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.

I really don’t know where to start. I had my car serviced on Thursday. All the boxes were ticket to prove work had been carried out . One of the boxes ticked was that windscreen washer had been topped up. Yesterday some 8 miles after I picked the car up no washer fluid . My point is that just like the garage that serviced my car it seems to me the FAB meetings are no more than putting a few ticks in the boxes. The whole process is amateurish. Of course there may well have been a bit more to it but in terms of substance but there really is little detail around things that matter. Throw away facts such as a large number of the 4500 new ST holders are under 18 and the limit for sales 22k have been met are interesting but there is little detail around SCMP something that really needed more comment. I am not having a pop at those that represent the supporters but supporters are not being told anything in the meetings that couldn’t be fed back by say a monthly newsletter.

We are yet to see the 26/27 rules but my reading of what is likely is this If a player is sold on or before 30/6/26 then any loss ( fee minus balance still to be amortised) will be reflected in the 25/26 accounts. If the player is sold post 1/7then that loss will be included in the 26/27 squad costs. A few other factors . First what would the buying club want ? Will the 25/26 numbers have any wriggle room left ? Oh and until the EFL sign off the 25/26 numbers the club are still under Championship regulations.

What we need to do is look at income v expenditure not what the numbers in the accounts will look like. The banks have taken security against just about everything up till June 27 by which time I would guess that little to no parachute, transfer fees, or income of any note can be borrowed against. As we know that come that date at very best LCFC will at best be a Championship club , a club competing without parachute payments against clubs who will be getting significant monies to aid there wage bill against the % target You are probably right about not having £40-50 m but by my back of a fag packet calculation I think it’s closer to £80-£90m Some basic costs which in the accounts are deemed to be administrative will come to a minimum of £23 m even then only if significant savings are made. These costs have been in excess of that sum , significantly more so circa £25-£26m. With additional numbers being added due to increases in utility costs, business rates insurances etc I think even £23m will be a significant challenge There will be sums due to be paid in respect of historical transfers in. I guess these will be , with interest, around £12-£15 m Before we even look at first team wages paying for the academy players and support staff, woman’s players and support staff medical staff , maintenance staff, club administration staff etc is anyone’s guess but I very much doubt there would be much change from £15 m So best case scenario before first team players and coaching staff it’s circa £53m There is still the debate about what does or doesn’t count in terms of SCMP football revenue particularly around parachute monies but from the three main income streams match day , sponsors and commercial it’s hard to see how it was going to get close to £50m income my guess it’s more likely to be closer to £40m

In one sense you are right in that known income ( not an invoice) has been drawn down in advance but call it whatever we want that money has to be repaid and at a cost. You mention Chelsea but KDH has been sold on by them. I have only just got around to reading the article by but the Esk but it’s this bit that struck me The picture for 2026 is one of systemic risk. Relegation to League One will represent a devastating new low. Financed by parachute payments that are not accounted for in the 2025 statement, the club would see its solidarity payments drop to a mere 12.6% basic rate in League One, a fraction of the £30-50 million it currently receives. Such an outcome would likely necessitate the total liquidation of the squad’s remaining market value to service the high-interest Macquarie debt.

Re The Super league. The six clubs that signed up for the SL didn’t quit the PL. What they agreed to do was play in a non sanctioned competition. The trouble was that a sanction could only have been imposed if they actually had played in the competition . Re Premier League Clubs having points deductions From memory it’s only 4 clubs who actually have suffered PL points deductions Everton 6 points. Two FFP matters Forest 4 points. One FFP matter Middlesbough 3 Points. Failing to turn up for a fixture Portsmouth 9 points . Administration

I often read that the big 6 as it were are protected and like you many suggest that the rules protect the status quo but I honestly just don’t follow that argument. Indeed the simple fact is that clubs that are classified as being big six are the ones that have the biggest match day, biggest commercial and biggest sponsorship. When it comes to broadcast income thankfully it’s not distributed on viewing numbers because a fair number of clubs would see a significant drop in the monies received. I saw an article a while ago talking about how FFp and PSR actually worked disproportionately in the favour of clubs with lesser income in the PL who when you look at the additional sum that they could loose a season it equated to a far greater % allowance than clubs with the biggest incomes. I have heard arguments about income sharing but personally I think that would be football taking a backwards step and ironically to see just how unfair it would be let’s look at season 26/27 where I have a seen an estimate that Leicester will be receiving around 25% -30% of the leagues income. So if income sharing were to be put in place LC would be trading on income of circa £20-£25 m.

