Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[Brizzle Fox]

9 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Did we vote for this? Pretty sure it occurred in 2013/14 when we weren't yet in the PL.

 

 

My thought exactly. I don't believe we would have done.

 

An awful click bait article by an awful journalist in an awful newspaper.

[Ric Flair]

I'd like our club to lay claims of where they've challenged the fairness of PSR previously, because if they haven't then it weakens this stance to nothing but a wet fart.

 

The club were very resound in explaining to our fans the thought process behind trading a high value asset every season in order to progress and comply and at no point did they use that opportunity to question the financial limitations. 

 

We had an opportunity to be the shining light in succeeding and striving to comply whilst exposing the difficulty in making significant inroads in to the gap between the commercial revenue of the elite and the single outlier in PL history over several years but we didn't (publicly anyway). This is where the club has done themselves no favours with the fanbase, too closed off, too private. They could have mobilised something for others to get behind, especially at the time when the greedy 6 were trying to launch a break away.

 

It's hubris, we've lost the plot and now crying wolf.

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Did we vote for this? Pretty sure it occurred in 2013/14 when we weren't yet in the PL.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Yes, was introduced in 2013, so we'd have 0 involvement in anything related to them

I assume it’s a generalised point rather than pointing the finger at us.  We are subject the the rules under the 14/6 application like all clubs.  If our PL and EFL voting records are consistent in this respect (psr) then that gives us more credence in taking them on.  His point about ffp stopping the wealthiest clubs spending without any controls whatsoever is correct. Ric pointed out yesterday that no rules would mean that the country sponsored clubs could just spend what they like and the mess we have now becomes a free for all 

 

the argument that owners should be able to post a security bond to allow them to load debt to that amount would also mean the country sponsored clubs simply exist in a world where no one else would be able to compete at all. 

[davieG]

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-city-answer-down-supporters-9185459

 

Leicester City have to answer let-down supporters after FFP charge sets up 'scary' future
Latest Leicester City news as the 'feel good' factor from this season almost vanishes with the recent FFP allegations

OPINION
ByJosh HollandFootball Writer
06:00, 24 MAR 2024

"This responsibility that I continue to live is one of the greatest responsibilities in my life and I will continue to put everything into it – my passion, that of my family and the entire King Power community."

 

Those were the words Leicester City owner Aiyawatt Srivaddhanaprabha wrote in his message to supporters following last season's relegation. Since then, things had been much rosier because of the decisions from the hierarchy, but that optimism came to a sudden halt this week.

On Thursday, the Premier League referred the club to an independent commission for an alleged breach of Profitability & Sustainability Rules (PSR) and failure to submit their financial accounts to the league. Less than 24 hours later, Leicester were placed under a player registration embargo by the EFL.

 

The club have come out fighting, saying they have issued legal proceedings against the Premier League and EFL. For some, the defensive nature of the statement released shortly after 4pm on Friday was praised, almost to say, 'You're defending your honour, well done guys'.

But in reality, a large proportion of the fanbase is tired. Just from scanning through social media, reading fan forums and speaking to like-minded supporters of the club in the last 24 hours - it does seem any trust between fans and the club has gone.

How have Leicester gone from being viewed as one of the best-run clubs in England to this? There are multiple reasons behind this downfall but the simple fact of the matter is that the people who make the key decisions at the football club have simply got many of them wrong.

Last year, the club announced a pre-tax loss of £92.5m for the year up to May 2022 - an increase of over £60m compared to the previous year. In the financial accounts, the club admitted that the decision not to sell a big first-team player in the summer of 2021, whilst continuing to improve the team, was the reason behind the large deficit.

Between 2016-2020, Leicester raised £255m through selling one of their best players each summer (N'Golo Kante, Danny Drinkwater, Riyad Mahrez, Harry Maguire and Ben Chilwell). The club always spent money knowing they had a hefty fee arriving from a buying club, but 2021 was different.

Only Rachid Ghezzal, Filip Benkovic, Matty James, Sam Hughes and Christian Fuchs left. Patson Daka, Boubakary Soumare, Ademola Lookman, Jannik Vestergaard and Ryan Bertrand all arrived.

That season as a whole, apart from some memorable European nights, was a disaster. Leicester finished eighth, missing out on European football, and suffered an embarrassing defeat to Nottingham Forest in the FA Cup.

