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

[Pliskin]

51 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

 

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.

They can’t have two bites at the same cherry just because they amend the rules. 
 

Ultimately the result of this is a learning outcome for all. The premier leagues regulations clearly are either ambiguous or not fit for purpose. So all they can to is change these. I I for see a complete overhaul of PRS as it is now, and a potential overarching body that oversees both the EPL and EFL for crossover offences. 
 

The case is done against us, there’s nothing more they can do. 

Edited 4 September by Pliskin

[Ric Flair]

3 minutes ago, Sunbury Fox said:

The Guardian now reporting that we could face a new PSR charge from the PL,  with the club being asked to submit 23-24 accounts to the PL by the end of December under a new rule introduced in the summer. I don’t really understand how big an issue this, not least because for most of the 23-24 FY we were in the Championship.

There's further complexities to what would happen if we've breached the 3 year period up to 23/24. As it would be down to the EFL to deal with this, unless there's a mechanism to hand over to the PL (this is the grey area).

 

 

 

 

[Ric Flair]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

That’s just the rules as they exist and have done for the last year. These enable the fast track deductions to be imposed in the season following a breach. Hence forest’s deduction last season.  
not just Simon Jordan who is ignorant - add the Guardian 

But can only apply to clubs who were a Premier League club when that was voted in during 2023/24 I believe? And anyway, isn't it the EFL who handle this up to the end of 2023/24?

 

[Sunbury Fox]

8 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

That’s just the rules as they exist and have done for the last year. These enable the fast track deductions to be imposed in the season following a breach. Hence forest’s deduction last season.  
not just Simon Jordan who is ignorant - add the Guardian 

So nothing to worry about then?

 

[moore_94]

Everton got away with one there tbh, disgraceful really

 

10 point deduction needed

 

 

[dnewty]

Would Harvey Barnes transfer also go on the 23/24 accounts ?

[BillyFOX12]

Great news but the timings a bit off, the transfer window just closed ffs!

 

Sack Cooper now and try to get a proper manager - Thomas Frank?

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, dnewty said:

Would Harvey Barnes transfer also go on the 23/24 accounts ?

Yes

[Flappit]

1 hour ago, Clever Fox said:

 

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.

You need to stop digging... 

 

Example of your logic. Man clearly murders someone. Police fumble chain of custody or fail to follow procedure correctly. Man gets off murder charge on technicality as, effectively, part of the law cannot be enacted on that man in this specific situation. 

 

Clever fox: murder laws have been proven unenforceable, get busy everyone! 

 

(Rudkin goes to live in bunker to avoid hordes of Leicester fans) 

[Pliskin]

16 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

But can only apply to clubs who were a Premier League club when that was voted in during 2023/24 I believe? And anyway, isn't it the EFL who handle this up to the end of 2023/24?

 

I imagine the same outcome would happen if they were to try. Ultimately there’s an anomaly that exists between the two leagues, my understanding is neither the EFL or the EPL can punish teams when any offences were committed in different leagues to the ones they compete in at the time of charge. Until the two forge an overall body that looks after the whole pyramid it there’s nothing they can do. It would purely be a second bite of the cherry. 
 

The premier league need to instantly review the whole PRS and FFP policy, as we’ve made a mockery of it, hence the anger and rumour mill, the wider world are pissed off, because they wanted us to be lynched, and it hasn’t happened so they’re now trying to engineer situations where we get punished. 
 

Moral of the story is, always get legal aid, it works. 
 

(And the premier league really needs to get a better legal advisor).

Edited 4 September by Pliskin

[Lad1966]

3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Yes

Also castanga

[Mike1983]

An absolute masterclass if this holds up. If anyone asks how we managed this show them this image:

 

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

But can only apply to clubs who were a Premier League club when that was voted in during 2023/24 I believe? And anyway, isn't it the EFL who handle this up to the end of 2023/24?

