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

[VLC86]

10 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

 I must confess after reading some of the Pl rules I was always confident the Club had a good chance of winning, Purely on legal ground which is exxactly what happened.

 

Now we can concentrate on staying up. 

 

Don't rule out Compensation Claims by Everton and Forest now. Especially Everton who are financially broke.

On what basis? They broke the rules.

[Les-TA-Jon]

2 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

It's only a breach if it's within the Governing bodies jurisdiction. It wasn't. No breach.

It wasn't a breach of the rules, because of the technicality, and subsequent decision by the appeal board. 

 

But we still exceeded the allowable losses all the same. 

 

Surely you can see the distinction? 

[HybridFox]

Did we sell Keirnan for nothing then? Or is that more to future protect this next period?

[VLC86]

Just now, HybridFox said:

Did we sell Keirnan for nothing then? Or is that more to future protect this next period?

That would have been for last season but I would imagine that’s true, as a reverse of the rules would likely be the case.

[Clever Fox]

1 minute ago, OntarioFox said:

I thought we were trying to sue Everton ourselves when we went down and they avoided punishment which could have made the difference? Might as well throw Forest in the mix while we're at it. 

 

Pic related

 

The fact is now it's been legally challenged and found not fit for purpose. Both Everton and Forest may well have a Legal claim against the Premier league.

It may be that because they weren't regulated they may may be liable. Where as they were trying to fine us for being a member for two years and a third year when we wern't in the Premier league.

 

But the simple ruling is the rules were not fit for purpose. Which may mean all previous convictions scrapped and compensation paid to suffering Clubs.

[Spudulike]

1 minute ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

It wasn't a breach of the rules, because of the technicality, and subsequent decision by the appeal board. 

 

But we still exceeded the allowable losses all the same. 

 

Surely you can see the distinction? 

Allowable losses did not apply. Could've been a billion under the Premier League rules and it still wouldn't have been a breach.

[Golden Fox]

Just can't tell you how please I am with this, on the basis that the points deduction made no sense in the first place.

 

Our charge was for spending too much - even though we spent far less than at least 6 other teams in the division.

Our charge was to counteract a competitive advantage we had by spending too much - even though though that competitive advantage didn't actually exist as we were relegated.

Our punishment of increasing the chance of relegation and hitting us massively financially does not align to the point of PSR which is to ensure clubs are financially healthy.

The penalties do not relate to the period in which the spend occurred. The beneficiaries of a charge for us this year could well be a club like Ipswich which were in no way hurt by our overspending. Similarly, Everton's penalty for spending more than us the year we went down had no benefit to us as we were in a different division when they were punished.

 

On this basis, I honestly can't see how other clubs could be pissed off at us, other than the clubs that are in a relegation scrap this year and were looking forward to having a points advantage over us which does not relate at all to what will happen on the pitch this year! And probably Forest and Everton who did have deductions last year - although who were very lucky there were 3 poorly equipped clubs that came up, so the penalties ended up being pretty irrelevant anyway.

 

This ruling means the rules have to be rewritten - I just hope they are rewritten to stop a lot of this nonsense.

[Clever Fox]

4 minutes ago, VLC86 said:

On what basis? They broke the rules.

You haven't broke any rules if the rules are not fit for purpose. Which is waht the inquiry found.

[moseeds]

1 minute ago, Clever Fox said:

The fact is now it's been legally challenged and found not fit for purpose. Both Everton and Forest may well have a Legal claim against the Premier league.

It may be that because they weren't regulated they may may be liable. Where as they were trying to fine us for being a member for two years and a third year when we wern't in the Premier league.

 

But the simple ruling is the rules were not fit for purpose. Which may mean all previous convictions scrapped and compensation paid to suffering Clubs.

Not sure how that would work. The technicality was Leicester was no longer a 'Club' when the Premier League's PSR accounting period was deemed to have been in breach. It's a clerical error probably because the contract writers didn't consider what would happen if the breaching club was relegated or liquidated and ceased to be a 'Club'. Silly error, but enough to see us through - for now.

That doesn't apply to Everton and Forest who *remained* as a contractual 'Club' throughout the breach period.

[Haywood_6]

It's definitely a relief because our chances of staying up have greatly improved. Yes, we overspent, and we've managed to get away with it, but if there's a loophole to use, you'd be foolish not to. Now we can focus on football. Honestly I'm just hoping this gives us a boost, massively important we get at least one win from the next two games  

[dmayne7]

12 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

we breached the PSR rules, we exceeded the allowable loss threshold. But the PL rules, in their current (poorly drafted) form meant that they didn't actually have jurisdiction over us to charge us for that breach. 

 

But we still did breach. 

