Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[STUHILL]

2 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

So Simon Jordan thinks the regulations are a blunt instrument that need to be changed but says that LCFC should be hit with it 

 

 

... and he's already decided we are guilty. 

Simon loves a contradiction! Usually 1 or 2 per shouted sentence. 

[ClaphamFox]

8 minutes ago, STUHILL said:

Simon loves a contradiction! Usually 1 or 2 per shouted sentence. 

I wonder if he talks to his family in that tone of voice at home? "I ASKED you to pass the salt and if you think that your brother is closer to the salt then you need to demonstrate WHY. Because if you can't clearly demonstrate, with appropriate proof, that you should NOT be the one to pass me the salt, then you haven't got a leg to STAND ON. And please SPARE me any virtue signaling nonsense about why I should get the salt myself because when you were born you signed up to the rules of this house, and there's no point in squealing like a STUCK PIG now just because you've decided the rules don't suit you any more..."

[filbertway]

Pretty spot on and not contradicted himself in the slightest.

 

Thinks the rules could be improved. - Check

Leicester have broken the rules that are there and should be punished - Check.

 

He's spot on as well, we say we want the whole process out in the open yet terrified of publishing our accounts until the very last moment.

 

We're coming across as the footballing equivalent of a petulant toddler to be fair.

[Gamble92]

3 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Pretty spot on and not contradicted himself in the slightest.

 

Thinks the rules could be improved. - Check

Leicester have broken the rules that are there and should be punished - Check.

 

He's spot on as well, we say we want the whole process out in the open yet terrified of publishing our accounts until the very last moment.

 

We're coming across as the footballing equivalent of a petulant toddler to be fair.

I like Simon Jordon. He's the best person to listen to when you agree with him and the worst when you don't. 

 

But I think Jim White stumped him on the question about whether he'd do exactly what Leicester are doing. He knows he would. 

 

On everything else he's right. But it's more the fault of those implementing the rules that they didn't take into account a club relegated wouldn't have to produce it's figures for either league. It's a mess but it's one we can exploit. Not that it makes anyone at the club any better for it.

[don_danbury]

why is he banging on about the title win?  

[ScotFox1]

13 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Pretty spot on and not contradicted himself in the slightest.

 

Thinks the rules could be improved. - Check

Leicester have broken the rules that are there and should be punished - Check.

 

He's spot on as well, we say we want the whole process out in the open yet terrified of publishing our accounts until the very last moment.

 

We're coming across as the footballing equivalent of a petulant toddler to be fair.

Hold on a second..

 

Surely LCFC have been charged with 'alleged breached of P&S rules'.. which means they have yet to be proved.  So his statement that we have broken rules is in fact not correct until such time as the Commission publishes its findings!!

 

Equally, the EFL Embargo is in place despite a quarter of the current financial period still to go?! 

 

The only think I can agree with Simon Jordan about is the discord between the EFL and the Premiere League.. which is an absolute pile of dogs mess!!

[CosbehFox]

People keep getting hung up on the alleged as though its going to be found that lcfc were compliant along. Independent experts are saying with near certainty of failure and the PL/EFL have always been proven correct in PSR allegations. 
 

The EFL embargo isn’t new. It happened to Burnley last season and it appeared most at LCFC were briefed at least a month again it was to happen. 
 

We now have two and bit days left for the club to reveal the accounts on normal working hours. I really don’t see what they gain from hanging onto them now other than trying to control the follow of information. 

Edited 26 March by CosbehFox

[davieG]

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/five-key-dates-leicester-citys-9190686

 

Five key dates in Leicester City's PSR cases that will clarify club's fate
The process has only just started with City alleged to have breached Profitability and Sustainability regulations for the three-year cycle to 22-23, and with the club at risk of doing so again this term

ByJordan Blackwell
16:10, 26 MAR 2024

Leicester City have been referred by the Premier League to an independent commission for an alleged breach of Profit and Sustainability rules and have been placed under a registration embargo by the EFL. So what now?

As with all matters of these kinds, patience will be needed for resolutions. Here’s a look at the key dates where progress will be made.

 

March 31

There should be news this week with City due to release their accounts for the 22-23 season before the month is over. Not only will the figures for last term give a greater indication of where City stand against the charge by the Premier League, it will give clarity over the battle they face to get their house in order to satisfy PSR rules for the three-year cycle ending with the current 23-24 campaign.

