Terraloon

There are under the PLs accelerated rule but even then either side could made application to extend . The charges that LC are facing aren’t under the same sort of time constraints. Once a club chooses to defend the charges as opposed to admitting ( which I guess is where LC are) then all sorts of additional time is added to the process. Leicester aren’t under any embargo so there is nothing to stop them bringing in players. After the charge in May 25 five players were signed . Yes on loan or on frees but I would imagine the fact that no fee was paid for any other players was more to do with cash flow rather than players choosing not to come due to potential points deductions.

The outcome of the 23/24 allegations hasnt yet been published. Hopefully my last post helps . Even under old rules the PL and indeed EFL rules could take over an investigation. The Arbitration panel weren’t being asked the question re jurisdiction in that respect they were being asked if the actions taken by the EFL constituted the commencement of an investigation and hence the PL had jurisdiction. The April rule change being mentioned isn’t relevant in that the PL concluded the EFL investigation as allowed and the charges are under EFL rules.

They really haven’t. The Arbitration Panel which sat before the rule change said this E.77 of the Rules of the PL for the 2024/25 Season states as follows: “Where a Promoted Club or any Official or Director of that Promoted Club, at the point at which it becomes a member of the League pursuant to Rule B.4, is the subject of an investigation by the EFL for alleged breaches of any aligned provisions within the EFL Regulations, responsibility for that investigation will pass to the Board. In such a case: 2 See by analogy paragraphs 100 and 101 below. 24E.77.1. the Board’s powers of inquiry set out at Rule W.1 will apply in full in respect of the investigation (with the reference to ‘these Rules’ in Rule W.1 deemed to include the relevant aligned EFL Regulations); and E.77.2. the Board’s disciplinary powers set out in Section W (Disciplinary) of these Rules will apply in full in respect of the matter (with the reference to ‘these Rules’ in Rule W.3 and W.7, deemed to include the relevant aligned EFL Regulations).” 92. Thus, the PL acquires transfer jurisdiction under E.77 only when a Promoted Club at the time at which it is admitted to membership of the PL is the subject of an investigation by the EFL for an alleged breach of any aligned provisions within the EFL Regulations. It is not disputed that the P&S Rules are aligned to the PSR, the issue is whether LCFC, on the date on which it once again became a member of the PL (on or about 5 June 2024), was under investigation by the EFL for an alleged breach of its P&S Rules.

Sorry don’t think that’s right. The charge as I said earlier aren’t in accord with that rule change or indeed the PL rules

The way I read that rule change I don’t see it impacts the FFP charge. That charge is under EFL regulations/rules this rule is purely about closing down the opportunity for an IC to rule as the appeal panel did. It’s worth noting that a rule akin to this has been in place certainly in the EFL rulebook for many a year. This rule is all about clubs not being able to claim that they were a Club with a capital C or club with a small c.

A couple of seasons ago there was outrage that Everton were able to get the first of their FFP charges delayed allowing the ultimate points deduction they received to be delayed . The PL objected to Everton application to delay the process but the panel ruled in Everton’s favour. The PL then bought in to being an accelerated process which provides an incredibly tight timeline from in effect a charge by mid January to all stages including any appeal to be heard in time for any sanction to take effect before the seasons end. If you look the written reasons in Everton’s second charge there were still outstanding matters in relation to that charge that weren’t resolved till months after the season ended. The question of compensation payable by Everton in respect of their delayed PL IC is still ongoing , well at least in respect of Burnley that is. The PL Arbitration hearing ended in late 25 with a ruling due any time now. The PL haven’t charged LC ( well not for the FFP one) under their rulebook it’s under the EFL rulebook and as far as I am aware there isn’t any accelerated process in their rule book. My memory is cloudy with regard to the PL rule book changes and at the moment I can’t remember a rule change in April 25 . The Arbitration Tribunal didn’t publish their ruling re jurisdiction till May 25 .

We all assume that 22/23 is dead and buried. That is a reasonable assumption but the only comment I have seen on that is something that a few journalists reported was that the EFL were still looking at that year They still the have a few years before any potential charges become time barred. As I have said on a couple of occasions I am 50-50 on 24/25. I think it’s going to be close. In terms of 25/26 I think it’s even closer but projecting forward to 26/27 which is now T+1 or even worse T+2 ( both of which we start to be factored into cash flow projections that the club will be sending to the EFL it’s the “ off the cliff” drop in revenue that’s going to be the real challenge.

