st albans fox

Borsan indicated that it was 35 for the promotion season (to June 24) and then whatever they were entitled to for the previous two. Ipswich would have 61m in that case and would be miles below it. For this season they would still have 61m whereas we would have 83m. On the basis that they would have been budgeting to fit below 39m, you can see why they’ve been able to spend a lot on fees with that additional 22m to play with.

The hotel sale only works for them because of the increase in value with it being in Chelsea. They sold it for 76m. We must assume that it hadn’t been revalued in their books for some time so they were able to take the asset value increase as a positive in their psr numbers. If they had it valued in their books at 76m and then sold it for 76m then it would be neutral. Your question about them buying it back for 80m and that being deductible on the basis that it’s infrastructure investment is interesting. Does infrastructure spending have to be on new development ? In any case, the selling of this type asset is not allowed by uefa so Chelsea will have to find a new way of meeting their obligations because the PL is coming into line with uefa spending rules. assuming that the rich six will want to keep this asset sale option open, it only needs one of the other 14 to agree to keep it. it was nine in total on the June vote. i believe that their approach with long contracts for young players on reduced wages (65/85k per week) could actually prove to work on a financial level. But it’s very much questionable whether it will work on a football basis.

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.

Pickford has made more errors so far this season early days yet Everton’s defence has been worse than the premier league’s legal team ….

Forgot about the game v Bournemouth. Cooper must have been sat next to you …

Won 2-0 with two late goals switzerland down to ten men after 52’ abdul and ayew played for Ghana who lost 1-0 at home to Angola. One way of avoiding AFCON problems is if the players don’t qualify !

In our current position I’d like a pope or a Pickford. we don’t need a keeper who is good with their feet this season!

That transfer spend is negative 11m in that season’s psr we know it’s the wages that have killed us 21/22 is the year that ‘killed us’ because we made no big sale in it.

You’re not wrong - the three year cycle doesn’t care about single years we breached but no one had the authority to charge us

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

‘Whoosh’. 😀

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.

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 )

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 !

The PL decide by mid jan if we’ve breached but I don’t believe that it’s made public until beginning feb and then it has to go to a committee to decide our fate. I suspect we’d challenge and attempt to delay in any case.

it’s reported that we failed to 23/23 @ 129m so for the year to June 24 we need to find savings to bring the running loss below 83m. That’s 46m.better than where we were. But remember that the income from parachute will be around 35m lower than what we took the previous season. So that’s crudely 81m commercial and match day income will also be down. salaries will be markedly lower unless we had a bonus agreement to refund most of thatdrop in the event that we bounced back I think it’s going to be very close.

This isn't new news it was related to period ending June 2023 premier league hadn’t officially passed the sale. Reports are that they now have their next challenge is getting the sale of their women’s team to themselves passed for the June 2024 numbers Ending June 2023. Obvs no one has a clue about June 2024 because the figures won’t have been released from the club as yet to any authorities

I’ve seen on a couple of outlets that our loss was £129m the beeb reported it and they would normally be circumspect

This is interesting from the mockery today if they do manage to charge is to end June 24 then our sanction would be significant because whilst the loss may not be hugely above 83m, we haven’t been punished for the previous seasons breach. hope we’ve done our sums right! Does the ruling on 22-23 finances make a difference for 23-24? Possibly, yes. This is pretty interesting. The EFL has a double jeopardy ruling, by which a club’s losses are capped if they have already been punished for a PSR cycle. Let’s say City had been found in breach of PSR for the three-year cycle ending in 22-23 and had been punished for that. When the EFL then comes to assess the three-year cycle ending in 23-24, they would cap the losses for the first two of those three seasons, because essentially they’ve already been assessed. In the Premier League, allowable losses stand at £35m per season. In the Championship, it’s £13m per season. Applying the double-jeopardy rule, the EFL would have capped City’s losses at £35m for 21-22 and 22-23, the first two years of the cycle they are assessing, and so essentially, they would be solely judging City on whether they exceeded the £13m allowable losses for 23-24. That City have not been punished, it means the full three-year cycle will be considered and the club judged on whether they have exceeded the allowable £83m losses. Before City could have employed the double-jeopardy defence, but now don’t have that in their back pocket.

It’s surely a little more nuanced than that sheff United’s eoy accounting date is 30 June so they are technically not a PL club when they’ve broken the rules on 30 June. So the PL cannot charge them for their running total at that date. However, I’m sure that the efl could choose to do so. they just need to kick the can down the road long enough to get to the end of the season if they can get promoted. Then the PL can’t charge them for 23/24 just as in our case.

Absolutely there is if we’ve breached £83m to end June 24. they will be desperate to screw us this season but we’ll argue that they can’t

Don’t think so ric when you accept the league share you accept the rules that are in place - otherwise Ipswich or Luton could do as they please because they’ve never voted on any PL rules. We avoided being subject to PL fast track accounts last season because we argued that we weren’t a PL club at the end of June so not subject to their rules at the time of filing. we did submit accounts to the efl who wanted to put us into special measures but we appealed that they had no jurisdiction under the rules as they were written as we were not an efl club the previous season as per below 6 march Earlier this season, based on financial information submitted by the Club, the EFL’s independent Club Financial Reporting Unit (CFRU) concluded that the Club was forecasting to breach the Profitability and Sustainability (P&S) loss limits for the three-year period ending with financial year 2023/24. The CFRU determined that it was appropriate under P&S Rule 2.9 to require Leicester City Football Club to submit a business plan to demonstrate how it planned to comply with the EFL’s P&S spending limits. The Club argued that the relevant P&S Rule did not apply to it, meaning the CFRU had no right to require a business plan in respect of Season 2023/24. That matter was referred by the Club to the independent Club Financial Reporting Panel (CFRP) which concluded that under the Rules as currently written, Rule 2.9 did not apply to the Club and so it was under no obligation to submit and agree to a business plan. afaik, the PL and efl are able to deal with the three year allowable loss, irrespective of what league you’ve been in. Up to this time, the PL have not wanted to apply any efl breaches to PL clubs but in our case we will have been a PL club for two out of the three seasons in the numbers. so we will submit our accounts end December and the PL have two weeks to check if we’ve breached. If we have then I’m sure that will leak out.

That’s just the rules as they exist and have done for the last year. These enable the fast track deductions to be imposed in the season following a breach. Hence forest’s deduction last season. not just Simon Jordan who is ignorant - add the Guardian

He said that the PL part didn’t bother him as much as us refusing to comply with efl regs last season. he thinks that we avoided being forced to sell players last January and therefore were able to win the league by keeping some players. That just ignores the facts we bought no one in jan we wouldn’t have sold anyone - we would have taken a transfer ban (which we got in April anyway) so had we complied with efl regs (even though tech we didn’t have to so we did nothing wrong), nothing would have been different ignorance as per usual from those who are supposed to know

No comparison as most of that spend was wages and 20% of the fees. the sales and comp were all 100% income in that year