 

Don’t think so ric 

when you accept the league share you accept the rules that are in place  - otherwise Ipswich or Luton could do as they please because they’ve never voted on any PL rules.  We avoided being subject to PL fast track accounts last season because we argued that we weren’t a PL club at the end of June so not subject to their rules at the time of filing. 

we did submit accounts to the efl who wanted to put us into special measures but we appealed that they had no jurisdiction under the rules as they were written as we were not an efl club the previous season as per below 

6 march 

Earlier this season, based on financial information submitted by the Club, the EFL’s independent Club Financial Reporting Unit (CFRU) concluded that the Club was forecasting to breach the Profitability and Sustainability (P&S) loss limits for the three-year period ending with financial year 2023/24.   

The CFRU determined that it was appropriate under P&S Rule 2.9 to require Leicester City Football Club to submit a business plan to demonstrate how it planned to comply with the EFL’s P&S spending limits.  

The Club argued that the relevant P&S Rule did not apply to it, meaning the CFRU had no right to require a business plan in respect of Season 2023/24.   

That matter was referred by the Club to the independent Club Financial Reporting Panel (CFRP) which concluded that under the Rules as currently written, Rule 2.9 did not apply to the Club and so it was under no obligation to submit and agree to a business plan.  
 

afaik, the PL and efl are able to deal with the three year allowable loss, irrespective of what league you’ve been in.  Up to this time, the PL have not wanted to apply any efl breaches to PL clubs but in our case we will have been a PL club for two out of the three seasons in the numbers.
 

so we will submit our accounts end December and  the PL have two weeks to check if we’ve breached.  If we have then I’m sure that will leak out.  

[katieakita]

If the journos were bothered a more interesting take is why the EPL pursued this after seeing Leicester's defence of the charges. You be interesting to see the legal advice that Leicester would lose the appeal but then again running a Post Office i have seen more than enough evidence of corruption

[Clever Fox]

1 hour ago, les-tah said:

Can any clause be changed without a majority premier league vote though?

They can be changed but obviously all clubs would then get to vote them in or not.

[UniFox21]

12 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

Everton got away with one there tbh, disgraceful really

 

10 point deduction needed

 

 

For real for a second.

The Prem is spending vast sums of money proving and chasing clubs that have broken some poorly written rules. It really doesn't paint the league in a good light at all

 

[Foxdiamond]

52 minutes ago, shen said:

The point is we knew what we were about to do, the intent was nefarious. Even if the cause or motivation may have been principally righteous, it's still a blot on our book.

We were one of the clubs agreeing on the PSR, remember.

 

It's like gamers finding a weird bug in a game and abusing it. They (mostly) know full well it's a bug and should be fixed. In most cases they get reprimanded as well.

But to me it just highlights how $hitty all this off-field malarkey is. As Sly put it, it all comes down to a law exercise and finding the best people to manipulate this. 

 

If we didn't agree with the intent/spirit of the rules, then we should've done what we could to influence clubs/PL to rewrite it meaningfully.

 

Yeah, that's what counts regarding a PL punishment. It still stinks from a moral perspective and that does mean something to me as a fan.

The moral of the question of PSR itself is more of an issue for me. 

[st albans fox]

15 minutes ago, Sunbury Fox said:

So nothing to worry about then?

 

Absolutely there is if we’ve breached £83m to end June 24.  
they will be desperate to screw us this season but we’ll argue that they can’t 

[ts_1010]

 

2 minutes ago, Flappit said:

You need to stop digging... 

 

Example of your logic. Man clearly murders someone. Police fumble chain of custody or fail to follow procedure correctly. Man gets off murder charge on technicality as, effectively, part of the law cannot be enacted on that man in this specific situation. 

 

Clever fox: murder laws have been proven unenforceable, get busy everyone! 

 

(Rudkin goes to live in bunker to avoid hordes of Leicester fans) 

 

The rules regarding our specific case, namely that the club was, outside of the jurisdiction of the PL so could not be punished according to the rules as they are written.

 

In other words. A team that got relegated this year, like Sheff Utd cannot be punished for PSR breaches.