Sorry it’s hung over the club because the club clearly knew that the losses in 21/22+22/23 alone which were in excess of £181 m should have set the alarm bells ringing but rather than confront matters the need for economical realism didn’t happen. We know that the relegation in 22/23 confused things but had it not been such a disaster on the field then there would have inevitably been a PL charge in 23/4 under the accelerated procedure. Arbitration delayed matters and had that tribunal , which I know they didn’t, agreed that the ruling was perverse, then at this point there would be a 22/23 alongside a 23/24 charge. If you go back to my posts in mid 25 I was talking about my concerns because I always saw the outcomes as doing no more than kicking the can down the road which is exactly as I see things now. As for staring next season in the same position I talked about that yesterday. If the club are able( which I really doubt ) to get into a play off position or slip further down the league, which is more likely, then it really would be better to try and get this matter delayed to next season.

Fair point but after 15 minutes the outcome was a foregone conclusion and sadly lost all interest in the game. This comment on the BBC site sums up my feelings I'm off to start my dinner now, because I've had enough of this, but today's performance at Leicester is proof that the manager is not to blame. Four managers now have failed to get a performance out of this squad

Looking at what we know already in terms of losses declared in the filed accounts and the fact that we know that for 22/23 the £105 m was exceeded by £19 million my estimate is that the PSA allowables including for instance academy costs, Ladies team costs and depreciation, the allowances claimed I believe are around £29 million a year. So by my estimates the actual losses for FFP purposes are around : 21/2 £63 m (£92m- £29m) 22/23 £60 m (£89m -£29m) 23/24 surplus £10 m (£19m -£29m ) Total £113m So over that period one of which was in the EFL (23/24) the excess allowed are £35m+£35m +£13 m =£83 M If these numbers are correct a £30m that would constitute an upper level charge. Fast forward to 24/25 22/23. £60m (£89m -£29 m) 23/24. £surplus £10m (£19m- £29m So £50 m for the two years to date. As I have said before incredibly difficult to calculate what’s going to show up in the 24/25 accounts. We know that the excess allowed will be £105m . So any loss in 24/25 accounts in excess of £84 m will I believe lead to a further charge .

The PL clubs were given significant time to get their affairs in order and possibly you could argue that the charges to both Forest and Everton showed us that even when the numbers are being compiled discussions around what can be allowed or not carry on. For instance Everton had issues around how monies invested in their stadium build strictly couldn’t be allowed under PSR until planning permission was achieved and the project became” likely” . The PL agreed that strict application of accounting procedures (FRS) in this regard should be varied. The PL is run by its shareholders ( 20 clubs + The FA) so it’s the shareholders that control the rule book for issues that aren’t pre determined by the likes of FIFA , UEFA, Statute Law and the FA. Most clubs in the PL comply with the numbers but there are some that have the nous and indeed the asset base to find answers but when it came to LC it is clear that they that savvy and don’t generate the financial resources for the club to operate at the level it aspires. I would add in this context I have recently read that a couple of savvy clubs pushed the boundaries when it came to claiming Covid impact .Most clubs focussed on drop in income but a couple took the opportunity to impair player values. We don’t get to see PL numbers when it comes to FFP but just looking at a couple of clubs numbers for me they had to find some relief outside the conventional route possibly they claimed that COVID forced them to have assess certain players potentially had lower player transfer values. I said months ago, before the charges, that I feared the EFL getting involved because they quite simply are far more rigid in their rules and approach. Just look at how they moved to ban the counting of proceeds from asset disposed ( stadia/ training grounds) . I know it seems that enforcement isn’t consistent but the reality is any enforcement process where mitigation and aggravating factors, without defined penalties are inconsistent add to that fact that different individuals involved in making the decision then that will always leads to claims around lack of consistency . On that there is an agreement for establishing a sanction table but even then you hit issues . For instance if the £105 m is exceeded by say £10m would the penalty be the same for a club with a turnover of £150m compared to. A club with a £700m turnover? I think we all would say yes it should be but the PL clubs will vote in their own interests and it’s them , the clubs as I said earlier in this post that have the power to decide.

