st albans fox

‘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

No because those two deals added £5m to amortisation in that season. Not 100% sure if it’s actually 2.5m given that they were signed in jan. the guy on x knows nowt. We were overspent £24m end June 23. The following year is very complex the rules are already in place where allowable losses in the championship are £13m v £35m in the PL per season. This isn’t the first time that a club has been relegated! the fact that it’s a three year rolling number is worse for us. If it was just 23/24 in isolation then we’d likely be fine. of course our legal team will have done their homework on the efl/pl rules regarding a promoted club. We may have already found a loophole. We won’t know anything for sure until late feb.

Any other lawyers want to debate this ? we don’t know we will have to submit our eoy accounts in the autumn because we were a PL club at the end of June so we can’t avoid that requirement. At that time it may leak out. If it doesn’t then we’ll have to wait until end feb for any charge to be raised. if they do charge us then I expect we will challenge the ability to fast track the charges for 23/24 as we weren’t a PL club during that season. dimarco is not finished on our payroll !

To be fair, spurs generate a lot of income and spend it. not sure why you think they’ve got away with murder ? The only members of the rich six who seem to have got away with stuff is Chelsea and Man City. the rest are working within the rules (don’t know enough about yanited’s Covid payment to comment). It’s the rules which are skewed

Possibly the opposite - it’s likely to be a couple points that keeps us up whereas before we needed loads. Unless he’d already been tipped the wink a couple weeks ago that this outcome was likely Everton have no basis for any claim. Forest might have missed a efl based technicality when they appealed last season but that’s now gone. If they’re charged again for last season in a few months then they might be onto dimarco … Uncertain - if we didn’t need to sell him pre July because a breach last season in the efl could be similarly argued, we’d certainly need to sell before July 2025. I guess although the three year rolling totals mean that this scenario isn’t realistic because you can’t just dump everything into one season they weren’t fit for purpose in the specific circumstances we found ourselves in. They are fit for purpose in 99% of circumstances.

That’s been the case for years though re yo-yo clubs Up until last season, no one had broken the £105m/£83m/£61m - delete as applicable

It was still worse financially to be relegated/bounce back than to stay up and take a points deduction although given that we got a hefty parachute payment based on our history and we had relegation clauses on salaries, it might be closer than it should be

You think that’s a certainty then ? there’s still no warrant issued by the court because there’s so much politics and legal argument wrapped around this.

it’s a real mess and the PL will have to redraft their rules sharpish. I wonder if the fact that the season has now started means that 24/25 will have to continue under the rules as written and the rewrite can only come into play for 25/26. im sure forest’s lawyers will be looking through the regs to try and find a few holes re their season(s) in the championship however, I think our circumstances were very specific and others won’t be as fortunate as we have been.

I don’t see the link between your points and our change of end year date Afaik, Psr calcs are to end June, irrespective of a club’s accounting EOY date. but both the PL and the appeal committee statements specifically refer to the movement of our end of year date to June 30

No if we’d stayed up then we’d have sold barnes before end June along with madders. then we’d have met psr to end June 23 Last season would have indeed been a struggle in the PL but we’d have had the income to recruit and try to stay up