Leicester face questions about FFP

Log in to stop seeing adverts

The big hole in the EFL case is, based on my limited knowledge, that pretty much any PL club at even the slightest risk of relegation will have to be complying with the EFL rules (rather than the EPL's), effectively creating a two tier league whereby 6 teams are playing to one set of financial rules and the other 14 are not.
 
The big hole in the EFL case is, based on my limited knowledge, that pretty much any PL club at even the slightest risk of relegation will have to be complying with the EFL rules (rather than the EPL's), effectively creating a two tier league whereby 6 teams are playing to one set of financial rules and the other 14 are not.
And therein lies the truth.
 
The main, and most accurate point from that article is this:

“No one actually knows and anyone who tries to say they know definitively how this will be called are talking nonsense.”
i noticed that as well.
Won’t stop the doom and gloom merchants though
 
Won’t stop the doom and gloom merchants though
Why should it stop people being concerned / unhappy with the way things are being ran?

Have you heard we got relegated yet?
 
It will be a lot easier to overcome a 12 point deficit in the Championship than in The Prem.

Let's just not get promoted.........
 
Why should it stop people being concerned / unhappy with the way things are being ran?

Have you heard we got relegated yet?
Load of ribbish
I’ve just got out of the shower ,
We’ve just won the league as Spuds ****ed up at the bridge
( reference for the older generation )
 
Just close the doors and **** it all off. The top of the PL is a closed party now.
 
I see a scenario where most clubs are accepting a 4-10 point deduction each year - effectively a level playing field
 
Lots of stuff in that article. First thing is that we didn't finalise the deal to sell Maddison for a knock down price until after the end of June. The sale was reported to have completed on 29th June but obviously not.

It is also said that we agreed to sell him for less than we wanted because he'd go before the end of the reporting period. Thereby, helping us with PSR. To have missed the deadline and still sold him for a knock down price would be extraordinarily stupid, even for the clowns.

Sounds like a Rudkin Special that.
 
Having taken the time to digest the PSR ruling, it is clear the rules currently discriminate against the likes of Leicester, Forest, Everton. This is all about club ownership, and the big 6 not wanting to be threatened and potentially lose out on lucrative CL money. For what it's worth, the PL/EFL should be focusing on the fit & proper ownership tests. Future owners should have a 10yr guarantee bond on £5bn, for example, guaranteeing any monies for the life of their ownership - could be different levels for each of the divisions but you get the drift. That way we avoid the situations at Reading, Blackburn etc where the owner simply decides to stop putting money in.

That being said, City knew the rules so must abide by them. I am pleased we are taking a strong legal stance that challenges the PL/EFL because the playing field looks far from level. Be interesting to see how many other clubs are in the same boat - lots from what I've read.
 
Having taken the time to digest the PSR ruling, it is clear the rules currently discriminate against the likes of Leicester, Forest, Everton. This is all about club ownership, and the big 6 not wanting to be threatened and potentially lose out on lucrative CL money. For what it's worth, the PL/EFL should be focusing on the fit & proper ownership tests.
While this is all absolutely true, and seems wholly obvious from the fans perspective (not just us, but other clubs too), to have this as a Premier League rule must mean the other clubs all signed off on it. I think they need 14 out of 20 clubs to be agreed in the Premier League on rule changes? I'm not quite sure how they all shafted themselves in this way without realising.
 
Having taken the time to digest the PSR ruling, it is clear the rules currently discriminate against the likes of Leicester, Forest, Everton. This is all about club ownership, and the big 6 not wanting to be threatened and potentially lose out on lucrative CL money. For what it's worth, the PL/EFL should be focusing on the fit & proper ownership tests. Future owners should have a 10yr guarantee bond on £5bn, for example, guaranteeing any monies for the life of their ownership - could be different levels for each of the divisions but you get the drift. That way we avoid the situations at Reading, Blackburn etc where the owner simply decides to stop putting money in.

That being said, City knew the rules so must abide by them. I am pleased we are taking a strong legal stance that challenges the PL/EFL because the playing field looks far from level. Be interesting to see how many other clubs are in the same boat - lots from what I've read.
let's not forget that the majority of the prem clubs voted for this, so of they are complaining they did it to themselves, that includes us.

