Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[happy85]

2 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

@happy85 just more evidence that no one really has a clue of what's going on.

 

Rules are a complete mess.

Yes exactly . 

[LCFCJohn]

4 hours ago, MPH said:

 

 

but we are not reckless for breaking the same rules as them?

Come on, it’s obvious what the other poster means.

 
There are different routes to the same end (in this case being over the financial limits). Forest spend so much on 30 odd players and the replaced half of those in the winter window. Everton spend loads repeatedly with nothing to show for it and spend above where they are operating.

 

In the past few years we have been operating at the higher end of the table, playing in Europe etc. We didn’t just go and blow a load of cash in one window or two. We got caught out by our success and the wages climbed up and up. We then had a manager who brought the whole thing crashing down.

 

Yes there has been incompetence and mistakes made but I would not say outright recklessness. You can still be at the same end game without feeling it’s fair to be tarred with the same brush as Everton and Forest.

[inckley fox]

I hope I didn't break any rules earlier when I said we seemed to have broken rules which we'd previously voted for. There was a response by a fine poster (most likely explaining why I was wrong) which has, along with my message, also vanished! So, if either the mods wish to explain why I'm being daft, or Coolhandfox wishes to reiterate why I'm wrong in my conclusions, then I'd be grateful! I know how careful we all have to be in what we say, but I didn't think there was anything too serious, edgy, contentious and definitely not libellous (I mean, how can any of us have a clue in that regard, one way or the other?) in the message. So, as a middle-aged man muddling through the gripes and grievances of 2024, and who has quite possibly missed something right in front of me, I'd be grateful for any enlightenment!

[Cropwellfox]

Makes pissing millions up the wall last January on players who barely made any useful contribution at all look all the more inept by the board and whoever was advising them. The complacent ‘it’ll be fine’ culture will be what’s in the end responsible for us potentially worse off than we were in the depths of the Holloway fiasco, because if we don’t go up this year there’ll be deduction upon deduction given the wages, contract lengths and morons still running the show. 

[MPH]

50 minutes ago, LCFCJohn said:

Come on, it’s obvious what the other poster means.

 
There are different routes to the same end (in this case being over the financial limits). Forest spend so much on 30 odd players and the replaced half of those in the winter window. Everton spend loads repeatedly with nothing to show for it and spend above where they are operating.

 

In the past few years we have been operating at the higher end of the table, playing in Europe etc. We didn’t just go and blow a load of cash in one window or two. We got caught out by our success and the wages climbed up and up. We then had a manager who brought the whole thing crashing down.

 

Yes there has been incompetence and mistakes made but I would not say outright recklessness. You can still be at the same end game without feeling it’s fair to be tarred with the same brush as Everton and Forest.

and we have gone bats**t crazy  on wages.  So I don’t see your point at all.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

6 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

I hope I didn't break any rules earlier when I said we seemed to have broken rules which we'd previously voted for.

Just to pick you up on that. We didn't vote for it as we weren't in the Premier League when PSR was voted in (Feb 2013)

 

13 clubs voted in favour

 

Man Utd

Chelsea

Arsenal

Tottenham 

Everton

Liverpool

West Ham

Norwich

Stoke

Newcastle 

Sunderland 

Wigan

QPR

 

6 clubs voted against

 

Man City

West Brom

Swansea

Fulham

Southampton 

Aston Villa

 

Reading mysteriously abstained from the vote, which gave the motion the 2/3 majority required (13 votes out of 19) to implement PSR.

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

2 hours ago, Lambert09 said:

Not sure if he got restricted or his source left the club.. 

The club have never given him info.

[weller54]

10 minutes ago, MPH said:

and we have gone bats**t crazy  on wages.  So I don’t see your point at all.

There will never be another Championship footballer earning 140k a week...ever!!

[Chrysalis]

11 hours ago, Nolucklcfc said:

Genuinely what even is the point in going up? 

To prevent even more of a club implosion, even if went up invested nothing and had an awful season, we have got a load more money in our pocket over the next couple of seasons.

[Claudio Fannieri]

There is only one reason for me to hope we won promotion.and that is for the club to get the money and make it easier to stop the implosion. Other than that i really am growing a rapid distain for the premier league, plastic fans and day trippers, VAR and financial sustainability rules that have been put in place to ensure the big 6 retain their dominance, it is a complete and utter shit show and so far removed from what made us all fall in love with the beautiful game. 
 