It’s difficult to guess because I still have something in the back of my mind that there might still be a twist in this matter. Every thing I read points to me concluding that the PL and the EFL did get there Ducks in a row but you can never predict how a panel will be swayed often on just one piece of evidence. So a few ifs. If the panel rule against LC. And agree that a sanction can indeed be imposed If the excess over the 3 years is north of £15 million If the other two charges are proven ( meaning no mitigation) but likely seen as aggravating factors. Then my guess would be 6 points. The club will then face a dilemma 1) Is there a likelihood that either a play off or automatic promotion is a realistic possibility in 25/26. ? 2) Is there a real possibility of a relegation. ? If the answer to 1 is a no and yes to 2) Then the club probably would do all they can to try and delay sanctions being imposed till next season . That would have to be by appealing and trying to drag the process out for as long as possible. If the answer to 1 is yes and no to 2 ) Then as above. However if the answer is no to 1 and no to 2 Then it would make far morse sense to write 24/25 off.

Contained both in the EFL and the PL there lies the option for investigations commenced in either the PL or the EFL to , following agreement between the two organisations, be transferred between them but only when those investigations involve a club either been promoted or relegated. The second Arbitration award makes mention of PL rule E83 in the 24/25 rule book and also how that rule had been E77 in the 23/24 rule book and further back it was rule E73 in 22/23. In essence there always has been the ability for a rule breech allegation to be transferred but only if the matter is in train before clubs move leagues The question asked at the arbitration wasn’t” Could an investigation be transferred from the EFL to the PL “? The question being asked was “Did the EFL commence an investigation before LC membership transferred to the PL “? The arbitration panel ruling was that as correspondence from internal EFL bodies to LC had indeed been issued that correspondence did indeed constitute an investigation having been started. So yes it the PL who had jurisdiction to carry on the matter and as we know the PL ultimately charged but for me the key point is the charges laid against LC who were at that point a PL club were in accord with the rules and regulations of the EFL Had LC been charged under the PL rules for the 23/24 them I think there would be very good grounds to argue that as the” offence” happened before the rule change any punishment could not be handed down to a club plying its trade in the EFL. As I have pointed out on a couple of occasions the second and third charge are under the PL rules and the question for me is did those offences happen before or after the rule change .irrespective I simply can’t see that a points deduction for either of these charges

It is indeed murky. But at the time of the 23/24 announcement the arbitration hearing hand concluded but this was what LC said at the time of the PL announcement re 23/24 charges A Leicester statement said: "Issues as to the jurisdiction of the Premier League over Leicester City Football Club in relation to PSR compliance are currently the subject of confidential arbitration proceedings. "Accordingly, neither the League nor the club will make any further comment at this stage about any aspect of the club's compliance or otherwise with any of the PSR or related rules, save to say that no complaint has been brought against Leicester by the League for any breach of the PSRs for the period ending season 2023-24."

As I far as I recall there was never an announcement re 23/24 for clubs not in PL membership.After the Arbitration award and then almost immediately the PL charged LC under the EFL rules in accord with the Arbitration outcome. As for 24/25 there hasn’t been any announcement yet. As I have said before I think it’s 50-50. Re 25/26 still to early to gain a true handle but my guess is that it’s 75-25 there will be a charge.

I have paid limited to attention to the financial controls at leagues 1&2 but as you say the consequence would be devastating. A club of Leicesters size should be able to generate more income but the costs to service the infrastructure alone would likely be more than some clubs pay in wages.

As I pointed out they took the club to Arbitration on two issues. The first surrounded the appeal commissions ruling that overturned the IC ruling that the PL did have jurisdiction for 22/23. The PLs claim was that the appeal board had reached a ruling the was “ perverse” They, (PL) didn’t win that argument and whist there would the have been technically 28 days as defined in the Arbitration Act 96? to take the matter to law they inevitably would have failed in any challenge. I never read that they ever would challenge although as I said there is a route The second issue is where we are now. This surrounded jurisdiction for 23/24 and the Arbitration ruling was quite simple that even though LC were an EFL club the PL did have jurisdiction. The same would have applied re the 28 day window in that LC had that time to appeal but unless I missed it I don’t think there was any appeal by the club. https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/4314762

