Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, hejammy said:

This is a decent article which explains the situation fairly well I feel. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cge88jkn92jo

 

1 hour ago, coolhandfox said:

Pretty balanced article which deals in facts rather then speculation.

Mostly decent article but it doesn’t mention the fact that the Premier League tried to hand down our punishment to the EFL despite there being nothing in the rules allowing that, which is the second case we won against them.

 

As for the Sheffield United example they used as the one case of an EFL investigation being passed up, the club probably only agreed to that because their relegation was already inevitable and the deduction was reasonably low. 

[Terraloon]

14 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

Mostly decent article but it doesn’t mention the fact that the Premier League tried to hand down our punishment to the EFL despite there being nothing in the rules allowing that, which is the second case we won against them.

 

As for the Sheffield United example they used as the one case of an EFL investigation being passed up, the club probably only agreed to that because their relegation was already inevitable and the deduction was reasonably low. 

From my reading of the rules the club doesn’t have a say in the matter being passed to the PL. 

 

I mentioned the point yesterday because many had assumed any EFL breach would be held in limbo as it were but as the  article confirms the 22/23 period will be dealt with by the PL in 24/25 as we already knew but as now know it’s likely the 23/24 case will also be in the 24/25 by the PL.

[Ric Flair]

22 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

From my reading of the rules the club doesn’t have a say in the matter being passed to the PL. 

 

I mentioned the point yesterday because many had assumed any EFL breach would be held in limbo as it were but as the  article confirms the 22/23 period will be dealt with by the PL in 24/25 as we already knew but as now know it’s likely the 23/24 case will also be in the 24/25 by the PL.

It's going to be interesting. The PL have never taken over such a charge and implemented it. There's been plenty of outcomes where the EFL have had to action it by way of a fine or in Sheffield Utd's case a deferred points deduction, albeit for a different reason that a potential PSR breach.

 

If the PL do indeed hand down a points deduction if we breach 2023/24, then the legal minefield will explode. Whether we get such a deduction altered or not is highly debatable but it would be the 1st of it's kind and likely to be open to serious appeal.

[Terraloon]

21 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

It's going to be interesting. The PL have never taken over such a charge and implemented it. There's been plenty of outcomes where the EFL have had to action it by way of a fine or in Sheffield Utd's case a deferred points deduction, albeit for a different reason that a potential PSR breach.

 

If the PL do indeed hand down a points deduction if we breach 2023/24, then the legal minefield will explode. Whether we get such a deduction altered or not is highly debatable but it would be the 1st of it's kind and likely to be open to serious appeal.

My guess would be that it would first be the subject of a charge(s)  , then possibly arbitration all under the PL jurisdiction. That said it’s possible that arbitration would be prior to any 24/25 charge.

 

The  Man City case at the High Court  if nothing else has led us to the confirmation that the PL  is considered competent to hear arbitration/ disciplinary matters so challenging that aspect would be churlish. The route to take any dispute out of the league would and could only be on a point of law and again I would imagine that would again prove fruitless.

 

So the process in all likelihood would be

 

1)charge/ arbitration,

2)IC appointed 

3) Directions etc

4) Hearing 

5) Appeal

 

There is no process to challenge any appeal save on a point of law. 
 

As I pointed out months ago I was always concerned that Leicesters tactics earlier in the year could backfire and if two charges  follow promotion without any reduction ( akin to Forest) for assisting the league in progressing the case then sorry that is a massive miscalculation on behalf of the board.

 

 

 

Edited 4 June by Terraloon

[Ric Flair]

29 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

My guess would be that it would first be the subject of a charge(s)  , then possibly arbitration all under the PL jurisdiction. That said it’s possible that arbitration would be prior to any 24/25 charge.

 

The  Man City case at the High Court  if nothing else has led us to the confirmation that the PL  is considered competent to hear arbitration/ disciplinary matters so challenging that aspect would be churlish. The route to take any dispute out of the league would and could only be on a point of law and again I would imagine that would again prove fruitless.

 

So the process in all likelihood would be

 

1)charge/ arbitration,

2)IC appointed 

3) Directions etc

4) Hearing 

5) Appeal

 

There is no process to challenge any appeal save on a point of law. 
 

As I pointed out months ago I was always concerned that Leicesters tactics earlier in the year could backfire and if two charges  follow promotion without any reduction ( akin to Forest) for assisting the league in progressing the case then sorry that is a massive miscalculation on behalf of the board.

 

 

 

Interesting. Why then has the EFL never passed any charges over to the PL? For example the fine we paid for our breach from 2013/14 was settled by way of a fine to the EFL rather than the PL deal with it? Other clubs have had similar too, most recently Sheffield Utd although not a PSR breach.

