Leicester feud with Premier League over spending rules could spill into next year

[Brown Nose]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c6281v4k082o

 

[M17TT C]

100% yes we can.

It's just like the situation with Everton and Forest last season. All PL clubs have until the 31st Dec to submit accounts for the year ending June 30th 2024. The PL charged both those clubs in January and gave them points deductions soon after that.

It's impossible to say after the decision yesterday but, as I've said a few posts up, and you so generously dismissed as bollocks, it's very difficult to see a way that we've made the figures add up. In fact, we already have a good idea because the FL had already given us a transfer ban based on the figures they'd seen. Much depends on how much the Dewsbury-Hall and Maresca money closed the gap.

Our mitigation for this accounting year is that we tried to sell and release assets and cut costs accordingly. But spending about £40m on the likes of Coady and Winks kind of ruins that.

We didn't spend £40m in one season going by PSR rules!

 

[popillius]

100% yes we can.

It's just like the situation with Everton and Forest last season. All PL clubs have until the 31st Dec to submit accounts for the year ending June 30th 2024. The PL charged both those clubs in January and gave them points deductions soon after that.

It's impossible to say after the decision yesterday but, as I've said a few posts up, and you so generously dismissed as bollocks, it's very difficult to see a way that we've made the figures add up. In fact, we already have a good idea because the FL had already given us a transfer ban based on the figures they'd seen. Much depends on how much the Dewsbury-Hall and Maresca money closed the gap.

Our mitigation for this accounting year is that we tried to sell and release assets and cut costs accordingly. But spending about £40m on the likes of Coady and Winks kind of ruins that.

I didn't dismiss it as bollocks.

Thank you for the explanation however. I understand it more now.

 

[Brown Nose]

We didn't spend £40m in one season going by PSR rules!

Yes, I agree. But spending £40m doesn't help us if we argue that we tried to minimise our losses does it?

There are multiple variables here. One more, that I've not mentioned in the above list. As of the end of 22/23, we owed other clubs £71.4m in unpaid transfer fees - the tradition of paying in stages for players rather than it all in one go.

Who knows how much of that money was payable in 23/24?

We did of course have plenty of unpaid transfer fees payable to us too. However, we'd already spent this money and borrowed against it using Macquirie bank so there won't be anything but negatives for the accounts there.

 

[Volpone]

I'm still at a loss as to whether we can, as is being reported by some press outlets, still be docked points this season...

No chance.

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

But next season, who knows?
But if we can do well this season, say mid-table, we could attract better players next season.
Danny Ward will finally disappear, £2million in wages saved.
Mads must be spitting feathers on £0.5million.
Soulmate, £4million, Iverson, £1million. Lots of savings to be made to attract big talent.

 

[popillius]

No chance.

Hmmmm. I'm not so sure.

 

[Cambridge_fox]

We honestly don’t know if we are likely to get a points deduction this year or not. But we do now have hope; hope that wasn’t there before as we were all certain we’d start on something like -10. Now all we have to wait for is the crushing inevitability of our relegation due to being shit on the pitch.

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

We honestly don’t know if we are likely to get a points deduction this year or not. But we do now have hope; hope that wasn’t there before as we were all certain we’d start on something like -10. Now all we have to wait for is the crushing inevitability of our relegation due to being shit on the pitch.

Are you BN in disguise?

 

[hackneyfox]

We honestly don’t know if we are likely to get a points deduction this year or not. But we do now have hope; hope that wasn’t there before as we were all certain we’d start on something like -10. Now all we have to wait for is the crushing inevitability of our relegation due to being shit on the pitch.

We were never starting on -10, can we please stop with this bollocks. Stated by B ‘ expert’ today that it was likely to be 6 reduced to 2 or 3 so somewhat shy of 10.

 

[glyn]

Some “experts” seem to say it would have come out at -7, although we would have argued about that calculation, and since there is still the additional threat of a deduction based on 23-24 then I suppose the worst could well have come to pass.

 

[Joe_Fox]

I see Chelsea found a variation in the Premier League's rules to get them out of bother, too. Not a great week for the almighty EPL.

 

[Cambridge_fox]

We were never starting on -10, can we please stop with this bollocks. Stated by B ‘ expert’ today that it was likely to be 6 reduced to 2 or 3 so somewhat shy of 10.

I was exaggerating for effect darling

 

[Cambridge_fox]

Are you BN in disguise?

Maybe

 

[Foxes_Trust]

We hope that supporters can now look forward to a season where our final position for the 2024/25 season will be determined by sporting capability rather than the lottery of a possible points deduction. It is our understanding that....

Decision by the Appeal Board brings huge relief for Leicester City fans – Foxes Trust

foxestrust.co.uk

 

[Brown Nose]

We were never starting on -10, can we please stop with this bollocks. Stated by B ‘ expert’ today that it was likely to be 6 reduced to 2 or 3 so somewhat shy of 10.

The reason I think we 'were' looking at a double figures deduction is because we had three potential negatives.

1. The one just discussed. Based on the figures now available, and following the precedent used with Everton and Forest, the deduction would have been -7 points.

The other two factors are still possible.

2. We have refused to comply with instructions. We have refused to acknowledge the requests from both the PL and FL throughout the process. Given that both Everton and Forest didn't do this, we can expect a harsher punishment. Just like the difference between pleading guilty vs not guilty. This could still happen and be worth -x points.

3. The fact that we are going to be judged for two sets of accounts this year due to our approach. This happened to Everton last year and they got an additional -2 for it so we could have expected similar.

Now that we've successfully won point 1, the onus is on the PL to increase the penalty for point 3 as it's not a secondary offence anymore, and the penalty for point 2 is still -x.

That's all if we've broken PSR for 23/24 of course.

 

[Brown Nose]

 

[Feriol]

The reason I think we 'were' looking at a double figures deduction is because we had three potential negatives.

1. The one just discussed. Based on the figures now available, and following the precedent used with Everton and Forest, the deduction would have been -7 points.

The other two factors are still possible.

2. We have refused to comply with instructions. We have refused to acknowledge the requests from both the PL and FL throughout the process. Given that both Everton and Forest didn't do this, we can expect a harsher punishment. Just like the difference between pleading guilty vs not guilty. This could still happen and be worth -x points.

3. The fact that we are going to be judged for two sets of accounts this year due to our approach. This happened to Everton last year and they got an additional -2 for it so we could have expected similar.

Now that we've successfully won point 1, the onus is on the PL to increase the penalty for point 3 as it's not a secondary offence anymore, and the penalty for point 2 is still -x.

That's all if we've broken PSR for 23/24 of course.

I believe point 2 was covered in the court case and it was determined that Leicester's actions were reasonable, so they couldn't get us on that point.

 

[Feriol]

From what I have been able to piece together from discussions on this.

Leicester did not breach PSR regulations on account of the fact that they were not party to those regulations at the time of review.

There is a double jeopardy rule that means that having been charged for that season's accounts they cannot be used against us again.

Even the initial case which found in favour of the Premier League concluded that Leicester had cooperated with requirements to submit accounts because it was reasonable for us to verify the authority of the requests.

Our only concern now is compliance with 23/24

 

[Brown Nose]

I believe point 2 was covered in the court case and it was determined that Leicester's actions were reasonable, so they couldn't get us on that point.

It was for 22/23 but not for 23/24. The FL said we were a pain in the arse about it all with them last year too.

I've no doubt that, if we give them the opportunity to do so by failng in 23/24, they'll give us extra punishment for our dismissal of the PL/FL requests.