Last year's relegation from the Premier League was another level. The feeling that the club and players felt like they were 'too good to go down' came back to haunt them as their fate was sealed in May. And despite a list of decisions from the club playing a big part in the drop, nothing changed.

January's fiasco in the transfer window didn't go down well. At the time, we had no idea of what was to come. City are now looking at being charged by both the Premier League and EFL. Who was the last club to do that?

James Maddison of Leicester City and teammates dejected after Leicester City are relegated from the Premier League after the Premier League match between Leicester City and West Ham United at The King Power Stadium on May 28, 2023 in Leicester, United Kingdom.
Leicester City suffered a surprise relegation from the Premier League in May (Image: James Williamson)
Anger, disappointment and loss of trust are all feelings I, like thousands, have suffered in the past few weeks as we look for someone to blame. Without seeing the club's latest financial accounts and hearing from those above, it's impossible to know the severity of the issues.

However, the fact that the long-term future of the club is in jeopardy is scary and almost unspeakable. If Leicester are not promoted, what's stopping them from becoming the next Portsmouth? Coventry? Reading? We've seen clubs who fall down the EFL have struggled to return.

And even if we do go up to the top-flight, key players will have to be sold to avoid any further breaches. No one enjoys getting battered every week. What is Enzo Maresca to do?

All this falls into the same motion. How has this happened? The lack of transparency has killed any remaining trust in those running the club. The constant errors made in the short term continue to leave fans in the dark over the long-term future of the club.

Leicester City fans must be heard. The owners need to give them answers. The time for unity is now.

[Ric Flair]

19 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

 

I assume it’s a generalised point rather than pointing the finger at us.  We are subject the the rules under the 14/6 application like all clubs.  If our PL and EFL voting records are consistent in this respect (psr) then that gives us more credence in taking them on.  His point about ffp stopping the wealthiest clubs spending without any controls whatsoever is correct. Ric pointed out yesterday that no rules would mean that the country sponsored clubs could just spend what they like and the mess we have now becomes a free for all 

 

the argument that owners should be able to post a security bond to allow them to load debt to that amount would also mean the country sponsored clubs simply exist in a world where no one else would be able to compete at all. 

Bang on. There's no perfect solution that I've come up with or read/heard anyone else come up with. Carte blanche would just give the juggernaut clubs even more licence to spiral the farcical wages and transfer fees that awash the Premier League. 

 

The fact is, the wealth within the Premier League has allowed far more clubs access to better players from around the world than they'd ordinarily have gotten when the status quo was in existence 10-20 years ago, certainly not en masse like happens now. As a result over time, the entitlement that the average PL clubs have on being able to shoulder barge their way in to the big 6 is ferocious. 

 

The irony is, it's only in the last 10+ years that average PL teams have had the security to be able to prevent big clubs taking their players for modest fees. They are far more resilient to keeping players or demanding huge fees and we have benefitted more than most in that regard and was a large reason for our environment in which to progress. This footballing eco system doesn't significantly improve without controls like PSR, not unless there's a handicap system to narrow the gap between the have's and have not's. 

 

The elephant in the room is the commercial revenue that is far bigger than the revenue that comes from actual football. Is it unfair the biggest clubs pull in what they do? Everyone's skirting around it.

 

 

[davieG]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13231749/Leicesters-legal-action-against-Premier-League-EFL-sparks-anger-rival-clubs-convinced-Foxes-stalling-stop-potential-six-point-deduction-derailing-promotion-bid-season.html

 

Leicester's legal action against the Premier League and EFL sparks anger with rival clubs convinced the Foxes are stalling to stop potential six-point deduction from derailing their promotion bid this season
Leicester started legal proceedings after being charged with financial breaches 
The club are facing a six-point deduction with rivals accusing them of delaying

By MATT HUGHES

PUBLISHED: 22:30, 23 March 2024 | UPDATED: 22:48, 23 March 2024

Leicester's legal action against the Premier League and EFL has provoked anger at other clubs who are convinced it is a stalling tactic to prevent them being docked points this season. 

The Championship club announced they had launched 'urgent legal proceedings' on Friday after being charged with breaching Profit and Sustainability Rules, which has left them facing a six-point deduction.

The Premier League are understood to have been considering pursuing an expedited hearing to ensure the matter is resolved this season, but that will no longer be possible given Leicester's legal challenge. 

While the timing of PSR cases is dictated by the Independent Commission appointed to hear them the Premier League have the power to push for a fast-track process and were eager to do so to preserve the integrity of the Championship promotion race.