READ MORE: Stephy Mavididi tells Leicester City loanee to 'come back to us' amid potential summer transfer

READ MORE: Leicester have failed to harness FFP rage in bid to avoid disaster

There may not be full disclosure over PSR though. When Ipswich published their accounts last week, they included a PSR calculation, showing the expenditure on areas of the club that do not count towards the spending limits, such as investment into youth development, community schemes and women’s football. However, this is a rarity. Very few clubs publish such breakdowns.

 

May 4

The final day of the Championship season will be significant. If the battle for promotion remains as tight as it is now, City may host Blackburn needing victory to secure a top-two finish.

But also, that date should act as a cut-off point for City to receive any points deductions this season. The limited time before the end of the campaign means it’s extremely unlikely that City will receive a punishment that affects their promotion push, despite the Premier League’s aim to deal with cases in the season teams are charged.

A points deduction for City this season could be the difference between them finishing in the automatic promotion places and in the play-offs. Preparations for those play-off semi-finals, which begin on May 12, will begin as soon as the final whistle goes on the final day of the regular campaign. Plus, teams need to know before the game whether they need to play for a win or a draw to secure their aims.

To bring in a points deduction after that final game would jeopardise the competition. If City are to be punished this season, it won’t happen after May 4.

 

May 23

This date would be nine weeks after the Premier League charge against City. That is, so far, the quickest a case has been settled, with Nottingham Forest charged on January 15 and receiving a points deduction on March 18.

The Premier League’s Standard Directions for PSR cases prescribe a timeline for them to be heard. However, those rules don’t apply to City as a Championship club, as they were not introduced until this season. The Premier League said a timetable would be decided upon by the independent commission.

There is no word yet on what that timetable would be, but it seems unlikely that City’s case will be settled inside nine weeks. Forest’s case was concluded quickly because they fully co-operated with the commission, and even then, they have since announced they will be appealing anyway.

The Standard Directions, which again City don't fall under, state that every case should be heard within 12 weeks. That would mean a resolution by June 13. However, that falls outside of the dates set by the Premier League for resolutions. They want decisions on cases by May 24 at the latest, and appeals to have been heard by June 8.

 

June ??

No official date has been named for the opening of the summer transfer window, but when it is, it will be a significant one for City. To avoid a potential breach of PSR rules for the three-year cycle to the end of the current campaign, they could need to sell players before the end of the financial year.

That means that as soon as the transfer window opens, they need to be getting down to business. Negotiations can and do take place before the official opening of the window, but deals cannot go through until that date arrives. City need any sales to be wrapped up in June so that they go into this season’s accounts.

 

June 30

The final day of June is the final day of the accounts. However many sales City might need to satisfy PSR for the current campaign, they need to be wrapped up by June 30.

From there, it’s a bit of a mystery. City enter a new cycle from July 1, one that does not include the campaign in which they lost £92m. That should mean they are less at risk of breaching PSR going forward, meaning there should be more leeway for transfer business, but if they don’t get promoted, they could still be under an EFL embargo, with no date set for when City can resume registrations of players.

[st albans fox]

46 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

People keep getting hung up on the alleged as though its going to be found that lcfc were compliant along. Independent experts are saying with near certainty of failure and the PL/EFL have always been proven correct in PSR allegations. 
 

The EFL embargo isn’t new. It happened to Burnley last season and it appeared most at LCFC were briefed at least a month again it was to happen. 
 

We now have two and bit days left for the club to reveal the accounts on normal working hours. I really don’t see what they gain from hanging onto them now other than trying to control the follow of information. 

once the accounts are in the public domain, everyone can see them.  It might seem a bit crazy but It’s possible that someone will notice something that the authorities haven’t?  We want to delay things as long as possible. I can’t see any benefit in filing the accounts at CH before the date they have to be filed. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

1 hour ago, Spudulike said:

So Simon Jordan thinks the regulations are a blunt instrument that need to be changed but says that LCFC should be hit with it 

 

 

... and he's already decided we are guilty. 

And you're falling right into the trap, sharing the video far and wide for more clicks for their sponsors. 

[urban.spaceman]

.

Edited 26 March by urban.spaceman

[Mr Weller 2]

8 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

It's a fundamental issue across the board.

 

We're a relatively big club, so we likely abuse the system for those below us, we're in the wrong just as those above us. 

No we’re not because we oppose the current rules whereas the big 6 support them.

[UniFox21]

Just now, Mr Weller 2 said:

No we’re not because we oppose the current rules whereas the big 6 support them.

