Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[BKLFox]

Piece in the Times:_
The Premier League has warned clubs that selling players to and from each other in order to comply with financial rules could breach regulations about acting in good faith.

"Its rule B15 states: “In all matters and transactions relating to the league each club, official and director shall behave towards each other club, official, director and the league with the utmost good faith. For the avoidance of doubt and by way of example only, it shall be a breach of the duties under this rule to act dishonestly towards the league or another club; or engage in conduct that is intended to circumvent these rules or obstruct the board’s investigation of compliance with them.”

No doubt they will turn a blind eye until the not so fancied teams start to do it, although Everton have started but maybe its because Chelsea & top 4 Villa have as well with Newcastle also looking to exploit.

[mozartfox]

Can we not sell Rudkin?   Given the brilliant job he has done there must Clubs in Europe looking to employ him?

[Dahnsouff]

9 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I know Top enjoys a trip to the casino, but that would be a bit of a gamble, wouldn't it? What if Man City loses its case and the PL decides to crack down even harder from now on?

Man City's case is (or has been made into) such an outlier, it is almost disconnected to PSR/FFP discussions and do some degree understandably so.

I don't think the unravelling will come from Man City's case, but from a recognition that these breaches are a league wide problem.

[Bluearmyfox28]

3 hours ago, BKLFox said:

Piece in the Times:_
The Premier League has warned clubs that selling players to and from each other in order to comply with financial rules could breach regulations about acting in good faith.

"Its rule B15 states: “In all matters and transactions relating to the league each club, official and director shall behave towards each other club, official, director and the league with the utmost good faith. For the avoidance of doubt and by way of example only, it shall be a breach of the duties under this rule to act dishonestly towards the league or another club; or engage in conduct that is intended to circumvent these rules or obstruct the board’s investigation of compliance with them.”

No doubt they will turn a blind eye until the not so fancied teams start to do it, although Everton have started but maybe its because Chelsea & top 4 Villa have as well with Newcastle also looking to exploit.

The problem is it is all subjective, their counter argument will be how do you determine a young players value with the market being the way it currently is for youth players regardless of the obvious reasoning behind the prices, so many teams involved makes it hard to challenge. Man City did it in the smartest way buying younger academy products with sky high potential and coaching them up and selling them for a profit, players like Harwood-Bellis will continue that trend this summer.

 

Buying youth does not show on PSR, however the income received for them does. Which for me is stupid in its own right and is now takes away a big element of scouting local kids or sticking with them and coaching weaknesses, when you have a free pass to just go and buy a replacement for them instead. If this is the route football starts taking, less kids will get the opportunities in academies, especially in the later years.

[st albans fox]

Villa have apparently done enough to meet psr for 23/34

they will almost certainly need to sell again next spring to meet 24/25 

[JimJams]

Have they got any 6 year olds they can sell to Chelsea for £50mill?

[majaco]

If transfer fees are spread out over the length of a contract,  how much are we already paying out in the coming season?  We are still accounting for Hermansen,  Souttar, Coady, Faes, VK, Winks, Soumare, Mavididi,  Daka, Cannon and Fatawu.   

 

Is that 30 million committed in transfer fees already?  If so, can we afford to buy without selling first?

[Ric Flair]

11 minutes ago, majaco said:

If transfer fees are spread out over the length of a contract,  how much are we already paying out in the coming season?  We are still accounting for Hermansen,  Souttar, Coady, Faes, VK, Winks, Soumare, Mavididi,  Daka, Cannon and Fatawu.   

 

Is that 30 million committed in transfer fees already?  If so, can we afford to buy without selling first?

I've got it at about £30m too, it could be less if we opted to put some player impairment in to the 23/24 accounts.

 

Vestergaard, Praet, Justin drop off which is probably around £10m, can't remember if there's any others.

 

As always the vast pressure will come from wages. We could buy £100m worth of new players this summer and only increase our amortisation figure by £20m up to £50m. We'd then need all our wages to be within the remaining revenue earnt and maximum allowable losses. So we'd need a wage bill of somewhere around £100-120m max.

[st albans fox]

8 minutes ago, majaco said:

If transfer fees are spread out over the length of a contract,  how much are we already paying out in the coming season?  We are still accounting for Hermansen,  Souttar, Coady, Faes, VK, Winks, Soumare, Mavididi,  Daka, Cannon and Fatawu.   

 

Is that 30 million committed in transfer fees already?  If so, can we afford to buy without selling first?

we can afford to buy. But we also do need to sell. I doubt we’ll wait though.  I reckon we will try and take in 30-40m profit.  I would expect us to spend around 40/50m 

[majaco]

8 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I've got it at about £30m too, it could be less if we opted to put some player impairment in to the 23/24 accounts.

 

Vestergaard, Praet, Justin drop off which is probably around £10m, can't remember if there's any others.