Our board got us into this mess I hope that is not lost on anyone, the whole approach during the Bodgers era was stupidity.
 
Jordan Blackwell writing in the LM. Easily the best journalist covering City at the moment. Those of us who remember the days of Bill Anderson will know that criticising City for the LM is not something that happens often.

Leicester City have failed to harness FFP rage to supercharge bid to avoid disaster​

If City hoped to create a siege mentality with their bullish responses to the Premier League and EFL, they have not managed it, with the contradictions too big to ignore.

Leicester City may have hoped, in responding bullishly to the Premier League and EFL’s actions against them, to create a siege mentality that supercharged the club’s bid for promotion.

They’re railing against the system. They’re a crusader for all wronged clubs. They’re not going to succumb without a fight. That is how they framed the charge for an alleged breach of Profitability and Sustainability Rules and the transfer embargo placed on them last week.

They may have hoped supporters would buy into that stance and join them in their battle. It didn’t work.

There is little sympathy for the club. Many fans have instead questioned the running of the club and how badly they were managed to have allegedly broken the rules and yet still been relegated anyway.

It’s not that there are not legitimate concerns about the regulations and how they may favour the most famous clubs, protecting them from ambitious sides attempting to disrupt the top order. And the club’s point over the premature nature of the EFL embargo, handed out with three months to go in the financial year, feels a fair one.

But it also seems like City’s fight is one of technicalities and timing. The injustice isn’t strong enough to direct the full force of fan rage towards the governing bodies. These are fans who know about the transfer failures, the high wage expenditure and the inability to offload players that have combined to put City in this predicament. Plenty of clubs of a similar size to City have managed to follow the rules and stay in the Premier League, even qualifying for Europe.

There are the contradictions too. The club said they “would prefer the (legal) proceedings to be in public, so its supporters and the wider world can be informed about the important issues of football governance that will be considered”. And yet the very limited communication from the hierarchy with supporters over the past few years suggests fans being informed is far from one of their priorities.

That City claim to be representing all clubs when they were reportedly seeking financial compensation against Everton when they were first charged also feels like a contradiction. It’s not a good look.

While the possible bid to create a siege mentality has not paid off, Enzo Maresca and his players will likely still get a strong backing when the Championship resumes this Friday. The manager has built up plenty of goodwill and the bond between the players and supporters is excellent, having recovered considerably since relegation.

And they need that support. City begin the run-in in a high-pressure situation. Not only do they have potential points penalties hanging over them if the allegations are proven, but they’ve fallen from top spot for the first time in six months. The gap to third has closed considerably and promotion is far from the certainty it seemed only seven or eight weeks ago.

To not get promoted this season would be an even greater disaster now. The squad would likely be dismantled this summer, and further adapting to a Championship revenue as well as ensuring the financial rules aren’t at risk of being broken again would be a tough task. That's even if the registration embargo is lifted. Promotion next season would be a much more difficult challenge.

So the club, the players and the manager do need support. And when the first whistle is blown at Ashton Gate on Friday afternoon, financial issues will be put to one side for plenty. But for some, it may be harder to get behind the team.

City fans were rightly angry when Everton and Forest, their two relegation rivals at the end of last season, were charged with breaches. They felt their team, for all their faults, had been cheated out of a place in the Premier League. How are those fans supposed to feel now?

Allegiance to a club is not blind for everyone. For some, it will be more difficult to get behind a club that may be shown to have worked outside the lines on their way to a potential promotion. Supporters want, and deserve, their club to be better, to not be taken for fools, and for them to strive for success while staying within the rules.
 
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1128
2Manchester C  1123
3Chelsea1119
4Arsenal1119
5Nottm F1119
6Brighton1119
7Fulham1118
8Newcastle1118
9Aston Villa1118
10Tottenham 1116
11Brentford1116
12Bournemouth1115
13Manchester U1115
14West Ham1112
15Leicester1110
16Everton1110
17Ipswich118
18Palace117
19Wolves116
20Southampton114

Latest posts

Back
Top