Leicester City and PSR – Everything you need to know on EFL dispute, player sales, and what next

[Bluetintedspecs]

1 hour ago, Terraloon said:

No it would be paid in the 23/24 accounting year so will impact in the EFL calculations for 30/6/24. Irrespective it wouldn’t be amortised the same way as a transfer fee or associated costs are

Why would it be paid in that year ? 

Do you know this as a fact ?

[Stadt]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I think we could be looking at breaches and points deductions or fines for a few more years to come. It's messy.

19.4% of FT posters trust the current hierarchy though  

 

We could be facing unprecedented levels of charges and deductions - a few coconuts, donuts and warm cans of piss have gone so far

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, Bluetintedspecs said:

Why would it be paid in that year ? 

Do you know this as a fact ?

This was addressed a few years ago by the authorities 

any bonus must be paid in the season to which it relates

 

There are some ways around it - you could have a clause in your contract that says you get a pay rise of x percent if promotion is achieved. But then that means your basic goes up for the remainder of your deal  (and players who are out of contract definitely have to be paid in season) 

[urban.spaceman]

9 hours ago, moore_94 said:

Leicester expected to vigorously defend itself against charges

 

An independent three-person commission will be put together. Senior figures at Leicester are pressing for any punishment to be imposed before the season starts.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/06/03/leicester-frustrated-with-enzo-maresca-jumping-ship-chelsea/

Do we get to nominate two out of the three judges like Man City did?

[Terraloon]

9 hours ago, Bluetintedspecs said:

Why would it be paid in that year ? 

Do you know this as a fact ?

Because it is  payable to the players contracted in 23/24, will be included in the contract year   23/24 season those contracts end on 30/6 /24 and some players possibly won’t be at Leicester post 30/6/24 . So yes will be in the 30/6/24 accounts

Edited 4 June by Terraloon

[Terraloon]

9 hours ago, st albans fox said:

This was addressed a few years ago by the authorities 

any bonus must be paid in the season to which it relates

 

There are some ways around it - you could have a clause in your contract that says you get a pay rise of x percent if promotion is achieved. But then that means your basic goes up for the remainder of your deal  (and players who are out of contract definitely have to be paid in season) 

I think individual bonuses are scheduled in the individual contract and indeed be paid in that way and almost certainly some will be getting a pay rise in 24/25 but ( and this is from memory ) team bonus or a schedule of them can be lodged at the FA but these are in a season by season basis ( well that was certainly the case in non league football). The irony and tragic part is that agents etc will almost certainly be paid a bounds as well.

The whole issue of bonuses was a major contributor in Forests 22/23 calculations and charge.

[Terraloon]

7 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Do we get to nominate two out of the three judges like Man City did?

Bit of a myth that but you can see why it’s believed 

 

At CAS each party gets to nominate one at as is allowed that the third is agreed mutually and in this case City suggested a name and UEFA agreed.

 

The head of the “Independent Panel” Rosen KC has sole responsibility to appoint 

[Bluetintedspecs]

11 hours ago, st albans fox said:

This was addressed a few years ago by the authorities 

any bonus must be paid in the season to which it relates

 

There are some ways around it - you could have a clause in your contract that says you get a pay rise of x percent if promotion is achieved. But then that means your basic goes up for the remainder of your deal  (and players who are out of contract definitely have to be paid in season) 

Didn't know that cheers for the info 👍

[Bluetintedspecs]

2 hours ago, Terraloon said:

Because it is  payable to the players contracted in 23/24, will be included in the contract year   23/24 season those contracts end on 30/6 /24 and some players possibly won’t be at Leicester post 30/6/24 . So yes will be in the 30/6/24 accounts

Cheers wasn't aware of that👍

[ScotFox1]

Interestingly (or not as the case may be) renowned source 'Caught Offside' are reporting that besides us (up to 15 point deduction ), Forest, Chelsea and Villa have all breached FFP and are facing sanctions for the 2024/25 season.

 

They are also stating that the 115 charges levelled at Manchester City will be heard before Christmas.  

 

Must be true then!! 

[Pliskin]

9 minutes ago, ScotFox1 said:

Interestingly (or not as the case may be) renowned source 'Caught Offside' are reporting that besides us (up to 15 point deduction ), Forest, Chelsea and Villa have all breached FFP and are facing sanctions for the 2024/25 season.

 

They are also stating that the 115 charges levelled at Manchester City will be heard before Christmas.  

 

Must be true then!! 

It’s not going to be 15 points. 

[Gamble92]

35 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

It’s not going to be 15 points. 

I don't think so either but I'm very worried about them making an example of us because of how we've tried to get round it all. They've made a big thing about co-operation in the Everton and Forest cases. We've been about as Co-Operative as an Aldi

[Pliskin]

1 minute ago, Gamble92 said:

I don't think so either but I'm very worried about them making an example of us because of how we've tried to get round it all. They've made a big thing about co-operation in the Everton and Forest cases. We've been about as Co-Operative as an Aldi

The maximum amount of points deductible at the time of the breach is 8 points, so to make an example of us it would be 8 points. They tried to deduct 12 off Everton and that was very quickly squashed, because it’s illegal. 
 

In terms of co-operation, you only have to co-operate with the panel who ultimately make the final decision, if we comply with them, then they will make the necessary adjustments. 
 

There’s a lot of scaremongering and guesswork going on in the media….. this is exactly why we’ve got legal backing, so they can’t have our pants down. 

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

17 hours ago, Stadt said:

19.4% of FT posters trust the current hierarchy though  

 

We could be facing unprecedented levels of charges and deductions - a few coconuts, donuts and warm cans of piss have gone so far

And people still can't see Top is the problem.

