Babylon

Nobody has a scooby... don't forget on promotion we can get money in the door quickly through new sponsorships etc. There is a lot of guess work doing heavy lifting in all these articles.

No because we've sort of taken the view that it's none of their business until March.

Being sold or getting outside investment changes little if we want to comply with the rules. We're clearly in the process of cutting out cloth to be able to comply at some point. We just had a heck of a lot to do to get there.

Last time I watched them, there was 5 minutes of teams walking out the tunnel, team being announced etc at the start.

COULD... they said "could", because they don't have a scooby doo. We also don't have to sell anyone; you could, in theory, go up and bank and take a point hit. Not forgetting, promotion would mean huge increases in revenue, more chance to bring in well paid sponsorship etc. The notion here is that the only way to make money is to sell a player. If we don't go up, then clearly we'd need to cut our cloth more, but I'm sure we all knew that anyway.

Look at us, we budgeted and spent for a club chasing Europe, not one in the championship. The unravelling was extraordinary, some self-inflicted with bad signings, Rodger's being a total muppet and then all the FFP changes they were all aligned to totally stop our way of working.

It's a choice, not a shock that it's mostly clubs who had ambitious new owners. The whole thing can be solved by simply saying spend what you want, but anything above income has be come from the owner and be ring fenced for x number of years to make sure it's all paid for, and can't be leveraged against the club, clubs can't be asset stripped etc.

The panel is pretty clear and unanimous about the fact we are just adhering to the procedures as they are written. They specifically point out that the rules are clearly written and it’s not even a case of ambiguity, “the text of Rule 2.9 is, as the Panel finds it to be, clear and sets out a workable procedure”

And we could still be allowed a deficit under PSR. Remember there is a difference between financial accounts and PSR accounts. The accounts won't include the sale of Maddison for instance, they don't include all the allowable PSR losses.

I presume we thought Daka was gone, then it fell through.

But he’s not reporting on conjecture or anything else regarding those results. He literally states it depends on our last set of results and offers not a single opinion about them. He’s reported plenty without cold hard facts before, and just used his sources and just come out and said it. If he was sure of a good source he would just say He is saying we could be in trouble if they are bad results. We all know that don’t we? His wording is pretty clear, it all depends on those results.

Have you actually read the judgement?

If he knew he’d say, he’s just saying it depends on those results.

Looking again, Maddison is in the PSR for 22/23 and Barnes 23/24 as he was sold after end of June deadline.

They have a set date in their own rules, we were a prem club on the date and not an EFL club. The club argued successfully that the rules clearly down apply to clubs not in the league. The decision was unanimous, we were correct. And our first reporting season for the EFL is this season, our first one in it.

“The key point is how much Leicester’s losses were in the 2022-23 season when they were still in the Premier League.” He doesn’t know the answer himself.

Not really a technicality, the date was in the rules and we weren’t in the EPL then

No you are right, people should just slate the club without facts. Just like that started to do in this thread, clearly without even bothering to read the panel judgement, something sky didn’t bother to do. The statements are entirely meaningless to our current situation. It’s based around financials last March, before selling £90m worth of players and before wage reductions. So what exactly do you want to speculate about?

Exactly. In March last year we were going to post a large loss. But we sold Maddison and Barnes before the PSR cut off and this that could have changed dramatically after that anyway. So it doesn’t even mean we broke FFP that season either.

All of this is based around our finances when in the premier league last March. Not around our finances now. The reality is, we have no idea where we currently stand.

He doesn’t explain it very well at all. It’s got nothing to do with anything we’ve just filed with them. We submitted as per the rules last year when we were in the premier league. The EFL have used those accounts which, which show a likely breach (these accounts are before sales, before wage reductions etc). So they demanded in November we submit a business plan, based on our premier league losses. We said no, we were a premier league club and as per your own rules our first period for submission is this season and not last season. The panel agreed with us and the decision was made months ago. The results were agreed to not be released until after the transfer window closed. What the heck he’s on about I have no idea.

In days gone by I would have always said the FA Cup, but failure to get promotion could seriously impact us for a long long time financially.

You said she has nothing to do with football. The same press people have said she got involved in transfers, so it sort of negates the original point. She was also the club’s representative at premier league meetings and heavily involved there, which also negates that’s she’s not involved in football matters. Nobody said he reports to directly to Susan Whelan, they said she out ranks him. Which she does as CEO and board member.

First and foremost at no moment did anyone suggest he's not in charge of the day to day at Leicester. If you've been looking at their roles on the website, Top's has been in a state of flux for some time. He was initially Chairman, then CEO and CCO. The change to President and CEO is something that's happened recently. His position moving about was discussed this time last year (President change is since then) Ultimately, he was and is answerable to the board of directors and the Chairwoman of KP; they have to sign it off. Susan Whelan is CEO and board member, but you've recently wanted to boil her power down to being nothing more than commercial. The point is, Vichai was Chairman and CEO of the controlling company. Top is not. We simply do not know the power makeup at Kingpower currently, how his estate and controlling companies got distributed between the family. It's very hard to find the info. So yes, it COULD be a lot more complicated if opinions on the board and the appetite for LCFC differ oat KP. King Power is the parent company, they ultimately own the club. So they are ultimately in charge, that doesn't mean Top isn't running it. I repeat "In terms of who is in charge, ultimately it's the KP board and Vichai's wife. We can't possibly know what influence, if any they have". They might stay out of it entirely, they might not like wasting hundreds of millions of pounds, and use their positions to over rule. With Top's ups and downs at KP in terms of position, him personally lending the club money rather than KP, it would hint at something going on there.... could also be nothing.

It's up for debate as to why they changed the rules (again). But it most definitely had an impact, and those of UEFA. Without the rule changes we had far more room to manoeuvre. The spectre of having to reduce wage to turnover from UEFA to 70% was a death knell to our model. Straying from the model to back Rodgers and then buying a load of crap, was the nail in the coffin.