Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
ClaphamFox

Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, lcfc_forever said:

What radio station? Sky Sports, BBC Radio Leicester and I think Kieran Maguire said there wouldn't be points deduction this season? 

Global News at 11.00am on Smooth East Mids. The headline story was a football finance expert (can't remember his name) saying we could get hit with a points deduction this season. 

 

They haven't mentioned it since on the midday news or 1.00pm news, so maybe someone at Global News reads this forum... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Groby_Blue said:

Global News at 11.00am on Smooth East Mids. The headline story was a football finance expert (can't remember his name) saying we could get hit with a points deduction this season. 

 

They haven't mentioned it since on the midday news or 1.00pm news, so maybe someone at Global News reads this forum... :D

The only way it could happen this season would be if we agreed to just accept a points deduction without an appeal, which seems unlikely. If they'd have offered us a six-point penalty a couple of months ago, we'd likely have taken it; now, not so much.

Edited by ClaphamFox
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They really need to introduce a system that at latest gives deductions at Christmas. Or just say start of a season regardless. Otherwise you're just ruining what's going on on the pitch. 

 

They were all against "asterisks" for the big 6 for the super league because of how it would look for the league but aren't against doing this to teams just before the end of the season? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

It’s to do with brown envelopes before covid (so not psr related) 

 

Well it may have implications against UEFA FFP according to this statement.

 

With respect to Chelsea, the CFCB First Chamber concluded that the club breached the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play regulations as a result of submitting incomplete financial information.

 

“Following the club’s sale in May 2022, the new ownership identified, and proactively reported to UEFA, instances of potentially incomplete financial reporting under the club’s previous ownership.

 

“The reported matters related to historical transactions which took place between 2012 and 2019."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good explainer here in The Athletic:

https://t.co/3Si2isQd82

 

Essentially, it looks like a big part of our defence is we didn't know which rules applied - PL or EFL. The lack of coordination between the PL and EFL, highlighted by the EFL funding package being rejected by 10 PL clubs, hasn't helped. It's not clear who's jurisdiction we come under. 

 

The article adds the club's lawyer is going to ask for an arbitration hearing to get a ruling on whether the PL had the right to charge and sanction the club this season, which will delay things. 

Edited by lcfc_forever
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Happy Fox said:

 

And giving contracts to bang average players i.e Hamza.

Surely he isn't the only one on ridiculous Premier League wages, whilst playing in The Championship ?

Vardy, Praet, YV, are supposedly on outrageous wages. 

Obviously how player's are rated due to performance is down to personal opinion, but even so, our wage bill is way off the Championship scale (if the rumours are true). 

 

Edited by STEVIE B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

Is that number confirmed anywhere?  What is likely is that he will be on my far reduced terms whilst in the championship. So you could be looking at 25k but that is all speculation. 

 

but let’s imagine it’s not. 40k is 2m per year. That’s more than most loan fees. You can’t sign anyone for 2m.

 

Anyone with any sort of pedigree for free is at least 2m in a sign on fee.

 

hamza can now be sold 100% for more than 2m, which is a profit in the books, rather than walking for free. 

 

and let’s just go to your second point, name anyone in the youth team that was not already injured. That steps in and does better than hamza because the closest we currently have is raikhy and he’s currently league 1 standard at best. 

 

There’s so many on here that can’t comprehend basic business decisions and whilst the club get a lot wrong,  this isn’t one of those situations 

I get your logic and you make some valid points BUT.....

 

If Hamza is on £40k/week (which i understand to be accurate..), that's the last 4 years of £40k/week which equates to £8m in wages....not £2m as you state based on one single year.

Its all well and good showing as a £5-6m asset on the balance sheet but in our P&L trading statement, we have way too many players on similarly inflated wages which is why our wages/revenue % ratio is unsustainable 

 

If we sell him for £8m now, it improves our immediate financial position in terms of transfer income and reduced wage costs but.....we've already paid him £8m in wages and we are now showing a significant financial debt in our accounts.... and we stil have to find someone to replace him at a lower salary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, lcfc_forever said:

Good explainer here in The Athletic:

https://t.co/3Si2isQd82

 

Essentially, it looks like a big part of our defence is we didn't know which rules applied - PL or EFL. The lack of coordination between the PL and EFL, highlighted by the EFL funding package being rejected by 10 PL clubs, hasn't helped. It's not clear who's jurisdiction we come under. 

 

The article adds the club's lawyer is going to ask for an arbitration hearing to get a ruling on whether the PL had the right to charge and sanction the club this season, which will delay things. 

It seems head scratchingly moronic that there isn't a clear process set up for what happens upon a club's relegation and failure of PSR. Or.... at least something that works in tandem and not two contradictory ones. 

 

How many times now have these rules been changed in the last decade, it's an absolute farce. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Marshall Cockney Fox said:

I'd just like to blame Rogers for it. It's probably nothing to do with him. But I'll ignore that possibility. Brendan, you absolute arse!!!!


 

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

 

Definitely Wellens’s  fault!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

I also wonder if we had factored into all of this that we would be so far clear come April that we would be able to take a points deduction this season if the worst happened ?? 

This is the same hierarchy that thought we were going to be absolutely fine and that relegation was never on the cards. I mean, they had Maddison publicly playing the ostrich, it's safe to assume that was the over-riding view throughout the club until you got to the parts of the fanbase that could see the writing on the wall.