Sorry but we simply don’t know how the last game would have played out had relegation not already been confirmed. In that final game all the pressure was off as far as Blackburn were concerned. Similarly how anxious were LC players going into that game knowing that relegation was fact ? I would suggest they went into the game with no jeopardy. Of course the result could have been exactly the same but I for one don’t seek any solace in the claim that there wouldn’t have been relegation without the points deduction. The simple fact was that the club should never have been in the position where firstly a points deduction should have occurred but more importantly six points shouldn’t have made a difference between survival and relegation. Compared to every other club in the relegation zone you could multiply by probably 5 fold the wages spent by Leicester compared to others. When it comes to sanctions every man and their dog knows if you don’t comply with PSR you get a points deduction. Leicester dodged getting a sanction earlier but did the club take heed? Nope let’s still spend and have a guess what was inevitable ! We all can agree that a points deduction in a financial context has a significant impact but there are mainly two different scenarios 1) Overspending in accord with the rules( this is what we are talking about re Leicester ) and 2) Matters around an insolvency event. Looking at 1) a fine as was stated in the very first PL case against Everton a fine really isn’t going to have that great an impact but a points deduction would or at least it should act as a deterrent but just as important a points deduction in acknowledges the compliance of all those clubs that did restrict spending and complied. Moving to 2) I have a bit of trouble even allowing a club suffering an insolvency event to survive in the same league. Administration and a CVA in many ways is a cop out. Entering these types of insolvency has significant impact on creditors who don’t fall into the category of football creditors particularly local suppliers and the tax authorities. I realise that a double digit points deduction often leads to relegation but sorry I would go even further and relegate a club entering an insolvency event but I would go even further and bar all directors of a club entering the any types of insolvency event from any future involvement with a club. You have to factor in the power of a deterrent and a simple points deduction and maybe a transfer embargo doesn’t tip the balance

Please don’t get sucked into the narrative about stiffing ambition or stopping a club over spending the simple question is did the rules place brakes on LC spending ? LC spent far more than it could afford and the reality is that despite the rules LCs financial state isn’t close to healthy and that’s because of the clubs mismanagement. The reality is that when it comes to football normally prudent and successful business people get sucked into to chasing a dream and whilst many owners are very rich by and large the bigger the club the richer the owner . Top is a pauper when it comes to comparing him to the likes of the owners of City, Arsenal, Newcastle etc but not just that when it comes to those big clubs whose owners aren’t quite as rich their clubs generate significantly more income. How are LC ever going to complete financially with clubs who generate more from a front of shirt sponsorship than Leicester do from every sponsorship the club has ? Even then Leicesters relegation from the PL wasn’t down to not spending more than a whole bunch of clubs with less income it came about because the money was wasted. If you then look at the 25/26 season spending big and spending far more than a whole bunch of clubs didn’t mean that the bigger club in the championship , a club with far more income and spending more didn’t lead to promotion indeed it as we know lead to relegation . Again it wasn’t not having the fund it was down to wasting money .

The changes in terms of the allowable % be in allowable spend or indeed owners equity input was a compromise many clubs wanted the reduction down to 40%.

The player trading numbers count toward the squad costs. If you look at the EFL rules when it comes to squad costs they talk about transfer loss being included. The new protocols have made absolutely no difference about clubs agreeing with a player to mutually agree cancelling a contract but as I said a club can’t unilaterally cancel a contract