Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[Ric Flair]

18 minutes ago, Babylon said:

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. 

I'd be surprised if getting promoted has enabled us to comply though. If anything it could have increased costs in 23/24 in player bonuses. Hopefully we have gotten in some additional sponsorship but don't we tend to hear about such things?

[Babylon]

9 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I'd be surprised if getting promoted has enabled us to comply though. If anything it could have increased costs in 23/24 in player bonuses. Hopefully we have gotten in some additional sponsorship but don't we tend to hear about such things?

Our shirts aren't out yet! Plus current contracts would have had an increase built into the contract. 

[ts_1010]

10 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

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.

I'mActually 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 effectivey get rid of your best sales person! 

 

 

I agree with the sentiment here, but our hearing won't be looking at whether the rules make sense, or whether they are fair. 

 

We may be able to argue this when in arbitration afterwards, but this hearing will likely reject those arguments.

[Foxin_Mad]

5 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

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.

It definitely  was extraordinary. I suppose the issue is at the time we were looking like challenging the Top 4, had the owners let Rodgers leave to Arsenal we probably would have been considered unambitious by many, so I can understand why they did it. Did they put too much faith in Rodgers - definitely, but its a fine line. 

 

I want the club to be ambitious and a clubs owner should have the ability to be ambitious. I think the clubs overriding mitigating circumstances are that if you want to push to break into the top 6 , you have to make risky decisions and sometimes that may go wrong but really if the ownership are willing to fund that risk, that's up to them. The restrictions effectively limit competition to the existing big 6 as they are the only ones who can meet this long term. The fact we didn't meet  the stupid rules hasn't really helped us or anyone else, we still got relegated, other teams have benefited far more from breaking them and had lesser punishments. We have been relegated, lost our best players and will most likely go back down and taken to the cleaners by the EFL because they are bitter and want to 'prove a point'. Other clubs are using loopholes that are blatant but nothing can be done. The whole thing is a joke. 

[st albans fox]

23 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

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! 

 

 

I wasn’t arguing that the rules are good/bad

But the rules are clear and we could have sold barnes in June 2023 to meet that years psr 

Other clubs did/didn’t and met requirements or failed and suffered a sanction 

 

in addition, the number of players leaving at the end of their contracts has been abysmal. We’ve run a sh1tshow of a club on that level.  Many tens of millions lost which would probably have meant we’d not fail psr despite relegation. 

 

 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 11:23 by st albans fox

[ts_1010]

13 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I'd be surprised if getting promoted has enabled us to comply though. If anything it could have increased costs in 23/24 in player bonuses. Hopefully we have gotten in some additional sponsorship but don't we tend to hear about such things?

Any benefits from promotion will almost certainly come in the next seasons accounts not this one. You are right.

 

Hopefully, the bonuses were factored in. There may also be some small prize for actually winning the league. 

[nick6666]

The whole ffp thing is a complete nonsense if they are going to have any kinda of spending regulations it should be more aimed at so called top clubs who in my opinion take the p#ss... There should be rules against punishing any newly promoted club

 

It's counter productive, they should be encouraging a level playing field 

Edited Thursday at 11:25 by nick6666

[when_you're_smiling]

4 minutes ago, nick6666 said:

It's counter productive, they should be encouraging a level playing field 

The Premier League has never been about a level playing field. When it formed in 1992, the biggest difference was that the clubs with the biggest stadiums managed to get rid of the rule that the away side kept 25 per cent of the gate receipts. There’s been more and more rules since.

[Ric Flair]

27 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

It definitely  was extraordinary. I suppose the issue is at the time we were looking like challenging the Top 4, had the owners let Rodgers leave to Arsenal we probably would have been considered unambitious by many, so I can understand why they did it. Did they put too much faith in Rodgers - definitely, but its a fine line. 

