Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[Dahnsouff]

32 minutes ago, KFS said:

Something I think a lot of people are missing is that there is a factor here around using finances to get ahead. We factually didn’t in the year of our ‘breach’ - we got ****ing relegated  

 

That’s surely worth 2 less points in the deduction at least. 

You can still overspend even if you spend it all on garbage. 

[Corky]

I agree with their point that having to sell a player early in the window contradicts the sustainability part when you need to generate your own revenue and reducing the amount you could make.

 

That has to change.

[Dahnsouff]

Not sure if posted before, but anyway 

 

 

 

[The Bear]

1 minute ago, Corky said:

I agree with their point that having to sell a player early in the window contradicts the sustainability part when you need to generate your own revenue and reducing the amount you could make.

 

That has to change.

Agreed. I said the other day the transfer window should be changed to reflect any FFP deadline. That or vice versa. 

[Corky]

4 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

But if we have breached, we did so having barely spent anything and selling Fofana and Maddison. It's actually staggering to have done so and I don't think there was ever a scenario in 2022/23 that we wouldn't have, given the sales we made.

Isn't our issue the huge loss made two years ago? I may be wrong but I don't think the losses will be staggering this year but we needed to make a healthy profit to get under the limit. It may well be the January gamble was the difference, I don't know.

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

I think the last 3 paragraphs of the forest statement are very strong. And one which we should also get behind.

 

Of wider concern for all aspirant clubs is the disturbing effect this decision will have on the operation of the player trading model. This is the only model by which clubs outside of the small group at the very top end of the Premier League can realistically advance up the football pyramid.

 

The rationale of the Commission is that clubs should only invest after they have realised a profit on their player development. This reasoning destroys mobility in the football pyramid and the effect of the decision will be to drastically reduce the room for manoeuvre for all such clubs, leading to the stagnation of our national game.

We believe that the high levels of cooperation the Club has shown during this process, and which are confirmed and recorded in the Commission's decision, were not reciprocated by the Premier League

Disagree personally because it shows no understanding of clubs what can make it function without having to spend silly money. Luton, Brentford and Brighton - all good examples of playing to the rules and haven’t feel the need to do what Forest did. 
 

Football has a food chain - I’m aware of that and the FFP isn’t fit for purpose but the 20 (or 25 you could argue) of the PL need to be careful they aren’t making the gaps wider elsewhere in the chain. Citing ambition is one thing but is that to serious push on challenge the bigger clubs or purely pull up the drawbridge below them? 

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, CosbehFox said:

Disagree personally because it shows no understanding of clubs what can make it function without having to spend silly money. Luton, Brentford and Brighton - all good examples of playing to the rules and haven’t feel the need to do what Forest did. 
 

Football has a food chain - I’m aware of that and the FFP isn’t fit for purpose but the 20 (or 25 you could argue) of the PL need to be careful they aren’t making the gaps wider elsewhere in the chain. Citing ambition is one thing but is that to serious push on challenge the bigger clubs or purely pull up the drawbridge below them? 

As stated on a forum (would rather not say which one!) that people need to be able to separate the two problems that often get correlated 

1. The rules for PSR/FFP are wrong/unfair
2. The rules were broken.

The two things can both be true, but they are not connected.

[CosbehFox]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

As stated on a forum (would rather not say which one!) that people need to be able to separate the two problems that often get correlated 

1. The rules for PSR/FFP are wrong/unfair
2. The rules were broken.

The two things can both be true, but they are not connected.

Totally. 
 

More controversially I find the modern football is rubbish comments a bit tiresome on here. Because I don’t think 2016 happens without the big six bubble. LCFC don’t have the resources do find the players they did. We are as much of the machine as anyone else. We’ve created football this way by never objecting 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, iancognito said:

No, basically Everton's first punishment is from when the rules were based across a 3 year financial period. Their possible second deduction (and the one Forest got today) relates to last season when the rules were changed to allow earlier punishment for breaches by changing the accounting period.

It’s still a three year rolling period 

just that the punishment now has to be in the season following the rolling three year breach. Everton failed 19/20 to 21/22 and were punished. They have now failed 20/21 to 22/23 so have been charged again. But it’s in the same season as the previous sanction due to the change in the timing of rule application as you pointed out. 
 

as I understand it, their punishment cannot be for the first two years of the period because they’ve already had a sanction for that. ( no double jeopardy). So expect their new points deduction to be in the region of two points (assuming they have been compliant with the investigation)

[David Lowe]

20 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

Disagree personally because it shows no understanding of clubs what can make it function without having to spend silly money. Luton, Brentford and Brighton - all good examples of playing to the rules and haven’t feel the need to do what Forest did. 
 

