Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[Sly]

Adjacent to the losses, if you are Nottingham Forest (take the historical significance as a rival away) and you want to catch up with the top 6, it seems unfair to punish them, if they are operating within investment capability. 
 

Clubs almost need a “project bank account” that clubs put money upfront into, so they can be assured they won’t go under.

 

A few other points as well,

 

* Deducting points seems unfair, when the greedy six didn’t get deducted points for the super league fiasco as “it wasn’t fair on the fans”.

 

* No real rules as to what the punishment is, so it’s open to abuse. 
 

* The rules don’t allow clubs enough wiggle room to grow and push the established clubs at the top end of league, that we’re allowed massive outside investment prior to these rules being introduced. 
 

Is the English football system oversaturated with professional football clubs? Are we trying to subsidise something that’s unsustainable in the football pyramid?
 

If Leicester City Centre has 92 shops that only sell fruit, would you expect them all to survive, if they’re trying to be a sustainable business without owner investment?
 

If Mr FruityMcFruitFace is richer than Elon Musk and wants to make his market fruit store the next Supermarket; he can’t with these current PSR rules. 

[Dan LCFC]

8 hours ago, Saxondale said:

Re. The Dirty Forest: I think the club’s reaction is characteristically classless. They seemed to think that the fact the held out to get more money for Brennan Johnson is a legit excuse - of course it is not. They need to suck it up, as will we if we find ourselves in a similar situation.

 

They had a couple of Forest fans on Radio 5 earlier, who were actually both spot on: the rules are unfair and wrong, but the club is also wrong for breaking the rules.

 

It’s necessary to separate the two issues: 1) Are the rules fair (spoiler: no they are not) and 2) Did the club (be it Forest, Leicester, Everton or whoever) break those rules.

 

Clubs that have broken the rules can expect to be punished. Separately, they should be lobbying for reform - as should we the fans.

I think this is very true of our situation too. The rules are wrong and whoever implemented them should be out of the game yesterday, but the ineptness of the board / owner are also very clear too. I fear every criticism of one is going to be taken as a defence of the other.

[iancognito]

8 hours ago, S1DDO said:

The club needs to get a grip and start living within its means 

To an extent, 90m losses when we've been selling the silver isn't great yet nowhere near the £320m that Everton managed to rack up (pre-adjustments) but what exactly is sustainability? How can Newcastle be owned by Sheikhs and not be sustainable? There's no real prospect of Maranakis taking Forest into administration either and whilst we're under King Power the same applies, we've probably had the most stable financial status in our modern history. All clubs make losses over time but these rules don't allow for long term planning (ie make a loss in year 2 & 3 and return to profit in yr4 etc) and virtually force clubs to sell the academy talent they were supposed to be filling their teams with.

These rules are being changed again in the summer because they're still unworkable and almost impossible to implement fairly and within a season-long timescale. Forest went to extremes with their buying across 3 windows but what are promoted clubs supposed to do? Buy Mark Draper & Nicky Mohan and hope for the best?

[iancognito]

8 hours ago, st albans fox said:

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)

Yeah, that's sort of what I meant but like a lot of people actually explaining this stuff in the right terms is the hard part Everton fans are largely expecting a further 2-3 pts because that 6pts after appeal looks to have set a precedent of 3pts per season. It's also why a lot of the finance experts are unsure if Forest will appeal because based on the Everton deduction they were hopeful of only losing 3 points. So now they've lost 4 points despite co-operating fully it depends how much they want to push their luck.

 

They either need to set a scale of points you will lose based on a % of losses or start using transfer embargoes instead so that appeals don't drag into the close season.

[UniFox21]

Have a feeling forest won't appeal the decision 

[Jon the Hat]

10 hours ago, KFS said:

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.

They also have the power to impose a transfer ban to stop us doing that.  And no doubt they would.

[UniFox21]

The more he spoke, the more laughable the situation became. 

So Forest helped the investigation, and have not challenged everything by lawyers, saved the prem some money and got 2 points back for it.

And as he says, this either makes Everton's charge harsh, or Forests lenient. 

With an additional charge come Everton's way, you could assume it would be another 3 points?

 

 

[Trent Steel]

I don't think florist will appeal the points

 

From what I have read if they do and have a mardy they could have the extra 2 points they were let off with also deducted

 

They lost more money than Everton so I feel its all a bit shonky 

Edited 19 March by Trent Steel

[OntarioFox]

14 hours ago, Saxondale said:

Re. The Dirty Forest: I think the club’s reaction is characteristically classless. They seemed to think that the fact the held out to get more money for Brennan Johnson is a legit excuse - of course it is not. They need to suck it up, as will we if we find ourselves in a similar situation.

 

They had a couple of Forest fans on Radio 5 earlier, who were actually both spot on: the rules are unfair and wrong, but the club is also wrong for breaking the rules.

 

It’s necessary to separate the two issues: 1) Are the rules fair (spoiler: no they are not) and 2) Did the club (be it Forest, Leicester, Everton or whoever) break those rules.

 

Clubs that have broken the rules can expect to be punished. Separately, they should be lobbying for reform - as should we the fans.

It's such basic accounting too. If you're approaching the cliff edge of a financial year you make the conscious decision to time what purchases / sales you can control to fall within the reporting period they're most beneficial to.

 

They know full well they either didn't understand their own financial situation, or wilfully chose to ignore it. Given the obscene amount they've spent on some absolute cack to stay in the league, I would wager it was both - their model from day one has been to throw enough s**t and hope it sticks to keep the prize money rolling in.

 

We, of course, have all this to look forward to if we go up, even if we do spend within our means. Which is frustrating given that we've been relatively frugal for a few years in comparison to the clowns currently being docked points. But I'd be a hypocrite to sit here laughing at Forest and Everton and then start playing the victim if it happens to us next year. The fact of the matter is that we started handing out obscene contracts to average players and managers who we then found we couldn't shift, and that started the day we won the league.