 

I want the club to be ambitious and a clubs owner should have the ability to be ambitious. I think the clubs overriding mitigating circumstances are that if you want to push to break into the top 6 , you have to make risky decisions and sometimes that may go wrong but really if the ownership are willing to fund that risk, that's up to them. The restrictions effectively limit competition to the existing big 6 as they are the only ones who can meet this long term. The fact we didn't meet  the stupid rules hasn't really helped us or anyone else, we still got relegated, other teams have benefited far more from breaking them and had lesser punishments. We have been relegated, lost our best players and will most likely go back down and taken to the cleaners by the EFL because they are bitter and want to 'prove a point'. Other clubs are using loopholes that are blatant but nothing can be done. The whole thing is a joke. 

There's being ambitious and offering a big salary over 5 years but to not have a sacking clause which equated to a proportion of his total contract (if indeed that were the case) is crazy. Seldom do managers last 5 years regardless of immediate success and don't forget he had a release clause, so his sacking clause should have aligned with that at the very least. 

[Big_Nige]

Can I ask a question I really should know the answer on already? 
 

The PSR breach we are going to get at some point this season is based on the 3 year rolling period culminating in year ending accounts as at 30th June 23 right? We know the underlying loss figure but not what the over all PSR breach is taking into account deductible things like infrastructure? But there have been varying educated guessing about what that figure will be? 
 

Transfers and wages and all the good stuff that relate to the period between July 1st 2023 to June 30th 2024 will form the potential second breach. But this is where I’m struggling a bit. We were an EFL club at the time, so is there a precedent where the punishment has been handed up? Shef U are taking their punishment this season rather than have it applied in the prem? 
 

im not saying we should ignore it but isn’t there a pretty strong legal case if the punishment gets passed to the EPL from EFL? And could that be why we aren’t actively engaging in the behaviour of a club concerned yet? I.e selling kids to each other for millions? 

[st albans fox]

52 minutes ago, ts_1010 said:

Any benefits from promotion will almost certainly come in the next seasons accounts not this one. You are right.

 

Hopefully, the bonuses were factored in. There may also be some small prize for actually winning the league. 

Negligible prize money 

 

The benefits of winning the league will undoubtedly be in 24/25

 

any bonus’ agreed have to go in 23/24 

[Leeds Fox]

55 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I wasn’t arguing that the rules are good/bad

But the rules are clear and we could have sold barnes in June 2023 to meet that years psr 

Other clubs did/didn’t and met requirements or failed and suffered a sanction 

 

in addition, the number of players leaving at the end of their contracts has been abysmal. We’ve run a sh1tshow of a club on that level.  Many tens of millions lost which would probably have meant we’d not fail psr despite relegation. 

 

 

 

 

This isn’t aimed solely at you mate, but the selling clubs will always want to sell pre June, buying clubs want to buy post June. In any sale (of absolutely anything), the power lies with the buyer. 
 

If I want a new sofa on 28th May but don’t get paid until the 1st June, I’ll buy it then. It’s so simple but it needs to be looked at from a neutral perspective. We likely couldn’t sell Barnes until after June, as that’s when any buyers were willing to stump up.

[st albans fox]

15 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said:

This isn’t aimed solely at you mate, but the selling clubs will always want to sell pre June, buying clubs want to buy post June. In any sale (of absolutely anything), the power lies with the buyer. 
 

If I want a new sofa on 28th May but don’t get paid until the 1st June, I’ll buy it then. It’s so simple but it needs to be looked at from a neutral perspective. We likely couldn’t sell Barnes until after June, as that’s when any buyers were willing to stump up.

Buying is way less onerous though because it’s spread over five years.  I do accept the basic point you’re making.  However, buyers will also demand a reduced fee for doing a June deal.  