Football has a food chain - I’m aware of that and the FFP isn’t fit for purpose but the 20 (or 25 you could argue) of the PL need to be careful they aren’t making the gaps wider elsewhere in the chain. Citing ambition is one thing but is that to serious push on challenge the bigger clubs or purely pull up the drawbridge below them? 

I do think though that the 3 clubs mentioned were in a much better state when promoted having built up good teams over a few years. Forest’s promotion was a bit out of the blue and was based on a lot of loan players. 

[fazzyfox]

 

“This afternoons results have come in” -

 

“Everton Lose 10 points, Nottingham Forest 4”

”Everton receive 4 back, Bournemouth looking worried”

”The hotly anticipated Manchester City and Chelsea meeting…..postponed”

”Big six won, everyone else nil….well minus 6 or so”

“coming up on Match Of The Day Nottingham Forests Lawyers vs The Premier League. And in transfer news Leicester City have beaten several other clubs to the signing of Giles Fortesque-Smythe Esquire which could secure safety next season. Get his poster free in every match day programme.”

 

 

[RonnieTodger]

The Premier League didn’t make Forest act like lunatics in the transfer market. 
 

They don’t make you give average players upwards of £70,000 a week.

 

Brighton and Brentford have managed to comply without getting relegated. 

[KFS]

57 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

You can still overspend even if you spend it all on garbage. 

But it factually didn’t advance us. The worst possible outcome happened in the Premier League, which is to be relegated… the spending didn’t give us an advantage over anyone for the period referenced.

 

I say we rebalance in the summer if we get up, slash the wage bill with all the outgoings and sell 1 or 2. Free transfers to fill the gaps and a few big money signings. We can take a 2-4 point hit every year for three years for all I care.

[Saxondale]

2 hours ago, Lambert09 said:

I don’t fully agree. On paper, rules are rulesZ 

 

But FFP as supposedly introduced to protect clubs from themselves. But then it’s punishing a club for getting as much money for its asset as possible. 
 

Forest were naive, foolish and brazen in the way they operated. But in that one argument I think they are correct. Clubs shouldn’t start needing to sell assets on the cheap  just to hit deadlines that part is just adding to the cartel that is the premier league 

But whether or not the rules make sense is a separate issue, it doesn’t mean they didn’t break them. While they were holding out for more cash on a player sale, how many clubs were taking a financial hit in order to stay compliant? Forest broke the rules to their advantage.

[Spiritwalker]

1 hour ago, chuck'em said:

It just shows how the rules are actually working in the opposite way to which they are sold to the fans. 

 

If you want a system to stop clubs spending too much and live within their means that's great. Surely in that case then a club holding out for, and receiving an extra £15m when selling an asset is only helping them to do that. They could have sold earlier and potentially not breached the rules, but that obviously then has a knock on effect to how competitive they can be moving forward. 

 

The rules are anticompetitive and the only purpose they really serve is to widen the gap between the top 6 and every single other club in the country. 

And who would have benefited from Notts Forest selling their asset for £15m less to avoid breaching the rules? Spurs or one

of the other greedy 6.

[st albans fox]

7 minutes ago, Spiritwalker said:

And who would have benefited from Notts Forest selling their asset for £15m less to avoid breaching the rules? Spurs or one

of the other greedy 6.

Have we never bought a player from a lower league club where we pushed through a good deal for us because they needed cash ?

 

[Spiritwalker]

5 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Have we never bought a player from a lower league club where we pushed through a good deal for us because they needed cash ?

 

Probably, but not because they’ve artificially needed the cash to stay within a set of rules brought in

to protect the interests of 6 teams.

[Pliskin]

Regarding points deductions. If the premier league reduce forests eduction after appeal, it would just highlight they’ve not a clue what they’re doing. 
 

They are neither here or there and that’s just not a good lace to be, I suspect Forest will have theirs reduced to two points, which would be pointless, because Everton had theirs reduced…. At some point they’ve got to standby their decisions, at the moment they’re constantly undermining the process by making appear like they’re just making up the rules as they go along. 
 

The worst part is, when it come to us, if we do breach we will end up being the ones that they decide not to backtrack on… any team that gets punished will start to appeal, and the whole thing will just get messy. 
 

4 points isn’t much, Forest have dropped into the relegation zone, but they are there by a point…. And if there is a time to breach, it’s now because the league is so poor….. I mean, that’s bottom six would struggle to get out of the championship it’s that bad, Forest still have a chance of surviving. 
 

It’s all just a complete mess, I standby my belief that this is the beginning of the end of the premier league in its current format. 

[Number 6]

I don't get the confidence some seem to have that that gets reduced on appeal. Seems more structured than the arbitrary 10 Everton got.

[CosbehFox]

Just now, Number 6 said:

I don't get the confidence some seem to have that that gets reduced on appeal. Seems more structured than the arbitrary 10 Everton got.