Yes but football exists outside of the top 6 sides in the country. They're gigantic, global clubs. 

We're a big club compared to most of the 92 in the EFL, and even to many in the Prem

[Spudulike]

1 hour ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

And you're falling right into the trap, sharing the video far and wide for more clicks for their sponsors. 

Luckily I didn't share a Leicester Mercury article. That would've been worse. 

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

once the accounts are in the public domain, everyone can see them.  It might seem a bit crazy but It’s possible that someone will notice something that the authorities haven’t?  We want to delay things as long as possible. I can’t see any benefit in filing the accounts at CH before the date they have to be filed. 

We are getting into what if there though. The leagues have never been wrong when it comes to the accounting side of PSR. No club has successfully challenged an allegation. 

Edited 26 March by CosbehFox

[lcfc_forever]

Listened to the Price of Football podcast with Kieran Maguire. It was far more balanced and nuanced than I thought it would be, thought they would hammer us.
 

For example, it addresses the accusation that Leicester voted for these rules so why are they complaining now by highlighting how the big six later bullied the other clubs into accepting a worse proportion from international rights money, reducing their revenue. 
 

Seen the Mercury has highlighted this too: 

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-city-victims-hidden-tv-9190348

 

My conclusion from this is the directors have screwed up but the rules have made it very hard for clubs like City to compete,  (and if anything have got worse), smaller clubs are far too vulnerable to one set of errors vs. the big six and the PL and EFL aren’t coordinating so we’re getting a heavy handed approach. 

Edited 26 March by lcfc_forever

[Wymsey]

1 hour ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

And you're falling right into the trap, sharing the video far and wide for more clicks for their sponsors. 

 

[st albans fox]

10 minutes ago, lcfc_forever said:

Listened to the Price of Football podcast with Kieran Maguire. It was far more balanced and nuanced than I thought it would be, thought they would hammer us.
 

For example, it addresses the accusation that Leicester voted for these rules so why are they complaining now by highlighting how the big six later bullied the other clubs into accepting a worse proportion from international rights money, reducing their revenue. 
 

Seen the Mercury has highlighted this too: 

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-city-victims-hidden-tv-9190348

 

My conclusion from this is the directors have screwed up but the rules have made it very hard for clubs like City to compete,  (and if anything have got worse), smaller clubs are far too vulnerable to one set of errors vs. the big six and the PL and EFL aren’t coordinating so we’re getting a heavy handed approach. 

Mate - we voted for those international rights 

[lcfc_forever]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

Mate - we voted for those international rights 

The context is clubs like Leicester were threatened with a breakaway so we along with other clubs were forced to go with it but just relaying what they said. 

Edited 26 March by lcfc_forever

[st albans fox]

10 minutes ago, lcfc_forever said:

The context is clubs like Leicester were threatened with a breakaway so we along with other clubs were forced to go with it but just relaying what they said. 

Yep - but we had ideas of breaking into the euro spots so maybe we supported it for our own reasons 

[foxinsocks]

1 hour ago, lcfc_forever said:

The context is clubs like Leicester were threatened with a breakaway so we along with other clubs were forced to go with it but just relaying what they said. 

Yes... Im sure they wanted the esl... but now the only club not facing ffp probs is mam city.  Ffp actually perpetuates the elite ckubs dominance.   

Lcfc gambled by allowing ridgers to spunk money on players and wages but two season of bottling ck qualification made today's problems inevitable.  Why did top het drawn in?

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, lcfc_forever said:

Listened to the Price of Football podcast with Kieran Maguire. It was far more balanced and nuanced than I thought it would be, thought they would hammer us.
 

For example, it addresses the accusation that Leicester voted for these rules so why are they complaining now by highlighting how the big six later bullied the other clubs into accepting a worse proportion from international rights money, reducing their revenue. 
 

Seen the Mercury has highlighted this too: 

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-city-victims-hidden-tv-9190348

 

My conclusion from this is the directors have screwed up but the rules have made it very hard for clubs like City to compete,  (and if anything have got worse), smaller clubs are far too vulnerable to one set of errors vs. the big six and the PL and EFL aren’t coordinating so we’re getting a heavy handed approach. 

Whilst this is true that a few poor transfers or transfer windows hurt the rest of the PL compared to the big 6, that's more to do with their PL status rather than PSR explicitly.

