Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[Chelmofox]

1 minute ago, An Away Move said:

Amazing thread. I hope the KC representing us reads it. 

I hope the KC is already informed enough so he doesn't need to build his case from Twitter threads.

[Spudulike]

6 minutes ago, VintageFox73 said:

Excellent article 

 

 

 

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-city-failed-harness-ffp-9189091?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

It might be an excellent article but it's unreadable on my phone. 90% advertisements. 

 

Perhaps copy n paste? 

[Gamble92]

Absolutely laughable on Radio Leicester last night that all the 'Whatsapp messages' segment was pro Rudkin and the board. Some extreme filtering there from the beeb. Guess after the access issues they had with Stringer they are resulting to full censorship.

 

Anyone who is defending Rudkin is a joke. The time for giving him the benefit of the doubt expired 5 years ago. I don't know how anyone has the patience after last season. You could easily make a case for the last 3 years being as bad as the miracle seasons were good. It's time for some of you to get real. 

[VintageFox73]

Just now, Spudulike said:

It might be an excellent article but it's unreadable on my phone. 90% advertisements. 

 

Perhaps copy n paste? 

 

 

[VintageFox73]

Leicester City may have hoped, in responding bullishly to the Premier League and EFL’s actions against them, to create a siege mentality that supercharged the club’s bid for promotion.

They’re railing against the system. They’re a crusader for all wronged clubs. They’re not going to succumb without a fight. That is how they framed the charge for an alleged breach of Profitability and Sustainability Rules and the transfer embargo placed on them last week.

 

They may have hoped supporters would buy into that stance and join them in their battle. It didn’t work. There is little sympathy for the club. Many fans have instead questioned the running of the club and how badly they were managed to have allegedly broken the rules and yet still been relegated anyway.

READ MORE: Who is Nick De Marco? The 'Lionel Messi of sports barristers' representing Leicester City

READ MORE: Leicester City notebook: Fatawu future as embargo bites, Braybrooke impact & Knudsen's Foxes reunion

It’s not that there are not legitimate concerns about the regulations and how they may favour the most famous clubs, protecting them from ambitious sides attempting to disrupt the top order. And the club’s point over the premature nature of the EFL embargo, handed out with three months to go in the financial year, feels a fair one.

 

 

But it also seems like City’s fight is one of technicalities and timing. The injustice isn’t strong enough to direct the full force of fan rage towards the governing bodies. These are fans who know about the transfer failures, the high wage expenditure and the inability to offload players that have combined to put City in this predicament. Plenty of clubs of a similar size to City have managed to follow the rules and stay in the Premier League, even qualifying for Europe.

There are the contradictions too. The club said they “would prefer the (legal) proceedings to be in public, so its supporters and the wider world can be informed about the important issues of football governance that will be considered”. And yet the very limited communication from the hierarchy with supporters over the past few years suggests fans being informed is far from one of their priorities.

 

That City claim to be representing all clubs when they were reportedly seeking financial compensation against Everton when they were first charged also feels like a contradiction. It’s not a good look.

While the possible bid to create a siege mentality has not paid off, Enzo Maresca and his players will likely still get a strong backing when the Championship resumes this Friday. The manager has built up plenty of goodwill and the bond between the players and supporters is excellent, having recovered considerably since relegation.

And they need that support. City begin the run-in in a high-pressure situation. Not only do they have potential points penalties hanging over them if the allegations are proven, but they’ve fallen from top spot for the first time in six months. The gap to third has closed considerably and promotion is far from the certainty it seemed only seven or eight weeks ago.

To not get promoted this season would be an even greater disaster now. The squad would likely be dismantled this summer, and further adapting to a Championship revenue as well as ensuring the financial rules aren’t at risk of being broken again would be a tough task. That's even if the registration embargo is lifted. Promotion next season would be a much more difficult challenge.

[VintageFox73]

Just now, VintageFox73 said:

 

done 

 

[Foxdiamond]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

I posted it a few weeks ago elsewhere but I met a Spurs fan the other week who genuinely said he preferred to finish top 4 rather than win anything.

 

I then reminded him that I was at Wembley in 1999 and they didn’t even deserve to win that one. 
 

He wasn’t even ****ing born .

That Spurs fan has swallowed the Levy propaganda whole

[urban.spaceman]

Pertinent post from that thread:

 

 

Club revenues are directly controlled by the Premier League and their client broadcasters through the UK TV broadcasting deal. As only 52% of the matches are available to UK consumers compared to the rest of the world, every club has a "base" number of games guaranteed for broadcast (10) and the rest is at the discretion of broadcasters. Clubs get £1.2m per game broadcast. The more "popular" clubs get more games broadcast, so therefore more money through facility fees. Which is why we were only the 5th highest earners the season we won the league when the "prize money" figures were released.