Exactly my thoughts - especially given all parties wanted a swift conclusion and the board devided to already take two points of the proposed punishment 

[Gamble92]

1 hour ago, RonnieTodger said:

The Premier League didn’t make Forest act like lunatics in the transfer market. 
 

They don’t make you give average players upwards of £70,000 a week.

 

Brighton and Brentford have managed to comply without getting relegated. 

Brighton have smashed it and I bet it's driving them mad. The only thing is they're yet to win anything and properly upset them like we did. Hope they manage it in wake of all this shit though because they won't find anything to charge them with. 

[JJD_LCFC]

3 hours ago, chuck'em said:

It just shows how the rules are actually working in the opposite way to which they are sold to the fans. 

 

If you want a system to stop clubs spending too much and live within their means that's great. Surely in that case then a club holding out for, and receiving an extra £15m when selling an asset is only helping them to do that. They could have sold earlier and potentially not breached the rules, but that obviously then has a knock on effect to how competitive they can be moving forward. 

 

The rules are anticompetitive and the only purpose they really serve is to widen the gap between the top 6 and every single other club in the country. 

That is correct and I certainly agree with you that fans have been misled. The premier league have attempted to maintain the monopoly of the top 6. Ever since the  proposed Super League every decision has been to benefit those, If we look at the following rule changes I fail to see where any of them benefit clubs outside of the top 6: - 

 

- VAR -  We were told only for clear and obvious error. Referees always favour the big sides but VAR proves this. Most incorrect decisions are always against the lesser reputable club in games. Wolves, Brighton, Nottingham Forest and ourselves last year all had numerous terrible calls against us. Pundits will say it evens itself out but it doesn't help the lower positioned teams. 

- 5 subs per game (Only helps the teams with the larger and more talented squads)

- Additional stoppage time (Can be up to 10 minutes. more time for the sides to score)

- No tackling / more red cards (I agree with player safety but stops the lesser positioned teams tackling / defending against the better players in fear of sent off)

- FFP (Look at Newcastle, clubs can not even spend money to compete. Newcastle have 1 good year now need to sell prized assets to balance the books. They have no chance to overtake current top 4)

- 5th place is going to be champions league shortly. Where will this stop. This will be up to 6 teams in the next decade as they bring in more money. 

 

 

[orangecity23]

52 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

Brighton have smashed it and I bet it's driving them mad. The only thing is they're yet to win anything and properly upset them like we did. Hope they manage it in wake of all this shit though because they won't find anything to charge them with. 

What will get Brighton eventually is the death by a thousand cuts. The big 6 keep coming after their players, their managers, their DoF, their scouts. They've done a superb job so far of replacing, but their recruitment of players and staff keeps getting tested again and again. If they lose their way even slightly, it's a downward slope. It happened to Southampton when they were on a great recruitment run (they've lost Bale, Mane, Van Dijk, Lallana, Schneiderlein, Lovren, Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Shaw and so on until they got worn down into relegation), it happened to us (we've basically been strong-armed into selling every saleable asset we had, and now KDH is next in the firing line). It's going to get them eventually, there's only so many key staff you an cope without, especially if they are going after your recruiters at the same time.

[Matt]

 I’m not sure how much difference it’ll make but it’s a start, the PL/EFL/FA clearly need independent governance and stranglehold took away from them.

 

 

Edited 19 March by Matt

[Sly]

So, I went hunting around to find out the situation with other clubs and PSR status.

 

https://www.givemesport.com/premier-league-psr-tracker-every-clubs-ffp-status/

So my understanding is that PSR rules allow clubs to make an average loss of £105m over a three year period? 

 

Team	Profit/Loss (£m)
Chelsea	-552
Everton	-381
Aston Villa	-281
Fulham	-208
Arsenal	-194
Manchester City	-153
Bournemouth	-139
Brighton & Hove Albion	-125
Nottingham Forest	-113
Manchester United	-114
Crystal Palace	-111
Newcastle United	-97
West Ham United	-78
Liverpool	-53
Brentford	-35
Sheffield United	-27
Burnley	-24
Wolverhampton Wanderers	-23
Luton Town	-18
Tottenham Hotspur	5

 

So according to the table from that website, lots of clubs are in breach of the -£105m, however it’s not as black and white as that, as infrastructure, women's and academy sides cost are not counted toward PSR calculations. Then you’ve got the entire amortisation of transfer etc, however it’s a mess. 
 

I’m looking at that list though and thinking if everyone above the -£105 threshold needs to sell players /  homegrown talents for profit to stay within the rules, who on earth is going to buy them? Very few clubs will be able to afford the Premier League wages for the players that Chelsea have stacked on massive wages for example. 

Edited 19 March by Sly