 

Take us for example, there's seemingly plenty of our fans willing to go along with the narrative that the reason we've gotten in to this mess is because we made some poor transfer decisions and because we got relegated - incorrect. As has all but been confirmed, any breach for the 3 year cycle including 2022/23 would likely have happened whether we won the league last season or got relegated. There wasn't a scenario that would see us not do so if selling Fofana and Maddison wasn't enough.

 

The differential between finishing 1st or 18th is about £34m about what we got for Harvey Barnes and if we fall short of the limit by around that figure then the question will be asked why we didn't push for Barnes to be sold before the end of June. Although this also brings the question that if we have failed then what was the point in selling Maddison early for a lesser fee than anticipated? That's one thing I'm struggling to get my head around.

 

Anyway, I come back to how we may have gotten in to this mess. If it were merely down to getting transfers right then how would that have made us compliant for the 3 year cycle? If Daka and Soumare were successes and key first team players it wasn't what was riding on our future compliance, I can't get my head around the clubs strategy for 2021/22. The only scenario for doing what they did was that they forecast Champions League would occur at the 3rd time of asking and then from there we'd back it up with other top 4 finishes. Baring in mind the plan was never to sell Fofana in 2022 and we barely signed anyone after we did, then we needed to raise £100m + from prize money, TV money and additional commercial revenue in 2022/23. Again, it cannot have been a genuine forecast for 2022/23 in light of all the issues that we were going to have a successful season. Rodgers even went on record saying the club were aware the season could be a struggle without a rebuild, surely they modelled for that.

 

This is where it is a major failing on the clubs part to not sell players who's contracts were running down. If they weren't intending to sell high value assets in the summer of 2021 or 2022 then where were they intending to generate the revenue needed to comply? Likewise if they didn't build in any financial flexibility to move flops on for less than their remaining book value then this was never about transfers.

 

It's possible to think PSR is no longer fit for purpose but that does not negate from what on earth our strategy had become. 

[foxinsocks]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

Whilst this is true that a few poor transfers or transfer windows hurt the rest of the PL compared to the big 6, that's more to do with their PL status rather than PSR explicitly.

 

Take us for example, there's seemingly plenty of our fans willing to go along with the narrative that the reason we've gotten in to this mess is because we made some poor transfer decisions and because we got relegated - incorrect. As has all but been confirmed, any breach for the 3 year cycle including 2022/23 would likely have happened whether we won the league last season or got relegated. There wasn't a scenario that would see us not do so if selling Fofana and Maddison wasn't enough.

 

The differential between finishing 1st or 18th is about £34m about what we got for Harvey Barnes and if we fall short of the limit by around that figure then the question will be asked why we didn't push for Barnes to be sold before the end of June. Although this also brings the question that if we have failed then what was the point in selling Maddison early for a lesser fee than anticipated? That's one thing I'm struggling to get my head around.

 

Anyway, I come back to how we may have gotten in to this mess. If it were merely down to getting transfers right then how would that have made us compliant for the 3 year cycle? If Daka and Soumare were successes and key first team players it wasn't what was riding on our future compliance, I can't get my head around the clubs strategy for 2021/22. The only scenario for doing what they did was that they forecast Champions League would occur at the 3rd time of asking and then from there we'd back it up with other top 4 finishes. Baring in mind the plan was never to sell Fofana in 2022 and we barely signed anyone after we did, then we needed to raise £100m + from prize money, TV money and additional commercial revenue in 2022/23. Again, it cannot have been a genuine forecast for 2022/23 in light of all the issues that we were going to have a successful season. Rodgers even went on record saying the club were aware the season could be a struggle without a rebuild, surely they modelled for that.

 

This is where it is a major failing on the clubs part to not sell players who's contracts were running down. If they weren't intending to sell high value assets in the summer of 2021 or 2022 then where were they intending to generate the revenue needed to comply? Likewise if they didn't build in any financial flexibility to move flops on for less than their remaining book value then this was never about transfers.

 

It's possible to think PSR is no longer fit for purpose but that does not negate from what on earth our strategy had become. 

We gambled on getting champions league money and failed... twice.

I agree that PSR does not protect clubs.   Clubs go bust coz of "shit or bust ownersc" with no skin in the games.

Giving efl clubs more pl money will not make them more sustainable... it will just inflate payments to players and agents 

 

[lcfc_forever]

14 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Whilst this is true that a few poor transfers or transfer windows hurt the rest of the PL compared to the big 6, that's more to do with their PL status rather than PSR explicitly.