[Terraloon]

23 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Interesting. Why then has the EFL never passed any charges over to the PL? For example the fine we paid for our breach from 2013/14 was settled by way of a fine to the EFL rather than the PL deal with it? Other clubs have had similar too, most recently Sheffield Utd although not a PSR breach.

I actually don’t think the EFL rules have the same provision in terms of taking a case over from the PL but they do have a rule that clubs promoted from or relegated from the EFL remain under their disciplinary procedures hence why the 2013/14 breech was dealt with by the EFL and likewise why the EFL dealt with the Sheffield Utd charge.

 

 

Also it’s why Trevor Birch  had to backtrack re the EFL implementing any sanction if handed down by the PL in 23/24 to Leicester it simply isn’t allowed at the present 

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the EFL rules are changed idk to enable them to take over cases in respect of cases relegated from the PL and started under that jurisdiction 

Edited 4 June by Terraloon

[Ric Flair]

2 hours ago, Terraloon said:

I actually don’t think the EFL rules have the same provision in terms of taking a case over from the PL but they do have a rule that clubs promoted from or relegated from the EFL remain under their disciplinary procedures hence why the 2013/14 breech was dealt with by the EFL and likewise why the EFL dealt with the Sheffield Utd charge.

 

 

Also it’s why Trevor Birch  had to backtrack re the EFL implementing any sanction if handed down by the PL in 23/24 to Leicester it simply isn’t allowed at the present 

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the EFL rules are changed idk to enable them to take over cases in respect of cases relegated from the PL and started under that jurisdiction 

Sorry I've got confused, any 2023/24 breach would still be handled by the EFL then as we were a Championship club that season. The PL will only be responsible for sorting the 22/23 breach and if we were to breach 24/25.

[Terraloon]

See the rule E79 

 

This rule seems to allow the PL, with the agreement of the EFL to take over a dispute  that exists between clubs that were in the EFL and get promoted to the PL.In this instance of course that is Leicester
 

In effect the 23/24 PSR ( FFP) dispute that Leicester have with the EFL can it seems be dealt with by the PL

[coolhandfox]

@Terraloon

 

Where a Relegated Club, at the point at which it ceases to be a member of the League pursuant to Rule C.14, is engaged in a dispute with the League in relation to any aspect of the application of Rules E.45 to E.64, where the EFL and the League agree, conduct of that dispute on behalf of the League may pass to the EFL, to be resolved in accordance with the EFL Regulations.

 

This rule read the other way around to me.

 

The PL (the league) can be passed down to the EFL after relegation from the PL, with the agreement of the EFL. 

 

It doesn't talk about the EFL passing up to the PL, unless that is in the EFL Regulations. . 

 

Sheffield United have been docked two points, which will apply next season when they are back in the EFL, for offences in 22/23 

 

So, if what you are suggesting is true, why didn't thought points get passed up from the EFL to the PL to apply? 

 

 

 

[Terraloon]

1 hour ago, coolhandfox said:

@Terraloon

 

Where a Relegated Club, at the point at which it ceases to be a member of the League pursuant to Rule C.14, is engaged in a dispute with the League in relation to any aspect of the application of Rules E.45 to E.64, where the EFL and the League agree, conduct of that dispute on behalf of the League may pass to the EFL, to be resolved in accordance with the EFL Regulations.

 

This rule read the other way around to me.

 

The PL (the league) can be passed down to the EFL after relegation from the PL, with the agreement of the EFL. 

 

It doesn't talk about the EFL passing up to the PL, unless that is in the EFL Regulations. . 

 

Sheffield United have been docked two points, which will apply next season when they are back in the EFL, for offences in 22/23 

 

So, if what you are suggesting is true, why didn't thought points get passed up from the EFL to the PL to apply? 

 

 

 

Read rule E77 and rule E79

Edited 4 June by Terraloon

[ClaphamFox]

41 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Read rule E77 and rule E79

Rule 79 seems to say that if a club has already been charged by the EFL when they go up, the PL can implement EFL rules. However, if a club hasn't been charged (which we haven't for 2021-24 as the accounting period isn't even over yet), the dispute will be resolved in accordance with Section X. But what does 'Section X' say?

 

Edited 4 June by ClaphamFox

[Terraloon]

57 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Rule 79 seems to say that if a club has already been charged by the EFL when they go up, the PL can implement EFL rules. However, if a club hasn't been charged (which we haven't for 2021-24 as the accounting period isn't even over yet), the dispute will be resolved in accordance with Section X. But what does 'Section X' say?

 

The reason I drew attention to E77 and E79 is because they in effect cover two eventualities 

My reading of the rules is this

 

E77 .The EFL by virtue of their defined process has in effect already started the process for 23/24 .We know this because of the Embargo being put in place. This rule allows the EFL and PL to agree that the matter can be concluded by the PL.