 

Worth remembering too, that by having more matches broadcast the "big clubs" gain disproportionately more exposure and therefore can negotiate much more lucrative sponsorship and merchandising contracts compared to other clubs. 

 

The Premier League's method of broadcasting is anti-competitive and breeds the corruption we're seeing.

[Babylon]

13 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

Absolutely laughable on Radio Leicester last night that all the 'Whatsapp messages' segment was pro Rudkin and the board. Some extreme filtering there from the beeb. Guess after the access issues they had with Stringer they are resulting to full censorship.

 

Anyone who is defending Rudkin is a joke. The time for giving him the benefit of the doubt expired 5 years ago. I don't know how anyone has the patience after last season. You could easily make a case for the last 3 years being as bad as the miracle seasons were good. It's time for some of you to get real. 

People's anger needs to be spread around, John Rudkin does not run this football club. He answers to the board and Top and there are others there who have their hand on the finances more than he. They could have, at any point, put a stop to it by saying NO. No to that signing, no to that contract, no, we can't overspend by £100m a season. 

 

This isn't one persons doing, our game plan would have been accepted and approved by all the senior management and the owners. 

[Chelmofox]

2 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Pertinent post from that thread:

 

 

Club revenues are directly controlled by the Premier League and their client broadcasters through the UK TV broadcasting deal. As only 52% of the matches are available to UK consumers compared to the rest of the world, every club has a "base" number of games guaranteed for broadcast (10) and the rest is at the discretion of broadcasters. Clubs get £1.2m per game broadcast. The more "popular" clubs get more games broadcast, so therefore more money through facility fees. Which is why we were only the 5th highest earners the season we won the league when the "prize money" figures were released.

 

Worth remembering too, that by having more matches broadcast the "big clubs" gain disproportionately more exposure and therefore can negotiate much more lucrative sponsorship and merchandising contracts compared to other clubs. 

 

The Premier League's method of broadcasting is anti-competitive and breeds the corruption we're seeing.

I agree, but also their offering is no longer fit for purpose. I have no interest watching Man City or Arsenal play on TV every week. I mainly want to watch the club i support, especially for those games i can't go to.  Life is busy, and i would like to watch other games that interest me, rather than the overblown 'blockbuster' that Sky think i should be watching. Advertising hoardings for Man City home games make me feel ill anyway. It's insane that in 2024 i cannot legitimately watch my club play away.

 

I loved the way it worked for the games broadcast on Amazon.   Each game broadcast and a separate show that pulls everything together. That should be the standard set, but i presume the big boys don't like the fact they don't get special treatment.

 

Highlights packages are a problem as well. Too much focus on the big 6 and not enough variety. I actually prefer extended highlights packages on Youtube but wish there was something better that pulled everything together. I hate having to sit through the inevitable 'big 6' focus on Match of the Day.

[CosbehFox]

June 2018. International TV rights - big six argue they should have a greater share and follow the pattern of domestic rights because it's the popularity of the big six that in effect accounts for how large the TV deal is. 

 

Leicester City on 7th June 2018 sided with the big clubs on a ratio based system rather than an equal split = part of the 14 PL clubs required to vote through such a change. 

 

 

Edited 26 March by CosbehFox

[filbertway]

38 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

It's a statistically proven fact, so I'm not sure why you're describing it as 'lazy'. 

 

The argument that Mike Gow is making is that the confines being imposed on us are artificial and anti-competitive. This is also what Nick De Marco believes and has been arguing for years. Of course, disagreeing with the PSR limits does not exempt us from them - we still have to follow the rules. But that does not mean we can't express our strong objection to them.

Yes, we've made some poor transfer decisions. But the big clubs make terrible decisions all the time. The difference is, the rules enable those clubs to make mistakes with impunity, whereas for clubs like ourselves one or two transfer mistakes could result in relegation. There's plenty to dislike about that.

I swear Top (and Vichai in the past) have consistently said that they want the club to be self-sustaining (which should be every clubs goals) so not sure the argument fits anyway. (Assuming that by self-sustaining, they meant that we could afford to run the club without outside financing)

 

As @Ric Flair has pointed out many times recently - if there was no limit we still wouldn't be competing as these other clubs have much more than us. Newcastle and Man City would just turn the league into another SPL.

 

It'd also absolutely inflate the wages and transfer fees to obscene levels which we were starting to see and further detach the game from normal people.

 

The thing that needs to change are footballers salaries and obscene transfer fees. There's plenty of money in the game. You don't need to be spunking 3/4 million a season on players that can barely play at the top level. 

