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

[FrankieADZ]

do find some of these journo etc pretty hypocritical the way they poo poo us for getting off yet say nothing about Chelsea or even sort of praise them for what theyve done PSR wise in selling to their sister club etc

 

all feels like double standards to me

 

 

[UniFox21]

They've created a big media fuss about us avoiding a penalty, then snuck in the Chelsea news at the same time. 

Funny that.

[Spudulike]

 

[Wortho]

3 hours ago, Matt said:

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

 

Exactly 👍

[Pliskin]

I might have to get De Marco to come to mine when I’m losing one of my many arguments with the other half! 

[Spudulike]

The word 'breach' has been used time and again, including by our own fans, to hit LCFC with a stick and explain it away by saying the club got off due to a technicality. It didn't. There was NO breach, NO technicality and the judgement of the Independent Commission makes it clear...

 

On 30 August 2024 an independent Premier League (“PL”) Appeal Board allowed Leicester City FC’s (“LCFC”) appeal, finding that the Club did not breach Rule E.49 of the PL’ s Profit & Sustainability Rules (“PSRs”), and so there was no jurisdiction to pursue the complaint against the Club [60].

 

This needs to be book marked as the cheating accusations will be thrown at the club forever more much like the ignorant fools that still bring up the the 2002 administration.

 

 

[Ric Flair]

20 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

The word 'breach' has been used time and again, including by our own fans, to hit LCFC with a stick and explain it away by saying the club got off due to a technicality. It didn't. There was NO breach, NO technicality and the judgement of the Independent Commission makes it clear...

 

On 30 August 2024 an independent Premier League (“PL”) Appeal Board allowed Leicester City FC’s (“LCFC”) appeal, finding that the Club did not breach Rule E.49 of the PL’ s Profit & Sustainability Rules (“PSRs”), and so there was no jurisdiction to pursue the complaint against the Club [60].

 

This needs to be book marked as the cheating accusations will be thrown at the club forever more much like the ignorant fools that still bring up the the 2002 administration.

 

 

Leicester don't breach 

 

 

And we've made up our mind, we're gonna keep Jon Rudkin

 

[Les-TA-Jon]

51 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

The word 'breach' has been used time and again, including by our own fans, to hit LCFC with a stick and explain it away by saying the club got off due to a technicality. It didn't. There was NO breach, NO technicality and the judgement of the Independent Commission makes it clear...

 

On 30 August 2024 an independent Premier League (“PL”) Appeal Board allowed Leicester City FC’s (“LCFC”) appeal, finding that the Club did not breach Rule E.49 of the PL’ s Profit & Sustainability Rules (“PSRs”), and so there was no jurisdiction to pursue the complaint against the Club [60].

 

This needs to be book marked as the cheating accusations will be thrown at the club forever more much like the ignorant fools that still bring up the the 2002 administration.

 

 

I'm not sure you'll ever understand this, based on your many comments on the matter, but I'll give it one more try - can you see the distinction between:

1. Rules as Written, LCFC did not breach the spending rules, as per the decision by the appeal board, as quoted
2. LCFC did exceed the allowable losses by (as reported) by around £25m

[coolhandfox]

I will stick this in here as it may reduce some fans' anxiety about the next PSR period. It is a chunk of an article by Swiss Ramble, which has been writing online about football finance since 2009. Swiss Ramble is a subscription service, and Iwould recommend it if you are interested in football finances: https://swissramble.substack.com/.

 

Before reading, remember that clubs have not yet published accounts for 2023/24, so his estimates are based on the figures for last season. He applied some pretty broad assumptions for 2023/24 and has us making a profit of 8m dues to player sales.

PSR Overview 2023/24

Using his estimated £8m profit for 2023/24, assuming that the allowable deductions were the same as the £22m made in 2022/23, would lead to an adjusted PSR profit of £30m. That would give a PSR loss of £82m over the 3-year monitoring period, meaning that Leicester would be just about within the maximum loss of £83m.

