Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[volpeazzurro]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

Did anyone notice villa’s new deal with adidas is worth £17.5m per season (poss rising to 20 but unlikely to ) 

for context, Nike pay liverpool £30m 

 

I smell something 

I suppose there's more kudos and worldwide coverage sponsoring Liverpool than the likes of Villa or Leicester City? 

[st albans fox]

Just now, volpeazzurro said:

I suppose there's more kudos and worldwide coverage sponsoring Liverpool than the likes of Villa or Leicester City? 

I’m referring to villa’s deal being about 10m too high 

Liverpool is one of the most profitable deals out there for Nike. They deserve the 30m 

[ClaphamFox]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

Did anyone notice villa’s new deal with adidas is worth £17.5m per season (poss rising to 20 but unlikely to ) 

for context, Nike pay liverpool £30m 

 

I smell something 

The size of the Adidas logo on some of those 'leaked' kits might tell us something 

[Foxin_Mad]

Maybe it's time to bring back Fox Lesiure on a exclusive 100 million deal. Made in Thailand 

[volpeazzurro]

7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I’m referring to villa’s deal being about 10m too high 

Liverpool is one of the most profitable deals out there for Nike. They deserve the 30m 

Probably because of their extra exposure now in the Champions League? 

[Terraloon]

6 hours ago, LCFCJohn said:

I think this was the Premier League being incompetent and not knowing their own rules again?

There wasn’t anything in PL that restricted the sanctions when it came to  PSR charges faced by both Everton and Forest and almost certainly Leicester will have to deal with next season.

 

The initial IC in the Everton case went to great lengths to point out that the rules as written gave them license to deduct as many points to as they think appropriate.

 

Everton successfully argued on appeal that  the offence( PSR excess )in no way should be sanctioned greater than the stated sanctions for Administrations. But that’s just one ICs view not a precedent 

 

Just referring back to the PL charge and potentially the EFL one for 23/24 the EFL statement following Trevor Birch’s infamous letter is a concern because yes it confirms legal opinion that EFL& PL rules as written don’t allow for a sanction awarded by one set up to be implemented by another I think it’s worth keeping a close eye on both bodies AGMs and see if they introduce rules to get around the issue if so then potentially real issues in 24/25

 

 

Edited 30 May by Terraloon

[Frank Large's Black Book]

 

I wonder if the sudden rash of reports of "LCFC face record points deduction" are planted by clubs concerned they might lose their manager to us.

 

Edited 30 May by Frank Large's Black Book

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, volpeazzurro said:

Probably because of their extra exposure now in the Champions League? 

It’s one season guaranteed 

I reckon there is definitely an arrangement in there - over three years that’s them taking in an extra 25/30m 

 

newcastles deal with castore was 6.5m.  Villa are not a bigger club than them re support.  Add on a CL bonus and still can’t see how 11m should be exceeded. 

 

[katieakita]

Still cannot get my head around the fact we are going to be punished for excessive losses yet one of our defences is the fact we lost many  tens of millions by missing out on Champions league football twice because the people who will be punishing us did not punish Man City/Chelski for also breaking the rules. Not sure how they explain that

[Daggers]

Man City and Chelsea be like...

 

 

[The boy Linacre]

Has anybody anywhere got any ideas about when we actually might find out what is happening to us deduction wise AND whether we can spend any money AND how much??

As big as Enzo leaving is, this is the BIG issue to get an answer to and the sooner the better for us to plan for next season and the future as a club.

[whoareyaaa]

13 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Man City and Chelsea be like...

 

 

 wtf

[urban fox]

3 hours ago, Terraloon said:

There wasn’t anything in PL that restricted the sanctions when it came to  PSR charges faced by both Everton and Forest and almost certainly Leicester will have to deal with next season.

 

The initial IC in the Everton case went to great lengths to point out that the rules as written gave them license to deduct as many points to as they think appropriate.

