Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[Corky]

39 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

Trestellar Springs to mind 

I meant more that we would probably never get into a position to sell academy lads for ridiculous money after minimal appearances.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

3 hours ago, Lambert09 said:

 

The whole thing is a joke. They are all rubbing each other’s backs. How is this allowed? 

 

Problem for us is we start to do this and we lose the 3 youth players we actually might need for the season. 

 

3 hours ago, JimmyC74 said:

Poor governance by the Prem pure and simple.......they are afraid of the independent regulator and putting on a show.

 

 

A ruling authority doesn’t often act without an action has being taken.

 

I think for Leicester, these ‘sham deals’ going through might be a good thing for defending its own position PS&R breach.

 

It will also push the English game even closer to a football regulator.

[JimJams]

23 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

I think for Leicester, these ‘sham deals’ going through might be a good thing for defending its own position PS&R breach.

I think if the sham deals go through and count towards PSR as they're trying to engineer it then it pretty much kills the whole system.  Effectively clubs can sign absolute nobodies and trade them with high book values never having to worry about PSR restrictions again because whenever you're close you just sell another nobody for whatever it is you need.

 

Isn't there a system in place for determining player values to stop this? Didn't Juve fall foul of it with some player trading? And if there is, is it even lawful?

[filthyfox]

I wish they would just ****ING GET ON WITH IT!

[filthyfox]

29 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

A ruling authority doesn’t often act without an action has being taken.

 

I think for Leicester, these ‘sham deals’ going through might be a good thing for defending its own position PS&R breach.

 

It will also push the English game even closer to a football regulator.

English football needs an independent regulator...   I'm not basing my vote on it though,

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Surely the best bet is to sell the training ground or some other asset to dome bullshit made up company. To be honest I feel the club miss out on Machday revenue and commercial quite a bit, some people would hate it I'm sure, but why not create a kind of King Power duty free type experience in Leicester, quite unique, have bars selling Thai beer, bit of thai street food, some restaurants etc. They must have the purchasing power. The club seem so bad a being commercial whether they don't really have to be very savy due to Thailand being a bit of a closed shop I don't know but you think these skills were pretty basic. 

That won't work for 23/24 accounts ad the EFL don't recognise it for PSR like the PL do.

[Foxin_Mad]

19 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

That won't work for 23/24 accounts ad the EFL don't recognise it for PSR like the PL do.

The inconsistency of the two sets of rules is also stupid and probably questionable legally, how can a relegated club forecast to comply with Championship rules, especially if it doesn't predict being relegated, which basically anyone outside the cartel is one bad decisions away from. 

 

It's very difficult for a Championship team to compete in the Premier League now after promotion due to them have a lower loss allowed in total compared to a shite team at the bottom of the prem. When they get relegated the EFL will go after them. It's a total cluster****.

 

The sooner is dismantled by some lawyer the better. 

 

It's completely giving American franchise type owners exactly what they want, a closed shop. 

[Pliskin]

Hold on……. Can’t we just identify as a club who hasn’t breached FFP regulations? Thats a thing in this day and age isn’t it? 

[grth2004]

Been trying to get an idea on dates like most people , does anyone have any updates on possible charges dates or hearing dates ? 
i guess it got more complicated as soon as we decided to resist. 

[Wortho]

As has been alluded to, how can Man United have a billion pounds of debt whilst still be within PSR rules?

The Arab owners are looked upon as thieves, but the Yanks are honest investors!!

Once the Yanks have 14 owners it’ll be no relegation and games in the US.

[FrankieADZ]

seeing chelsea linked/bidding for loads of players again, I thought they was down shit creek PSR/FFP wise too

 

or is it one rule for one and one for another

[Trav Le Bleu]

14 hours ago, JimJams said:

I think if the sham deals go through and count towards PSR as they're trying to engineer it then it pretty much kills the whole system.  Effectively clubs can sign absolute nobodies and trade them with high book values never having to worry about PSR restrictions again because whenever you're close you just sell another nobody for whatever it is you need.

 

Isn't there a system in place for determining player values to stop this? Didn't Juve fall foul of it with some player trading? And if there is, is it even lawful?

Kind of reminds me of what I used to do on old versions of Football Manger. Play two teams  and get Arsenal to buy Junior Lewis for £40m + Thierry Henry.

[st albans fox]

11 minutes ago, Wortho said:

As has been alluded to, how can Man United have a billion pounds of debt whilst still be within PSR rules?

The Arab owners are looked upon as thieves, but the Yanks are honest investors!!

Once the Yanks have 14 owners it’ll be no relegation and games in the US.

Because debt is not considered a problem in business. It only becomes a problem if income is insufficient to cover the interest payments. And Man Utd generate more than enough income to cover that.  Lots of companies carry debt when they dont actually need to - they’d rather use the cashflow for other things that generate more income than the saving to be made by reducing the interest payments. 
 

united are somewhere in the middle - the owners generated a lot of the debt to buy the club.  That debt is around £500m. The other 3/400m is revolving debt around running a football club. 
 