[Terraloon]

20 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

The maximum amount of points deductible at the time of the breach is 8 points, so to make an example of us it would be 8 points. They tried to deduct 12 off Everton and that was very quickly squashed, because it’s illegal. 
 

In terms of co-operation, you only have to co-operate with the panel who ultimately make the final decision, if we comply with them, then they will make the necessary adjustments. 
 

There’s a lot of scaremongering and guesswork going on in the media….. this is exactly why we’ve got legal backing, so they can’t have our pants down. 

Sorry but this simply not the case.

 

One IC at appeal agreed with Everton’s arguments that it was perverse to receive a points deduction in excess of the number deductible from entering an insolvency event. That is a reasonable argument but the rules as written give ICs the ability to deduct any amount of points. It’s unlikely that they will go in excess of 8 points but it wasn’t illegal it’s simply that the second IC thought the sanction was disproportionate indeed as we know the starting point in a first charge seems to be 6 points that number in theory was reduced by 2 points in the Forest case and stayed the same in the Everton case. The PL argued in the Everton case that there were aggravating factors .

 

 

In terms of co operation the mitigation is for how the club have conducted itself through but mainly the IC will take into account how a club has engaged with the authorities. There is an expectation that a club will as a minimum adhere to the requirements detailed in the rule book so there is no Brownie Points awarded for doing what the rules require namely acting in good faith

[Terraloon]

1 hour ago, ScotFox1 said:

Interestingly (or not as the case may be) renowned source 'Caught Offside' are reporting that besides us (up to 15 point deduction ), Forest, Chelsea and Villa have all breached FFP and are facing sanctions for the 2024/25 season.

 

They are also stating that the 115 charges levelled at Manchester City will be heard before Christmas.  

 

Must be true then!! 

 I read that article and thought how poor it was. Simply be a it was saying clubs had “ definitely “ failed etc. 

 

Its a basic schoolboy error on behalf of the author ( who is an agent) because he like us have no idea of club submissions etc the only thing we do know is that the EFL were projecting Leicester would be over

[sylofox]

So Man C taking the prem to court over sponsorship rules connected to the owner.

 

I can see this all getting very messy.

 

Psr ffp is not fit for use.

 

One simple rule could fix this.

 

Any owner can fund a club to whatever they want. But in wages and transfer fee's it can't be a loan. It has to be gifted.

 

Then a pompey can't happen.

 

If a billionaire wants to throw it away that's up to that person. Not the prem or eufa.

[st albans fox]

17 minutes ago, sylofox said:

So Man C taking the prem to court over sponsorship rules connected to the owner.

 

I can see this all getting very messy.

 

Psr ffp is not fit for use.

 

One simple rule could fix this.

 

Any owner can fund a club to whatever they want. But in wages and transfer fee's it can't be a loan. It has to be gifted.

 

Then a pompey can't happen.

 

If a billionaire wants to throw it away that's up to that person. Not the prem or eufa.

So the club is gifted the money to pay wages and fees 

what happens in year three if the owner disappears at the end of year 2  - who funds the huge wages and transfer fee instalments for years 3 to 5 ?? 
 

ref Man City - this is going to be a free for all if it gets through. For us it works next season because king power renegotiate their sponsorships of the shirts and stadium. But it opens up a giant free for all across the league - not sure how it fits into uefa ffp  though because they definitely have fair value rules and they won’t be bound by any legal edicts here. 

Edited 4 June by st albans fox

[Molson Canadian]

Man City apparently started legal against the league action over financial rules.  115 charges! 

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, Molson Canadian said:

Man City apparently started legal against the league action over financial rules.  115 charges! 

It’s not specifically to do with the 115 charges 

 

but if they win then the charges become redundant because fair value deals aren’t  valid  and therefore they can’t have broken any rules with their dodgy commercial sponsorships 

Edited 4 June by st albans fox

[kenny]

5 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

So the club is gifted the money to pay wages and fees 

what happens in year three if the owner disappears at the end of year 2  - who funds the huge wages and transfer fee instalments for years 3 to 5 ?? 
 

ref Man City - this is going to be a free for all if it gets through. For us it works next season because king power renegotiate their sponsorships of the shirts and stadium. But it opens up a giant free for all across the league - not sure how it fits into uefa ffp  though because they definitely have fair value rules and they won’t be bound by any legal edicts here. 

The full value of the contract needs to be transferred to the club.

[Foxin_Mad]

1 hour ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

And people still can't see Top is the problem.

And still People can't see that without Top we are a complete non entity of a club that would have only ever won the league cup. No-one wants to buy a loss making midlands football club. 

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, kenny said:

The full value of the contract needs to be transferred to the club.

But accounting doesn’t work like that - it’s annual, not over five year periods. (And contract start dates obvs vary )

 

if you demand £100m is deposited by the owner to cover the five years salary and transfer fee of a player then how do you stop the club using that money to pay for other things in that particular year. Effectively you’re expecting the clubs to potentially be carrying hundreds of millions of pounds cash to cover future commitments. I cannot see how it’s workable and manageable by the authorities 

[kenny]

3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

But accounting doesn’t work like that - it’s annual, not over five year periods. (And contract start dates obvs vary )

 

if you demand £100m is deposited by the owner to cover the five years salary and transfer fee of a player then how do you stop the club using that money to pay for other things in that particular year. Effectively you’re expecting the clubs to potentially be carrying hundreds of millions of pounds cash to cover future commitments. I cannot see how it’s workable and manageable by the authorities 

Escrow account?

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, kenny said:

Escrow account?

possible solution - are you removing psr completely then ?

 

Edited 4 June by st albans fox