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

[moore_94]

Just now, ClaphamFox said:

John Percy reckons we've probably avoided a breach for 23/24 through the money we received for KDH, Maresca and Barnes. Stefan Borson was on the radio a while ago and he said there is a chance we may have breached but he wasn't sure at all. I suspect it will be close either way - we'll have either just avoided a breach or breached by a relatively small amount. 

Still have next June to sort it out if we are close anyway as well

[Daggers]

2 hours ago, Harboro said:

We haven’t failed anything because it doesn’t apply to us for that period. It’s like saying I’ve broken a Saudi law against drinking because I drank a beer in England

 

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

Because of a quirk of the writing of the rules. If we hadn't gone down, we'd had got a points deduction. In terms of the rules regarding specifically spending, we know we failed them, we overspent. I'd suggest its more akin to having a beer in Saudi, returning to England and saying, well we're in England so you can't do shit now mate. 

 

2 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

It's actually more akin to us having a beer in Saudi, returning to England shortly afterwards and being charged by the Saudis in our absence, then going back to Saudi and saying you can't do shit about that beer-drinking episode because when you charged us we weren't in Saudi. And being correct in our arguments.

 

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

I need a beer after all these analogies. 

 

[splinterdream]

So looking at the figures, it was the VK and Souttar transfers which tipped us over the edge?

 

Are we confident we're within limits for last season? Was in convo with a guy on X who's convinced we've overspent by £20m

[ClaphamFox]

1 minute ago, moore_94 said:

Still have next June to sort it out if we are close anyway as well

No - that would be for 24/25. We're talking about 23/24.

[Foxdiamond]

30 minutes ago, shen said:

Wrong, you can totally blame the offending party too.

In this case we spotted a loophole and then exploited it. We should've been pointing it out to the PL prior to abusing it.

We totally knew what we were doing and no amount of lawspeak will convince me otherwise. 

It is the letter of the law that counts though. 

[moore_94]

1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said:

No - that would be for 24/25. We're talking about 23/24.

Ah yeah my bad

 

Be interesting to find out eventually what the new King Power shirt sponsor value was as well

[James_lcfc]

1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said:

John Percy reckons we've probably avoided a breach for 23/24 through the money we received for KDH, Maresca and Barnes. Stefan Borson was on the radio a while ago and he said there is a chance we may have breached but he wasn't sure at all. I suspect it will be close either way - we'll have either just avoided a breach or breached by a relatively small amount. 

I forgot the Barnes sale would be in that reporting period - You'd like to think the income from those three deals would put us in a good place.

 

Never a dull moment with this club is there...it's like a constant roller coaster!

 

I'd be brimming with positivity now if we had a decent manager.

[ClaphamFox]

1 minute ago, splinterdream said:

So looking at the figures, it was the VK and Souttar transfers which tipped us over the edge?

 

Are we confident we're within limits for last season? Was in convo with a guy on X who's convinced we've overspent by £20m

None of us will know for certain about 23/24 until our accounts are published. Some in the media think we've avoided a breach, others think we're at risk of breaching. I'm not convinced that some guy on X is likely to know much about it either way.

[splinterdream]

13 minutes ago, James_lcfc said:

So we can't be punished for 22/23 - That's done and dusted?

 

But seeing as we can for 23/24, and it's a rolling 3 year period of £105m max losses (or £83m with us being in the Championship for a year?), we are almost certainly going to fail again? 

 

Even with the sale of KDH and Maresca money, we'd need to be in a decent profit for last year wouldn't we? To counteract the other two years?

 

I may have misunderstood all of this so apologies! 

We sold Castagne, Barnes, KDH, Hirst and had the Enzo money so a fair bit of income but we have to make up the overspend 22/23 so it'll be close

[inckley fox]

10 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Everton fans still not getting that infrastructure is an allowable deduction so they weren't deducted points for building a new ground then?

 

and, am I missing something with the cov fan? we didn't do anything wrong in 2001/02 from what I remember? just played shit and got relegated 

I suspect they mean us going into administration in 2002/03. Lots of clubs - including Coventry - went into administration, the only difference being that they didn't get a points deduction until after that. But we'd have gone up even with the then-standard 10 point deduction, so I don't really get the point. I'm not sure they do either.

[Clever Fox]

6 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

Percy says we are expected to be fine for the next period as well

I would think so, As I think the rule states a rolling 3 year period which again let's us off the hook.

 

It seems remarkable and nieve that they the Premier league completely failed to allow for Teams being relegated in the rules.

 

A simple rule that said in the case of relegated teams the rule will be applied to the 3 previous years. Or a percentage of the 2 years are used instead of 3 years. 

