Terraloon

The dilemma as I see it is the club claim that they ceased to be a PL club around 17 days before the end of the accounting year. That claim is for no other reason than to evade the PL regulations . That’s all well and good but if not a PL club under whose jurisdiction if any did LCFC fall under ? The EFL rules may not specify but that’s why the arbitration is critical. It may be that they will only focus on did LC fall under the rules and regulations of PL. But if the question is then if not a PL club I suspect the answer has to be it was under EFL regulations if that is the outcome then that is a whole different ball game. The rules may not be fit for purpose but they a are what they are and some times winning an argument may not lead to the lead ultimate outcome you desire

Mitigation in terms of co operation will only be granted if you in effect go over and above what is expected. The wording throughout the appeal panels ruling avoids stating where jurisdiction lay if the PL doesn’t have it. In reality they ,the IC, don’t state who because they weren’t asked. My reading of the written reasons suggests but it doesn’t state clearly that LCFC became an EFL club . We don’t know what the PL have put before the arbitrators but the best outcome going into 25/26 is that it’s ruled that the PL did. If the EFL ultimately by default get that “ privilege “ that then sort of opens up potentially other issues such as does the allowable PL sum of £35 million apply for the season or revert to the EFL sum of £13 million.?

That’s why the question of jurisdiction is key. If it ruled the PL has jurisdiction for the 3 years up to 23/24 then I can’t see that a points deduction can be imposed in the EFL but probably a points deduction would be suspended till LCFC gain promotion , if however it’s ruled the EFL had jurisdiction and LCFC as we know will be a EFL club then the EFL , will probably issue a charge. The rule is in place for the 22/23 , 23/24 and 24/25 3 year assessment so any charge Leicester receive if proven and sanctioned with a points deduction will follow to the EFL It’s important to realise that for the 3 years 23/24, 24/25 & 25/6 the total losses can only amount to £61 million + allowable. So my best estimates are £125 ish million in total losses For the 3 years 22/23 , 23/24, 24/25 they are restricted to £83 million + allowable so my best estimate is £152 million and we know that in 22/23 &23/24 to date they are running at £108.5 million.

Looking just at the bottom line for the 3 years ending June 24 the losses were £201million (£92.4,£89.7 & £18.9) deduct the £105 ( remember that for clubs promoted T was even though a Championship club increased effectively to£35 million) that’s £96 million over the £105 meaning deductibles of £33 million Pa for academy, woman’s football and depreciation) which is way above the sort of numbers I believe is correct. I work on a round £23 million a year a number I extracted from the PLs claims that in the 3 years to 23 losses were £129.4 million Neither the PL nor the EFL will believe that LCFC have co operated so if points deductions are the “ medicine” then they will argue that there are aggravating factors and little to no justification to mitigate down any sanction in their mind would be appropriate

These changes were inevitable. I said many months ago that my concern would be that the previous “ victories “ would end up biting LCFC on the bun and that I believe in now going to be the case: First let’s look forward to the 25/26implications season. Irrespective of anything else we know that initially in June the EFL will now looking at not just the books for closed years but looking forward to see if the indications are that the £61m allowable for 23/24-24/25 &25/26 will be exceeded . They, the EFL, will look at available numbers and projections going forward to gain some understanding of planning If the numbers point toward that £61 million being exceeded then a business plan will be imposed. Forget the notion that the EFL can force player sales, they can’t, but what they can do is restrict signings , not allow contract extensions etc. There is a minimum squad number that is required but be under no illusions the implementation of a business plan could be catastrophic.You can’t bring in contracted players nor can you just go out and loan. LCFC spend way above its means not just in wages but other areas of expenditure simply can’t be afforded and if the beneficial impact of parachute payments is removed then without massively reducing those costs then it’s a very slippery slope But that’s not where it stops. Based on the EFL statement and depending on the arbitration outcome it’s highly likely that either the PL or the EFL will charge LCFC for the years 21/22- 23/24. If it’s proven that the PL didn’t have jurisdiction then by default the EFL do. Depending on how the 24/25 numbers play out then my concern is that there will be a charge for 22/23, 23/24 and 24/25 . Allowable losses would be £83 million . The first two years saw accounting losses alone of £91 million . Throw into the mix in all this that Man City are still going after the need to include a nominal sum in respect of beneficial owner loans . How that plays out could further muddy the waters. I don’t know how it would have turned out but I do wonder if a better approach would have been to allow the PL to lay charges and use the defence around the PLs rules at a FFP hearing potentially blocking any actions for 21/22- 23/24 but not getting to the charge state means any argument around double jeopardy won’t even be considered. So worse case scenario for me 1) A player embargo as part of an EFL business plan 2) Points deduction for 21/22-23/24. Worse case is the PL the arbitration because if it’s the EFL then they will almost certainly be requesting that it’s implemented in 25/26. 3) Points deduction for 22/23-24/25 ( handed down by the PL but implemented in the EFL) before the 25/26 season ends. Meanwhile in good news …….