Leicester's rivals are convinced that the legal action is a delaying tactic to avoid the matter derailing their promotion bid, with Enzo Maresca's side level on points with Championship leaders Leeds and a point ahead of third-placed Ipswich. 

Leicester's legal action against the Premier League and EFL has provoked anger at other clubs
 

Sources with knowledge of the case have told Mail Sport that Leicester's breach is 'significant,' which based on previous PSR hearings would trigger a six-point sanction, while the club's combative approach means it would not be reduced on the basis of their co-operation.

Leicester's lawyers succeed in blocking the EFL's attempts to impose a business plan on them earlier this season with the club arguing they had no jurisdiction as they were in the Premier League at the time of their overspending.

[Mr Weller 2]

32 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I'd like our club to lay claims of where they've challenged the fairness of PSR previously, because if they haven't then it weakens this stance to nothing but a wet fart.

 

The club were very resound in explaining to our fans the thought process behind trading a high value asset every season in order to progress and comply and at no point did they use that opportunity to question the financial limitations. 

 

We had an opportunity to be the shining light in succeeding and striving to comply whilst exposing the difficulty in making significant inroads in to the gap between the commercial revenue of the elite and the single outlier in PL history over several years but we didn't (publicly anyway). This is where the club has done themselves no favours with the fanbase, too closed off, too private. They could have mobilised something for others to get behind, especially at the time when the greedy 6 were trying to launch a break away.

 

It's hubris, we've lost the plot and now crying wolf.

Nonsense. It may make you feel righteous to claim we are the victims of our own hubris but it doesn’t make it right.

 

All clubs seek a competitive advantage but there is nothing moral about rules that protect the privileged and seeking to break through that privilege should be encouraged. 
 

Leicester’s crime was to refuse to accept the status quo and the football world applauded them for it. You blame the very owners who made that possible and in my book that makes you ungrateful.

[Ric Flair]

11 minutes ago, Mr Weller 2 said:

Nonsense. It may make you feel righteous to claim we are the victims of our own hubris but it doesn’t make it right.

 

All clubs seek a competitive advantage but there is nothing moral about rules that protect the privileged and seeking to break through that privilege should be encouraged. 
 

Leicester’s crime was to refuse to accept the status quo and the football world applauded them for it. You blame the very owners who made that possible and in my book that makes you ungrateful.

Here's another one who doesn't get it. The reason very few clubs will ever break through is because of the vast gap in commercial revenue from the elite and everyone else in the PL.

 

As I've repeatedly said, remove PSR and the elite will blow EVERYONE out the water by a scale larger than they already do. It will inflate transfer fees and wages even more so and leave the rest even more vulnerable to players being taken from them, the last 10 years has been a marked shift in PL teams being better equipped to refuse or at least get massive fees for players in this scenario. Prior to that they were powerless and the fees modest.

 

I stand by what I've said, if the club have spoken out about PSR in the past then that's admirable and should give our stance we are taking now more weight, if they haven't then it hubris.

[Dahnsouff]

44 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

 

I assume it’s a generalised point rather than pointing the finger at us.  We are subject the the rules under the 14/6 application like all clubs.  If our PL and EFL voting records are consistent in this respect (psr) then that gives us more credence in taking them on.  His point about ffp stopping the wealthiest clubs spending without any controls whatsoever is correct. Ric pointed out yesterday that no rules would mean that the country sponsored clubs could just spend what they like and the mess we have now becomes a free for all 

 

the argument that owners should be able to post a security bond to allow them to load debt to that amount would also mean the country sponsored clubs simply exist in a world where no one else would be able to compete at all. 

Agree with the bond approach, it guarantees security but allows for competition to be funded by owners. But, you know, it conflicts with the secondary purpose of PSR.

[st albans fox]

34 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Agree with the bond approach, it guarantees security but allows for competition to be funded by owners. But, you know, it conflicts with the secondary purpose of PSR.

Yes it ensures that the owners of the rich six aren’t effectively required to underwrite their debts as they would be under a bond system. 

 

those clubs have their financial advantage via commercial revenue.  We had a chance to push ourselves into a space between those six and the others (as Newcastle are currently doing). Sadly we failed to back up 2016 in the seasons that followed. The glory hunters around the world may have been tempted in if we’d competed for top four/six in the following couple of seasons. 

