Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
moore_94

Premier League cannot take action against the club for exceeding the relevant PSR threshold

By moore_94, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Guest Chocolate Teapot

Guest Chocolate Teapot

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Just to remind everyone, it was Vichai who emphasised that we needed a General Counsel to navigate around the changing rules that were coming and the vast growth he had planned. We were one of the first clubs outside Man U and Liverpool to hire a general counsel to the board. Villa being one of the others. 
 

He had plans for us. We were big dogs in his eyes. Benefiting again from his lasting legacy. IMG_5464.thumb.jpeg.ae31dc076a43025afb9ded0835d9a053.jpeg

That really wasnt a big appointment and she left pretty quickly afterwards. 

 

There's been several average appointments at board level since we won the league.

Edited by Chocolate Teapot
Link to comment
Share on other sites
westernpark

westernpark

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Just to remind everyone, it was Vichai who emphasised that we needed a General Counsel to navigate around the changing rules that were coming and the vast growth he had planned. We were one of the first clubs outside Man U and Liverpool to hire a general counsel to the board. Villa being one of the others. 
 

He had plans for us. We were big dogs in his eyes. Benefiting again from his lasting legacy. IMG_5464.thumb.jpeg.ae31dc076a43025afb9ded0835d9a053.jpeg

Wasn’t it Vichai who promoted Rudkin to Director of football?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Sooper Steve's shin

Sooper Steve's shin

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)

The decision and the PL’s statement reveal some serious concerns about the PL. They talk about having these rules for fairness and sanctity of the competition, but hunt us down to try and pin a sanction on us even though we got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING out of apparently breaching the rules. We were relegated FFS. To have a regulatory body come out and say that they are “disappointed” that they can’t apply a penalty to us is scandalous - they don’t even know whether we breached because we didn’t give them final accounts. 

 

If that - and Chelsea’s ludicrous hoovering up of players and dodgy academy deals - doesn’t show that the PSR system is a farce, hopefully the fact that they’ve so obviously ballsed up writing their own rules will make them think again. 

Edited by Sooper Steve's shin
  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
adamkhalifa

adamkhalifa

Posted
Posted

So does this mean promoted teams could leverage above PSR. 

Even if they get relegated, then rules don't apply.

If they stay up, then the club will likely to have a better squad following years,

and better position to absorb points deduction. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Bilo

Bilo

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

The fact our next home game is against Everton, who are about as in form as an expelled secondary school student, is ****ing hilarious. 

 

Honestly guys, peak shithousery from the off. I want banners, Vardy being an absolute arsehole, the lot. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
pleatout

pleatout

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Maybe its me, but I've been saying for a while that the league have been looking for a way out.

 

Man city and Top et al have deeper pockets than the prem and could keep this going until they bankrupted the prem with legal fees.

 

Add to that it makes for a farcical competition  if you start every season with 3 or 4 teams with threats of points deductions.  The best league in the world starts to look a bit rubbish.

 

Maybe this is the "deal" that gets them off the hook.  Can we expect an announcement in the next few days that proceedings against man city and Everton and others have been shelved and a new set of rules will be in place next season? I know they are doing that anyway but they might get someone with more than a gcse in law to have a read of it this time

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greg2607

Greg2607

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

That really wasnt a big appointment and she left pretty quickly afterwards. 

 

There's been several average appointments at board level since we won the league.

Sounds like they need a proper recruitment professional on board. 🙋‍♂️

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CUJimmy

CUJimmy

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, foxinsocks said:

Frankly, i believe man citys  counter action against the pl rulrs has merit.  I suspect the pl are going slow on city as they know they are on a sticky wicket.  Basically the people running the pl are incompetent (yet we know this... look at their inability to run var)

Psr itself is flawed.   It's  ages since Portsmouth were the last pl club to go into admin.

What we need is a rule to prevent rogue owners from gambling and then walki6bg away (like bury).  I would implement a scheme where shareholders provide a bond that they would forfeit if a club goes in to admin.  Say 1million in div 3; 2 million in div 1; 5 million in championship and 40mil in the pl

I have been saying this for a while but I would make the bond the cumulative loss over the previous 3 years whatever division the club had been in.  You would probably have to do it progressively initially but if a club can’t make the bond then they have a transfer ban until they can.


FFP was always about stopping clubs going bust not levelling the playing field.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mickyblueeyes

Mickyblueeyes

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

That really wasnt a big appointment and she left pretty quickly afterwards. 

 

There's been several average appointments at board level since we won the league.

Caroline McCory was the first GC left us for the Olympics or commonwealth games. Matt Phillips replaced her, his first step as a sole GC after holding senior legal counsel roles at BT. Both on paper were decent appointments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Chocolate Teapot

Guest Chocolate Teapot

Posted
Posted
Just now, Mickyblueeyes said:

Caroline McCory was the first GC left us for the Olympics or commonwealth games. Matt Phillips replaced her, his first step as a sole GC after holding senior legal counsel roles at BT. Both on paper were decent appointments. 

Yes decent but you made it out like Vichai foresaw something no one else did - compare our board with others. Having a general counsel isn't exactly ground breaking and we were miles behind others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...