Edited 19 March by OntarioFox

[Torten]

Am I right in thinking Everton are due another deduction this season then? Which I guess will be another 6 points providing they still are not fully co-operating? 

[StanSP]

What's Labour's stance of an independent football regulation? 

 

Can anyone sum up what the current proposed bill is about and what the pros and cons are? 

[Ric Flair]

Anyone arguing Forest's decision to sell Brennan Johnson, if we've breached 2022/23 by less than £30m then the question will be - why didn't we sell Harvey Barnes before the end June?

[StanSP]

3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Anyone arguing Forest's decision to sell Brennan Johnson, if we've breached 2022/23 by less than £30m then the question will be - why didn't we sell Harvey Barnes before the end June?

Jon Rudkin. 

[ClaphamFox]

9 minutes ago, StanSP said:

What's Labour's stance of an independent football regulation? 

 

Can anyone sum up what the current proposed bill is about and what the pros and cons are? 

I'm pretty sure Labour is supportive. Given that the aim of the bill is to protect the pyramid and prevent wealthy foreign owners from forming breakaway closed shop leagues, it would be very surprising if Labour opposed it. It will go through.

[RonnieTodger]

How mad is it, that in spite of all the obscene money football clubs receive from TV companies; they all run on losses. 

[Les-TA-Jon]

11 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Jon Rudkin. 

The same Jon Rudkin who engineered a quick sale of Maddison to Spurs for the benefit of the accounts? 

 

Seems to me the Barnes situation was simply more complex than Maddison's. 

 

Maddison wanted to leave, had 1 year left, was in demand. 

 

Barnes, with 2 years left, didn't expressly want to leave and was in less demand. That's why it took longer I suppose

[ClaphamFox]

4 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

The same Jon Rudkin who engineered a quick sale of Maddison to Spurs for the benefit of the accounts? 

 

Seems to me the Barnes situation was simply more complex than Maddison's. 

 

Maddison wanted to leave, had 1 year left, was in demand. 

 

Barnes, with 2 years left, didn't expressly want to leave and was in less demand. That's why it took longer I suppose

This is correct. Barnes wanted to stay, which was indeed a complicating factor. Maddison's move to Spurs had basically already been sorted. 

[Muzzy_no7]

3 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

Have a feeling forest won't appeal the decision 

They’d be stupid to, should have had the same deduction as Everton, or worse. 

[filbertway]

30 minutes ago, RonnieTodger said:

How mad is it, that in spite of all the obscene money football clubs receive from TV companies; they all run on losses. 

This should be the main focal point of all discussion in the media, yet everyone just seems to accept that very average players who might play 10-15 times a season can sit there and earn millions of pounds a year. 

 

Salaries just need to drop by 25-30% and all of a sudden there are no issues and the footballers still take home more money than they could ever deserve.

 

Unfortunately too many people make good money from it, so it'll never be seen as the issue.

[STEVIE B]

29 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

They’d be stupid to, should have had the same deduction as Everton, or worse. 

Everton's own lawyers said they had a flimsy defence & were not always compliant (I'm paraphrasing slightly)

Forest have apparently been more transparent.

Hence, the points difference.

An expert is currently on Talksport. Fascinating 

 

Edited 19 March by STEVIE B

[Number 6]

They can equate the points and claim fairness if they like, but getting the deduction in a season where the league is weaker and another team also has a deduction is favourable in itself.

 

If we get a 4/6 point deduction in a season where nobody else does then the punishment is effectively harsher, even if the points total is the same.

[ClaphamFox]

Sky has just reported that we could face a charge for breaching PSR rules 'within days'. The story seems more or less exactly the same as the one reported at the beginning of the month. It's not clear whether anything has actually changed, but the story reasserts the claim that our accounts covering last season will show that we have breached over the three-year period ending 30 June 2023.

 

It also says that "a number of Leicester's competitors at the top of the Championship are monitoring the situation closely and will consider taking action if they are convinced Leicester have gained an unfair advantage". Which seems a bit odd as the period covered by this story ended in June 2023, when we were relegated. 

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13089224/leicester-facing-potential-points-deduction-for-alleged-breach-of-premier-leagues-profit-and-sustainability-rules

Edited 19 March by ClaphamFox

[st albans fox]

11 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

 

It also says that "a number of Leicester's competitors at the top of the Championship are monitoring the situation closely and will consider taking action if they are convinced Leicester have gained an unfair advantage". Which seems a bit odd as the period covered by this story ended in June 2023, when we were relegated. 

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13089224/leicester-facing-potential-points-deduction-for-alleged-breach-of-premier-leagues-profit-and-sustainability-rules

I suspect that the reason for this is that sanctions should be applied in the season following the breach.   But I believe that there is currently no agreement between the leagues for this to apply in a different division. Hence a club breaking championship psr cannot have points deducted in the PL if they are promoted and vice versa.   Presumably breaking the rules in the period ending June ‘23 gives us a sporting advantage in the current season? The assets we have could be argued to have been accumulated whilst we broke psr.  I reckon if we don’t break championship psr in this single season we could easily argue that out but there is no way that we don’t lose more than £13m this season, irrespective of sales made in June 2024. I don’t see that argument by our competitors stacking up. 

Edited 19 March by st albans fox

[Matt]

So there was no threat of further punishment on appeal yet now they’re moving the goalposts again and saying if Forest appeal the run the risk of further punishment.

 

They are literally making it up as they go along.

[FrankieADZ]

Nottingham Forest face ANOTHER points deduction over Premier League financial rules unless they sell star player | The Sun

 

another one