No one is suggesting that Rudkin has done a top quality job nor can the sort of money being paid currently be sustained If we are looking at costs then yes there has to be a radical re think but the suggestion that you can somehow treat the players in a similar way to how the were “ managed “ 10-20-30 years ago is simply not realistic. A modern scouting and data driven recruitment regime is a significant drain financially and as I keep pointing out the excesses of the last few years are going to significantly impact going forward.The club can’t afford a two year stay in the Championship but almost certainly any benefit that should be gained by way of parachute payments will be mitigated and them some from the storm that brewing FfP wise. Two years ago the relegated squad was favourites for an instant return to the PL . What is vastly different this time is that the club is staring down the barrel because for years it has been spending way above its means . Of course the wages as disclosed are far too high but you can’t just look at the sums in the accounts and gain perspective without looking at the number of staff employed. LCFC have circa 400 staff who aren’t players add to that on a match day employs around 500 casual staff. The club simply can’t spend money it isn’t close to generating there has to be a root and branch review and yes wages of players need to be reduced but look at the accounts money is bleeding everywhere and when you think that equivalent close to 50% of total game receipts generated is spent servicing debt and close to 60% of all other income streams is spent on other operating costs. If the recruitment is focussed on young players plying their trade in say French Div 2 because they are cheap and are signing on the hope they develop then be prepared for either a long stay in the Championship or possibly even further relegation.

Sorry but I find this type of discussion futile for a variety of reasons but above all you can’t under estimate the power the players have in all this. For instance the suggestion that you can put a player who refuses to sign a new contract onto a “ transfer list” and in effect consign them to the reserves is nothing more than folly. Players will simply know that if they are treated in such a way they will apply to the FA at seasons end to have their contract cancelled or just as likely they will leave on a Webster. The suggestion a a club cap is fine in theory but what happens if one of the real gems you uncover wants to stay but won’t sign his new deal do you consign them to the reserves to see them walk for free ? Player identification and trading is an incredibly complex process fraught with risks. Players loose form, get injured have mental issues the same as any other employee but because of FIFAs rules you can’t sack them, can’t force them to move to another club in effect you sign them and keep them till either their contract runs out or the player decides to move on. Very few clubs, if any, will be prepared to consign their best players ( because that’s what they are if you want them to sign extensions to their contracts) to the reserves. Of course LCFC want to unearth the best players, develop academy players work within a defined budget but so do just about every other club who don’t have unlimited resources but the key sorry isn’t just about what you spend it’s about what you earn and there LCFC trails probably circa 75% of the current PL clubs and unfortunately I can’t see how a club which yes has won a few things over the last few years who hasn’t grown its income streams will get out of this promotion/ relegation cycle . LCFC has relied , like many clubs who usually end up in the bottom half of the PL , far too heavily on TV monies. It is hard to see how any players recruited for the 25/26 season will be on close to £45k a week indeed I am thinking that it’s quite possible that the problems and consequences of the excesses going back to 21/22 are going to bite big time. I can’t see any way that there won’t be an imposed business plan from the EFL which will cause untold problems when it comes to getting in any players let alone players that have other viable options who would make a real difference . Clubs relegated need to get promotion in the following season put quite simply the benefit of parachute payments is obviously the most lucrative in year one but I am absolutely convinced that next season is going to be the most challenging with the club needing to generate circa £70 million in the transfer market before 30/6 and know that they can’t realistically increase the sums amortised. Sadly I see a very difficult few years and the challenge will be trying to identify and recruit from a limited pool and if you add in almost unique approach to how you manage players then sorry I can’t see anything else other than failure