 

 

[ClaphamFox]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

 

I assume it’s a generalised point rather than pointing the finger at us.  We are subject the the rules under the 14/6 application like all clubs.  If our PL and EFL voting records are consistent in this respect (psr) then that gives us more credence in taking them on.  His point about ffp stopping the wealthiest clubs spending without any controls whatsoever is correct. Ric pointed out yesterday that no rules would mean that the country sponsored clubs could just spend what they like and the mess we have now becomes a free for all 

 

the argument that owners should be able to post a security bond to allow them to load debt to that amount would also mean the country sponsored clubs simply exist in a world where no one else would be able to compete at all. 

The article says:

 

“Like others in their situation, Leicester have adopted the language of the freedom fighter. “We will continue to fight for the right of all clubs to pursue their ambitions,” they said this week, pointing out that those ambitions had been “reasonably and fairly established through sustained sporting achievements”. At which point one is obliged to remind them: you agreed to these rules. The time to oppose them on a point of principle was surely then.”

 

He’s not making a general point - he’s explicitly accusing us of being hypocrites. The entire article is based on a lie.

 

 

Edited 24 March by ClaphamFox

[st albans fox]

Just now, ClaphamFox said:

The article says:

 

“Like others in their situation, Leicester have adopted the language of the freedom fighter. “We will continue to fight for the right of all clubs to pursue their ambitions,” they said this week, pointing out that those ambitions had been “reasonably and fairly established through sustained sporting achievements”. At which point one is obliged to remind them: you agreed to these rules. The time to oppose them on a point of principle was surely then.”

 

He’s not making a general point - he’s explicitly accusing us of being hypocrites. The entire article is based on a lie.

 

 

Fair enough - did we vote against them in the efl ???

as I posted yesterday, sitting with £200m+ t/o in the Pl with a stadium capacity of 31k and a meh commercial structure likely made us feel quite protected by psr for a few seasons.  clubs like villa with extremely wealthy owners were unable to just push a money button to compete with us. 

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

"Leicester won the Premier League title in part because spending controls meant the most powerful clubs could not leave their less wealthy competitors so far behind as to make a miracle like 2016 impossible" 

 

 

That is the biggest pile of shite I've ever read. You're calling it a miracle for a reason you total and utter goon. 

 

As for voting for FFP and PSR and the like, we essentially have to follow UEFA to a point (where we hold no vote), otherwise we'd never be able to play in Europe. So the notion we were HAPPY about it is total nonsense really. 

Edited 24 March by Babylon

[st albans fox]

8 minutes ago, Babylon said:

That is the biggest pile of shite I've ever read. You're calling it a miracle for a reason you total and utter goon. 

 

As for voting for FFP and PSR and the like, we essentially have to follow UEFA to a point (where we hold no vote), otherwise we'd never be able to play in Europe. So the notion we were HAPPY about it is total nonsense really. 

Yep

but we could still have argued for a fairer system whilst we met our obligations.  Of course we have no idea if we were actually doing that in private. 

[Ric Flair]

21 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Yep

but we could still have argued for a fairer system whilst we met our obligations.  Of course we have no idea if we were actually doing that in private. 

And that's what I'd like our club to come out and hang their hat on if they did so. That would go along way to supporting crying wolf now, it would be admirable as bitter and twisted fans like myself find it very difficult to cut them any slack when they've provided absolutely zero dialogue on the strategy.

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

And that's what I'd like our club to come out and hang their hat on if they did so. That would go along way to supporting crying wolf now, it would be admirable as bitter and twisted fans like myself find it very difficult to cut them any slack when they've provided absolutely zero dialogue on the strategy.

Well, we voted against them when first implemented. 

 

https://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/financial-fair-play-rules-introduced-into-the-championship

 

The notion that we voted for it because owners didn't want to fund losses forever.... Errrrr.... just stop spending, you don't need a rule for that. 

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

Well, we voted against them when first implemented. 

 

https://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/financial-fair-play-rules-introduced-into-the-championship

 

The notion that we voted for it because owners didn't want to fund losses forever.... Errrrr.... just stop spending, you don't need a rule for that. 

At that point we were on our way to £30m and £20m + losses for 2012/13 and then 2013/14 so we had good reason to vote for it, however I'm being facetious because the reason for the voting against isn't as relevant.

 

If we've staunchly been against it over the years and attempted to spark challenge of it as and when in the PL then I commend us and although it possibly goes against us in the sense we proved we could achieve whilst complying, it could also be said we were in the best position to challenge it as a fortunate club compared to the unfortunate.