I suspect we might be publicising the KDH stuff now to illustrate the fact that we’re trying to make a sale in June - we may have no intention of doing a June deal cos we’ve decided to go all in on a big efl breach 23/24 and will try and make our epl breach 24/25 (three year rolling) lower so that we get a lesser sanction in the PL 25/26 (assuming we can stay up) 

[Lambert09]

I’m wondering if the club prefer to fail than sell a bunch of players at reduced fees because of he fact we already have a points deduction incoming means this one should be less severe. If this account just adds 2-4 points you may as well not busy a gut to comply. 
 

A month could be the difference between 25m for kdh or 35m

Edited Thursday at 13:30 by Lambert09

[Fox 4 Life]

https://www.footballinsider247.com/leicester-city-to-be-hit-by-devastating-double-points-deduction-blow-sources/

 

2 in one season would be brutal, is this because our last one was in essence deferred as we were in the championship?

[VLC86]

4 minutes ago, Fox 4 Life said:

https://www.footballinsider247.com/leicester-city-to-be-hit-by-devastating-double-points-deduction-blow-sources/

 

2 in one season would be brutal, is this because our last one was in essence deferred as we were in the championship?

It literally explains it in the article you posted. 

[Fox 4 Life]

4 minutes ago, VLC86 said:

It literally explains it in the article you posted. 

It talks about the 2 breaches yes but the scenario is unusual as we should have got it last season but were not a premier league club, and had the court cases to block the EFL from doing anything. I suppose my point is what is different, in we are now looking at a breach for the year we were an EFL club but why do the prem have the power to punish us when the EFL didn't?

Edited Thursday at 14:20 by Fox 4 Life

[RyCleary]

17 minutes ago, Fox 4 Life said:

It talks about the 2 breaches yes but the scenario is unusual as we should have got it last season but were not a premier league club, and had the court cases to block the EFL from doing anything. I suppose my point is what is different, in we are now looking at a breach for the year we were an EFL club but why do the prem have the power to punish us when the EFL didn't?

Exactly this, same logic that stopped us getting punished last year surely stops us getting punished this year for the 23/24 breach

[Gamble92]

So we are facing 2 points deductions this season then another as soon as we go down to the Championship?

[ClaphamFox]

45 minutes ago, Fox 4 Life said:

https://www.footballinsider247.com/leicester-city-to-be-hit-by-devastating-double-points-deduction-blow-sources/

 

2 in one season would be brutal, is this because our last one was in essence deferred as we were in the championship?

“Sources say…”

 

I guarantee you that none of these sources have anything to do with the club or have any inside information on what our PSR situation is. 

Edited Thursday at 14:55 by ClaphamFox

[Ric Flair]

What these articles don't ever caveat is that a) the maximum a PL club has been hit with for PSR is 8 points as 9 points is the deduction for going in to administration and b) no PL club has ever had a breach passed down from a charge from the EFL.

 

Whether legally either could occur is open for discussion but there's plenty reason to assume they won't. 

[FoxinNotts]

24 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

So we are facing 2 points deductions this season then another as soon as we go down to the Championship?

correct

 

[Chrysalis]

7 hours 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. 

Indeed, I said the same thing a while back, we were indecisive and stuck in the middle.  We either dont comply, abuse the rules, maximise our playing potential, or we comply to the point we never get penalised, instead we gave ourselves a self imposed transfer embargo and didnt meet the target anyway whilst getting relegated in the process.

[Foxin_Mad]

44 minutes ago, RyCleary said:

Exactly this, same logic that stopped us getting punished last year surely stops us getting punished this year for the 23/24 breach

Presumably though if we breach the stupid EFL PSR we will breach the stupid EPL PSR, so they can both shaft us.

 

The best thing that can happen is that the lawyers are good and either our court case or Man City's court case and determines that it is an anticompetitive sack of shit, because it is and deem it illegal to enforce. 

[Gamble92]

15 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Presumably though if we breach the stupid EFL PSR we will breach the stupid EPL PSR, so they can both shaft us.

 

The best thing that can happen is that the lawyers are good and either our court case or Man City's court case and determines that it is an anticompetitive sack of shit, because it is and deem it illegal to enforce.