Spent an hour looking at the numbers ( accounts) going back to 20/21 and maybe will post them idc. What is clear to me that there major issues going forward not just for years already reported but the24/25 year of course will be a problem but the 25/26 year is going to be a significant challenge . Why am I posing this in a thread about Vardy and the question did he jump or was he pushed ? Well the answer for me is quite simply down to the challenges that the EFL rules ( as amended ) will present. With Vardy being on a contract the projections that the club will have to file I think by 30/6 could , and probably mean that the EFL imposing a business plan to ensure FFP compliance in 25/26.. The wage bill is going to have to be cut . And cut big. Vardy leaving is an opportunity that the club could not miss

Ok there are mumblings about PSR but the “ victory “ won over jurisdiction is going to come back and bite big time. I fully expect the excesses of the last half a dozen year or so will impact next season and that will be key because the 25/26 season will be the season with the biggest % of turnover coming from parachute payments. To a large degree it’s why the bottom 3 in the PL would normally become favourites to make up the promotion favourites. Next season will be the best chance to gain promotion but if the club are subject to sanctions and even possibly a transfer ban that will be catastrophic By my back of fag packet calculation around 10% of the likely income in 25/26 will be interest wages in 23/24 were circa £56 million and that need to be significantly reduced if transfer income can’t be generated in the next 10 or so weeks. There aren’t players of the quality of Maddison or Barnes who generated some £70 million following the previous relegation season nor can I see any player matching the KDH fee. That will be key. PSR will impact not just because there probably is going to be a points deduction handed down from the PL but the thing that keeps popping back in my mind is the claim ( which we are told is still subject to arbitration) by LCFC that the PL didn’t have jurisdiction in 22/23 which by default means that the EFL now once again have LC as a member and limitation to deal with isn’t ant issue that could mean a sanction incoming . Add to that the PL do now have a role to play come next Jan and I fully expect charges to be made and with that a points deduction. But the biggest issue is the EFLs almost draconian approach and whilst I haven’t kept an eye on any EFL rule tweaks I would be amazed if the challenge’s won by the club when last a member and requirements around budgets etc will now be closed .

I am in two minds when it comes to JV being at the club next season. Not that I think he should but more what are the clubs options? Like most I cant see much sense relying on a near 40 year old but I genuinely believe that the club has painted itself into a very small corner where options are becoming even more limited. Of course the 24/25 financial numbers aren’t yet complete but in a way those numbers, even though boosted by TV monies probably will mean there won’t be much income that will be available to sign near players . Funds from transfers out will be small indeed the acceleration of KDHs money into 23/24 to put a band aid on that set of accounts means that somehow before the end of the accounting year transfer income needs to be generated at best to stand still but who honestly has put themselves into the shop window? The point I am trying to make is that there simply won’t be much money available to get new players in and whilst there is no way that JV will be offered top money but even though his ability is declining at apace ( forgive the pun) who is available at the sort of money that LCFC will be offering? So my guess the ball will be every much in JV court.

On the basis that there were 27 goals and 23 assists ( 4 penalties ) that’s 50 goal involvements so JV has been involved in a 20% . Still not too shabby but the low number of goals scored distorts massively

Read elsewhere that the PL had amended the PSR rules and the report in the Mercury outlines the changes and impacts. https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-city-face-psr-headache-10111788 The only bit I think maybe questionable in the report is the comments re 22/23. Not that the PL are unable to pursue, although the PLs appeal may have something more to add on that, but what worries me is the EFL have remained strangely quiet on this. I simply don’t think we have heard the last of 22/23 excesses. The fact fact that 24/25 will now fall under the jurisdiction of the PL which will as a ( even when relegated) mean the 3 year numbers include 22/23, 23/24 & 24/5 but for me an unknown if LCFC argument re 22/23 was that they were not a Pl club by default does that means that the EFL rules were applicable in other words the PL allowance of £35 million isn’t appropriate.?

Maresca himself made comment after the Bournemouth game as to where Leicester were against a Bournemouth team who had been significantly rotated and indeed had 20+ shots in the game. Had it been a league game the result wouldn’t have been a LFCFC victory as it was only won in extra time Irrespective and I can’t remember your comments re Maresca the overwhelming majority were glad to see him gone.

I just find this type of comment incredible. Just about every poster detested the style under Maresca I can’t recall reading any poster wanting the style to continue into 24/25. Ironically had the club wanted that style to continue then recruitment of a HC wedded to the same style would have been the option. Of course the players loved playing under Meresca they were winning and gained promotion but how would they have been if that style had been used this season but relegation and season long struggles were how it panned out ?

