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

[urban.spaceman]

5 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Why do they even care, they'll never be in the Prem, it doesn't affect them. 

 

You know what Finners, someone needs to go on their forum and tell them that.

[HitchinFox]

43 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

We need to be thankful to Danny Ward

 

If we didn’t play him we might’ve stayed up and then got the points deduction!

Danny Ward IS a points deduction. 
 

[OntarioFox]

Well it took 31 years, but the Premier League cartel have finally discovered that forming a breakaway league can have consequences, and they don't control everything under the sun.

 

Ironically pertinent given their own crying foul over the Super League farce. In hindsight, the rich boys trying to break away and form a closed shop was just a logical progression of the same money-grubbing stitch-up they started in the 90s.

[The_77]

Another embarrassing day for the Premier League. 
 

They ran up exorbitant legal costs in the case against Everton and tried to stick Everton with the bill. 
 

The PL’s cost per witness statement was 5x higher than Everton’s; the PL’s cost per submitted document was 19x higher. 
 

The Appeals Board drastically reduced the amount that Everton had to pay and also called out the PL for poorly-written rules, like the Board that ruled on our case did. 

[ClaphamFox]

5 minutes ago, The_77 said:

It’s only FosseHub sharing a terrible source, no need to panic. 

FosseHub will link to any old shit. It's supposed to be a Leicester fan account, but it's basically just a conduit for bullshit from other sources...

[st albans fox]

This is interesting from the mockery today 

if they do manage to charge is to end June 24 then our sanction would be significant because whilst the loss may not be hugely above 83m, we haven’t been punished for the previous seasons breach.  hope we’ve done our sums right!

 

Does the ruling on 22-23 finances make a difference for 23-24?

Possibly, yes. This is pretty interesting. The EFL has a double jeopardy ruling, by which a club’s losses are capped if they have already been punished for a PSR cycle.

Let’s say City had been found in breach of PSR for the three-year cycle ending in 22-23 and had been punished for that. When the EFL then comes to assess the three-year cycle ending in 23-24, they would cap the losses for the first two of those three seasons, because essentially they’ve already been assessed.

In the Premier League, allowable losses stand at £35m per season. In the Championship, it’s £13m per season. Applying the double-jeopardy rule, the EFL would have capped City’s losses at £35m for 21-22 and 22-23, the first two years of the cycle they are assessing, and so essentially, they would be solely judging City on whether they exceeded the £13m allowable losses for 23-24.

That City have not been punished, it means the full three-year cycle will be considered and the club judged on whether they have exceeded the allowable £83m losses. Before City could have employed the double-jeopardy defence, but now don’t have that in their back pocket.

[mozartfox]

30 minutes ago, Nolucklcfc said:

Fossehub and Dufkin both need being deducted from anything to do with LCFC.

[MPH]

Why is this thread hot again? What have I missed? Anything new since the info that the independent panel ruled in our favor?

Edited 4 September by MPH

[Spudulike]

12 minutes ago, The_77 said:

Another embarrassing day for the Premier League. 
 

They ran up exorbitant legal costs in the case against Everton and tried to stick Everton with the bill. 
 

The PL’s cost per witness statement was 5x higher than Everton’s; the PL’s cost per submitted document was 19x higher. 
 

The Appeals Board drastically reduced the amount that Everton had to pay and also called out the PL for poorly-written rules, like the Board that ruled on our case did. 

Perhaps LCFC will ask for the award of costs in our case? De Marko and his team wouldn't have been cheap.

[Finnegan]

17 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

You know what Finners, someone needs to go on their forum and tell them that.

 

 

[Scotch]

4 minutes ago, MPH said:

Why is this thread got again? What have I missed? Anything new since the info that the independent panel ruled in our favor?

Fossehub basically watched the talksport interview with their "expert" saying we COULD still get a deduction this season IF we broke rules last year and has translated that into we are likely looking at one for breaching rules last season. 

[Pliskin]

1 minute ago, Scotch said:

Fossehub basically watched the talksport interview with their "expert" saying we COULD still get a deduction this season IF we broke rules last year and has translated that into we are likely looking at one for breaching rules last season. 