 

[st albans fox]

6 minutes ago, FrankieADZ said:

seeing chelsea linked/bidding for loads of players again, I thought they was down shit creek PSR/FFP wise too

 

or is it one rule for one and one for another

They sold the hotel to another group Co the generate additional 80m income. That sorts out 22/23.  They made some sales last summer to help 23/24. In addition they’ve sold the training ground for 23/24. - not clear until they file the accounts what the nett gain was on that deal. The sales of academy players this month will sort out 23/24.  The can is then kicked down the road to 24/25. 

[FrankieADZ]

10 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

They sold the hotel to another group Co the generate additional 80m income. That sorts out 22/23.  They made some sales last summer to help 23/24. In addition they’ve sold the training ground for 23/24. - not clear until they file the accounts what the nett gain was on that deal. The sales of academy players this month will sort out 23/24.  The can is then kicked down the road to 24/25. 

think we should do that too then, sell the land next to the ground to ourselves etc

[Wortho]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

Because debt is not considered a problem in business. It only becomes a problem if income is insufficient to cover the interest payments. And Man Utd generate more than enough income to cover that.  Lots of companies carry debt when they dont actually need to - they’d rather use the cashflow for other things that generate more income than the saving to be made by reducing the interest payments. 
 

united are somewhere in the middle - the owners generated a lot of the debt to buy the club.  That debt is around £500m. The other 3/400m is revolving debt around running a football club. 
 

 

Yes I realise that, but we go £35m over our allowance and it’s a point deduction.

 I firmly believe all the charges against Man City are being brought at the behest of Liverpool, Man United and Arsenal . They’ve too much influence over the PL, which isn’t exactly clean themselves.

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

17 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

A ruling authority doesn’t often act without an action has being taken.

 

I think for Leicester, these ‘sham deals’ going through might be a good thing for defending its own position PS&R breach.

 

It will also push the English game even closer to a football regulator.

We have to use these examples to defend the absurdity of the rules. There are too many loopholes, though it’s taken some clubs time to cotton on to this. It either needs an independent regulator with teeth or a free market approach. Clubs are literally taking this piss out of this regulating yourself nonsense.

 

While I want us to have a good outcome, I absolutely want the book thrown at Man City. Not sure the two align with each other.

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, FrankieADZ said:

think we should do that too then, sell the land next to the ground to ourselves etc

We can do that but unless it’s value has increased markedly, there’s no notable benefit 

Chelsea are able to exploit the huge increase in value of land in the area of Stamford bridge over the past twenty years.  It’s the increase in value that bolsters the bottom line, not just the sale. That would be pretty negligible if we sold seagrave. 

 

The Chelsea training ground may not be of much use unless there are no planning restrictions on house building in that part of cobham. I suspect there mustn’t be or they wouldn’t have bothered. 

Edited 23 June by st albans fox

[FrankieADZ]

tbf this tweet sums it all up

[Corky]

It is a nonsense. I don't blame the clubs for exploiting it but if the players were out of contract and it went to tribunal, you would probably receive £2 million max. 

[st albans fox]

16 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

That won't work for 23/24 accounts ad the EFL don't recognise it for PSR like the PL do.

Correct - non staff asset sales inadmissible on efl psr.  You still have to justify a sale in PL psr. Chelsea owned a hotel in Chelsea. It worth a fortune on the basis of the land alone.  I assume that the value of seagrave is in the books at full cost which is then reduced by a percentage, year on year based on the cost of the building rather than the land.  Im sure if we had an allowable asset we’d have used it.
 

we had an opportunity last June to inflate Maddison/winks values by another 10/15m but we didn’t 

 

I believe that’s due to spurs being too close to Paratici when he was banned by fifa - I believe some of the things he was found guilty of was movement of players to/from juve for inflated fees to help ffp.  Levy didn’t want to get into this so soon after paratici left. 

[Rossiter]

3 hours ago, Wortho said:

As has been alluded to, how can Man United have a billion pounds of debt whilst still be within PSR rules?

The Arab owners are looked upon as thieves, but the Yanks are honest investors!!

Once the Yanks have 14 owners it’ll be no relegation and games in the US.

Maybe we'll create a new look league if that happens-somehow. A resurrection like Wimbledon.

[Mickyblueeyes]

5 hours ago, FrankieADZ said:

tbf this tweet sums it all up

Why are we not involved in this ? They are making a mockery of the system. Which is exactly what they should be doing.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Why are we not involved in this ? They are making a mockery of the system. Which is exactly what they should be doing.

Doubt it is from a moral perspective. These dodgy deals are probably quite a while in the making and as we were relegated doubt we got an invite to that particular party.

[Chrysalis]

On 22/06/2024 at 17:57, Grebfromgrebland said:

Sell kdh for 40m then buy someone for 40m.

 

32m profit?

The idea is you do it without selling your best players.