Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[foxinsocks]

Where is top?

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

Just now, foxinsocks said:

Where is top?

If you can locate Rudkin, Top will be about 30cm away.

[Pliskin]

7 minutes ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

If you can locate Rudkin, Top will be about 30cm away.

Or inside…..

[VLC86]

6 hours ago, Foxes_Trust said:

We are currently monitoring all the statements being made from all parties, not only in our case but PSR breaches at other clubs (such as the Everton FAB statement today)

 

We had some dialogue with the club following the EFL statement and will have further dialogue very soon, however given the legal nature of the current scenario, we have to be very careful in our approach, on the one hand questioning/challenging the club, but at the same time not stating anything publicly which could harm our clubs position.

So what I’m hearing is, you can release a statement saying Rudkin needs to go?

[TeamRocket]

Let's just leave the football league make our own league honestly have Walsh and Scottish team in this new league. Then will see how quickly the FFP rule changes when people stop watching the premier league top 6 team. Could have GB Cup tournament instead of the FA Cup. I know this ain't possible but feel like that's the only way to save football 

[Terraloon]

8 hours ago, Pliskin said:

Surely the accounts are per annum, and not just for the “season”…. Otherwise what’s the point in having three years rolling if you’re going to forget the summer period between the seasons? 
 

The accounts will surely fall in line with the usual business year and we have until June to get the books in order… so that would suggest part of 2023 accounts will be relating to the EFL. Which means the EPL have no business asking to see the entire of our accounts from the financial year 2023, because the latter part of said year was spent as an EFL team. 
 

The financial year is the financial year, and clubs operate throughout this period, the summer transfer window being a prime example. So surely with all that in mind some of the 2023 data will relate to this current season. 
 

I think the crooks of our argument are, the PL have no business asking for us to produce documents to them when we are not an EPL team, they’re governed by different bodies and have slightly different rules. We’re governed by the EFL rules, who can’t touch us because half of our 2023 accounts relate to the EPL, and then in turn, surely the EPL can’t touch us because half of our accounts relate to the EFL….. it’s a grey area that neither governing body knows what to do about it….. so, the EPL have basically just said “**** it” and have had a go. We will certainly be dragging this out for as long as we can, and I’m not wholly convinced that the EPL have acted above board here, which our lawyers will be scrutinising. 

 

All clubs that are  members of the PL have to be registered  as a company limiting liability there is no dictate, yet, as to the date when a clubs accounting period ends although for convenience many end on 30/6. The reason for that is many but one simple on is that players contracts, save those on short term deals end on that date. 

In effect Leicester for all intents and purposes remained a premier league club as a member till 30/6/23 and shareholder until 13/6/23 when the share as transferred . 

If you look at both organisations (EFL&PL) rule books it is for they to decide which takes forward discipline matters post the end of the playing season/ accounting period when a club is relegated. It isn’t a grey area indeed just suppose that this matter was taken forward under EFL rules they are far more stringent and only allow an excess of £13 million per season not £35 million . 

As I said yesterday on first read on the clubs statement I thought it was challenging the PLs authority but on second read I don’t think that is the case at all.

[st albans fox]

52 minutes ago, Hilton Fox said:

I believe the new FFP rule will go live from next season which means teams like Chelsea who have spent over 1 billion pounds will not get penalised for any encroachment in the last 2 seasons.

 

Man city's case is disgusting. Why is there no update on the progress of this?

Chelsea have to meet the current 3 year rolling rules for this season ending June 30. They did to end June 2023. 
the clubs will no doubt vote in July to change the rules if it suits them - and I reckon at least 14 will do that.  so Chelsea have to find £125m+ of profit (inc amortisation ) on sales this June or they will be charged next March.  But they may not suffer anything beyond that if the rule change suits their poor financial  position. . Under the existing rules they would need to perform the same trick next season aswell re player sales. 
 

Man City have 115 charges. That’s a mistake to begin with. Was always going to take a long time because they aren’t basic spend issues. They relate to ‘dodgy’ sponsorship deals and their place in accounts.  Trying to prove that people have lied or behaved dishonestly isn’t easy because ultimately, you need to be able to prove it in a court which is going to be v difficult without strong evidence. If that existed then this would have been dealt with already. 

Edited 22 March by st albans fox

[Jobyfox]

45 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

Where is top?

I think Top’s at rock bottom at the moment 

[dr.o.ball]

Just now, Jobyfox said:

I think Top’s at rock bottom at the moment 

Agree, it's tough being a multi millionaire, having LCFC as a play thing. 

[Holly B]

9 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Like the stadium expansion? 

When did we get planning permission passed for that ?

[Guest glasgowfox]

Football imo is becoming a farce and those ruling it an embarrassment.  I get a feeling they are using a few of the smaller fish to scare the bigger ones into playing by the so called rules of today.  However, those ruling it are scared that their lines are not strong enough to catch the really big fish.  Meanwhile the bigger fish have took note of what has happened to the smaller fish and will get together to change the rules before the rulers find stronger lines.  Something fishy about this.   I say turn the lights off, lock the door and tell the corrupt b*stards to jog on and we will go and play with our own ball on a level playing field.

