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

[suffolk fox]

12 hours ago, DezFox said:

Hate it that he doesn’t mention the clear cheating in the prem constantly with bridge transfers, hotel sales and academy sales and well Washington to Strasbourg. 😂The fact Simon jordon compares us to OJ SIMPSON is simply horrific. Get some perspective, what a little rat. 

Danny Murphy comes across quite well in the talksport article.  Jordan is just an idiot, and comes across as bitter and twisted in this.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

One solution instead of the current rules, and as proposed by the likes of Gary Neville, is a more simple solution where owners simply have to put up a bond before any lavish spending spree. So if an owner comes in and wants to spend £500m in a given period they are required to secure that amount or more up front, and it’s held by the authorities.

They could just pay for a bank guarantee.  Common in significant investment project in a number of sectors.  Essentially means under certain circumstances the EPL could go to the bank and receive the guaranteed amount, which might for example cover future wages for the expensive signings.

[st albans fox]

9 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Why the PL and not the EFL? Or because we've argued we weren't a PL club on 30th June 2023 for 22/23 PSR it now works that on 30th June 2024 we were a PL club for 23/24 PSR?

 

I can't fathom which would be best if either rules we've broken PSR for 23/24.

 

Surely we'd have got our house in order for 23/24 knowing how this would all blow up.

well last season we had to submit accounts to the efl so this year we must to the PL 

but we were charged in April by the PL so if you follow that logic then next April we should be charged by the efl. 

 

but as our accounts were filed end June as a pl club I think we would be charged by the PL (especially given the results of our appeal ) 

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

They could just pay for a bank guarantee.  Common in significant investment project in a number of sectors.  Essentially means under certain circumstances the EPL could go to the bank and receive the guaranteed amount, which might for example cover future wages for the expensive signings.

If an owner commits to spending an additional £200m in a season then it’s likely that additional commitment will hang around for a couple of season before it can be eased out.  Maguire’s suggestion is to require £400m to be placed into an escrow account to ensure that the money is there to secure the club for those two seasons if the owner was to disappear. 

[Wortho]

It appears to me that whoever wrote the rules for the PL are really incompetent. 
The PL are now spending £130m a year in taking clubs to court, and they are ruining their product.

I think it’s Man United, Liverpool and Arsenal that are driving the charges against Man City. Isn’t Masters a ex United employee, and how did he get appointed? 

[RonnieTodger]

13 hours ago, AKCJ said:

We as fans need to stop taking this viewpoint.

 

The club failed massively and did breach spending rules. Gross incompetence from the club is why we're in this position and we can't simply brush it under the carpet.

 

Only a completely ridiculous technicality is the reason why we're not going to be forcefully relegated when we absolutely should be.

 

the club failed us and they need to be taken to account.

Yep. 

 

We’re not some plucky victims. We’ve been “cleared”, because we went down. Despite having the 7th highest wage bill in the league. 

[Ric Flair]

39 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

If Borsan is right then our allowable losses to 2024 are 105m but the next three seasons will be 83m 

that’s excellent news re no likely points deduction for that period but beyond is going to be even tougher. we were always going to have three seasons of 83m allowable - this just kicks it down the road for a season
 

need to get some of those academy boys in the team cos we’re going to have to sell them !

At some point the new rules kick in, so I don't think it is 3 years of £83m from 2024/25 onwards.

[FoxesTalker]

The outcome of this is a huge relief, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation are. However, it still doesn't negate from the reckless ownership of the club, and they must learn lessons from this so we avoid getting in such a mess again. The frustration of other clubs is understandable, but at the same time, if their club found a loophole they would be all for it. On a wider point, the significance of this case cannot be underestimated for the future of PSR, whatever that looks like.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

36 minutes ago, RonnieTodger said:

Yep. 

 

We’re not some plucky victims. We’ve been “cleared”, because we went down. Despite having the 7th highest wage bill in the league. 

Our off field failings have been bailed out by our on field failings, and the vast majority of the fanbase are absolutely delighted and treating it as some kind of GOTCHA to the footballing establishment.

[ClaphamFox]

6 minutes ago, FoxesTalker said:

The outcome of this is a huge relief, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation are. However, it still doesn't negate from the reckless ownership of the club, and they must learn lessons from this so we avoid getting in such a mess again. The frustration of other clubs is understandable, but at the same time, if their club found a loophole they would be all for it. On a wider point, the significance of this case cannot be underestimated for the future of PSR, whatever that looks like.

Why reckless? The club has not spent more than it can afford over the past few years. At no point have we become anywhere close to financially unsustainable. We have breached PSR (or narrowly avoided breaching due to some ambiguous rule wording), but let's not pretend the PSR rules have anything to do with sustainability. Who gets to decide what is 'sustainable' anyway? The whole thing is a farce: badly conceived, poorly planned and atrociously executed.

[Groby_Blue]

The thing I don't get is Everton and Forest had a points deduction because they broke the rules and gained an unfair advantage. 

 

We were alleged to have broken the rules but got relegated, so there was no advantage to us. 

 

So would we still have gotten a points deduction anyway? If gaining an unfair advantage was the basis of the points deduction, how could we have been given the same points deduction when we didn't gain an advantage?

[The_77]

3 minutes ago, Groby_Blue said:

The thing I don't get is Everton and Forest had a points deduction because they broke the rules and gained an unfair advantage. 

