Terraloon

The main ramification would be it is that owing money to Leeds would be classified as a football creditor. That in effect would have to be paid at 100p in the £

Sorry I have no idea why I put beyond reasonable doubt. On that point one thing that has intrigued me is the Man City CAS outcome. Both at UEFA and CAs they apply the burden of proof as being Comfortable Satisfaction. I wrongly had assumed that would be similar to Balance of Probability so to a degree I didn’t question the assumption being made that if there is the same evidence that a PL commission would probably reach the same conclusion if there wasn’t any more evidence. However I have done a little more reading and Comfortable Satisfaction is believed to be a higher level of proof.

Sorry what would be your starting point ? As St Albans says at this time neither club has been found guilty of any PSR excesses. LCFC issues have been confirmed by various panels who say that LCFC exceeded the allowable sums . As I said in my earlier post the wording in Chelsea’s settlement agreement and sanctioned by a formal IC makes it clear that what you are dealing with isn’t a PSR matter but a matter of payments not made in accord with process , even then that settlement agreement makes it absolutely clear that had Chelsea not co operated indeed they themselves put forward and agreed to scenarios around those payments that weren’t able to be proved even to the level of beyond reasonable doubt.

I have said time after time that the actions taken by the club to to fight the PL would come back to bite the club on the bum and here I think the actions of the club to fight the rules as opposed to dealing with the financial issues that cause those issues is a great concern the fact that whilst tthere weren’t charges for 23/24 doesn’t mitigate that based on the numbers there was an issue and whilst arbitration couldn’t overturn the “ erroneous “ ( sorry for using that word ) decision of the appeals IC ruling. The fact remains that the PLs core arguments regarding jurisdiction was in the end the agreed consequence. So no charge but the numbers remain a factor. Time after time people say LCFC won that case . Won ? Delayed matters maybe When it comes to M City and Chelsea two completely different matters . M Cities still hasn’t been ruled on but the wording that was in Chelsea’s settlement agreement was deliberate and my guess would be that Chelsea’s lawyers knew all to well that they needed to get the IC signing off the agreement to state ( be it we agree with it or not ) that there was in effect no sporting advantage. Where this all goes I have no idea and whilst I would hope that LC have some sort of insurance cover any significant ruling against the club could be catastrophic.

If he was a very good championship player he would be signing for a Championship club likey Portsmouth but he hasn’t that can mean just one of two things . First it could be he is on a very decent contract or more like he is at best a declining Championship player who really is a EFL 1 player

Doris the tea lady

I am going to be brutally honest and no doubt ain’t going to like some. 1) Monga is a youngster who has some potential but there are dozens of youngsters around who have the same or better potential but because they are at top clubs they haven’t yet made first team debuts so aren’t on supporters radars. 2) LCFC aren’t in any position negotiate. There is limited interest in him ( see 1 above). My guess is clubs that can afford to buy him just don’t see the potential that many on here think there is. Or God forbid attitude is an issue. ( I don’t know anything but do wonder) 3) Any package that potentially could rise to £10m will be loaded toward add ons. As I said the rumour I heard the initial feel is way less than 50%. 4) The club have to get rid of him. The pre contract deal, if info is correct ,would be paying him between £1&2m a year. That’s unaffordable for a player that almost certainly won’t be a starter or come to that even any starter in EFL1 . If the club did rely on him he would be kicked all over the place. 5) He simply won’t develop anymore if he doesn’t move. The coaching staff will be culled as part of the economies that inevitably means his development would be secondary he would be so engrossed in match preparation as opposed to education 6)

It does but my point was far too many expecting £10 m which would be staggering if achieved but everything I hear is that isn’t close to the initial payment

He actually didn’t say £5m he said way less than 50%.

A Man City mate of mine who is quite savvy on these matters is suggesting that the initial fee is way below 50% of the £10 million package. Arsenal pulling out isn’t anything to do with them not liking him but the fact that LCFC pushed too hard. The only club prepared to talk about even close to decent numbers is Man City I should also add that the club will struggle to match the agreed wage sum that is in the current agreement and is the basis of the contract . That offer would put him close to the highest, if not the highest earners of players , and still at the club, who signed contracts in the last two years. Finally based on numbers despite age if he remains at the club he will feature in the 26/27 SCMP numbers.

I believe there are several examples where a youngster has agreed to sign but changes their mind. The latest and perhaps highest profile Rio lad that walked out on Chelsea to go to Liverpool

It’s no where near as straight forward as that. He can agree to sign but can’t sign till 17 and even then his parents have to counter sign. What complicates this even further is that he can only sign if he isn’t in full time education which gets complex because he should be in either full time education or in effect on a scholarship agreement.

The time limit was 28 days after the award which would have been around mid to late December 2023. From memory Leeds, Leicester , Southampton all stated they wanted to lodge a claim . Leeds as we know have settled, and Burnley have as we know been awarded an eye watering sum. I will come back to that ruling later. Leeds were paid a couple of million based purely on PL merit payments. That matter was settled privately. Leicester, Southampton and Forest as I said all indicated they would claim but from everything I read the suggestion is that these initial claims were never taken further. To Burnley. Their claim to compensation was under PL rules heard by the original IC who if you remember were subsequently told that they hadn’t acted fully in accordance with the charges or indeed the rules. From my reading of the written reasons I would imagine that the quantum of the award will be significantly reduced. I wasn’t going to refer to the Chelsea or Man City matters however. As most will recall there was a significant amount of anger about Chelsea’s settlement and a lot of sabre rattling from clubs about how they were going to do this or that. I have read the settlement agreement several times and my interposition that it’s an incredibly well scripted piece of work. I genuinely believe that had Chelsea played a straight bat and put the responsibility on the PL as opposed to them , Chelsea, offering up possible explanations then the PL probably wouldn’t have been able to prove any of the matters. I would imagine that the discussions were held very much on the basis that Chelsea offered up possible explanations without prejudice. In other words if Chelsea hadn’t liked the terms of the settlement then it would have had to go to a full hearing and again back to that settlement agreement the wording suggests that wasn’t an option that the PL was sue about The settlement agreement went out of its way to answer the question about potential PSR breeches and that wasn’t done purely to justify the outcome but my guess would be that Chelsea lawyers wanted the IC panel who signed off the agreement( this panel would hear any subsequent claims) to be tied to that view if any club within that 28 day period lodged a claim that there weren’t PSR questions . That agreement was signed off in March . I haven’t heard about any claims so my guess is that the view would be no point . As for Man City . I am torn as to what the final outcome will be. Some of the charges such as failure to co operate, the Mancinis contract and image rights payments won’t have been the reason for the delay so surely the focus and delay revolves around disguised equity and as a consequence of that notion the charges around failure to supply correct financial information would either follow or be dismissed as a consequence of charges not being proven. I know that’s a simplistic view . As I say I am torn . Man City are adamant that they have irrefutable evidence. Well if that were the case the IC would have reached that conclusion months ago. Yet here we are.

If you look at his managerial record at his previous clubs it’s remarkable in that GD at each club is very close in terms of goals scored v goals against. Also games won and lost are remarkably close in terms of won and lost. By now we should be hearing far more rumours in terms of players in and yes players out. The first competitive game potentially is what about 7 weeks away.

If the information on transfer market is correct then his book value is around €5.6 m. That’s just under £5m I doubt that he will just walk from his contract so he will be getting any signing on fee paid immediately ( signing on fees are spread over the contract period) Until 30/6/26 the club is bound by PSR under the championship rules. Post that date all players still with the club will be included in the squad costs meaning player trading will be factored in. So sell a player at a loss and that loss will count toward squad costs.