 

Our owners would get blown out the water in the PL with no PSR, whilst PSR benefits the big 6 due to their vast commercial revenue compared to the rest, if it was removed it would give them and possibly one or two others (Newcastle) the muscle to well and truly blow the competition out of the water once and for all. 

 

I'm yet to read or hear a compelling alternative to PSR that would make any difference. You can't penalise the elite for the revenue they own unless you want to start doing some handicap system or draft pick muck like the Americans can't help themselves with.

[HankMarvin]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

Here's another one who doesn't get it. The reason very few clubs will ever break through is because of the vast gap in commercial revenue from the elite and everyone else in the PL.

 

As I've repeatedly said, remove PSR and the elite will blow EVERYONE out the water by a scale larger than they already do. It will inflate transfer fees and wages even more so and leave the rest even more vulnerable to players being taken from them, the last 10 years has been a marked shift in PL teams being better equipped to refuse or at least get massive fees for players in this scenario. Prior to that they were powerless and the fees modest.

 

I stand by what I've said, if the club have spoken out about PSR in the past then that's admirable and should give our stance we are taking now more weight, if they haven't then it hubris.

Hasn’t the last 10 years coincided with obscene amounts of Pl TV money also, to the point when PL mid table clubs were gate crashing the top 10-20 clubs with the highest annual revenue in world football. For example 

 

Leicester,

Leeds, 

West Ham 

Everton 

Newcastle 

For season 21/22

 

the changing landscape of clubs receiving big offers from former powerhouses of world football that they now have bigger budgets than, also means they are better equip to reject bids. 

[Babylon]

15 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

At that point we were on our way to £30m and £20m + losses for 2012/13 and then 2013/14 so we had good reason to vote for it, however I'm being facetious because the reason for the voting against isn't as relevant.

 

If we've staunchly been against it over the years and attempted to spark challenge of it as and when in the PL then I commend us and although it possibly goes against us in the sense we proved we could achieve whilst complying, it could also be said we were in the best position to challenge it as a fortunate club compared to the unfortunate.

 

Our owners would get blown out the water in the PL with no PSR, whilst PSR benefits the big 6 due to their vast commercial revenue compared to the rest, if it was removed it would give them and possibly one or two others (Newcastle) the muscle to well and truly blow the competition out of the water once and for all. 

 

I'm yet to read or hear a compelling alternative to PSR that would make any difference. You can't penalise the elite for the revenue they own unless you want to start doing some handicap system or draft pick muck like the Americans can't help themselves with.

Yes we did have good reason to vote for it, the owners wanted to get promoted and spend money to do so. Hence the losses. 

 

Everyone is already blown out the water, the horse has bolted on trying to contain it. The money these clubs generate from things like the champions league means the rest of us are bringing a spoon to a knife fight. They've just upped the prize money again for the "elite" clubs. 

 

How many clubs outside the big few have won the FA CUP or League in the last 28 years? All we are doing with FFP and PSR is maintaining the status quo and not allowing any others have a go.

 

The only chance others have at the minute is a total miracle like ours or taking advantage of other clubs awful management. It isn't due to any levelled playing field. 

Edited 24 March by Babylon

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

Here's another one who doesn't get it. The reason very few clubs will ever break through is because of the vast gap in commercial revenue from the elite and everyone else in the PL.

 

As I've repeatedly said, remove PSR and the elite will blow EVERYONE out the water by a scale larger than they already do. It will inflate transfer fees and wages even more so and leave the rest even more vulnerable to players being taken from them, the last 10 years has been a marked shift in PL teams being better equipped to refuse or at least get massive fees for players in this scenario. Prior to that they were powerless and the fees modest.

 

I stand by what I've said, if the club have spoken out about PSR in the past then that's admirable and should give our stance we are taking now more weight, if they haven't then it hubris.

I don't see how FFP has anything to do with that. That's to do with clubs having more income. The top clubs can still walk in and take anyone they want pretty much.

[Ric Flair]

7 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

Hasn’t the last 10 years coincided with obscene amounts of Pl TV money also, to the point when PL mid table clubs were gate crashing the top 10-20 clubs with the highest annual revenue in world football. For example 

 

Leicester,

Leeds, 

West Ham 

Everton 

Newcastle 

For season 21/22

 

the changing landscape of clubs receiving big offers from former powerhouses of world football that they now have bigger budgets than, also means they are better equip to reject bids. 