 

10 minutes ago, Harboro said:

Can you breach a rule if it doesn’t apply to you at the point of assessment?

As Harboro has alluded to, on this technicality, we haven't breached? We would have been in breach of the rules if they applied to us but they didn't. For example, if a championship club loses £200m over 3 years, they haven't breached any PL rules, since they are not a member (would of course be breaching FL rules but that's a different matter)

 

There needs to be a distinction between:

 

Yes- We exceeded the allowable losses

No - We did not breach the PSR rules 

 

If we had breached the rules, then we absolutely should have been fined, as unfair as that may be. But I also think that we took our punishment by not investing in the team in the summer of 22/23 and subsequently getting relegated, so other fans would do well to remember that. Look at the fact that Ipswich have spent more in gross terms this summer than we ever did, and the net spend far beyond anything we did. Not like we were picking up players of free transfers but £300k a week either and that's where we gained our advantage. Unfortunately, our overspend was because of sheer incompetence (which still needs to be addressed) rather than giving ourselves a competitive advantage because the salaries paid were not allowing us to sign players typically out of our reach, but rather overpaying on players we could have attracted anyway.

[Babylon]

19 minutes ago, Harboro said:

Can you breach a rule if it doesn’t apply to you at the point of assessment?

Look, we all know we spent more than was allowed if you just take the financial side of it. Yes, it's their fault the rules weren't in sync with the EPL or didn't work as they intended. But I don't think it's wise really to pretend like we didn't get away with one here. 

[Jon the Hat]

4 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Look, we all know we spent more than was allowed if you just take the financial side of it. Yes, it's their fault the rules weren't in sync with the EPL or didn't work as they intended. But I don't think it's wise really to pretend like we didn't get away with one here. 

Agreed, we certainly spent more than the rules allow, and we’ve avoided punishment due to falling out if their jurisdiction at just the right moment.

[Fox forever]

35 minutes ago, Bert said:

But at the end of the 3rd year they were a premier club. Which matches up with our argument that at the end of our 3 year, we were a championship club. 

For this part of the discussion I was referring to 3 years ending June 24. At this point we are now a premier league club and so IF WE HAVE FAILED THIS PERIOD (which I don’t think we have) then PL can still charge us for period 22/24. 
 

I was using Forest to highlight the fact that we have proved we were a championship club for 1 season out of the 3 for the period but this doesn’t matter. We will be charged by PL if our losses are above £83m for 3 years ending June 24

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Pita said:

His thinking has got to change now as we have a chance of stopping up 

Possibly the opposite - it’s likely to be a couple points that keeps us up whereas before we needed loads.  Unless he’d already been tipped the wink a couple weeks ago that this outcome was likely 

 

24 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

 I must confess after reading some of the Pl rules I was always confident the Club had a good chance of winning, Purely on legal ground which is exxactly what happened.

 

Now we can concentrate on staying up. 

 

Don't rule out Compensation Claims by Everton and Forest now. Especially Everton who are financially broke.

Everton have no basis for any claim. Forest might have missed a efl based technicality when they appealed last season but that’s now gone. If they’re charged again for last season in a few months then they might be onto dimarco …

 

11 minutes ago, HybridFox said:

Did we sell Keirnan for nothing then? Or is that more to future protect this next period?

Uncertain - if we didn’t need to sell him pre July because a breach last season in the efl could be similarly argued, we’d certainly need to sell before July 2025. 
 

7 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Allowable losses did not apply. Could've been a billion under the Premier League rules and it still wouldn't have been a breach.

I guess although the three year rolling totals mean that this scenario isn’t realistic because you can’t just dump everything into one season 

 

5 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

You haven't broke any rules if the rules are not fit for purpose. Which is waht the inquiry found.

they weren’t fit for purpose in the specific circumstances we found ourselves in.  They are fit for purpose in 99% of circumstances. 

[Footballwipe]

3 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Look, we all know we spent more than was allowed if you just take the financial side of it. Yes, it's their fault the rules weren't in sync with the EPL or didn't work as they intended. But I don't think it's wise really to pretend like we didn't get away with one here. 

Yes, there's a lot of word salads in this thread and it's all a bit baffling. Especially as if had we not got relegated we'd likely be sitting here having had, or about to have some form of points deduction.

 

Let's rejoice in the fact that we got away with this after the substantial financial mismanagement we've experienced over the last few years. The PSR rules need to be looked at, scrapped, rewritten, whatever, but they've exposed the enormous loophole that exists and hopefully this prompts significant and lasting change.