There’s no doubt that any fee will be gratefully received but a player , a championship one at that, in the last 6 months of his contract isn’t going to generate a fee of note and maybe even not enough to cover the remaining part of his fee yet to be amortised. There will be quite significant savings wages wise but will that enable new players to come in. If no one of note signs in the next few days then even though his skills are questionable this is all about cutting costs further

The PL took two matters to Arbitration. The first was to challenge the appeal boards ruling that the PL dint have jurisdiction for 22/23. On this the club won but not because the arbitration panel didn’t believe the PL didn’t have jurisdiction but arbitration panel couldn’t / didn’t overturn the appeal because the panel felt that the appeal panel reached their decision using a valid process The second matter put to the arbitration panel was did the PL have jurisdiction for 23/24 and on that the panel ruled they did.

Sadly I don’t think you are right when you say that there was a “retrospective action”. What happened was the arbitration panel gave their interpretation of the rule book and therefore the rules already in place. As we know the initial IC ruled in the PLs favour that the PL did indeed have jurisdiction for 22/23 , the club appealed and won that appeal , the PL then argued at arbitration that the appeal ruling was a perverse interpretation of the rules which the panel didn’t agree with but that same panel ruled that the PL did have jurisdiction for 23/24. My view on the outcome of Arbitration is that had either of the two parties (PL&LCFC) not agreed with the outcome they had 28 days to appeal the ruling. I am pretty sure that there wasn’t any appeal .

Thanks for you comment. All I have to work on is historical numbers and a “ back of a fag packet” calculation when it comes to things like wages , other running costs and actual profit when it comes to players sold and amortisation for players purchased. Indeed we know from the 23/24 accounts that there was a need to include the sales of KDH was put into the earlier year. What that means that there will be very little profits in 24/25. When I say I am far from convinced what I probably need to add is that I have it at 50-50. For the two years 22/23+23/24 I estimate that there will be around £60 million after allowable meaning the loss before allowables for 24/25 can’t be over £65 million ish. Wages will have grown for 24/25 but it’s player trading that is the issue. Indeed effect in the two proceeding years the profit in total was over £140 m

The major charge is the FFP excesses and almost certainly that will come , if proven, with a points deduction. I am not suggesting that an IC doesn’t have the authority to award sporting sanctions for the other two charges because they do.However I doubt that either of the two charges in themselves will lead to a points deduction even if they are proven What the PL have down is to try and shut down any claims from LC around mitigation. How can the club realistically claim they assisted the investigation if they get found to not have submitted documents on time and didn’t actively engage in the investigation? I am still far from convinced that there will be a 24/25 charge but if the allowable sums are exceeded then it wouldn’t make any sense for the PL to make further charges till the 23/24 charge is dealt with.

Been reflecting quite a lot on Tops circumstances over the last few weeks, like most, but now we have a whole series of comments to now gain a truer, complete, perspective if you like of just where the club is and what the future holds. First there is a vast difference between a leader and a manager. I remember when going on my first management course and the tutors commented was that a good leader isn’t guaranteed to be a good manager .Sadly what LC is witnessing is someone that thinks he is a good leader, he isn’t, and gets involved in managing when he shouldn’t be near the interventions he talks about. I haven’t looked at the ownership structures in place at other clubs to see how many of the current owners are second generation but what we are witnessing is an owner who inherited an “ empire” and just because his father was an astute businessman there is absolutely no guarantee that Top was ever going to be a success. Its clear to all that the club is rudderless, sadly for Top the likelihood is that KP isn’t in a better place. The issue for me is that in a blink of an eye the club could go from a vacuum in terms of leadership to a situation where boundaries simply won’t either be clear or other members of that leadership group exert too much influence. Irrespective a reboot at this point in time is unlikely to have any immediate impact indeed it could and almost certainly will lead to an even deeper confusion. Changing a culture is all a well and good but any culture will be decided by the leaders and we go full circle is Top even able to grasp what is required or just as much a concern , is he able to even identify individuals with the skill sets required to move forward. ? Sadly where Leicester currently find itself is akin to a distressed business and is closer to needing to appointing an individual whose required skill set is business rescue.

Spot on. The comments about how he did everything at the time of the relegation with the players struck me as being naive. I know English isn’t close to his first language but I have read the interview a couple o& times and there is so much to worry about.

The suggestion that somehow it impacted more on Leicester confuses me . Or should I say worries me