 

As always the vast pressure will come from wages. We could buy £100m worth of new players this summer and only increase our amortisation figure by £20m up to £50m. We'd then need all our wages to be within the remaining revenue earnt and maximum allowable losses. So we'd need a wage bill of somewhere around £100-120m max.

I am also wondering to what extent the wage bill has changed.   Castagne,  Evans, Amartey,  Soyuncu,  Mendy, Tielemans,  Maddison,  Perez, Barnes, Bertrand, Iheanacho,  Albrighton,  Praet, ?Ndidi.  That could be 40 million a year.

 

Presumably Hermansen,  Coady, Winks, Mavididi, Fatawu and Cannon are on less eye-watering wages.  It would still be 12 million plus.

[don_danbury]

cant they just give us a 2 point deduction and get it over and done with?

[st albans fox]

12 minutes ago, don_danbury said:

cant they just give us a 2 point deduction and get it over and done with?

Sadly not …..

[don_danbury]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

Sadly not …..

1 point then

[ozleicester]

Why, its almost as though the system is designed to favor the rich ahead of the poor. 

[Dan LCFC]

Have I misunderstood things and that there wasn't quite a rush to sell before 1st July after all? Or are we just setting up for more sanctions?

[Lambert09]

What I find funny is when people make the claim that we got relegated because we didn’t spend money. had we spent money that summer, it would have been about 30m on Charles deketalare, who just completely flopped in serie A. 
 

Essentially we would have just been stuck with another waste of a transfer on mega wages and gone down in a even worse situation. I think we were doomed whatever we did with rodgers in charge. 

 

 

[guest123]

3 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

Have I misunderstood things and that there wasn't quite a rush to sell before 1st July after all? Or are we just setting up for more sanctions?

That's been my take, I'm quielty thinking we 'might' just be alright as there has been no panic and mass fire sale

[Ric Flair]

3 minutes ago, guest123 said:

That's been my take, I'm quielty thinking we 'might' just be alright as there has been no panic and mass fire sale

In which case why wouldn't we have provided the business plan to the EFL for how we were complying for 23/24?

 

 

[UniFox21]

27 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

In which case why wouldn't we have provided the business plan to the EFL for how we were complying for 23/24?

 

 

Probably something semi dodgy relating to sponsorships 

[Ric Flair]

11 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Probably something semi dodgy relating to sponsorships 

I'd be extremely surprised if we've raised significant additional sponsorship income that this hasn't been known to the media yet. 

 

Everything we've been told from the embargo from the EFL to our arguments that the 23/24 accounting period isn't over until the end of June to raise funds suggests we would still need to. I hope we don't and we've somehow complied as this is going to get very messy. 

 

 

[Tommy G]

5 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Why, its almost as though the system is designed to favor the rich ahead of the poor. 

Wrong thread

[ealingfox]

If you haven't yet tweaked that they simply don't know what they're doing I envy you in a way. There's no cunning plan, there's no strategy. Just blind unwillingness to look reality in the face.

Edited Thursday at 06:29 by ealingfox

[Foxin_Mad]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

In which case why wouldn't we have provided the business plan to the EFL for how we were complying for 23/24?

 

 

Because quite frankly the rules are so incoherent and mind bendingly inconsitent and stupid that we actually dont have to. 

 

Obviously our original plan relied strongly on not being relegated but we were, I suppose the plan for the EFL was to get out of it quickly which likely brings in more income than if we had stayed there. 

 

The club either feel they have a pretty good case against the rather stupid rules, which I think they do, or we have complied by some miracle. The fact we didnt complete the Sensi deal suggests we must be relatively close if it were felt that 2m would make a difference. 

[Foxin_Mad]

1 hour ago, ealingfox said:

If you haven't yet tweaked that they simply don't know what they're doing I envy you in a way. There's no cunning plan, there's no strategy. Just blind unwillingness to look reality in the face.

I think there is a strategy, the strategy is the rules are bullshit and we will ignore and fight them. Which I think is a fair strategy. 

 

I dont know why some of so insistent in complying with such a wanky set of rules that are so inconsistent and incoherent. Other clubs are making loopholes, its unsutainable and claerly doesnt work. 

 

All it does is protect the red cartel from challenges. 

[CosbehFox]

16 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

I think there is a strategy, the strategy is the rules are bullshit and we will ignore and fight them. Which I think is a fair strategy. 

 

I dont know why some of so insistent in complying with such a wanky set of rules that are so inconsistent and incoherent. Other clubs are making loopholes, its unsutainable and claerly doesnt work. 

 

All it does is protect the red cartel from challenges. 

Disagree. Such a strategy doesn't explain the paralysis over the summer of 2022 and the official line was that we were aiming for FFP compliance. 

 

If we were ignoring them, we'd have carried on spending. 

 

They are clueless IMO - at one point its all systems go and at others, it's we need to comply. They flip-flopped during the January 2024 window on their position.