 

The majority of people are looking at this completely wrong. Like we should be encouraging owners to rack up unsustainable debt against a club in the name of competition.

 

These poor clubs though - artificially hampered by a league that gives them over a hundred million pounds a season. It's a disgrace.

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Foxin_Mad said:

They need to include debt in these stupid calculations. Most of the big six are absolutely loaded with debt from dodgy gits like the Glazers yet still allowed to spend billions. 

It’s a business though - if they have income which services the debt then it’s normal 

 

smaller clubs have less income so cannot carry as much debt 

[Foxdiamond]

10 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I swear Top (and Vichai in the past) have consistently said that they want the club to be self-sustaining (which should be every clubs goals) so not sure the argument fits anyway. (Assuming that by self-sustaining, they meant that we could afford to run the club without outside financing)

 

As @Ric Flair has pointed out many times recently - if there was no limit we still wouldn't be competing as these other clubs have much more than us. Newcastle and Man City would just turn the league into another SPL.

 

It'd also absolutely inflate the wages and transfer fees to obscene levels which we were starting to see and further detach the game from normal people.

 

The thing that needs to change are footballers salaries and obscene transfer fees. There's plenty of money in the game. You don't need to be spunking 3/4 million a season on players that can barely play at the top level. 

 

The majority of people are looking at this completely wrong. Like we should be encouraging owners to rack up unsustainable debt against a club in the name of competition.

 

These poor clubs though - artificially hampered by a league that gives them over a hundred million pounds a season. It's a disgrace.

The wages and the fees are a key problem. To think Leicester were able to break the transfer record when buying and then selling Allan Clarke would be unthinkable for a club of our size now. The wages for a team sport are way out of line and needs a cap.

[southfox66]

I don't really get ffp, it is meant to safe guard  against clubs getting in financial difficultly, but surely we have that covered by king power covering debts. Am I right in think we are debt free technically on the stadium front with KP paying off the debt and if that wasn't the case surely we'd be in a bigger mess ???

[MPH]

17 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I swear Top (and Vichai in the past) have consistently said that they want the club to be self-sustaining (which should be every clubs goals) so not sure the argument fits anyway. (Assuming that by self-sustaining, they meant that we could afford to run the club without outside financing)

 

As @Ric Flair has pointed out many times recently - if there was no limit we still wouldn't be competing as these other clubs have much more than us. Newcastle and Man City would just turn the league into another SPL.

 

It'd also absolutely inflate the wages and transfer fees to obscene levels which we were starting to see and further detach the game from normal people.

 

The thing that needs to change are footballers salaries and obscene transfer fees. There's plenty of money in the game. You don't need to be spunking 3/4 million a season on players that can barely play at the top level. 

 

The majority of people are looking at this completely wrong. Like we should be encouraging owners to rack up unsustainable debt against a club in the name of competition.

 

These poor clubs though - artificially hampered by a league that gives them over a hundred million pounds a season. It's a disgrace.

 

 

You are absolutely right. They have said this on many occasions. The intention was never for KP to continue to  finance the football club long term.

[Lambert09]

This tweet hits home pretty hard. As a football fan not just LCFC

 

The premier league is popular because anyone can beat anyone, it’s really not all that bizarre to hear that luton beat man city. Brighton beat man u 4-0 or any other madness. These rules make that ridiculously hard.

 

 

Edited 26 March by Lambert09

[Chelmofox]

14 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

You are absolutely right. They have said this on many occasions. The intention was never for KP to continue to  finance the football club long term.

Wonder when they first had that objective if they predicted the transfer and wage inflation....... In hindsight, feels very naive to me.

[The Bear]

3 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

A really interesting read actually, the last 3 of the thread in particular to us.

 The thread summarises really well how poor PSR is, it doesn't punish those who already have big revenue streams.

But in order to kick on you're required to spend more in the short term, and try to build that revenue up quickly. Any faltering and you're basically ****ed. 

 

 

 

 

A similar thing happened to us when we finished 7th in our first season back in the PL under Nuno. 

 

We played in the Europa League the following season and EUFA punished us for failing their version of FFP. Thankfully we only got fined €200k and limited to 23 players instead of 25 in future European campaigns. Basically we flew too close to the sun too quickly and got slapped down for it. 

[Lambert09]

51 minutes ago, Babylon said:

People's anger needs to be spread around, John Rudkin does not run this football club. He answers to the board and Top and there are others there who have their hand on the finances more than he. They could have, at any point, put a stop to it by saying NO. No to that signing, no to that contract, no, we can't overspend by £100m a season. 

 

This isn't one persons doing, our game plan would have been accepted and approved by all the senior management and the owners. 

There are lots of culpable people, but that doesn’t deflect anything from Rudkin. 

