Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[ealingfox]

19 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. 

 

We clearly didn't ignore them, we tried to comply and failed which is even worse. There's been barely any spending in January windows going back years, a whole summer window year before last with only 1 paid signing and a huge negative net spend.

 

If we wanted to ignore and fight the rules why aren't we just exploiting the loopholes like other clubs are?

[ClaphamFox]

3 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

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. 

Did they flip-flop in January? Or did they have a carefully-structured deal in place which Inter then decided to try to renegotiate at the 11th hour, resulting in its collapse? 

[CosbehFox]

Just now, ClaphamFox said:

Did they flip-flop in January? Or did they have a carefully-structured deal in place which Inter then decided to try to renegotiate at the 11th hour, resulting in its collapse? 

LCFC knew they need to sell a player from the Summer transfer window to make any further room on FFP. That was also mentioned by the journalists closest to the club. 

If they sold a player, they would have been no need for the structuring of the Sensi deal. LCFC went after the deal in the last 48 hours despite the awareness of that a player need to leave. 

[ClaphamFox]

1 minute ago, CosbehFox said:

LCFC knew they need to sell a player from the Summer transfer window to make any further room on FFP. That was also mentioned by the journalists closest to the club. 

If they sold a player, they would have been no need for the structuring of the Sensi deal. LCFC went after the deal in the last 48 hours despite the awareness of that a player need to leave. 

Do you mean the winter transfer window - ie, they needed to sell in order to buy in January? Even if that's true (and I'm not convinced that any journalists really knows what happens behind the scenes at our club), I'm not sure that it's flip-flopping. If the club's position was that if we sold a player in January for a decent fee we'd have enough money to buy another player without worrying too much about the structure of the deal, then when that sale didn't materialise the club decided it could only sign another player for peanuts in a a deal that was structured very carefully, that strikes me as pretty logical behaviour from a club trying to avoid another PSR breach.

[cityfanlee23]

Had a dream it was -4, it’s clearly a sign. 

[Babylon]

43 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

We clearly didn't ignore them, we tried to comply and failed which is even worse. There's been barely any spending in January windows going back years, a whole summer window year before last with only 1 paid signing and a huge negative net spend.

 

If we wanted to ignore and fight the rules why aren't we just exploiting the loopholes like other clubs are?

We literally had the league and premier league on strings last season, thanks to us using their own rules against them. 

[themightyfin]

[CosbehFox]

15 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Do you mean the winter transfer window - ie, they needed to sell in order to buy in January? Even if that's true (and I'm not convinced that any journalists really knows what happens behind the scenes at our club), I'm not sure that it's flip-flopping. If the club's position was that if we sold a player in January for a decent fee we'd have enough money to buy another player without worrying too much about the structure of the deal, then when that sale didn't materialise the club decided it could only sign another player for peanuts in a a deal that was structured very carefully, that strikes me as pretty logical behaviour from a club trying to avoid another PSR breach.

The original post I replied was that the club's strategy was to ignore the PSR rules.  We'd have been aware of our FFP position when the summer transfer window closed.

 

We will find out when the results come out in December whether it's justifiable position. 

[sdb]

18 minutes ago, themightyfin said:

Go on.... 

[urban.spaceman]

8 hours ago, ozleicester said:

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

We're not even poor. We were one of the top 20 richest clubs in the world between 2016-2022. Our relegation and current status is as artificial as Manchester City's position over the last 15 years.

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Had a dream it was -4, it’s clearly a sign. 

Was it this: -4° ?

 

Because you might have been dreaming of someone on the loo.

[guest123]

4 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?

 

 

i think maybe the same reason they gave at that appeal thing or whatever it was. we'll soon know either way

[guest123]

3 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

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. 

 

 

no one in the media seem to be interested in KP now sponsoring the training ground

[Silebyfox_89]

30 minutes ago, guest123 said:

no one in the media seem to be interested in KP now sponsoring the training ground

Plenty of media at Seagrave yesterday.

Wife drove past and saw them queuing up, not sure what's going on though.

[sylofox]

On 25/06/2024 at 10:59, mozartfox said:

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

😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆 🤣 😂  it would cost us a fortune to get another club to take him.

[Foxin_Mad]

2 hours ago, ealingfox said:

 

We clearly didn't ignore them, we tried to comply and failed which is even worse. There's been barely any spending in January windows going back years, a whole summer window year before last with only 1 paid signing and a huge negative net spend.

 

If we wanted to ignore and fight the rules why aren't we just exploiting the loopholes like other clubs are?