 

Everton successfully argued on appeal that  the offence( PSR excess )in no way should be sanctioned greater than the stated sanctions for Administrations. But that’s just one ICs view not a precedent 

 

Just referring back to the PL charge and potentially the EFL one for 23/24 the EFL statement following Trevor Birch’s infamous letter is a concern because yes it confirms legal opinion that EFL& PL rules as written don’t allow for a sanction awarded by one set up to be implemented by another I think it’s worth keeping a close eye on both bodies AGMs and see if they introduce rules to get around the issue if so then potentially real issues in 24/25

 

 

Precedent is a principle or rule established in a legal case that becomes authoritative to a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar legal issues or facts.The legal doctrine stating that courts should follow precedent is called stare decisis.

whilst the independent commission is not necessarily bound by the legal system as such, i am pretty sure our lawyers will be citing previous decisions and claiming precedent if the PL try to do us over with anything more than Everton or Forest got. If, as has been suggested by some experts our breach , after allowable deductions, was around the £25M mark then this would be commensurate with those other clubs. In addition, we can surely claim mitigation in that we gained no sporting, or financial advantage (we were relegated and lost millions as a result).

Anyone looking for doom and gloom headlines or reasons why we should be treated any more harshly than previously obviously has no understanding of the way these things MUST be governed in order to ensure fairness.

Should the PL try and do us over, not only can we cite precedence, but  i am pretty sure the lawyers will also be pointing out that any seeming unfairness (and unwillingness to tackle the Man city/Chelsea issues in a timely manner) will be highlighted as a reason why the football authorities are not fit for purpose and that as a club we will petition govt. to bring in the proposed regulator which the PL and co. are desperate to avoid, (which is partly why they hit Everton and Forest in the first place).

We have a much stronger hand than many realise.

We will get 4-6 points deducted and take it on the chin.

However, i do think that as a result of our previous successful actions against them we will see a rule change allowing reciprocal agreements such that future sanctions can be passed between the leagues

[sylofox]

2 hours ago, The boy Linacre said:

Has anybody anywhere got any ideas about when we actually might find out what is happening to us deduction wise AND whether we can spend any money AND how much??

As big as Enzo leaving is, this is the BIG issue to get an answer to and the sooner the better for us to plan for next season and the future as a club.

The earliest we will know is the Prem AGM when we are admitted to the prem.

 

They won't say a word about it before the June meeting.

 

ATM we are still an EFL team. That's why we can't sign or extend contracts.

[Mike Oxlong]

The board will tell prospective managers that the press have got it all wrong and that actually the PL are going to award us a points bonus 

[Motty]

2 hours ago, urban fox said:

Precedent is a principle or rule established in a legal case that becomes authoritative to a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar legal issues or facts.The legal doctrine stating that courts should follow precedent is called stare decisis.

whilst the independent commission is not necessarily bound by the legal system as such, i am pretty sure our lawyers will be citing previous decisions and claiming precedent if the PL try to do us over with anything more than Everton or Forest got. If, as has been suggested by some experts our breach , after allowable deductions, was around the £25M mark then this would be commensurate with those other clubs. In addition, we can surely claim mitigation in that we gained no sporting, or financial advantage (we were relegated and lost millions as a result).

Anyone looking for doom and gloom headlines or reasons why we should be treated any more harshly than previously obviously has no understanding of the way these things MUST be governed in order to ensure fairness.

Should the PL try and do us over, not only can we cite precedence, but  i am pretty sure the lawyers will also be pointing out that any seeming unfairness (and unwillingness to tackle the Man city/Chelsea issues in a timely manner) will be highlighted as a reason why the football authorities are not fit for purpose and that as a club we will petition govt. to bring in the proposed regulator which the PL and co. are desperate to avoid, (which is partly why they hit Everton and Forest in the first place).

We have a much stronger hand than many realise.

We will get 4-6 points deducted and take it on the chin.

However, i do think that as a result of our previous successful actions against them we will see a rule change allowing reciprocal agreements such that future sanctions can be passed between the leagues

They cannot backdate these rules so in effect they would not be implemented till 25/26. Any Efl sanctions could only be applied if we got relegated. I expect also that accounts submitals would also be changed to stop what we did.

