional income before June 30.

 

On the Radio Leicester podcast last night they had a football finance expert on from Sheffield Hallam University. After listening to him I felt marginally more positive that, at the very least, we’ll have reasonably strong arguments in both of the above cases. They’re not quite as open and shut as I originally feared. I really hope we’ve employed the best lawyers in the land to work with us on this.

 

We certainly have mitigating circumstances ref any PL charge (depending on how big our overspend is) 

 

we don’t ref any possible efl charge. We know where we stand ref three year period ending this June and it’s up to us to manage our finances accordingly.  Southampton sold a lot more players than we did last summer to ensure they didn’t break the rolling limits this summer. 

 

I suspect the furore now ongoing is that the leagues want to ensure we don’t just get promoted and cock a snook to the efl rules. (Taking a fine ).  they want to avoid relegated clubs taking a view that they’ll risk not meeting efl rules to assist in bouncing straight back.  Their job is to make sure that clubs don’t take liberties with their finances and risk their future.   
 

we are probably ensuring that the rules will change going forwards although even the likelihood of a PL points deduction on the back of EFL infringements wouldn’t deter clubs because the rewards of promotion are so great.  clubs will continue to make the judgement that they can trade in June to work things out. 

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

The thing that has really ****ed us is the interest on the loans to Macquarie. Most of these loans were taken before interest rates sky rocketed and they won't be fixed rates.

[Aus Fox]

2 hours ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

Just two examples.

 

Coady and Cannon are way above market value for a championship side and the manager doesn't fancy either player. That's not financially responsible.

Coady was absolutely the leadership we needed, on and off the field - we have never replaced the lost leadership of Kasper, Fuchs, Huth, Morgan etc.

He may have been slightly over the odds, but was absolutely the first player the team needed. Unfortunately, he picked up an injury early on and Vestergaard took his chance, same situation we would absolutely do the same deal again.

Cannon is the type of signing we should be making, young hungry with bags of potential-  again all transfers were brought in for less than we sold Madders and we also sold Barnes, Castagne and Hirst to ensure we we’re massively in profit this summer and the wage bill was also vastly reduced 

[Ricey]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

So in summary, we potentially face charges for two separate periods:

 

1) The three-year period ending June 2023, which ended in our relegation. We’ll find out about this very soon as our accounts for 2022/23 are about to be published and the PL is, according to reports, preparing to charge us next week. However, at the hearing we will argue, with some justification, that we made more of an effort than some of our rivals to stay within the rules and that we got relegated as a result, so we’ve already been punished for this. 

 

2) The three-year period ending June 2024. For this charge - if it comes - we will argue that the FL should not be looking at the previous two seasons because they were under a different set of rules (ie, a higher overspend limit) and that we did not know when we overspent in 2021/22 that we would face a much lower limit in a couple of seasons’ time. In addition, as the current financial period has more than three months to run, we can still potentially avoid a charge by generating additional income before June 30.

 

On the Radio Leicester podcast last night they had a football finance expert on from Sheffield Hallam University. After listening to him I felt marginally more positive that, at the very least, we’ll have reasonably strong arguments in both of the above cases. They’re not quite as open and shut as I originally feared. I really hope we’ve employed the best lawyers in the land to work with us on this.

 

 

 

 

I suspect the £35-40M that we spunked up the wall in January, despite refusing to spend anything in the summer, might ruin that argument.

[st albans fox]

14 minutes ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

The thing that has really ****ed us is the interest on the loans to Macquarie. Most of these loans were taken before interest rates sky rocketed and they won't be fixed rates.

We will see the interest charges when the accounts are published in the next few weeks 

 

of course if things go really well between now and mid May, we might be quite happy for any PL points sanction to be applied this season …..

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, Ricey said:

I suspect the £35-40M that we spunked up the wall in January, despite refusing to spend anything in the summer, might ruin that argument.

Was about £28m and we took ayoze’s wages out and a chunk of Marc’s too

 

Even amortised, the 28m is  nearly -3m into the 22/23 accounts. I suspect any hearing would accept that given our position we couldn’t just sit on our hands and that outlay was not excessive.

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

13 minutes ago, Aus Fox said:

Coady was absolutely the leadership we needed, on and off the field - we have never replaced the lost leadership of Kasper, Fuchs, Huth, Morgan etc.

He may have been slightly over the odds, but was absolutely the first player the team needed. Unfortunately, he picked up an injury early on and Vestergaard took his chance, same situation we would absolutely do the same deal again.