We tried to comply but I think relegation which wasn't forecast for and sacking Rodgers and FA Cup winning manager with consistent European campaigns, also not forecast for was difficult, particularly when they did try to appease him one final time. 

 

The biggest error was persisting with that clown for so long.

 

I think now we are of the opinion the inconsistency and general ambiguity and anti competitive nature of the whole thing needs to be challenged. Circumventing a stupid rule, probably means they will just close the loophole. Fundamentally the whole thing is complete rubbish as it stands.  

 

Im not against something being in place, but it probably has to be a global decision or at least European one, and the big clubs are unlikely to ever support something that creates a genuine level playing field. This thing certainly isn't that. Also the EFL and EPL need to have some consistent logic which they don't. 

 

What they are doing at present is creating a bigger gap between the Premier League and EFL which is probably intentional. There wont be many more Ipswich stories. 

[BKLFox]

How the powers that be believe points deductions are the best way to deal with rule breaking is beyond me, they only need look at Reading Fc who currently find themselves in League 1 within 9/10yrs of being in the Premier lge & trying to establish themselves.

Jumping up to the top tier puts any clubs Opex onto a different scale, taking Reading as an example, they would have found wages dramatically increased coupled with larger transfer fees born out of trying to get better players coupled with fending off other clubs for those targets.
After achieving promotion & then new ownership they set about a long term vision for success & built a new state of the art (not on our scale) training ground, it then suddenly all went to pot & i think in the past 3-4 seasons have been deducted around 18 points thus far & what's the damage:-
As mentioned they find themselves in Lg1 with little hope of climbing out, they have already sold The Majeski Stadium to a company controlled by their very bad owner, they are/were in talks with Wycombe Wanders to sell that new training ground after only 5yrs of use & most recently look to have to fold their Womens side of the football club as unable to financial support, their female team & academy was a very good set up (in the womens game) & it fed a lot of the bigger clubs especially Chelsea, it's a sad outcome.

Of course the owner holds a lot of blame & he doesn't have the best rep but points deductions don't truely hurt him as through the backdoor still owns the stadium, the accompanying hotel & i'm sure in someway the training ground land after any potential sale, the people hurting from these deductions are the local employees to the club, the fans, the community & the existence of the club itself the 4 things FFP/PSR was brought in to protect, its total BS.

The owners need to take the hit with hefty personal fines its the only way they will truly manage debt if they see it hurts their own bank account, of course to the likes of the saudi state & oil clubs it won't really trouble them but at the same time Billionaires arn't Billionaires because they don't manage their own personal wealth.

 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 10:36 by BKLFox

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, sdb said:

Go on.... 

 

1 hour ago, themightyfin said:

We’ve ditched nick de Marco and are now employing dynamo and derren brown 

[Ric Flair]

20 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

We tried to comply but I think relegation which wasn't forecast for and sacking Rodgers and FA Cup winning manager with consistent European campaigns, also not forecast for was difficult, particularly when they did try to appease him one final time. 

 

The biggest error was persisting with that clown for so long.

 

I think now we are of the opinion the inconsistency and general ambiguity and anti competitive nature of the whole thing needs to be challenged. Circumventing a stupid rule, probably means they will just close the loophole. Fundamentally the whole thing is complete rubbish as it stands.  

 

Im not against something being in place, but it probably has to be a global decision or at least European one, and the big clubs are unlikely to ever support something that creates a genuine level playing field. This thing certainly isn't that. Also the EFL and EPL need to have some consistent logic which they don't. 

 

What they are doing at present is creating a bigger gap between the Premier League and EFL which is probably intentional. There wont be many more Ipswich stories. 

I'd like to see how much we have supposedly breached 22/23 by. Baring in mind we sold Fofana and Maddison in that accounting window, I'm not convinced there was a scenario that we wouldn't have been hugely under pressure regardless of relegation. At £2-3m a place we'd have to have been forecasting a top 4-6 finish which was a pipedream given we had no funds to strengthen that summer.

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I'd like to see how much we have supposedly breached 22/23 by. Baring in mind we sold Fofana and Maddison in that accounting window, I'm not convinced there was a scenario that we wouldn't have been hugely under pressure regardless of relegation. At £2-3m a place we'd have to have been forecasting a top 4-6 finish which was a pipedream given we had no funds to strengthen that summer.

The club will be no doubt argue that they were correct to budget for a top ten finish based on previous 4 seasons.

