Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[Blue-fox]

2 minutes ago, The boy Linacre said:

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!!!

But where’s the fun in that!?

[Vazman]

2 hours ago, MPH said:

 

 

I can only assume that we have found  actual wording to the contrary, somewhere..

Probably on a post it note stuck to Rudkins computer monitor.

[ClaphamFox]

48 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. 

Good article, but this sentence almost brought vomit into my throat:

"They also had to make a substantial pay-off to manager Brendan Rodgers when he left the club in April 2023."

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I wonder what the fan reaction to this is going to be at games when the financial results are announced and the supposed breaches?

 

Focus seems to be more on the rules and the bodies than our board and club which should surprise me but really doesn't with our fan base. Lemmings.

I'd hope many realise they kept quiet when we failed ffp before, and spent loads after COVID when it was clear it would lead to a massive loss, and gave players big new contracts to try and keep them. The game plan has been there in plain sight, really, since they arrived. 

 

Reminds me of the shock when we posted huge losses on the back of Covid, and then spending £60m. Nobody cares when shiny new things are coming in the door and performances are good. How we can actually afford it passes without barely a mention. 

 

I was hoping so many costs being involved in infrastructure that, with some creative accounting, we'd pass or bend some rules again. 

 

My question for them now is that your high risk / high reward game plan has crumbled (more so if we don't get promoted). So what's plan B, we can't keep digging a hole. 

[Gamble92]

59 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. 

How can they not account for relegated teams with their rules when more often than not it will be relegated teams who suffer from this? Especially ones that have been in the league a while and drop out. 

 

Hardly a "loophole" that we found. Just absolute panic from the Premier League because they're now going to be watched closely.

[Babylon]

40 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

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

Well, I would imagine Terraloon because the "clear and defined process" is already in tatters. We have already referred the EFL to Independent Financial Reporting Panel, to argue that that cannot enforce the rules as they beleive they are allowed to. And said panel found in our favour. The EFL even admitted their own rules aren't written very well in their own evidence to the panel.

 

I think at one stage even referring to something along the lines of "not in the spirit of PSR". Which sort of sounded like, yeah we ****ed up o the actual rules, but come on, you know what we were trying to say. 

 

And the club are arguing their new PL rules don't apply to them, as they weren't a premier league club when they were passed. A very similar argument to the one used against the league. So it does seem like the rules aren't working in tandem. 
 

 

Edited 22 March by Babylon

[Trav Le Bleu]

This would be far more acceptable if the likes of Man City and Chelsea were anywhere near to being charged.

 

As it is, they were amongst the first mentioned, but not even a hint of any charges yet, if ever.

[oxford blue]

I have not read all contributions, so apologies if I make similar points.

 

Having been charged it seems inevitable we will have points deducted, given  similarity to Everton/Forest. It would affect possible transfers  - assuming we are promoted - as it is not a great selling point! 

 

Players wages must have a huge part to play in this situation. I am concerned about the competence of the board who have overseen recruitment, retention; I have never thought it time for Rudkin et al to leave, but I do think that time has come.

 

Separately. Man City have had 115 charges made but no date for a hearing. It clearly won't be resolved this season, if at all. Man City and other "top teams" seem to be treated differently to other teams. I am not brave enough to suggest possible reasons (I have my thoughts!),  others may have views too...

[CosbehFox]

For the 600th time, Man City’s charges don’t have anything to do with PSR hence why they are being treated different

Edited 22 March by CosbehFox

[Babylon]

1 minute ago, CosbehFox said:

For the 600th time, Man City’s charges don’t have anything to do with PSR. 

The athletic wrote this not much more than a month ago. 

"City have also been charged with breaching UEFA’s financial fair play (FFP) rules, as well as the Premier League’s PSR. A final layer of litigation comes from the Premier League’s claims that City did not cooperate fully with investigations in “the utmost good faith”.

 

I have no apetite to read all 115 charges to check for myself though 

[st albans fox]

43 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

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. 

 

Just to upset you even more, hamza’s previous deal was 60k/week

[st albans fox]

this from the MEN a few days ago (for avoidance of doubt, City = Man City)
 

There are accusations with not co-operating with the Premier League investigation, not abiding by PSR regulations, and - most damningly - nine seasons of essentially not giving truthful and accurate information about their finances. These are incredibly damaging allegations that, if proven (and it's a big if), would warrant incredibly serious punishments. 

Barely any details of the case can be made public, although a date for City's hearing has been set. It is expected to be later in 2024, with the intention of everything being cleared up by the end of the 2024/25 campaign.
 

Why has it taken so long?

City were charged in February 2023, so the whole process could take over two years to complete. That feels like a long time, and Pep Guardiola is included in the long list of people who would like it wrapped up sooner.

However, because the list of charges is so long and complicated and because the consequences of the hearing will be so monumental, time has to be given for everything to be done properly. As football finance expert Kieran Maguire told the Manchester Evening News at the time: "The Premier League is shooting itself in the foot. If you have 100 charges, you need to have the time to have 100 defences."