 

If I hire a financial advisor and he tells me to do something, I trust him. If he makes horrific decisions loses my money and breaks financial rules… I’m still culpable for trusting him but the buck still falls with the guy who was in a position to be an expert on that stuff. 

 

im not divorcing my wife because she didn’t tell me to sack him sooner. I’m not leaving my kids because i’ve let them down. The easiest, smartest move is to get rid of the person who’s main job is to facilitate everything financial (or football in this case) 

 

The main reason Top is also to blame and arguably all the board, is because they didn’t fire him in the summer. 
 

That’s like my financial advisor lost 75% of my money but i decided to give him more as he promised to get it all back… again culpable but a change of owner is far less needed than a change of board or just rudkin to be quite frank 

Edited 26 March by Lambert09

[MPH]

4 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

Wonder when they first had that objective if they predicted the transfer and wage inflation....... In hindsight, feels very naive to me.

 

 

It  was one of their aims when first buying the club. They also stated that the intention was for Leicester City to increase the image and fortune of the King Power brand... Make no mistake, the Purchase of LCFC was purely a business move and not about any love for football...

[Chelmofox]

4 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

It  was one of their aims when first buying the club. They also stated that the intention was for Leicester City to increase the image and fortune of the King Power brand... Make no mistake, the Purchase of LCFC was purely a business move and not about any love for football...

This gets banded around a lot nowdays. How many multi billionaire owners have purchased clubs for the love of football? The vast majority now do it for profit, exposure of their own brand or in a 'certain regions' case, sports washing. 

[davieG]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

Pertinent post from that thread:

 

 

Club revenues are directly controlled by the Premier League and their client broadcasters through the UK TV broadcasting deal. As only 52% of the matches are available to UK consumers compared to the rest of the world, every club has a "base" number of games guaranteed for broadcast (10) and the rest is at the discretion of broadcasters. Clubs get £1.2m per game broadcast. The more "popular" clubs get more games broadcast, so therefore more money through facility fees. Which is why we were only the 5th highest earners the season we won the league when the "prize money" figures were released.

 

Worth remembering too, that by having more matches broadcast the "big clubs" gain disproportionately more exposure and therefore can negotiate much more lucrative sponsorship and merchandising contracts compared to other clubs. 

 

The Premier League's method of broadcasting is anti-competitive and breeds the corruption we're seeing.

The Women's league is the same nearly every game shown by Sky and the majority shown by the BBC have on of those 6 clubs playing.

 

This also builds up for the men and women an archive of games that they continue to show in some guise.

[MPH]

9 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

This gets banded around a lot nowdays. How many multi billionaire owners have purchased clubs for the love of football? The vast majority now do it for profit, exposure of their own brand or in a 'certain regions' case, sports washing. 

 

 

Well they peddled the idea at the time that Top had fallen in love with football after watching his first live game which happened to be  our League cup win  in the replay...

 

 

It's all something i found hard to believe at the time..

[Babylon]

22 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

There are lots of culpable people, but that doesn’t deflect anything from Rudkin. 

 

If I hire a financial advisor and he tells me to do something, I trust him. If he makes horrific decisions loses my money and breaks financial rules… I’m still culpable for trusting him but the buck still falls with the guy who was in a position to be an expert on that stuff. 

 

im not divorcing my wife because she didn’t tell me to sack him sooner. I’m not leaving my kids because i’ve let them down. The easiest, smartest move is to get rid of the person who’s main job is to facilitate everything financial (or football in this case) 

 

The main reason Top is also to blame and arguably all the board, is because they didn’t fire him in the summer. 
 

That’s like my financial advisor lost 75% of my money but i decided to give him more as he promised to get it all back… again culpable but a change of owner is far less needed than a change of board or just rudkin to be quite frank 

Why do people always seem to link saying they are all culpable as somehow trying to "deflect" blame? It literally means he's going to share a percentage of the blame. 

 

This isn't about sitting back and trusting someone, the financial stuff has many hands on the tiller. They've not just let Rudkin loose with a cheque book and are now somehow shocked we have financial issues. This would be an approved strategy; the financial stuff and budgets would be agreed and signed off before he goes off and does stuff. (We failed FFP before, we've had this stratergy before he took his role).

 

You can say he bears more of the responsibility here and there, of course. Like appointing shit chief scouts, and letting Rodgers dictate too much. You can even say he's over spent on x or y persons wages if you want (he didn't choose the player). But they've approved the amount he's got to spend in total. If they give him a budget of £100m on wages, and he spends it on wages, don't be shocked that you suddenly have a £100m wage spend. . We'd likely still be in trouble even if we'd done ok and not got relegated. 

Edited 26 March by Babylon