 

We were alleged to have broken the rules but got relegated, so there was no advantage to us. 

 

So would we still have gotten a points deduction anyway? If gaining an unfair advantage was the basis of the points deduction, how could we have been given the same points deduction when we didn't gain an advantage?

I could be wrong but it does appear that we would have received some sort of deduction had we stayed up. 

[moore_94]

Hopefully the club is a bit smarter when it comes to budgeting for new seasons compared to how we did it for 22/23
 

We budgeted for 22/23 as if we were going to finish 8th again - which would’ve meant an additional £31.1m in prize money compared to what we got for finishing 18th - so we would’ve been fine PSR wise if we had managed that (but still would have needed to sell Maddison or Barnes)

 

Question is though I guess what position should we budget for?

 

It is usually £3.1m for last place, and then an additional £3.1m for every place above that

[coolhandfox]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

If Borsan is right then our allowable losses to 2024 are 105m but the next three seasons will be 83m 

that’s excellent news re no likely points deduction for that period but beyond is going to be even tougher. we were always going to have three seasons of 83m allowable - this just kicks it down the road for a season
 

need to get some of those academy boys in the team cos we’re going to have to sell them !

They are going to have to revamp PSR; you'd have to think that figure will change in the near future. 

[CosbehFox]

18 minutes ago, The_77 said:

I could be wrong but it does appear that we would have received some sort of deduction had we stayed up. 

For sure £24 million over the allowance. Something like 4 points on the measure of Forest and Everton 

[Daggers]

6 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

Let's face it, football is broken. 

*professional football

[Fox forever]

54 minutes ago, Groby_Blue said:

The thing I don't get is Everton and Forest had a points deduction because they broke the rules and gained an unfair advantage. 

 

We were alleged to have broken the rules but got relegated, so there was no advantage to us. 

 

So would we still have gotten a points deduction anyway? If gaining an unfair advantage was the basis of the points deduction, how could we have been given the same points deduction when we didn't gain an advantage?

I suspect if our appeal had failed we would have gone to the hearing with this exact defence. We didn’t gain an advantage 

[ClaphamFox]

30 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

For sure £24 million over the allowance. Something like 4 points on the measure of Forest and Everton 

Yes, I reckon it would have been four points. Nothing like the amount speculated by the media.

 

On TalkSport yesterday Stefan Borson was asked what deduction we've have likely got if the appeal failed. When he said 3-4 points, you could hear the disappointment in the voices of Jim White and Simon Jordan. They were really hoping he'd say 10-15 points....

[Fox forever]

58 minutes ago, The_77 said:

I could be wrong but it does appear that we would have received some sort of deduction had we stayed up. 

100%. And as a club better off. Barnes would still be here. Probably KDH too. (Both happy at Leicester) More income from PL and chance to sign better players 12 months ago

 

We would have took points deduction and tried to stay up. Considering standard of 3 teams that went down every chance we would have stayed up. 
 

overall considering both scenarios staying up and points deduction was better option than relegation 

 

 

Edited 5 September by Fox forever

[ajthefox]

4 hours ago, st albans fox said:

well last season we had to submit accounts to the efl so this year we must to the PL 

but we were charged in April by the PL so if you follow that logic then next April we should be charged by the efl. 

 

but as our accounts were filed end June as a pl club I think we would be charged by the PL (especially given the results of our appeal ) 

Not sure the EFL can do much to us when we're a Prem club though. Potential for trouble if we go down though obviously.

[Groby_Blue]

The EFL if we get relegated this season 

 

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, ajthefox said:

Not sure the EFL can do much to us when we're a Prem club though. Potential for trouble if we go down though obviously.

I don’t think we’d be charged as an efl club because by the time we filed we were a PL club 

[FoxesTalker]

On 05/09/2024 at 10:21, ClaphamFox said:

Why reckless? The club has not spent more than it can afford over the past few years. At no point have we become anywhere close to financially unsustainable. We have breached PSR (or narrowly avoided breaching due to some ambiguous rule wording), but let's not pretend the PSR rules have anything to do with sustainability. Who gets to decide what is 'sustainable' anyway? The whole thing is a farce: badly conceived, poorly planned and atrociously executed.

Reckless in a general sense. The club made £215m worth of losses over the three year period in question, to my understanding. There’s clear reasons why this has happened, and other clubs haven’t had such deficits because they’ve been run more responsibly.
 

The downfall and subsequent relegation in 22/23 was unforgivable. Of course, it’s always easy to play the blame game in hindsight, and do take on board the points you’ve made. However, the mistakes that were made have had serious consequences for the club, and will continue to do so for some time.

 

Edited 6 September by FoxesTalker

[Matt]

9 hours ago, Wortho said:

It appears to me that whoever wrote the rules for the PL are really incompetent. 
The PL are now spending £130m a year in taking clubs to court, and they are ruining their product.

I think it’s Man United, Liverpool and Arsenal that are driving the charges against Man City. Isn’t Masters a ex United employee, and how did he get appointed? 

Neither profitable or sustainable on the Premier League's part.

 

Edited 5 September by Matt

[AjcW]

I wondered at the time how our Finance director had managed to get the gig at Newcastle after all this… starting to think he might actually be a very good creative accountant  

 

All that stuff with accountancy periods etc. last thing he did in the role was extend our accounts period from May to June,