Cannon is the type of signing we should be making, young hungry with bags of potential-  again all transfers were brought in for less than we sold Madders and we also sold Barnes, Castagne and Hirst to ensure we we’re massively in profit this summer and the wage bill was also vastly reduced 

That's not the point i'm tryign to make though.

 

We don't have the cash to sign these players and others, clearly. In isolation the signings look good, but on the basis of what we're hearing they're not financially sound. 

[kenny]

17 minutes ago, Aus Fox said:

Coady was absolutely the leadership we needed, on and off the field - we have never replaced the lost leadership of Kasper, Fuchs, Huth, Morgan etc.

He may have been slightly over the odds, but was absolutely the first player the team needed. Unfortunately, he picked up an injury early on and Vestergaard took his chance, same situation we would absolutely do the same deal again.

Cannon is the type of signing we should be making, young hungry with bags of potential-  again all transfers were brought in for less than we sold Madders and we also sold Barnes, Castagne and Hirst to ensure we we’re massively in profit this summer and the wage bill was also vastly reduced 

I think Vestergaard wasn't supposed to be as good as he has been. I suspect he was in the write-off pile and took everyone by surprise with how good he has been.

 

I reckon Cannon was signed because Daka and Iheanacho were off. When neither move materialised its left us with 4 strikers we dont really need.

[ClaphamFox]

43 minutes ago, Ricey said:

I suspect the £35-40M that we spunked up the wall in January, despite refusing to spend anything in the summer, might ruin that argument.

True, but our relegation at the end of the period ending June 2023 is less ambiguous and has muddied the waters. Dr Dan Plumley, the Sheffield Hallam football finance expert who was on Radio Leicester last night, was basically saying that we're something of a test case in this regard. Our arguments will not have been heard or tested before, so it's very hard to predict how things will pan out. Our case is not the same as Everton's or Forest's, both of whom gained from their overspends.

 

I get the feeling that either the authorities will try to get around this situation by persuading us to accept a lesser punishment, or they'll try to go hard on us and our case will end up being dragged into the courts, which may take years to resolve.

Edited 8 March by ClaphamFox

[DJ Barry Hammond]

2 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

So in summary, we potentially face charges for two separate periods:

 

1) The three-year period ending June 2023, which ended in our relegation. We’ll find out about this very soon as our accounts for 2022/23 are about to be published and the PL is, according to reports, preparing to charge us next week. However, at the hearing we will argue, with some justification, that we made more of an effort than some of our rivals to stay within the rules and that we got relegated as a result, so we’ve already been punished for this. 

 

With ‘acceptable’ Covid losses, the Forfana fee, debt to equity swap and infrastructure, Women’s football and academy offsets all combining for that period, I would expect us to be ‘ok’ for the 22/23 PS&R calculation.

 

I think it’s this current Championship period where the club instantly losses £22 million in threshold allowance alongside a significant drop in revenue that will be a challenge. 
 

It’s also the first year where clubs cannot count on the ‘acceptable’ covid losses as an additional ‘out’ hence why there’s murmur’s and conjecture around other clubs.

[coolhandfox]

11 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Do you genuinely think we won't have breached 2022/23 rules? It's stacking up that it's inevitable, but I suppose someone has to be the violinists on the Titanic here ay pal? 😂

It's pretty tight without going down the personal insults route; in my opinion, it could go either way. 

 

Using The Swiss Ramble data, as he is far better than me, as a starting point for the previous report period ending in 21/22, we were around 1m under FFP limits (See Table 1) * (19/20 and 20/21 are combined and taken as an average due to COVID so its actual a 4 year period rather than 3)   

 

For the 22/23, the 19/20 accounts drop out, and then I've made some assumptions/guesses about our income and expenditure for 22/23 and I have us going over by 8m (See Table 2)

 

There are many variables that could nudge us 10m either way, largely down to what we can convince the PL are allowable deductibles.   

 

All PL clubs must submit their accounts for the 22/23 season by December 31, 2023. The Premier League has charged Everton and Nottingham Forest with breaching its financial rules based on that submission before they have published their official accounts. 

 

So my question is, why haven't we been charged? Is it because we didn't have to do the December 31, 2023 submission because we are no longer a PL club, or are we ok?

 

The short answer is nobody knows other than the club and the PL. 

 

 

 

Edited 8 March by coolhandfox

[coolhandfox]

1 hour ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

The thing that has really ****ed us is the interest on the loans to Macquarie. Most of these loans were taken before interest rates sky rocketed and they won't be fixed rates.

Depending on what the loans are for, if they are for allowable deductibles, you can discount the interest for FFP as far as I can tell.  