Enzo left first all intents days after the end of the 23/24 season. Most on here couldn’t wait to see the back of him so it’s total hypocrisy for the majority to point the finger now. Most clubs that loose the services of their manager are in a position to appoint another within days . Some of those appointments inevitably fail others don’t. Sometimes their predecessor had simply lost the plot others it’s because they aren’t up to it but when you drill down it’s more often than not the resources ( players ) simply aren’t up to standard and that’s the real issue at LCFC in season 24/25. When it comes to KDH he was leaving partly down to his ambition but it mainly revolves around the balance sheet . He in all probability would have been a starter had he stayed but from everything I have seen he is at best a lower PL team player at best.Would he have made a difference? Who knows Irrespective if he hadn’t been sold what would have been the consequences? Relegation is all but confirmed. With that relegation will come problems that weren’t there two seasons ago. The blame isn’t Chelsea’s the blame lies with LCFC hierarchy and as I said in another thread decisions made in seasons past will come back to haunt. When many were dancing a hop and a skip when the club avoided scrutiny I was concerned that those “victories” would ultimately be a negative. I did and still believe that it would have been better to face up to the excesses and take the medicine at the time . Now there will be no mitigation and if the EFL does indeed have jurisdiction or a PL sanction follows LCFC then promotion is going to be a huge challenge to say the least.

Or £200 in total over 3 with a max allowable of £80ish million

Sorry but I think you are way off. A lot depends on which league ends up with responsibility ( jurisdiction). I am far from sure which will be worse the EFL or the PL or the nightmare scenario where it’s a combination of both One way or the other the 20/21; 21/22; and 22/23 years will be looked at.If it’s the PL then 21/22; 22/23 and 23/24 will be assessed on top. If it’s the EFL at least you can’t be done in the same way but the EFL are far more proactive when it comes to what will be T25/26 I can’t see anyway this is going to end well at all.

It wasn’t better though Absolutely no real threat going forward . You can’t go into games hoping that you will get that “ luck” if you show no ambition Chelsea are managing the games up to the International Break” it should have been an opportunity to at least go for it but what we saw was a team that were looking to capitalise on a mistake rather than forcing one Pathetic

That’s not correct. The PL do “ charge” if that’s what you want to call it and then a IC is appointed by a chap called Murray Rosen KC who is independent of the PL structure. The IC is made of 3 qualified individuals from the pool that Rosen has available they certainly aren’t all solicitors . That IC will weigh up the evidence and make a ruling Appeals for all intents and purposes another IC who will look at the first ICs assessment and ruling .

That is my guess as well. There’s no doubt that for the 23/24 trading year (T) that there will indeed be a full £35 million allowance likewise T-2 will be deemed to be a full £35 but it’s that T-1 year is the issue .

https://jobsinfootball.com/blog/premier-league-parachute-payments/ you certainly do watch the video entitled the harsh reality’s of relegation

Just a thought if the accepted argument was / is that LCFC wasn’t within the PLs jurisdiction for 22/23 will the PL be arguing that the allowable deductions and indeed the £35 million allowable excess isn’t relevant more that the allowable have to be in accord with the EFL rule book.Will City have won a battle but will that victory come back and bite on the bum ? Surely it can’t be argued that LCFC weren’t affiliated to any league . Or can it ? Just another point is that the parachute payment in 23/24 will have been circa £40 /£45 million which is around £65-70 million short of the sum received in the 22/23 season https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-citys-111m-boost-parachute-8481558 By my back of a fag packet calculation even if the allowable sum is £105 million(3x£35 million) and say deductibles amount to say £ 20 million Pa making £165 million going into the 23/24 season for PSR calculations there was circa £15-£20 million to make up so even a£1 loss would see a breech

Not quite sure where you have watched your football but had that been a Leicester break the vast majority would be spitting feathers and righty so. Again not sure what game you were watching but Chelsea were in total and utter cruise control save a few isolated incidents Leicester offered little to nothing going forward if you couldn’t see that the chasim in class and the fact that Chelsea simply didn’t need to play with any greater intensity then you clearly have fallen into the same trap as Cooper who is in complete denial

Sorry but you simply haven’t watched the same game. Chelsea were a country mile better they didn’t need to break into a sweat . The players were screaming for a red which wasn’t given but most referees would have given. The second goal came about because Chelsea just move the ball with so much ease the player being down is not even secondary it clearly wasn’t a serious injury so why should the ref stop play?