I hate the phrase but I think it’s fully justified, the game has gone ……..

[Ric Flair]

1000 likes and we don't breach PSR

 

[ALC Fox]

"Leicester have money but can’t spend it under PSR restraints, and could now face a points deficit at the start of next season as a result." - Rob Tanner, The Athletic

 

I know this final paragraph of today's article by Rob is something we already know. But I do think it's worth reiterating.

 

Our owners - even after the difficulties of COVID on their main business and main source of income - have money to spend. They've built an incredible training complex. They give so much to fans. They donate to local causes. They're planning to expand the stadium and develop the surrounding area.

 

Yes, the way the club is run according to the current rules deserves criticism. But the rules themselves are ridiculous. By all measures, King Power are excellent owners with a track record of investment and wiping out debt. There were no layoffs during COVID and no layoffs upon relegation. Unless you're a big 6 club, investment in football in this country is going to result in losses, not gains.

 

I understand that the rules are designed to avoid terrible owners plunging clubs into oblivion and depriving fans of a club to support. So why not make real transgressions like failing to pay players punishable by forcing trash owners to sell the club?

 

Points deductions are very good punishments as they can affect so much. But applying them in different seasons (I know the PL is stopping this) benefits teams in different periods, so clubs that were transgressed against are not being rewarded. Also, if a promoted club can just be fined (as we were last time we were promoted), the EFL benefits but other affected clubs, again, see no reward.

 

I also understand that having rich owners come in and buy success is a cause of rancour and jealousy among supporters of other clubs. But, honestly, responsible owners such as ours - who have been able to wipe out debt and keep every 'normal' member of staff on the payroll during a global crisis that wiped out their ability to make serious money - are few and far between. What do the current PSR rules do other than discourage these people from remaining in the game, with the potential of being replaced by fantasists and reckless, belligerent bullies like Reading, Sheffield Wednesday or Nottingham Forest's owners?

 

In a free market, why can't those who are willing to lose money, come in and try to overturn the current hegemony at the top of the game? It can't happen any other way.

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

8 minutes ago, ALC Fox said:

"Leicester have money but can’t spend it under PSR restraints, and could now face a points deficit at the start of next season as a result." - Rob Tanner, The Athletic

 

I know this final paragraph of today's article by Rob is something we already know. But I do think it's worth reiterating.

 

Our owners - even after the difficulties of COVID on their main business and main source of income - have money to spend. They've built an incredible training complex. They give so much to fans. They donate to local causes. They're planning to expand the stadium and develop the surrounding area.

 

Yes, the way the club is run according to the current rules deserves criticism. But the rules themselves are ridiculous. By all measures, King Power are excellent owners with a track record of investment and wiping out debt. There were no layoffs during COVID and no layoffs upon relegation. Unless you're a big 6 club, investment in football in this country is going to result in losses, not gains.

 

I understand that the rules are designed to avoid terrible owners plunging clubs into oblivion and depriving fans of a club to support. So why not make real transgressions like failing to pay players punishable by forcing trash owners to sell the club?

 

Points deductions are very good punishments as they can affect so much. But applying them in different seasons (I know the PL is stopping this) benefits teams in different periods, so clubs that were transgressed against are not being rewarded. Also, if a promoted club can just be fined (as we were last time we were promoted), the EFL benefits but other affected clubs, again, see no reward.

 

I also understand that having rich owners come in and buy success is a cause of rancour and jealousy among supporters of other clubs. But, honestly, responsible owners such as ours - who have been able to wipe out debt and keep every 'normal' member of staff on the payroll during a global crisis that wiped out their ability to make serious money - are few and far between. What do the current PSR rules do other than discourage these people from remaining in the game, with the potential of being replaced by fantasists and reckless, belligerent bullies like Reading, Sheffield Wednesday or Nottingham Forest's owners?

 

In a free market, why can't those who are willing to lose money, come in and try to overturn the current hegemony at the top of the game? It can't happen any other way.

A responsible owner wouldn't leave the club in the mess we're in. Literally the opposite of responsible.

[CosbehFox]

The whole line of do have money to spend - questions the repeated need for liquid cash for the Australian bank 

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

The whole line of do have money to spend - questions the repeated need for liquid cash for the Australian bank 

You would assume that the owners could loan the cashflow to the club rather than via a bank at commercial interest rates. 
however, it may be that owners are only able to invest the allowable amounts each season and anything else must be at arms length.  The Macquarie stuff could be at very advantageous rates via agreements between themselves and KP ??