Edited 22 March by glasgowfox

[Blackstarr]

3 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

It won't stop at us. I wouldn't be surprised to see teams like Palace, Brentford, Wolves, Bournemouth etc...being affected. Leeds and Southampton will be next. 

 

Villa challenge this year need to be careful as well. They can't be top 4, how bad will that look? The default 'top 6: won't allow it.

 

 

There’s a common denominator with the clubs that have been charged so far (Everton, Forest and Leicester). They’ve all been financially mismanaged to a greater or lesser degree. You’re not going to see Brighton on the hook for example

 

We, along with Everton, are an absolute basket case of a club that’s in this mess because we broke our business model and decided to sail very close to the wind chasing Europe by spending beyond our means. 
 

We can point the finger at the PL all we like - the rules are published and all clubs our size need to follow them. Most sensibly run clubs actually have. 

[Terraloon]

46 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Chelsea have to meet the current 3 year rolling rules for this season ending June 30. They did to end June 2023. 
the clubs will no doubt vote in July to change the rules if it suits them - and I reckon at least 14 will do that.  so Chelsea have to find £125m+ of profit (inc amortisation ) on sales this June or they will be charged next March.  But they may not suffer anything beyond that if the rule change suits their poor financial  position. . Under the existing rules they would need to perform the same trick next season aswell re player sales. 
 

Man City have 115 charges. That’s a mistake to begin with. Was always going to take a long time because they aren’t basic spend issues. They relate to ‘dodgy’ sponsorship deals and their place in accounts.  Trying to prove that people have lied or behaved dishonestly isn’t easy because ultimately, you need to be able to prove it in a court which is going to be v difficult without strong evidence. If that existed then this would have been dealt with already. 

I read yesterday that in Chelsea’s 21/22 accounts which showed a significant loss and based on that many have suggested that there is a need to generate the sort of profit you talk about were two significant issues which potentially are their get of jail card

1) £76 million for player Impairment ( this was the most ever sum and thought to be either a COVID allowable or a exceptional sum insisted on a s part of the sale. ( this followed a£17 million sum in the previous years accounts that will be deducted) The £76 likewise could potentially be discounted for PSR purposes 

2) There  is  a £40 million provision for a historic legal matter which will likely again count as an exceptional item and deducted

 

The problem we are all in is that the statutory accounts only give us a hint of what the PSR submissions look like as we even in a normal year don’t know for Chelsea indeed  the majority of clubs how much healthy expenses account for ie academy, ladies, depreciation of tangible assets then you have COVID deductibles in 21/22 ( the last year) then you will in Chelsea’s case have to factor in the things I mentioned above alongside income losses that were quantified due to impact of sanctions and the suspension of sponsorship deals . 
 

In cities case you are right that it’s far more complex and it’s really worth reading CAS  written reasons when they adjudicated the UEFA charges. UEFA really thought they had enough of a case but ( and City fans just won’t accept) is that UEFA had one version of damming emails but really needed the original string of emails but UEFA  gave up chasing them and that was a mistake because CAS simply wouldn’t or should I say couldn’t under Swiss Law make any conclusion based on that refusal whereas under English Law they can.

 

City aren’t assisting it seems in any way indeed they took the question of arbitration to the High Court and had their backside kicked. They have delayed, challenged and clearly not assisted but their charges don’t fall under any sort of accelerated process so every time they fail to submit a requested document they refuse so you then get into another delay.

 

My guess is we are now at the point that the IC have finally been left no choice but to set a hearing date but as  anyone involved in litigation will tell you legal arguments and preparation of bundles is no small job and when you consider Everton’s first charge resulted in 11000 documents then it’s pretty safe to assume in Cities case it’s going to be hundreds of thousands they all have to be read and all are open to challenge 

 

At the end of the IC it’s likely , no certain there will be an appeal and even then their is a possibility of arbitration and or further reference to the High Court on a point of law.

Edited 22 March by Terraloon

[coolhandfox]

12 hours ago, CosbehFox said:

We know now as a fact that we’ve broken the PSR limit. If we were sat in the PL, we’d be deduct four points as of this month.

But we aren't so that point largely irrelevant.

12 hours ago, CosbehFox said:

We know the forecast for the next two PSR predictions isn’t pretty without major incoming transfers. 

 

So in twelve months time in a future where we are promoted, we probably sit down again and like Forest with the reduce limit allowance… we are charged again and we’ve lost our ability to claim mitigation. Rather than a manageable four points deductions, PL seek for more and it becomes harder to be competitive. 
 

In twelve months, in a future where we are in the EFL, well that’s when they start to implement really stringent financial controls. 

PSR in its current form will not survive as it not fit for purpose.

