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

[sylofox]

8 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. 

You mean if KP had walked at the end of last season then? Who knows but you would like to think no one would be paying x amount of players way above what the club could generate. You don't become a billionaire giving it away.

 

We are already in the poo. We don't own our ground or the new training ground. KP can sell the club tomorrow but charge rent for our ground and training complexes.

 

We ain't in a very good place now if KP pull out.

[kenny]

Just now, st albans fox said:

possible solution - are you removing psr completely then ?

 

It only exists for the bottom 14 anyway.

 

The best possible solution is the world super league and let them leave the league structure.

[Molson Canadian]

56 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

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 

Commercial "sponsorships" really are unfair.  Shouldn't be allowed, really hope there is a crack down on this. 

[Pliskin]

2 hours ago, Terraloon said:

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

Well then, they are all poo poo heads.

[UniFox21]

People wonder why this is taking so much longer than our case or other cases. 

This is now an entire other court process added onto the existing case against the charges

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, Foxin_Mad said:

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. 

At the last time of looking nearly every PL club is loss making but the rule changes coming force all clubs to turn a profit as they are only able to spend 85% dropping down to 70% of revenue on wages and transfers.

 

Suddenly club ownership becomes a little more attractive (if it wasn't already - it's a billionaires play thing)

 

There's no proof that we'd not interest a host of other billionaires, some might see what we've already achieved and think they can tap in to that whilst avoiding the mistakes and recent failures. Either way it's massively naive to think that there's no future for this club without our owners and an largely untouched board.

 

It's also extremely scary that in the eyes of some they can do whatever they want without scrutiny no matter how badly we faltered. A complete mockery of the core aspect of being custodians of our football club - the words they have referenced before as well.

[MPH]

Massive development with Man City now suing the premier league... I cant help but think the Premier league have got bigger problems on their hands. We'll still get a points deduction but i can imagine it will be implemented with the notion of discouraging us from appealing..

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

2 hours ago, Foxin_Mad said:

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. 

Hahahahahahaha.

 

This is funny

 

KPFC. Only existed for 10 years haven't we.

Edited 4 June by Chocolate Teapot

[CosbehFox]

2 hours ago, Foxin_Mad said:

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. 

Those two sentences are related.
 

Ie. Top’s decisions = a loss making football club 

 

People won’t be quite aware but we are increasingly becoming a running joke in football circles by others. A tale in mismanagement 

Edited 4 June by CosbehFox

[westernpark]

2 hours ago, Foxin_Mad said:

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. 

You’re not a Leicester fan, are you?

[orangecity23]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

At the last time of looking nearly every PL club is loss making but the rule changes coming force all clubs to turn a profit as they are only able to spend 85% dropping down to 70% of revenue on wages and transfers.

 

Suddenly club ownership becomes a little more attractive (if it wasn't already - it's a billionaires play thing)

 

There's no proof that we'd not interest a host of other billionaires, some might see what we've already achieved and think they can tap in to that whilst avoiding the mistakes and recent failures. Either way it's massively naive to think that there's no future for this club without our owners and an largely untouched board.

 

It's also extremely scary that in the eyes of some they can do whatever they want without scrutiny no matter how badly we faltered. A complete mockery of the core aspect of being custodians of our football club - the words they have referenced before as well.

once that comes in, the whole competition just devolves into Man Utd win forever, guaranteed, thanks to the infinite spending cheat of having an infinite supply of glory hunting twats buying merch, inifnite glory hunting megacorps shovelling ill gotten gains into their pockets and infinite TV money because Sky Sports wants them on constantly to attract even more glory hunting twats to watch and megacorps to advertise to them. We'll be scratching around desperately trying to put together a team of Bosmans and pay them a salary, they just go LOL ADIDAS MONEY PRINTER GO 100 MILLION.

Edited 4 June by orangecity23

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

32 minutes ago, westernpark said:

You’re not a Leicester fan, are you?

KPFC4LIFE

[Chrysalis]

3 hours 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. 

They gift the amount for the entire contract, not rocket science

 

The current FFP isnt for purpose, I am baffled people try to defend it.