 

Don't forget also that these rules were imposed by the existing PL club's at the time. The PL enacts on the things voted for by member clubs, not on a whim. There's a collective failure on the clubs, too, for not doing proper due diligence on these flawed regulations in the first place (not us though we benefitted lol)

[Clever Fox]

10 minutes ago, moseeds said:

Not sure how that would work. The technicality was Leicester was no longer a 'Club' when the Premier League's PSR accounting period was deemed to have been in breach. It's a clerical error probably because the contract writers didn't consider what would happen if the breaching club was relegated or liquidated and ceased to be a 'Club'. Silly error, but enough to see us through - for now.

That doesn't apply to Everton and Forest who *remained* as a contractual 'Club' throughout the breach period.

Agreed 100 %  But it now gets into legal technicaltites now, If the rules have been now been found not to be enforceable. That must apply to all clubs which is why they may well have an appeal for compnsation. Luckily neither were relegated so a financial compensation will solve the issue quickly.

 

Here's another situation which may be contestable.   

Appeal Boards are independent of the Premier League and member clubs and are appointed by the independent Chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel. 

 

You cant be judge and jury in trying to protect your own interests.

[moore_94]

21 minutes ago, HybridFox said:

Did we sell Keirnan for nothing then? Or is that more to future protect this next period?

Selling KDH + the compo for Enzo is expected to make us alright for the 21/22, 22/23, 23/24 period

[indierich06]

I think even considering all of this, most of us would rather have stayed up, taken a points deduction, and hopefully held on to our better players and the revenue that comes from being in the Premier League. We've certainly got away with one here, but I'd say the outcome of relegation has damaged us far more than a season in the PL with a points deduction would have.

 

I'd be applauding this decision even if it wasn't us - these PSR rules are an absolute nonsense, and it's clear they're not applied fairly or reasonably. Rulings like this show just how little thought has gone into their development and application.

[brookfox]

Wonder how many bottom half clubs have checked their accounting period this morning!

[Les-TA-Jon]

1 minute ago, Clever Fox said:

Agreed 100 %  But it now gets into legal technicaltites now, If the rules have been now been found not to be enforceable. That must apply to all clubs which is why they may well have an appeal for compnsation. Luckily neither were relegated so a financial compensation will solve the issue quickly.

 

Here's another situation which may be contestable.   

Appeal Boards are independent of the Premier League and member clubs and are appointed by the independent Chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel. 

 

You cant be judge and jury in trying to protect your own interests.

But that's not the case. 

 

The rules were found to not be enforceable, in the specific instance of a club being relegated whilst also breaching the allowable losses. That situation only applies to LCFC. 

 

The new ruling yesterday doesn't open anything up for other clubs. 

[Clever Fox]

6 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Possibly the opposite - it’s likely to be a couple points that keeps us up whereas before we needed loads.  Unless he’d already been tipped the wink a couple weeks ago that this outcome was likely 

 

Everton have no basis for any claim. Forest might have missed a efl based technicality when they appealed last season but that’s now gone. If they’re charged again for last season in a few months then they might be onto dimarco …

 

Uncertain - if we didn’t need to sell him pre July because a breach last season in the efl could be similarly argued, we’d certainly need to sell before July 2025. 
 

I guess although the three year rolling totals mean that this scenario isn’t realistic because you can’t just dump everything into one season 

 

they weren’t fit for purpose in the specific circumstances we found ourselves in.  They are fit for purpose in 99% of circumstances. 

Except that's not the way the Law works. Either the rules are correct and enforceable or they'er not. Which is what the finding was.

[fox in the sox]

Is there anything the EFL can do when we go down?

[VLC86]

20 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

You haven't broke any rules if the rules are not fit for purpose. Which is waht the inquiry found.

No, the appeal found that based on our accounting period and our relegation, the Premier League had no jurisdiction to enforce the rules.

 

Everton were a Premier League club throughout the process, we weren’t.

[MarriedaLeicesterGirl]

2 minutes ago, indierich06 said:

I think even considering all of this, most of us would rather have stayed up, taken a points deduction, and hopefully held on to our better players and the revenue that comes from being in the Premier League. We've certainly got away with one here, but I'd say the outcome of relegation has damaged us far more than a season in the PL with a points deduction would have.

 

I'd be applauding this decision even if it wasn't us - these PSR rules are an absolute nonsense, and it's clear they're not applied fairly or reasonably. Rulings like this show just how little thought has gone into their development and application.

Clubs will always take advantage of the loopholes they find - the Big 6 certainly do! But the drop was horrible in many ways. For goodness sake, we had been fairly regular in Europe for a few years, and won three trophies in under a decade! Yet the PSR rules were suffocating us (as they were meant to) yet clubs that won less than us (<< cough, cough>> **Spurs**) get away with murder.