 

Other teams like Everton, to whom this loop hole does not apply, still have to comply.

 

In other words I'm agreeing with you mate. The rules are partially suspended effectively, provided that the circumstances match ours.

[Clever Fox]

24 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

They can’t have two bites at the same cherry just because they amend the rules. 
 

Ultimately the result of this is a learning outcome for all. The premier leagues regulations clearly are either ambiguous or not fit for purpose. So all they can to is change these. I I for see a complete overhaul of PRS as it is now, and a potential overarching body that oversees both the EPL and EFL for crossover offences. 
 

The case is done against us, there’s nothing more they can do. 

I totally agree, They can only change the rules for going forward, Not to then take retrospective action.

 

Our case is done and over as I don't think they have any right to appeal the decision.

[dnewty]

12 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Yes

If that’s the case surely along with the sale of KDH and Maresca we should be fine ?

[ts_1010]

1 minute ago, dnewty said:

If that’s the case surely along with the sale of KDH and Maresca we should be fine ?

You have to hope so, but honestly we are guessing now. 

 

I believe we've also done some advertising/sponsorship shenanigans to help fluff the numbers.

 

Either way I think Mr Di Marco may have some work left to do, but honestly, if any deduction doesn't come till next season I'd settle for that.

[Clever Fox]

1 hour ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

I'm sorry this is incorrect. I dont know if its being explained correctly but its not how law works. 

 

With regards to regulation and legislation and in particular, primary legislation, we didnt win here because the law (overall) was uneforceable. That isnt the case. We won here because case law has now determined that the law (which stands valid and enforceable) cannot be applied due jurisdiction limitations. There is no such thing as perfect legislation and/or regulation. It is why case law forms such a significant part of our legal system. If the courts were striking out legislation/regulation due to interpretation rulings, we'd have no laws left. And seperation of powers would no longer be a thing. 

 

In contractual/commercial law, there is a long standing principle referred to as the "blue pencil test" its from old case law which I cannot remember when it occured, that rule simply states that where part of a contractual relationship is unenforceable, it does not a: void the contract if the parties choose to proceed; and b: (more importantly) that where a term/clause is unenforceable, the remaining parts of the contract remain valid.

Very elnightening and thanks as knowledge is always useful. As I said I can only speak of my situation and in that case which did go to Court and the whole document was deemed flawed because of some of the clauses within.

 

Whereas in the Clubs situation, None of it has gone as far as the Courts. Which I doubt it will do now as usually in arbitration both sides agree to accept the ruling.

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, ts_1010 said:

 

 

The rules regarding our specific case, namely that the club was, outside of the jurisdiction of the PL so could not be punished according to the rules as they are written.

 

In other words. A team that got relegated this year, like Sheff Utd cannot be punished for PSR breaches.

 

Other teams like Everton, to whom this loop hole does not apply, still have to comply.

 

In other words I'm agreeing with you mate. The rules are partially suspended effectively, provided that the circumstances match ours.

It’s surely a little more nuanced than that 

sheff United’s eoy accounting date is 30 June 

so they are technically not a PL club when they’ve broken the rules on 30 June.  So the PL cannot charge them for their running total at that date. However, I’m sure that the efl could choose to do so. they just need to kick the can down the road long enough to get to the end of the season if they can get promoted. Then the PL can’t charge them for 23/24 just as in our case. 

[ClaphamFox]

33 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

That’s just the rules as they exist and have done for the last year. These enable the fast track deductions to be imposed in the season following a breach. Hence forest’s deduction last season.  
not just Simon Jordan who is ignorant - add the Guardian 

I've just read that Guardian article. It may as well have said "Leicester will have to abide by existing PSR rules for 2021-24". There is literally nothing new in it - and they've labelled it an 'exclusive' 

 

From what I've heard the club is confident we haven't breached for 2021-24, but we shall see. Even if we have breached I suspect it will be by a small amount, which will limit their ability to punish us.