Edited 30 May by Motty
Spelling

[Terraloon]

2 hours ago, urban fox said:

Precedent is a principle or rule established in a legal case that becomes authoritative to a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar legal issues or facts.The legal doctrine stating that courts should follow precedent is called stare decisis.

whilst the independent commission is not necessarily bound by the legal system as such, i am pretty sure our lawyers will be citing previous decisions and claiming precedent if the PL try to do us over with anything more than Everton or Forest got. If, as has been suggested by some experts our breach , after allowable deductions, was around the £25M mark then this would be commensurate with those other clubs. In addition, we can surely claim mitigation in that we gained no sporting, or financial advantage (we were relegated and lost millions as a result).

Anyone looking for doom and gloom headlines or reasons why we should be treated any more harshly than previously obviously has no understanding of the way these things MUST be governed in order to ensure fairness.

Should the PL try and do us over, not only can we cite precedence, but  i am pretty sure the lawyers will also be pointing out that any seeming unfairness (and unwillingness to tackle the Man city/Chelsea issues in a timely manner) will be highlighted as a reason why the football authorities are not fit for purpose and that as a club we will petition govt. to bring in the proposed regulator which the PL and co. are desperate to avoid, (which is partly why they hit Everton and Forest in the first place).

We have a much stronger hand than many realise.

We will get 4-6 points deducted and take it on the chin.

However, i do think that as a result of our previous successful actions against them we will see a rule change allowing reciprocal agreements such that future sanctions can be passed between the leagues

Sorry but I think you miss understand the establishment of precedent is established or indeed the principle of “ let it stand”

 

The whole concept of precedent is where a decision is made by a higher court which then applies to similar cases being heard lower down the court process. it stands until, well , another precedent is set.

 

The ICs are at the same level so one commissions ruling may well be referred to but they simply aren’t duty bound to apply the same sanction even if the cases are broadly similar.

 

Bearing in mind what I have just said re precedent to date both PL cases have followed the conclusion in ( I think ) the Sheffield Wednesday case that by default club exceeding the spending limit has gained a sport advantage. 
 

As for the delayed Regulator their  responsibilities as outlined in the now suspended bill don’t cover discipline matters in accord with league rules and trying to bring in a a club that is already subject to an IC and a club who are subject to an investigation wouldn’t in all likelihood have any bearing on matters

[Terraloon]

24 minutes ago, Motty said:

They cannot backdate these rules so in effect they would not be implemented till 25/26. Any Efl sanctions could only be applied if we got relegated. I expect also that accounts submitals would also be changed to stop what we did.

The PL changed the rules in June 24 as to how they would deal with cases for 23/24 trading years so yes they could change the rules at the two ( EFL& PL) AGMs 

[Terraloon]

1 hour ago, sylofox said:

The earliest we will know is the Prem AGM when we are admitted to the prem.

 

They won't say a word about it before the June meeting.

 

ATM we are still an EFL team. That's why we can't sign or extend contracts.

That’s right. 

[Motty]

2 hours ago, Terraloon said:

The PL changed the rules in June 24 as to how they would deal with cases for 23/24 trading years so yes they could change the rules at the two ( EFL& PL) AGMs 

You mean June 23?

[Terraloon]

4 minutes ago, Motty said:

You mean June 23?

Sorry yes

[Motty]

2 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Sorry yes

OK I'm not talking about the psr charges as they were in place whilst we were in the prem. Mainly the efl and prem being able to agree the cross over of sanctions this prem season, to be applied to last year's breaches.

I know that last year's psr whilst in the championship can be calculated as well as last 2 prem seasons.  ?13 mill in championship approx for one season. So when they look at the figures to punish transgressors before the end of this season we will already have been punished for the 2bprem seasons. As Everton this season.

[lfu]

13 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Did anyone notice villa’s new deal with adidas is worth £17.5m per season (poss rising to 20 but unlikely to ) 

for context, Nike pay liverpool £30m 

 

I smell something 

Villa's co-owner Nassef Sawiris also owns 7% of Adidas, and is a member of their Supervisory Board
connect the dots

[Motty]

2 minutes ago, lfu said:

Villa's co-owner Nassef Sawiris also owns 7% of Adidas, and is a member of their Supervisory Board
connect the dots

Just imagine the deal if he had a majority holding. 😳 

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, lfu said:

Villa's co-owner Nassef Sawiris also owns 7% of Adidas, and is a member of their Supervisory Board
connect the dots

Still, at least Leicester got that fine for charging for deliveries or whatever.