 

It's not a stretch at all to suggest that they took one look at the table in September and assumed we were already promoted and would do so with a massive gap. The lack of contingency planning is bordering on criminal negligence at this point.

Edited by OntarioFox
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Babylon said:

It seems head scratchingly moronic that there isn't a clear process set up for what happens upon a club's relegation and failure of PSR. Or.... at least something that works in tandem and not two contradictory ones. 

 

How many times now have these rules been changed in the last decade, it's an absolute farce. 

Yes and changing again next season! More grey areas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Our club used to justify the sales of our players for vast sums as the way in which we can progress as a club and for a period that is what enabled us to, along with other practices.

 

We decided to stop that for a season whilst finances were all over the place due to covid and it helped aggravate our predicament that we now landed ourselves in. Relegation didn't cause this alleged breach, there was simply no likely scenario that would have enabled us to swerve the 3 year PSR up to the end of 2022/23 if we consider the income generated from selling Fofana and Maddison has likely left us considerably short of it.

 

The club knew what they were doing in 2021/22 and the impact that would have in future 3 year cycles that 2021/22 would be included in. 

 

It was a risk they took, you could argue why change what had worked previously but by then we were already paying players more and more and signings were costing more and more and were no more proven successes than the types of players we'd brought in in earlier years.

 

Where's the accountability? Where's any statement admitting to mistakes etc? I get its too early for that this time around but I doubt we'll get anything. The victim of success and chasing ambition card will be used despite the irony there.

This is well and good with hindsight but we were knocking on the door of Champions League football and had a manger who we backed by not selling our top players to maybe just achieve that next step. In that context at the time we wouldn’t be seeing such righteous posts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it all a bit soul destroying and I lack the motivation to read up on the ins and outs of it. It's just another nail in the coffin for my love of top level football.

 

Be interesting to see what happens over the next few years as clubs take it in turns to attempt to challenge and make unsustainable decisions. Only takes a couple of poor signings and you are struggling. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

The clubs decision not to sell a player in the summer of 2021, and the £50 Million net spend that summer raised costs significantly. It was done to help Rodgers compete with the top 6 regularly

 

 

 

The huge irony being that pre this decision, we had finished in the top 6 twice in a row, and have got absolutely nowhere near since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Foxy-Lady said:

I get your logic and you make some valid points BUT.....

 

If Hamza is on £40k/week (which i understand to be accurate..), that's the last 4 years of £40k/week which equates to £8m in wages....not £2m as you state based on one single year.

Its all well and good showing as a £5-6m asset on the balance sheet but in our P&L trading statement, we have way too many players on similarly inflated wages which is why our wages/revenue % ratio is unsustainable 

 

If we sell him for £8m now, it improves our immediate financial position in terms of transfer income and reduced wage costs but.....we've already paid him £8m in wages and we are now showing a significant financial debt in our accounts.... and we stil have to find someone to replace him at a lower salary.

Oh i don’t deny that, on the whole it was bad business. My post was about the renewal this season. At this stage, it was about stopping him walking for free at the end of this year. 

 

I completely agree that previously he shouldn’t have been on that wage. 1 because he wasn’t good enough for where we were or wanted to be. 2 because the wage was too high overall.  But at the same time it was a wage structure problem, not  about an individual player. 

 

I think nobody in their right mind thinks we got that wage structure right. But without enforced FFP, It wasn’t actually the complete wrong way to go. The issue (without ffp) was more down to poor recruitment than actually paying players well, if of course we could afford to do so. 

 

Edited by Lambert09
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the first link last night but was going out so didn't look at anymore, which has made me not kneejerk react.

At this point most of us understand very little about this, not sure the club are clear, as are the PL or EFL.

We just need to give this some time to settle and get to the truth, media talk is speculation and perceptions.

Make sure we ideally finish 1st or 2nd at worst, see if that gets us up and then take it from there.

 

This just has to all calm down, as so few are truly informed, and that is ALL parties, fans, club, governing bodies, press/social, the lot. 

Lets get to the actual facts and then we can ALL try and deal with it!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Our club used to justify the sales of our players for vast sums as the way in which we can progress as a club and for a period that is what enabled us to, along with other practices.

 

We decided to stop that for a season whilst finances were all over the place due to covid and it helped aggravate our predicament that we now landed ourselves in. Relegation didn't cause this alleged breach, there was simply no likely scenario that would have enabled us to swerve the 3 year PSR up to the end of 2022/23 if we consider the income generated from selling Fofana and Maddison has likely left us considerably short of it.

 

The club knew what they were doing in 2021/22 and the impact that would have in future 3 year cycles that 2021/22 would be included in. 

 

It was a risk they took, you could argue why change what had worked previously but by then we were already paying players more and more and signings were costing more and more and were no more proven successes than the types of players we'd brought in in earlier years.

 

Where's the accountability? Where's any statement admitting to mistakes etc? I get its too early for that this time around but I doubt we'll get anything. The victim of success and chasing ambition card will be used despite the irony there.

I think what hurts in hindsight (but would have stung like hell at the time) is that this was the time to fleece 100m for youri.

 

Possibly more. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Babylon said:

It seems head scratchingly moronic that there isn't a clear process set up for what happens upon a club's relegation and failure of PSR. Or.... at least something that works in tandem and not two contradictory ones. 

 

How many times now have these rules been changed in the last decade, it's an absolute farce. 

I don’t know why people keep saying this there is a clear and defined process to deal with both relegated and promoted clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...