E79. is all about Arbitration. Again City took both the EFL & PL to Arbitration. This rule allows any outstanding Arbitration issues to ( again if both leagues agree) be passed from the EFL to the PL. Section X is the PL defined process for cases referred to Arbitration 

[ClaphamFox]

15 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

The reason I drew attention to E77 and E79 is because they in effect cover two eventualities 

My reading of the rules is this

 

E77 .The EFL by virtue of their defined process has in effect already started the process for 23/24 .We know this because of the Embargo being put in place. This rule allows the EFL and PL to agree that the matter can be concluded by the PL.

E79. is all about Arbitration. Again City took both the EFL & PL to Arbitration. This rule allows any outstanding Arbitration issues to ( again if both leagues agree) be passed from the EFL to the PL. Section X is the PL defined process for cases referred to Arbitration 

I suppose this is where it could get messy. We disputed the EFL's right to impose an embargo, didn't we? I don't think that has been resolved - if, for example, it was found that the EFL was wrong to impose a transfer embargo for concerns over our PSR compliance for 23/24, could that result in it being determined that the defined process had not started, legally speaking, before we were promoted?

[Terraloon]

33 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I suppose this is where it could get messy. We disputed the EFL's right to impose an embargo, didn't we? I don't think that has been resolved - if, for example, it was found that the EFL was wrong to impose a transfer embargo for concerns over our PSR compliance for 23/24, could that result in it being determined that the defined process had not started, legally speaking, before we were promoted?

Good try.
 

At this point in time the embargo is still in place.Arguing it was premature, which was Cities argument and the process not being started are two separate matters.

 

The EFL process will  in all likelihood be considered have started because   on 31/3 City had to produce statements to the EFL those statements included income to date and projected, steps being taken to close any gaps. Those submissions didn’t persuade the EFL that there wouldn’t be a breech hence the embargo.

 

Thats just my view but to be fair   I only have very limited legal training and no doubt the KCs will argue their case based on who pays the piper as it were

 

 

[Chrysalis]

21 hours ago, westernpark said:

Ah right, no I understood it was a joke. I just didn’t realise you could buy him back at the same price to improve PSR.

As I understand it, you sell a player, then the full value is counted for that season.

 

Whilst buying a player its amortised, so assuming we resign him on 3 year contract and same wages with no player signing on fee and no agent fees it would be a 60m profit for PSR for the first season, but then a negative 30m for the next 2 seasons.

 

It would be interesting if there was a chance it would be allowed, but we not a big 6 club, so of course they wouldnt allow it.

 

I also think we wont have this form of FFP for much longer.  Legal challenges and threat of legislation will kill it.

Edited 5 June by Chrysalis

[LinekersLugs]

Man City have started the civil war 

 

they are suing the EPL 

 

are we about to see the EPL collapse ? 

[purpleronnie]

1 hour ago, LinekersLugs said:

Man City have started the civil war 

 

they are suing the EPL 

 

are we about to see the EPL collapse ? 

nope.

[Terraloon]

3 hours ago, LinekersLugs said:

Man City have started the civil war 

 

they are suing the EPL 

 

are we about to see the EPL collapse ? 

They aren’t suing the PL at all. What City have done is take a matter to arbitration under PL Rule X.

 

An arbitration panel made up of one arbitrator appointed by the PL and one by City and a third appointed by the  two Pl/ club appointed ones

 

This is all about City disagreeing with having to prove that sponsorship etc from an associate party is fair value. There is also another matter that they want compensation because of the rule. The rule was approved by the required majority 70% but that’s something else that City want changed

 

If city win this one it effectively will mean that they , Newcastle and possibly the likes of Chelsea and others owned  by hedge funds will become even more powerful that they are now

Edited 5 June by Terraloon

[splinterdream]

Apparently Man City's court action is supported by 1 other unnamed club.

[The Bear]

1 hour ago, splinterdream said:

Apparently Man City's court action is supported by 1 other unnamed club.

Ooh ooh, me sir, I know the answer!!!

[ClaphamFox]

6 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Ooh ooh, me sir, I know the answer!!!

Go on then.

[Groby_Blue]

Got to be Spurs hasn't it - bum licking the big boys again

[chadlcfc]

It will be Newcastle

[ClaphamFox]

1 minute ago, chadlcfc said:

It will be Newcastle

This would be my guess. Newcastle or Chelsea.

[Bluetintedspecs]

1 hour ago, splinterdream said:

Apparently Man City's court action is supported by 1 other unnamed club.

100% be Newcastle cos of the financial dominance and leeway Man City are seeking with their legal challenge