City haven't 'got away with it', it is just their day of reckoning is further away because it is so much more complex.

Why are City treated differently to other clubs?

City are treated differently to clubs such as Everton and Nottingham Forest because their situations are completely different. City aren't so much disputing multiple murder charges as claiming that there is no victim, whereas according to the Premier League both Everton and Forest have accepted breaches but believe their reasons for doing so is enough mitigation to avoid strict punishment.

As Premier League chief executive Richard Masters said when speaking at a select committee: "They are very different charges. If any club, whether they are the current champions or otherwise, had been found in breach of the spending rules for year '23, they would be in exactly the same position as Everton or Nottingham Forest.

"The volume and character of the charges laid before Man City, which I cannot talk about at all, are being heard in a completely different environment. There is a date set for that proceeding."

Why not deal with City first though?

Again, this is a reasonable enough thought but one that doesn't tie in with the reality of what the clubs have already decided. Everton, Nottingham Forest and everyone else agreed to a set of rule changes at the Premier League AGM in 2023 to speed up straightforward cases.

This meant that standard directions were put in place for PSR cases to be handled in the season in which the breaches occurred so that everybody can be happy that nobody has got away with an unfair competitive advantage.

City's breaches are historical, and denied, so they are not straightforward. Work is also being done on the case at the same time as others are being dealt with, it just takes longer for all the reasons set out above.

Doesn't that mean City are getting away with it?

If they are found to have breached PSR and systemically misrepresented their finances, they will have operated with an unfair competitive advantage for years. That's why, if the Premier League prove the case, the consequences will be more in line with expulsion from the league rather than a few points being deducted.

 

At the same time, the most significant charges are so serious that it will take a high bar of evidence to support the claims. "It would not be good enough for the Premier League to argue that Manchester City failed to co-operate with the Premier League’s investigation," write Dr Dan Plumley and Dr Gregory Ioannidis in an academic paper in the International Sports Law Review. 

"The Premier League would have to go beyond this, by proving that Manchester City, as a matter of fact and evidence, failed to produce accurate financial information (and/or lied about it) in relation to their revenue, within the meaning of the current regulations. This is not an easy burden for the Premier League. But it should not be easy, because the allegations produced are of a very serious nature."

It's not a perfect system, but it is the system that everyone signed up for.

[CosbehFox]

8 minutes ago, Babylon said:

The athletic wrote this not much more than a month ago. 

"City have also been charged with breaching UEFA’s financial fair play (FFP) rules, as well as the Premier League’s PSR. A final layer of litigation comes from the Premier League’s claims that City did not cooperate fully with investigations in “the utmost good faith”.

 

I have no apetite to read all 115 charges to check for myself though 

If they have, my error but as you say there’s 115 charges which include complex accusations of pricing bid rigging, sponsorship rigging and breaking age rules on transfers 

[kenny]

6 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

If they have, my error but as you say there’s 115 charges which include complex accusations of pricing bid rigging, sponsorship rigging and breaking age rules on transfers 

There was also talk of Mancini being paid for consultancy work with other businesses.

 

It makes you wonder if Rodgers or Maresca have been coaching OHL for £100k an hour via Zoom.

 

Or if Vardy does after dinner speaking for King Power racing for £500k a time.

[LVFox]

Transfer Embargo.

 

Lovely.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

 

 

[kenny]

2 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

 

 

There was me getting excited about the easter transfer window opening up.

[Stevosevic]

3 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

 

 

What’s the point of that though? 

[Lionator]

So we have to sell players in the summer to raise funds, but not allowed to bring any in? 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

1 minute ago, kenny said:

There was me getting excited about the easter transfer window opening up.

Wonder how long it runs for. If we don't get promoted we've got however many out of contract and an inability to sign anyone to replace them. Guess extension don't count but most of the out of contract mob probably won't stay around for another year in the Championship.

[Lionator]

1 minute ago, Stevosevic said:

What’s the point of that though? 

It’s an embargo. We can only sign free agents or players on loan. If we don’t go up we’ll be playing with the u21’s next season.

[MPH]

 

[TheStig]

3 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

What’s the point of that though? 

To strangle the club completely..

 

[Lesta Legend]

Just now, kenny said:

There was me getting excited about the easter transfer window opening up.

We'll assume it’ll be in place if we don’t get promoted. 
 

Goes from bad to worse the clubs call to persist with we can’t afford to sack BR is paying dividends now. 

[Dahnsouff]

We are fortunate that the PL and the EFL cannot play nice, as it provides some wriggle room, however we are rubbing their faces in it so cannot imagine the punishment will not occur and also imagine it will the biggest yet if we make it into the PL. If we fail to go up and remain in the Championship then imagine we get points deduction + transfer embargo + God knows what.

 

Mission Closed Shop will then be complete.