But there are 19 other teams who could breach too. They’re placing emphasis on us, because of this story. 

[KingsX]

 

 

Haaland and Man City are fake news.  Will we are going to OWN the PL record book. 

[The_77]

33 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Perhaps LCFC will ask for the award of costs in our case? De Marko and his team wouldn't have been cheap.

We’re going to get fined after every game for player conduct. 

[moore_94]

This is a much bigger issue that Chelsea have got away with this

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

Let's sell Vardy to Leuven for £200m (fair market value) then loan him back.

 

 

Absolute ****ing joke.

 

[MPH]

Seems like the Premier league are going through a bit of a “ ah buggrit” stage…

[Levi Port]

2 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

Not quite. The PL does not impose the points deduction - the commission does. The PL can, I believe, suggest a certain deduction but they do not decide it. If we breach for 2021-24 by a relatively small amount, it is likely we'll just receive a fine or a two-point deduction.

Yeah that’s what I meant sorry, they recommended 12 for Everton I believe, 10 was imposed and it was reduced to 6. If we breach it will be 3 reduced to 2 on terms of corporation with the commission.

 

Hopefully Percy is right though and this is pointless 

[Levi Port]

1 hour ago, Pliskin said:

But there are 19 other teams who could breach too. They’re placing emphasis on us, because of this story. 

True, but we were put under a transfer embargo based upon the suspicion we would breech 23/24. Nobody else had that done to them.  
 

Hopefully Percy is the one with his ear to the floor on this one 

[ClaphamFox]

3 minutes ago, Levi Port said:

True, but we were put under a transfer embargo based upon the suspicion we would breech 23/24. Nobody else had that done to them.  
 

Hopefully Percy is the one with his ear to the floor on this one 

The EFL can't impose transfer embargoes on PL clubs. 

Edited 4 September by ClaphamFox

[Phube]

Simon Jordan’s raging… 

 

Though can we sue him for slander for saying we breached, when it’s proven we didn’t!? 
 

 

[Pliskin]

24 minutes ago, Levi Port said:

True, but we were put under a transfer embargo based upon the suspicion we would breech 23/24. Nobody else had that done to them.  
 

Hopefully Percy is the one with his ear to the floor on this one 

Again, 23/24 had a portion of it in the EFL. The EFL can’t impose penalties on EPL and EPL clubs can’t impose penalties on EFL clubs. So as the statement clearly states, neither can touch us because there’s a period where we are in either division. 

[Pliskin]

14 minutes ago, Phube said:

Simon Jordan’s raging… 

 

Though can we sue him for slander for saying we breached, when it’s proven we didn’t!? 
 

 

He’s making himself look a prat. He’s an intelligent articulate bloke. Yet he clearly hasn’t taken the time to study the procedures and polices from both the EPL and EFL. If he had, and then read the statement, he would understand that we’ve done nothing wrong, and it’s the both the EPL and the EFL than need to look at their own policies. 
 

This reaction is being seen throughout the football world in the media, they loved it when it looked like we were about to be punished, now we’ve been proven correct, they can’t stand it, so there’s articles left right and centre all with “exclusive expert opinions” on what happens next. Read the statement, and that explains it. 

Edited 4 September by Pliskin

[Lineker's Lugs]

1 minute ago, Pliskin said:

Again, 23/24 had a portion of it in the EFL. The EFL can’t impose penalties on EPL and EPL clubs can’t impose penalties on EFL clubs. So as the statement clearly states, neither can touch us because there’s a period where we are in either division. 

That only mattered for the three year period that ended with our relegation season.

[Pliskin]

Just now, Lineker's Lugs said:

That only mattered for the three year period that ended with our relegation season.

And things our first season back in after relegation. So that period will still be there, until a fresh three calendar years in the league have been played out surely? They can’t backdate anything because it would have been picked up, and then can’t do anything that includes that EFL season. Forests penalty came in there second season, so, I can’t see how the premier league can do anything this season, we will just refer back to the independent committee who will ultimately come to the same conclusion…. Surely?