 

1 - Losses are allowed (up to limit if is one) if funded either by the club revenue or the owner, losses fully funded by owner so contracts e.g. the cash amount is injected by the owner when contracts signed.

2 - Any spending limit is an amount thats equal for every club in the competition/league.   So none of this big clubs are allowed to spend more nonsense, which likely breaches competition laws and isnt fair for the sport.

3 - External debt is heavily penalised on spending limits to encourage any debt to be from owner instead, infrastructure spending is no longer excluded as that can bring down a club (the fact currently only playing staff spending is regulated shows the true motivation behind FFP).

4 - Owner funded debt also penalised but to a much lower level.

5 - Penalty for 3 and 4 is a reduction in the spending limit.

6 - Transfer embargoes to be dropped as prevents a club from being flexible in the market to reduce their spend.

7 - If sporting penalties are to remain they have to be processed in the order of events, so e.g. if man city is the oldest breach, then no teams after man city can be punished until man city has been dealt with, all punishments are applied in terms of time relevancy to each other in the same season, if this is not possible due to becoming too messy then no sporting punishment is applied.

8 - Breaches are covered in one punishment for one season, none of this rolling 3 year stuff, where can be punished for 3 seasons in a row, however the points deductions will also be larger to be more meaningful.

Edited 4 June by Chrysalis

[Chrysalis]

3 hours ago, sylofox said:

You mean if KP had walked at the end of last season then? Who knows but you would like to think no one would be paying x amount of players way above what the club could generate. You don't become a billionaire giving it away.

 

We are already in the poo. We don't own our ground or the new training ground. KP can sell the club tomorrow but charge rent for our ground and training complexes.

 

We ain't in a very good place now if KP pull out.

I am curious, given the club owns neither, has any debt been put on the club to fund these developments?

[sylofox]

39 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

I am curious, given the club owns neither, has any debt been put on the club to fund these developments?

Infrastructure don't count on psr ffp.

 

But our owners are not squeaky clean.

 

Yes under Vichai I trusted them now not so sure.

Vichai's dream was the fa cup. Then expansion. First was Seagrave then the stadium. First part done. But since his passing KP has changed the family don't rule it now Vichai has gone.

 

Very much the king is dead. Do the shareholders trust Top like they did his dad.

 

On his showing with us I would say No.

 

Hence why he is not chairman of KP now.

[Molson Canadian]

Would this be correct then:

 

They moved their annual accountancy date back to the end of June to give them wriggle room in terms of meeting PSR. That is how James Maddison’s move to Tottenham was able to be included in the 2022-23 accounts. The Harvey Barnes deal to Newcastle United will be included in the next accounts, which will help towards PSR, but they will still need to make some cuts before the end of June to meet the EFL’s PSR regulations for this season, or they could face an EFL charge.

ADVERTISEMENT

[HybridFox]

Making it up as they go along. We'll be made an example of while Man City get off on a technicality. No confidence in there being any other outcome

[Chrysalis]

2 hours ago, sylofox said:

Infrastructure don't count on psr ffp.

 

But our owners are not squeaky clean.

 

Yes under Vichai I trusted them now not so sure.

Vichai's dream was the fa cup. Then expansion. First was Seagrave then the stadium. First part done. But since his passing KP has changed the family don't rule it now Vichai has gone.

 

Very much the king is dead. Do the shareholders trust Top like they did his dad.

 

On his showing with us I would say No.

 

Hence why he is not chairman of KP now.

Its not a PSR question.

 

I am curious if assets have been brought for KP's benefit with debt loaded on to the club to build them.

[Pliskin]

Sounds a bit like a civil war is brewing between PL teams and the EPL, going on what was on talk shite this morning. I can see the whole thing collapsing over the next year or so. 

[Chrysalis]

49 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

Sounds a bit like a civil war is brewing between PL teams and the EPL, going on what was on talk shite this morning. I can see the whole thing collapsing over the next year or so. 

According to sky support for FFP is down to barely half of the EPL, there is also a division between western and eastern owners of clubs brewing.

[Foxin_Mad]

11 hours ago, westernpark said:

You’re not a Leicester fan, are you?