Correct.

[Ric Flair]

2 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I don't see how FFP has anything to do with that. That's to do with clubs having more income. The top clubs can still walk in and take anyone they want pretty much.

Yes they can but now teams dig in and command huge fees or did up to the point where the financial bubble may burst. The reason being because they now had far more financial clout being a PL team and the vast wealth it generated. The big 6 have been fighting for years for a bigger share of the TV revenue like for example La Liga get but that was voted down.

 

Obviously the gap is commercially and maybe lifting PSR enables teams the feel they have the freedom to have a go but I doubt it happens with how much the powerhouses generate and then are attractive enough to find new owners should one spend an absolute fortune and it not pan out and cut their losses and walk away.

 

Football has already ate itself, it would be a blood bath even more. Part of me shouldn't care, I certainly am no financial rule gatekeeper even though I've spent the last few days constantly arguing, I can't help it. I know you'll resonate with that 😂

[Babylon]

12 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Yes they can but now teams dig in and command huge fees or did up to the point where the financial bubble may burst. The reason being because they now had far more financial clout being a PL team and the vast wealth it generated. The big 6 have been fighting for years for a bigger share of the TV revenue like for example La Liga get but that was voted down.

 

Obviously the gap is commercially and maybe lifting PSR enables teams the feel they have the freedom to have a go but I doubt it happens with how much the powerhouses generate and then are attractive enough to find new owners should one spend an absolute fortune and it not pan out and cut their losses and walk away.

 

Football has already ate itself, it would be a blood bath even more. Part of me shouldn't care, I certainly am no financial rule gatekeeper even though I've spent the last few days constantly arguing, I can't help it. I know you'll resonate with that 😂

Amen

[Foxdiamond]

8 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Yes they can but now teams dig in and command huge fees or did up to the point where the financial bubble may burst. The reason being because they now had far more financial clout being a PL team and the vast wealth it generated. The big 6 have been fighting for years for a bigger share of the TV revenue like for example La Liga get but that was voted down.

 

Obviously the gap is commercially and maybe lifting PSR enables teams the feel they have the freedom to have a go but I doubt it happens with how much the powerhouses generate and then are attractive enough to find new owners should one spend an absolute fortune and it not pan out and cut their losses and walk away.

 

Football has already ate itself, it would be a blood bath even more. Part of me shouldn't care, I certainly am no financial rule gatekeeper even though I've spent the last few days constantly arguing, I can't help it. I know you'll resonate with that 😂

That football has already consumed itself is correct and probably the most depressing realisation. Even the nonsense that replica kits sell for mad prices and fans feel they should still pay knowing what a rip off it all is. I've said before that players deserve good wages but again it is to the detriment of the game the vast sums seeping out of clubs.  Look past the veneer of glamour of elite football and it is all a sham and rather seedy. 

[urban.spaceman]

3 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

Another shite article. 

Adds no new information or insight, just takes shots at clubs arguing the breach of PSR in court and how it's damaging the "consensus of the game". 

To which I'd understand, were the rules and the punishments clear and transparent; rather than the current merky waters of punishments and regulations. Given ours is additionally complex, given no league can absolutely say who is able to punish us, and that's all we're arguing, is the correct league charge us.

 

However, he does make a suggestion as to why we're throwing lawyers around:

 

"There was an outside chance that if Leicester’s case was completed this season the Premier League could come to an agreement with the EFL that a points deduction would be applied this season, in the Championship. Delays in the case work against that outcome and any possibility that Leicester’s promotion quest might be put at risk."

 

 

Goes on to state that FFP helped us win the title, which seems an aimless dig given the amounts the big 6 were spending at that time.

 

"Leicester won the Premier League title in part because spending controls meant the most powerful clubs could not leave their less wealthy competitors so far behind as to make a miracle like 2016 impossible" 

 

 

A genuinely offensive article but the quote highlighted is astonishing. Leicester are supposed to be grateful to FFP that they were "able to win the league because" the 'big clubs' would have been even further ahead otherwise?

 

The SAME RULES prevented us from competing as Champions by deliberately restricting our spending power. The one example he uses to try and patronise us into being thankful to the Premier League is literally the best example of how the Premier League has cheated us. 

 

Not a single mention in that article about the fact the EFL have already admitted they have acted outside of their own rules and jurisdiction TWICE in the last month.

 

Patronising, factually untrue, client media bollocks.