 

Edited 6 September by coolhandfox

[Les-TA-Jon]

2 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

I will stick this in here as it may reduce some fans' anxiety about the next PSR period. It is a chunk of an article by Swiss Ramble, which has been writing online about football finance since 2009. Swiss Ramble is a subscription service, and Iwould recommend it if you are interested in football finances: https://swissramble.substack.com/.

 

Before reading, remember that clubs have not yet published accounts for 2023/24, so his estimates are based on the figures for last season. He applied some pretty broad assumptions for 2023/24 and has us making a profit of 8m dues to player sales.

PSR Overview 2023/24

Using his estimated £8m profit for 2023/24, assuming that the allowable deductions were the same as the £22m made in 2022/23, would lead to an adjusted PSR profit of £30m. That would give a PSR loss of £82m over the 3-year monitoring period, meaning that Leicester would be just about within the maximum loss of £83m.

 

So this does confirm that the allowable loss for 3-year rolling period ending 23/24 is £83m not the 'normal' £105m? Because of the season in the EFL? 

 

I thought I'd seen some reporting/rules/quotes saying there was confusion over whether it was £83m or £105m? 

[Spudulike]

18 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

I'm not sure you'll ever understand this, based on your many comments on the matter, but I'll give it one more try - can you see the distinction between:

1. Rules as Written, LCFC did not breach the spending rules, as per the decision by the appeal board, as quoted
2. LCFC did exceed the allowable losses by (as reported) by around £25m

Nothing mentioned about allowable losses. Two different things. My point is the Commision ruled the club did not breach therefore it is wrong to level that accusation. It's very clear.

[Les-TA-Jon]

Just now, Spudulike said:

Nothing mentioned about allowable losses. Two different things. My point is the Commision ruled the club did not breach therefore it is wrong to level that accusation. It's very clear.

Sure. But it's more correct to say, we didn't break the rules, but we did spend more than the allowable losses. 

 

Saying we simply didn't break the rules and nothing else, doesn't show the full picture does it? 

[coolhandfox]

1 minute ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

So this does confirm that the allowable loss for 3-year rolling period ending 23/24 is £83m not the 'normal' £105m? Because of the season in the EFL? 

 

I thought I'd seen some reporting/rules/quotes saying there was confusion over whether it was £83m or £105m? 

There seems to be some general confusion around this. Some experts have assumed it is 83m, but some are now talking about the rules that it may be 105m. 

 

Section E54 only includes adjustment for EFL status for T-1 and T-2, not for T, which would suggest T is at the normal 35m limit not the reduced.

 

 

[Les-TA-Jon]

Just now, coolhandfox said:

There seems to be some general confusion around this. Some experts have assumed it is 83m, but some are now talking about the rules that it may be 105m. 

 

Section E54 only includes adjustment for EFL status for T-1 and T-2, not for T, which would suggest T is at the normal 35m limit not the reduced.

 

 

I look forward to our next legal challenge 

[coolhandfox]

Just now, Les-TA-Jon said:

I look forward to our next legal challenge 

It's a total mess.

 

I think we will be okay if the Swiss Ramble numbers are correct either way. 

[ClaphamFox]

3 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

I look forward to our next legal challenge 

I want us to come within the lower £83m limit but also aggressively push via our lawyers for the limit to be £105m even though we won't need it, just for the fun of it.

[st albans fox]

17 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

I will stick this in here as it may reduce some fans' anxiety about the next PSR period. It is a chunk of an article by Swiss Ramble, which has been writing online about football finance since 2009. Swiss Ramble is a subscription service, and Iwould recommend it if you are interested in football finances: https://swissramble.substack.com/.

 

Before reading, remember that clubs have not yet published accounts for 2023/24, so his estimates are based on the figures for last season. He applied some pretty broad assumptions for 2023/24 and has us making a profit of 8m dues to player sales.