The commission will argue (quite reasonably) that once it was apparent that a top ten finish was unlikely, steps should have been taken pre January to ensure a profitable sale in that window (rather than spending) to meet psr requirements. 
and then (more pertinently) more than just madders sale in June. 

[Babylon]

5 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 I'd imagine saying "Get promoted" wouldn't be seen as a viable business plan. 

 

But I said donkeys ago, that by getting promoted it means a totally different ball game around sponsorships etc. A new shirt sponsor could easily add £20m to the books for a single season, even more if we do a deal with someone KP know... if you know what I mean. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

7 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I'd like to see how much we have supposedly breached 22/23 by. Baring in mind we sold Fofana and Maddison in that accounting window, I'm not convinced there was a scenario that we wouldn't have been hugely under pressure regardless of relegation. At £2-3m a place we'd have to have been forecasting a top 4-6 finish which was a pipedream given we had no funds to strengthen that summer.

Remember seeing a few relatively reputable posters saying the owner thought we'd finish 8th again in 2022/23, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if forecasts were made taking that prize money into account.

[Foxin_Mad]

5 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I'd like to see how much we have supposedly breached 22/23 by. Baring in mind we sold Fofana and Maddison in that accounting window, I'm not convinced there was a scenario that we wouldn't have been hugely under pressure regardless of relegation. At £2-3m a place we'd have to have been forecasting a top 4-6 finish which was a pipedream given we had no funds to strengthen that summer.

Its difficult to know but hasn't roughly 30 million been put down to pay of Rodgers and co, obviously that wasn't accounted for? Top 4-6 was maybe a pipedream, but a midtable finish wasn't out of the question had Rodgers selected the best players he had available. It was also a massive panic to sign Souttar, Kristainsen and Tete. 

 

The wage bill was pretty stupid and the recruitment was bad, the wrong people were definitely in those roles. It will be interesting to see how Brighton go on, particularly if they sign a £40 million player. Its very easy to go from a club that challenges to nothing with a few bad decisions, last year they were looking on a similar trajectory to us under Rodgers. Maybe the new manager has enough to turn that around and was done at the correct time. Brentford looked pretty devoid of ideas last season and I cant see how they suddenly start spending 40 million. 

 

Commercial and infrastructure wise for a multimillion pound business the club has been a joke for a long long time, including under Vichai. I dont know if this is just a general incompetence in football but there are very few multimillion pound businesses that would be so awful at service, customer relations, internal support services and systems. 

[Foxin_Mad]

10 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

The club will be no doubt argue that they were correct to budget for a top ten finish based on previous 4 seasons.

The commission will argue (quite reasonably) that once it was apparent that a top ten finish was unlikely, steps should have been taken pre January to ensure a profitable sale in that window (rather than spending) to meet psr requirements. 
and then (more pertinently) more than just madders sale in June. 

But really that's a stupid argument from the commission to comply with some made up bullshit rules. 

 

So you aren't meeting your business targets, 'sell your best assets', its compounding the problem and exactly why the rules are shit.

 

Actually I WANT to meet a target for my business, sense doesn't say reduce investment, business sense says increase investment! the very last thing you are going to do do is effectively get rid of your best sales person! 

 

 

[Ric Flair]

8 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Its difficult to know but hasn't roughly 30 million been put down to pay of Rodgers and co, obviously that wasn't accounted for? Top 4-6 was maybe a pipedream, but a midtable finish wasn't out of the question had Rodgers selected the best players he had available. It was also a massive panic to sign Souttar, Kristainsen and Tete. 

 

The wage bill was pretty stupid and the recruitment was bad, the wrong people were definitely in those roles. It will be interesting to see how Brighton go on, particularly if they sign a £40 million player. Its very easy to go from a club that challenges to nothing with a few bad decisions, last year they were looking on a similar trajectory to us under Rodgers. Maybe the new manager has enough to turn that around and was done at the correct time. Brentford looked pretty devoid of ideas last season and I cant see how they suddenly start spending 40 million. 

 

Commercial and infrastructure wise for a multimillion pound business the club has been a joke for a long long time, including under Vichai. I dont know if this is just a general incompetence in football but there are very few multimillion pound businesses that would be so awful at service, customer relations, internal support services and systems. 

And if we did have to pay Rodgers off his entire remaining contract then that means when we signed off on his new deal in 2019 for 5 years we had a maximum £50m liability over our heads that potentially had to be paid in the year in question. That decision making is extraordinary and would have made sustainable and robust forecasts and planning highly unreliable. It negates many of the mitigating circumstances some might be willing to give us with what's happened.