[Chelmofox]

9 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

The whole line of do have money to spend - questions the repeated need for liquid cash for the Australian bank 

The line 'money to spend' is always murky. Remember being part of the due diligence process of a business where the proposed acquirer said they had money to invest in scaling / growth etc, but when you delve into the idea it always comes at a cost (in their case it was loans that were at pretty nasty rates). You would think for any the holdco business the last resort is always to just hand over significant sums of cash. It usually just means they have the equity to be able provide it / offset / guarantee it somehow.

[Nalis]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

1000 likes and we don't breach PSR

 

If actor who plays Top has an attempt Thai accent to match the awfulness of Gerard Butler's Irish accent then I'm all for it.

[coolhandfox]

26 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

The whole line of do have money to spend - questions the repeated need for liquid cash for the Australian bank 

Rich people rarely use their own money.

 

 

[sdb]

46 minutes ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

A responsible owner wouldn't leave the club in the mess we're in. Literally the opposite of responsible.

They've been responsible for the most part. They were just too loyal towards a couple of absolute ****wads. It's so rare for a manager to actively put himself first to the detriment of the club he leads. We all thought Rodgers was football's David Brent, but not someone actually prepared to cripple a club for his own financial benefit.

[Cropwellfox]

Things keep on the current trajectory we will be in for the mother of all resets for next season, and us supporters will need to completely reset their expectations in line.
May actually bring some of the joy back into following the club as even this season has felt pretty meh quite often even given how well we’ve gone. A squad of mainly home grown young players with a some experienced championship players who aren’t the money grabbing overpaid arsehole types. Win some lose some and watch on as more and more teams succumb to the PSR shitshow before the big 6 eventually break away into a Saudi sponsored league. Problem ahead of all that is the culture and leadership of the club who don’t seem able to run a tab at a bar let alone an organisation turning over nearly £100m even without the big TV money. 

[kenny]

13 minutes ago, sdb said:

They've been responsible for the most part. They were just too loyal towards a couple of absolute ****wads. It's so rare for a manager to actively put himself first to the detriment of the club he leads. We all thought Rodgers was football's David Brent, but not someone actually prepared to cripple a club for his own financial benefit.

I think making mistakes and being taking the wrong advice is not the same as irresponsible.

 

It strikes me that they have tried to establish the club at the top while making it as self sustaining as possible.

 

The big mistake they made was not realising that we can only do that by selling our best assets. I think Rodgers persuaded the board that selling tielemans after the FA cup was detrimental and that we need to keep our stars. 

[sdb]

1 minute ago, kenny said:

I think making mistakes and being taking the wrong advice is not the same as irresponsible.

 

It strikes me that they have tried to establish the club at the top while making it as self sustaining as possible.

 

The big mistake they made was not realising that we can only do that by selling our best assets. I think Rodgers persuaded the board that selling tielemans after the FA cup was detrimental and that we need to keep our stars. 

Agreed. Rodgers started well and the club gave him the keys, really. Mad to think he was close to joining arsenal. The problem (aside from his huge ego and stale tactics and lack of leadership) was that he had no interest or understanding in club finances. Undoubtedly why he decided to throw the towel in 18 months ago and play for a pay off. If we'd have been stronger I guess he'd have gone earlier and we'd probably be OK, but he'd earned time, unfortunately.

[JimJams]

Said it before, we gambled on establishing ourselves in the money spots (European places) and it didn't pay off. Question is, would you rather gamble it and risk losing out or not take the chance at all and play safe?

[CosbehFox]

26 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Rich people rarely use their own money.

 

 

Don’t disagree - majority of their fortune is tied up in assets. I just think it’s a weak line because it’s not as simple as if there was no financial restrictions, they’d be able to spend freely 

[Chelmofox]

2 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

Don’t disagree - majority of their fortune is tied up in assets. I just think it’s a weak line because it’s not as simple as if there was no financial restrictions, they’d be able to spend freely 

But it's always the media who dish out the line 'cash to spend'. The reality is that there are 'funds available' and a sliding scale as to the long term 'cost' of those funds. Most fans don't want to hear that though, they just want to know you can spend money on players.