PSR Overview 2023/24

Using his estimated £8m profit for 2023/24, assuming that the allowable deductions were the same as the £22m made in 2022/23, would lead to an adjusted PSR profit of £30m. That would give a PSR loss of £82m over the 3-year monitoring period, meaning that Leicester would be just about within the maximum loss of £83m.

 

 

4 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

There seems to be some general confusion around this. Some experts have assumed it is 83m, but some are now talking about the rules that it may be 105m. 

 

Section E54 only includes adjustment for EFL status for T-1 and T-2, not for T, which would suggest T is at the normal 35m limit not the reduced.

 

 

Knew someone would put the Swiss ramble numbers on here 👍

 

the good news from those is that even if allowable losses to 2024 are 105m and the next three years are 83m, if we’ve avoided a breach to June 2024 then we should be able to avoid further breaches beyond then. However, a relegation in May 2025 would then mean our allowable losses to 2026 would be 61m which would require further pruning of the squad around our best players where an sig profit is available. 

 

 

 

[Spudulike]

11 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

Sure. But it's more correct to say, we didn't break the rules, but we did spend more than the allowable losses. 

 

Saying we simply didn't break the rules and nothing else, doesn't show the full picture does it? 

Say what you like but the fact remains the club did not breach and therefore no rules have been broken regarding allowable losses else the club would now be facing a points deduction.

[chuddy8]

1 hour ago, Spudulike said:

The word 'breach' has been used time and again, including by our own fans, to hit LCFC with a stick and explain it away by saying the club got off due to a technicality. It didn't. There was NO breach, NO technicality and the judgement of the Independent Commission makes it clear...

 

On 30 August 2024 an independent Premier League (“PL”) Appeal Board allowed Leicester City FC’s (“LCFC”) appeal, finding that the Club did not breach Rule E.49 of the PL’ s Profit & Sustainability Rules (“PSRs”), and so there was no jurisdiction to pursue the complaint against the Club [60].

 

This needs to be book marked as the cheating accusations will be thrown at the club forever more much like the ignorant fools that still bring up the the 2002 administration.

 

 

didn't they just not breach it because they weren't technically a premier league club at the time?

[coolhandfox]

7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

 

Knew someone would put the Swiss ramble numbers on here 👍

 

the good news from those is that even if allowable losses to 2024 are 105m and the next three years are 83m, if we’ve avoided a breach to June 2024 then we should be able to avoid further breaches beyond then. However, a relegation in May 2025 would then mean our allowable losses to 2026 would be 61m which would require further pruning of the squad around our best players where an sig profit is available. 

 

 

 

He does some great articles.

 

Without a doubt, a second relegation would make it more difficult.  

 

 

 

[coolhandfox]

For the record, you can't breach something that doesn't apply to you. 

 

[joachim1965]

56 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

So this does confirm that the allowable loss for 3-year rolling period ending 23/24 is £83m not the 'normal' £105m? Because of the season in the EFL? 

 

I thought I'd seen some reporting/rules/quotes saying there was confusion over whether it was £83m or £105m? 

I thought Newly promoted clubs were given the full £105m allowance.

[coolhandfox]

17 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

I thought Newly promoted clubs were given the full £105m allowance.

This extract from the rules suggests you get the full allowance for T, but not for T-1 and T-2.

 

So it would seem it depends on how long you have been outside the PL.

 

 

Edited 6 September by coolhandfox

[ClaphamFox]

13 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

This extract from the rules suggests you get the full allowance for T, but not for T-1 and T-2.

 

So it would seem it depends on how long you have been outside the PL.

 

 

So £105m for 23/24, then £83m for £24/25?

[coolhandfox]

10 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

So £105m for 23/24, then £83m for £24/25?

That's what it seems to suggest from how it is written. 

 

I would imagine it will change before we have to worry about submitting our 24/25 PSR calc.