 

The more clubs that get charged the the more momentum there will be to change it. 

 

I wouldn't be be surprised to see a legal challenge at some point, the league rules are not fit for purpose. 

 

Someone is going to challenge the lack of movement on the City and Chelsea cases.

 

Whether is the reason the fact the league is punishing small clubs and current unable to punish two of the biggest offender is a bad look and feeds into the big 6 cartel point of view.

 

The league has opened pandora box and I think it could live to regret it.

 

This is me defending the club, we have been dreadfully managed, but more a view on what going to happen.

Edited 22 March by coolhandfox

[Trent Steel]

if we do it should only be 4 points like florist

[Bob Hazels shorts]

12 minutes ago, Blackstarr said:

There’s a common denominator with the clubs that have been charged so far (Everton, Forest and Leicester). They’ve all been financially mismanaged to a greater or lesser degree. You’re not going to see Brighton on the hook for example

 

We, along with Everton, are an absolute basket case of a club that’s in this mess because we broke our business model and decided to sail very close to the wind chasing Europe by spending beyond our means. 
 

We can point the finger at the PL all we like - the rules are published and all clubs our size need to follow them. Most sensibly run clubs actually have. 

We should be given points for the dross the snake oil salesman Brenda bought.

 

Either not fit for purpose, not used, left or not up to it

 

1 decent signing of BR choice in Castagne who walked away for £15m and Fofana who forced his way into the club then promptly forced his way out of it

[stu]

Leicester have been charged by the Premier League with an alleged breach of the Profitability and Sustainability Rules and the gloves are off. Usually a quiet, private club, Leicester are furious.

This is not a crisis of finance, with Leicester’s owners King Power remaining fully committed, but an issue of compliance with the rules.

When their accounts are released next week, it is expected that Leicester will have overshot the permitted £105 million losses by some distance.

Sanctions are expected, while the Premier League is also frustrated at what it alleges is a failure to submit financial information.

Quite simply, Leicester feel they are being punished for daring to show ambition. For years they disrupted the established elite. Relegation last season was never expected, or budgeted for.

 

I hope we have a better argument than this in reality...

[RYM]

We should all walk out in protest around 80 minutes of each home game…… oh..

[MrSpaM]

They said on TalkSport last night that they understand 80% of Premier League teams are currently under investigation over breaches of profit and sustainability rules

[Trav Le Bleu]

I'd like to know how we were supposed to not breach rules this season, when you can't actually prove anyone wanted to buy our players, other than heresy. It's not like any team plans to get relegated, and who would want to buy players who didn't achieve in the last season? 

 

Add to that we didn't exactly break the bank to get new players in.

[coolhandfox]

52 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Chelsea have to meet the current 3 year rolling rules for this season ending June 30. They did to end June 2023. 
the clubs will no doubt vote in July to change the rules if it suits them - and I reckon at least 14 will do that.  so Chelsea have to find £125m+ of profit (inc amortisation ) on sales this June or they will be charged next March.  But they may not suffer anything beyond that if the rule change suits their poor financial  position. . Under the existing rules they would need to perform the same trick next season aswell re player sales. 
 

Man City have 115 charges. That’s a mistake to begin with. Was always going to take a long time because they aren’t basic spend issues. They relate to ‘dodgy’ sponsorship deals and their place in accounts.  Trying to prove that people have lied or behaved dishonestly isn’t easy because ultimately, you need to be able to prove it in a court which is going to be v difficult without strong evidence. If that existed then this would have been dealt with already. 

Not strictly true, the current ownership have already admitted a number of dodgy business deals that were made under the previous ownership that allowed them to meet PSR.

 

With those stripped away they have a lot of historical breaches.

[FoxFossil]

Brendan and Rudkins cunning plan to get us out of PL for ever, and thereby avoid fines/points is working perfectly. Sell the ground and back to Viccy Park next.

[Terraloon]

6 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Not strictly true, the current ownership have already admitted a number of dodgy business deals that were made under the previous ownership that allowed them to meet PSR.

 

With those stripped away they have a lot of historical breaches.

Nor dare I say is that strictly correct either.

 

We have absolutely no idea what they self reported nor do we even know which regulatory body will or is taking the matter forward.

 

Brighton only last season self reported and were charged by the FA for incorrect reporting of sums paid to agents yet they were only fined and didn’t have their PSR submissions re worked. Nor is their any suggestion that City will have theirs re opened indeed there  is a view that to do so creates a double jeopardy 

 

Cities PSR charges revolve around third party investment and not around breeches of the £105 million which I believe if sums were deducted from their income and sums in respect of players wages and managers contracts added on

 

[Nolucklcfc]

What are we actually furious about? We broke the rules full stop. They are farcical as we all know but they knew what they were … 

[Bert]

If we go up, and we get hit with points I’m not sure why we’d need to sell players. We’d already have the sanction and would be at the start of a new 3 year cycle.