[splinterdream]

2 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

None of us will know for certain about 23/24 until our accounts are published. Some in the media think we've avoided a breach, others think we're at risk of breaching. I'm not convinced that some guy on X is likely to know much about it either way.

the uncertainties are what date we recieved money from BC Game and whether any of that can be incorporated

[Pliskin]

2 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

None of us will know for certain about 23/24 until our accounts are published. Some in the media think we've avoided a breach, others think we're at risk of breaching. I'm not convinced that some guy on X is likely to know much about it either way.

The fact that “experts” were predicting up to 15 point deductions, anything they say I would take with an extreme amount of salt…. I.E it’s all hopefully guesswork from them. 

[CrispinLA in Texas]

It's slightly changed the odds in the betting markets for us to be relegated..... we're now joint favorites with Southampton now 😂

Edited 4 September by CrispinLA in Texas

[ClaphamFox]

2 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

the uncertainties are what date we recieved money from BC Game and whether any of that can be incorporated

I don't think anybody is factoring in the BC Game money for 23/24 - that will count as income for this season, I believe. 

[Frank Large's Black Book]

I'd be tempted to ensure a £1.93 overspend for 23/24 and see what the EPL do.

[ClaphamFox]

3 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

The fact that “experts” were predicting up to 15 point deductions, anything they say I would take with an extreme amount of salt…. I.E it’s all hopefully guesswork from them. 

As I mention above, Borson was on the radio a while ago saying that if this appeal had failed, we'd have likely received a six-point deduction before mitigation and a 3-4 point deduction after mitigation - a far cry from the lurid claims of double-digit deductions that many in the media were throwing about...

[James_lcfc]

3 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

We sold Castagne, Barnes, KDH, Hirst and had the Enzo money so a fair bit of income but we have to make up the overspend 22/23 so it'll be close

Sounds positive.

 

But I guess we also spent quite a bit on Winks, Coady, Mavididi, Mads etc...

[st albans fox]

8 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

So looking at the figures, it was the VK and Souttar transfers which tipped us over the edge?

 

Are we confident we're within limits for last season? Was in convo with a guy on X who's convinced we've overspent by £20m

No because those two deals added £5m to amortisation in that season.  Not 100% sure if it’s actually 2.5m given that they were signed in jan.   the guy on x knows nowt. We were overspent £24m end June 23.  The following year is very complex 
 

2 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

I would think so, As I think the rule states a rolling 3 year period which again let's us off the hook.

 

It seems remarkable and nieve that they the Premier league completely failed to allow for Teams being relegated in the rules.

 

A simple rule that said in the case of relegated teams the rule will be applied to the 3 previous years. Or a percentage of the 2 years are used instead of 3 years. 

the rules are already in place where allowable losses in the championship are £13m v £35m in the PL per season. This isn’t the first time that a club has been relegated!  
 

the fact that it’s a three year rolling number is worse for us. If it was just 23/24 in isolation then we’d likely be fine.  of course our legal team will have done their homework on the efl/pl rules regarding a promoted club. We may have already found a loophole. We won’t know anything for sure until late feb. 

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, James_lcfc said:

Sounds positive.

 

But I guess we also spent quite a bit on Winks, Coady, Mavididi, Mads etc...

No comparison as most of that spend was wages and 20% of the fees. 
the sales and comp were all 100% income in that year 

[splinterdream]

rough calculations we spent around £30m on incomings summer 2023 and made around £125m in profit with players sales and Enzo money last season, not knowing further income on gate receipts and sponsorships, it's all about wages + £25m we were over season before, then taking away the allowable costs.

 

I'm sure the club must know, it would have done the maths in January when Enzo was demanding transfer funds.

[splinterdream]

4 minutes ago, James_lcfc said:

Sounds positive.

 

But I guess we also spent quite a bit on Winks, Coady, Mavididi, Mads etc...

Around £30m

[James_lcfc]

2 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

Around £30m

Closer to £40m with Cannon I would've thought?

[Clever Fox]

30 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

I'm really not sure this logic is correct at all. Just because one rule was poorly drafted and didn't account for one very specific set of circumstances doesn't mean the entire set of rules is vulnerable to legal challenge. 

 

29 minutes ago, VLC86 said:

I’m not a lawyer or legal expert, but just because one section or subsection of a law doesn’t cover all situations wouldn’t mean the entire law be invalidated.

Neither am I a lawyer, but I have had a similar experience with rules being found wanting when challenged.  And it my experience if any part of the rules are found wanting then the rules in block are found not enforceable in law.  Which is pretty much what has been found in our favor.

 

Now that doesn't mean the same rules can't be used again with the offending clauses changed, amended or added to by new clauses.  

 

Which,  I think is what the Premier league will do for next season.

[splinterdream]

5 minutes ago, James_lcfc said:

Closer to £40m with Cannon I would've thought?

transfermarkt has us at 45.5m euros