Yes, but you have to face facts. Without the last 10 years we are Stoke, we'll worse than Stoke as they have very rich owners. We had won the league cup and like them or not KP have led us during our most successful period, wed probably be a mid table Championship club. Yes they have made errors, trust in Rodgers the biggest one. 

[Foxin_Mad]

13 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

At the last time of looking nearly every PL club is loss making but the rule changes coming force all clubs to turn a profit as they are only able to spend 85% dropping down to 70% of revenue on wages and transfers.

 

Suddenly club ownership becomes a little more attractive (if it wasn't already - it's a billionaires play thing)

 

There's no proof that we'd not interest a host of other billionaires, some might see what we've already achieved and think they can tap in to that whilst avoiding the mistakes and recent failures. Either way it's massively naive to think that there's no future for this club without our owners and an largely untouched board.

 

It's also extremely scary that in the eyes of some they can do whatever they want without scrutiny no matter how badly we faltered. A complete mockery of the core aspect of being custodians of our football club - the words they have referenced before as well.

I think it's fair to say we wouldn't have had the last 10 years without King Power, stuff we never dreamed of. Yes they have made errors.

 

We probably would have been a yoyo club at best, like we always had done, or perhaps Mandaric could have sold us to someone more dodgy like a couple of the other clubs he was at. 

 

There's no proof there is a host of millionaires queuing to take over a club in some place in the midlands or thst said millionaire would be any better. They could be debt loading  asset stripping Americans or a Mike Ashley type in it for their own gain. 

 

I'm not saying they can do anything, what I am saying is yes they've made errors but I think it's delusional for fans to think a white Knight is gonna ride in and pay millions for and be a custodian of the club that is essentially not a lot, it's not really like that anymore. Where did our recent successes come from? Pure luck? 

[Foxin_Mad]

12 hours ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

Hahahahahahaha.

 

This is funny

 

KPFC. Only existed for 10 years haven't we.

Intelligent response. Even more hilarious. 

 

So what did we achieve before the last 10 years? 3 league cups and a Charity shield, yeah okay let's go back to being owned by the Shipmans then? Yoyo bounce and the odd cup run. 

 

Of course the club has been here longer, I've seen some shit, a lot between 2000 and 2009 and early 90s, times when the club was skint because we are Leicester City and we were largely irrelevant to most people. We can go back to those days sure, I'll still be there, but did we ever dream of Premier League titles, FA Cups, European nights back in 2008 at Stoke? I know I didn't! But surely they have to have some credit for the success if you are going to go after them for the failures? Would you change the last 10 years? 

 

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

8 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

Intelligent response. Even more hilarious. 

 

So what did we achieve before the last 10 years? 3 league cups and a Charity shield, yeah okay let's go back to being owned by the Shipmans then? Yoyo bounce and the odd cup run. 

 

Of course the club has been here longer, I've seen some shit, a lot between 2000 and 2009 and early 90s, times when the club was skint because we are Leicester City and we were largely irrelevant to most people. We can go back to those days sure, I'll still be there, but did we ever dream of Premier League titles, FA Cups, European nights back in 2008 at Stoke? I know I didn't! But surely they have to have some credit for the success if you are going to go after them for the failures? Would you change the last 10 years? 

 

We are currently a laughing stock in football with no clear strategy. The last ten years have been brilliant (ignoring the last two) but we're currently completing rudderless and are at risk of hitting oblivion. It's not as binary as you make out - you're assuming the same person has been in charge for the last ten years. That's not the case.

Edited 5 June by Chocolate Teapot

[turlo]

8 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

Its not a PSR question.

 

I am curious if assets have been brought for KP's benefit with debt loaded on to the club to build them.

the stadium & training ground both appear on the clubs balance sheets as tangible assets with a note that there is a hire purchase agreement in place between the club & KP for the stadium - does that mean the club owns them?

 

pages 48 & 49

 

https://resources.lcfc.com/leicesterfc/document/2024/04/02/3ce38931-9e1f-4734-8202-e5ef7b9507b0/LCFC-FY23-accounts.pdf