 

Take us for example, there's seemingly plenty of our fans willing to go along with the narrative that the reason we've gotten in to this mess is because we made some poor transfer decisions and because we got relegated - incorrect. As has all but been confirmed, any breach for the 3 year cycle including 2022/23 would likely have happened whether we won the league last season or got relegated. There wasn't a scenario that would see us not do so if selling Fofana and Maddison wasn't enough.

 

The differential between finishing 1st or 18th is about £34m about what we got for Harvey Barnes and if we fall short of the limit by around that figure then the question will be asked why we didn't push for Barnes to be sold before the end of June. Although this also brings the question that if we have failed then what was the point in selling Maddison early for a lesser fee than anticipated? That's one thing I'm struggling to get my head around.

 

Anyway, I come back to how we may have gotten in to this mess. If it were merely down to getting transfers right then how would that have made us compliant for the 3 year cycle? If Daka and Soumare were successes and key first team players it wasn't what was riding on our future compliance, I can't get my head around the clubs strategy for 2021/22. The only scenario for doing what they did was that they forecast Champions League would occur at the 3rd time of asking and then from there we'd back it up with other top 4 finishes. Baring in mind the plan was never to sell Fofana in 2022 and we barely signed anyone after we did, then we needed to raise £100m + from prize money, TV money and additional commercial revenue in 2022/23. Again, it cannot have been a genuine forecast for 2022/23 in light of all the issues that we were going to have a successful season. Rodgers even went on record saying the club were aware the season could be a struggle without a rebuild, surely they modelled for that.

 

This is where it is a major failing on the clubs part to not sell players who's contracts were running down. If they weren't intending to sell high value assets in the summer of 2021 or 2022 then where were they intending to generate the revenue needed to comply? Likewise if they didn't build in any financial flexibility to move flops on for less than their remaining book value then this was never about transfers.

 

It's possible to think PSR is no longer fit for purpose but that does not negate from what on earth our strategy had become. 

Fully agree on not selling players whose contracts were running down. Seems like the board starting thinking like fans who got carried away rather than custodians of the club and clearly trusted Rodgers too much - so many fans wanted Youri to stay for example but in hindsight, better to have sold him earlier. 

Edited 26 March by lcfc_forever

[Mr Weller 2]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

Whilst this is true that a few poor transfers or transfer windows hurt the rest of the PL compared to the big 6, that's more to do with their PL status rather than PSR explicitly.

 

Take us for example, there's seemingly plenty of our fans willing to go along with the narrative that the reason we've gotten in to this mess is because we made some poor transfer decisions and because we got relegated - incorrect. As has all but been confirmed, any breach for the 3 year cycle including 2022/23 would likely have happened whether we won the league last season or got relegated. There wasn't a scenario that would see us not do so if selling Fofana and Maddison wasn't enough.

 

The differential between finishing 1st or 18th is about £34m about what we got for Harvey Barnes and if we fall short of the limit by around that figure then the question will be asked why we didn't push for Barnes to be sold before the end of June. Although this also brings the question that if we have failed then what was the point in selling Maddison early for a lesser fee than anticipated? That's one thing I'm struggling to get my head around.

 

Anyway, I come back to how we may have gotten in to this mess. If it were merely down to getting transfers right then how would that have made us compliant for the 3 year cycle? If Daka and Soumare were successes and key first team players it wasn't what was riding on our future compliance, I can't get my head around the clubs strategy for 2021/22. The only scenario for doing what they did was that they forecast Champions League would occur at the 3rd time of asking and then from there we'd back it up with other top 4 finishes. Baring in mind the plan was never to sell Fofana in 2022 and we barely signed anyone after we did, then we needed to raise £100m + from prize money, TV money and additional commercial revenue in 2022/23. Again, it cannot have been a genuine forecast for 2022/23 in light of all the issues that we were going to have a successful season. Rodgers even went on record saying the club were aware the season could be a struggle without a rebuild, surely they modelled for that.

 

This is where it is a major failing on the clubs part to not sell players who's contracts were running down. If they weren't intending to sell high value assets in the summer of 2021 or 2022 then where were they intending to generate the revenue needed to comply? Likewise if they didn't build in any financial flexibility to move flops on for less than their remaining book value then this was never about transfers.

 

It's possible to think PSR is no longer fit for purpose but that does not negate from what on earth our strategy had become. 

But making a poor decision isn’t a punishable offence.