Leicester feud with Premier League over spending rules could spill into next year
- Thread starter Brown Nose
- Start date
Miles Away
Well-Known Member
Too lazy. Is this actual good news?
homer
Well-Known Member
https://www.premierleague.com/news/4106719
The Premier League is surprised and disappointed by the independent Appeal Board’s decision to uphold an appeal lodged by Leicester City FC regarding the League’s jurisdiction over the club’s alleged breach of its Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSRs) when the club was a member of the Premier League.
In March this year, the Premier League referred Leicester City to an independent Commission for an alleged breach of PSRs relating to the assessment period ending financial year 2022/23. Once submitted, the club’s financial results demonstrated that it had exceeded the permitted £105million threshold for the relevant period.
Leicester City subsequently challenged the Commission’s authority to hear the case on the grounds of jurisdiction. This challenge was dismissed by the independent Commission (click here to read in full), a decision which Leicester City appealed.
That appeal has been upheld by an independent Appeal Board on the grounds that the club’s accounting period which ended on 30 June 2023, came after the point the club had ceased to be a member of the League. The Appeal Board’s decision effectively means that, despite the club being a member of the League from Seasons 2019/20 to 2022/23, the League cannot take action against the club for exceeding the relevant PSR threshold in respect of the associated accounting periods. Click here to read the full written reasons.
The Premier League is very disappointed with the Appeal Board’s decision, and the limited reasons provided for it. The League remains of the view that the original Commission took the right approach in interpreting the rules in a practical and workable way that gives effect to their intended purpose. In overturning the original Commission’s findings, the Premier League considers the Appeal Board’s decision fails to take into account the purpose of the rules, all relevant parts of the PSRs and the need for effective enforcement of alleged breaches to ensure fairness among all clubs.
If the Appeal Board is correct, its decision will have created a situation where any club exceeding the PSR threshold could avoid accountability in these specific circumstances. This is clearly not the intention of the rules.
It is of critical importance that the Premier League is able to enforce its rules consistently to maintain the principle of fairness. The League will now consider what further action it can take to ensure this is the case.
Appeal Boards are independent of the Premier League and member clubs and are appointed by the independent Chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel.
The Premier League is surprised and disappointed by the independent Appeal Board’s decision to uphold an appeal lodged by Leicester City FC regarding the League’s jurisdiction over the club’s alleged breach of its Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSRs) when the club was a member of the Premier League.
In March this year, the Premier League referred Leicester City to an independent Commission for an alleged breach of PSRs relating to the assessment period ending financial year 2022/23. Once submitted, the club’s financial results demonstrated that it had exceeded the permitted £105million threshold for the relevant period.
Leicester City subsequently challenged the Commission’s authority to hear the case on the grounds of jurisdiction. This challenge was dismissed by the independent Commission (click here to read in full), a decision which Leicester City appealed.
That appeal has been upheld by an independent Appeal Board on the grounds that the club’s accounting period which ended on 30 June 2023, came after the point the club had ceased to be a member of the League. The Appeal Board’s decision effectively means that, despite the club being a member of the League from Seasons 2019/20 to 2022/23, the League cannot take action against the club for exceeding the relevant PSR threshold in respect of the associated accounting periods. Click here to read the full written reasons.
The Premier League is very disappointed with the Appeal Board’s decision, and the limited reasons provided for it. The League remains of the view that the original Commission took the right approach in interpreting the rules in a practical and workable way that gives effect to their intended purpose. In overturning the original Commission’s findings, the Premier League considers the Appeal Board’s decision fails to take into account the purpose of the rules, all relevant parts of the PSRs and the need for effective enforcement of alleged breaches to ensure fairness among all clubs.
If the Appeal Board is correct, its decision will have created a situation where any club exceeding the PSR threshold could avoid accountability in these specific circumstances. This is clearly not the intention of the rules.
It is of critical importance that the Premier League is able to enforce its rules consistently to maintain the principle of fairness. The League will now consider what further action it can take to ensure this is the case.
Appeal Boards are independent of the Premier League and member clubs and are appointed by the independent Chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel.
homer
Well-Known Member
Good job you’re not a lawyer then, you thick fat ****
M17TT C
Well-Known Member
I think so but it's getting all very technical from a legal point of view.
I'm not sure if it just means the independent panel has no jurisdiction and another panel may have jurisdiction instead
Or, it might actually mean unluckly PL, no point deduction for us you wankers!
alex
Well-Known Member
I think you know what time it is.
M17TT C
Well-Known Member
OK, I've read the PL statement now and it seems like because we ended our accounts in June 23, they have no authority to impose any points deduction!..
If that's correct then ****ing LOLz!
popillius
Well-Known Member
Come on @SilverFox you lazy, old bastard. Tell us the ins and outs....
....unless you're then going to send us letter with a ****ing bill. I know you legal types.
....unless you're then going to send us letter with a ****ing bill. I know you legal types.
homer
Well-Known Member
Grease me up, bouncy bouncy big boy, I’m coming in to land
popillius
Well-Known Member
That's a lot of ****ing grease.
Miles Away
Well-Known Member
Escaping on a technicality. Fair dues.
homer
Well-Known Member
Not for Alex - like throwing a sausage down a ****ing great hallway
M17TT C
Well-Known Member
This paragraph and the wording 'if' suggests the PL may be able to appeal the appeal.
Either way, we certainly won't be getting a point deduction in the near future.
homer
Well-Known Member
We’ll be the most hated team in football (again)
Can we now sack this shitcunt manager off and get a proper one instead
| P | Pld | Pts | |
| 1 | Manchester C | 4 | 12 |
| 2 | Arsenal | 4 | 10 |
| 3 | Newcastle | 4 | 10 |
| 4 | Liverpool | 4 | 9 |
| 5 | Aston Villa | 4 | 9 |
| 6 | Brighton | 4 | 8 |
| 7 | Nottm F | 4 | 8 |
| 8 | Chelsea | 4 | 7 |
| 9 | Brentford | 4 | 6 |
| 10 | Manchester U | 4 | 6 |
| 11 | Bournemouth | 4 | 5 |
| 12 | Fulham | 4 | 5 |
| 13 | Tottenham | 4 | 4 |
| 14 | West Ham | 4 | 4 |
| 15 | Leicester | 4 | 2 |
| 16 | Palace | 4 | 2 |
| 17 | Ipswich | 4 | 2 |
| 18 | Wolves | 4 | 1 |
| 19 | Southampton | 4 | 0 |
| 20 | Everton | 4 | 0 |