[Gamble92]

I have a cunning plan

 

OHL bid £80 million for Danny Ward. We accept. Comply with FFP. 

 

OHL take a -10 deduction in their league or Top just sells them. 

 

Sorted. Thank me later. 

[moore_94]

12 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Depending on what the loans are for, if they are for allowable deductibles, you can discount the interest for FFP as far as I can tell.  

The loans from them have been for getting tv money of future seasons (not guaranteed) and future owed instalments on sold players (guaranteed) early

 

So not too sure we would be able to deduct that

Edited 8 March by moore_94

[FosseSpark]

It was clear in January that a  black cloud had gone over the club. We stalled on a tiny transfer and you could see that Enzo and some of the players looked like they had been given some shit news which stalled the feel good atmosphere around the club. 

Book balancing wise - we have massive assets in Dewsbury-Hall, Soumare, Kristiansen, Souttar, Daka, Iheanacho, Ndidi - none of whom are going to set the premier league alight. We could also potentially shift Vestergaard to an ambitious champhionship club in the close season. That has to get us near to £100m + even at fire sale prices. Dewsbury Hall alone will go for £30-40m you'd have thought, which would be good business for me, because it's clear he cant be attacking leader of the team v premier league opposition.

I think it's then a task for Enzo to bring in players that he identifies from Italy, Championship, Youth Team, elswehere for a lower figure. If we retain a core of Hermansen Coady Faes Winks Ricardo Justin Mavididi, Fatawu we will at least have something to build around - even if we have to shop in the bargain  bin and hope for some luck. 

[coolhandfox]

15 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

The loans from them have been for getting tv money of future seasons and future owed instalments on sold players early

 

So not too sure we would be able to deduct that

That's what they are secure on, if we can't pay they loan company has first dibs on that money. 

 

The purpose of the loan is to give is operating cash flow to do things; what the money has been spent on is the key. 

Edited 8 March by coolhandfox

[Gamble92]

[Lionator]

Remember Brendan throwing a hissy fit after the Brentford game, having used no subs, saying the club hadn’t backed him, knowing full well what the situation. While his media mates said the same thing. Then didn’t have the guts to walk away because he wanted his pay out. I just clenched my fist in the office thinking about it.

Edited 8 March by Lionator

[Gamble92]

25 minutes ago, FosseSpark said:

It was clear in January that a  black cloud had gone over the club. We stalled on a tiny transfer and you could see that Enzo and some of the players looked like they had been given some shit news which stalled the feel good atmosphere around the club. 

Book balancing wise - we have massive assets in Dewsbury-Hall, Soumare, Kristiansen, Souttar, Daka, Iheanacho, Ndidi - none of whom are going to set the premier league alight. We could also potentially shift Vestergaard to an ambitious champhionship club in the close season. That has to get us near to £100m + even at fire sale prices. Dewsbury Hall alone will go for £30-40m you'd have thought, which would be good business for me, because it's clear he cant be attacking leader of the team v premier league opposition.

I think it's then a task for Enzo to bring in players that he identifies from Italy, Championship, Youth Team, elswehere for a lower figure. If we retain a core of Hermansen Coady Faes Winks Ricardo Justin Mavididi, Fatawu we will at least have something to build around - even if we have to shop in the bargain  bin and hope for some luck. 

We take the hit and only get rid of who we need to. We aren't selling KDH. 

 

 

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

36 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Depending on what the loans are for, if they are for allowable deductibles, you can discount the interest for FFP as far as I can tell.  

Think it depends on what they're for as you say, but I assume they're the day to day running of the club. King Power is a wealthy business, but isn't neccesarily cash rich. 

 

For context, here's a specific reason Everton failed FFP:

Everton used loans to pay for the day to day running of the club whilst funding the stadium themselves. The interest on the loans is what made Everton fail FFP. If they had used the loans for the stadium then the interest on them would have been dedcuted and they would have passed the £105m limit.

[st albans fox]

33 minutes ago, FosseSpark said:

- we have massive assets in Dewsbury-Hall, Soumare, Kristiansen, Souttar, Daka, Iheanacho, Ndidi - none of whom are going to set the premier league alight. We could also potentially shift Vestergaard to an ambitious champhionship club in the close season.

I have bad news for you 

kel, wilf and janiick are leaving on frees in the summer 

souttar and VK will not bring in 80% of their original fees which means they are losses in ffp

soumare needs to be sold for 8m+ before he is a negative entry on ffp

daka needs to be sold 9m+ or he is a negative entry on ffp 

kdh is all profit on ffp - that’s why everyone is talking about his sale