Terraloon

Missed the for Chelsea bit whoops

I thought that and to be honest had Sterling been close to clinical it would have been done and dusted by half time

Of course they don’t all have players as fast as Chelsea but even clubs like Forest have the likes of Odi who has pace but as I pointed out it’s not just the speed over the ground it’s the speed of thought Even then that’s not my only point is the fact he has given a 3 year deal which means if he struggles as much as I feel he will he certainly won’t be going anywhere

Sorry but you know that how ? There are loan opportunities from abroad or even at PL level but we know what you are going to get from him and sorry I can’t see any planning even in the medium term has taken place and we all know what they say if you fail to plan This who matter smacks of panic

He may well be a decent CD in the championship but if he is going to be a starter in the PL it’s going to be an even harder slog than some are already thinking it’s going to be. There are a few reasonable quick players in the Championship but the blistering pace that we saw in the cup against Chelsea showed exactly why he shouldn’t be even close to a 3 year deal. Season 24/25 will see pace through the middle, pace out wide and pace from midfield the like of which none of the Championship teams have. That Chelsea game when he was run by Jackson, was embarrassing but it’s not just the Speed across the ground that is just part of the issue it’s also the speed of thought . At set pieces he will be fine if it’s in the air but more and more clubs are looking to change angles and the like He has played I think a total of 72 games at PL level and I honestly think he will struggle to get to 100 he will be cruelly exposed and that then will put extra pressure alongside whoever is picked to play with him I just can’t but help scratch my head

I don’t want to say categorically you are wrong because we haven’t seen the wording which as I pointed out earlier is the key point but I don’t think you can have an obligation to buy in a conditional loan agreement but if you are right regarding the trigger then once he had played in 60% of the games for accounting purposes the deal was done

All Football contracts begin their annual cycle on 1/7 and end on 30/6. Leicester City gained promotion on 25/4 if were a condition of promotion then if that were the only clause and so worded then the transfer would be permanent from that date. But it’s all about the wording for instance it could be securing promotion and LCFC having membership of the PL confirmed which would have been this week. It could make a massive difference in accounting terms to Sporting ( they would for accounting purposes treat all of it in their 23/24 year) and of course paying the fee is one thing but what really would matter is the amortisation charge which from 25/4 to 30/6 (67 days) would work out something like this £15 million divided by 5 contract years = £3 million divide that sum by 366 days then multiply by 67 days =£550kish. I just don’t think despite what some are saying because the more I see that it is likely to have been an option not an obligation to buy https://www.modernghana.com/sports/1310021/leicester-city-set-to-sign-abdul-fatawu-issahaku.html#

That then isn’t a obligation to buy it’s a conditional loan. I have no idea if there were conditions but if you are right what day were those conditions met ? These sort of things are never as straightforward as they appear in the surface.

I altered my op slightly. Bear in mind if he is bought on an truly obligation to buy there are no conditions attached to the loan The acquisition of a Player’s registration must be first recognised in the Annual Accounts when all significant conditions for the registration of the Player have been satisfied, i.e. it is effectively unconditional, which means that there must be a legally binding agreement between the two clubs (or other arrangement as approved in accordance with Regulation 50.2) and between the acquiring club and the Player

If it truly is an obligation to buy then the finances of the deal appear for PSR/ FFP in the 22/23 numbers even if the deal doesn’t go through in the books until the 23/24 year.

For me the word aggression isn’t perhaps the correct word it’s more like naivety Not wanting to split hairs, as it may seem I am doing, the first matter around producing a business plan by 31/12/ 23 the EFL believed that the rules as written allowed them to make such a request the arbiter didn’t dismiss that as being in correct basically he said Leicesters interpretation of the rule was reasonable. Irrespective Leicester knew that they would have no choice but to supply information by 31/3/24 and as was pretty obvious the 23/24 numbers indicate that there will be a breech hence the embargo and as we know that almost certainly post 1/7/24 there will be an EFL charge incoming and I believe the two leagues will agree under PL rules that they set up and conduct the hearing. The second matter really did show the club’s naivety because they reacted to a letter between the PL & the EFL re the 22/23 period. Rather than letting matters run its course and the challenge the imposition of a penalty ( which is going to happen) albeit now in the PL as opposed to the EFL or simply writing a letter to the two leagues questioning their contention that any sanction handed down by the PL could be implemented in the EFL Leicester went all guns blazing commencing pro against the leagues. That was considered aggressive by the arbiter who questioned why Leicester didn’t just issue a letter prior and I can see why some refer to it as such but I call it naive. What we do know is that the PL had issued a charge for 22/23 yet nothing seems to have progressed ( well nothing further has been put into the public domain) Ok hindsight is a wonderful thing but I do wonder if it would have been wiser to let the PL charge run its course and had the league position in the EFL indicated that promotion was either confirmed or just about when a sanction was decided take it on the chin to get it out of the way maybe that would have resulted in not winning the league but using the process to your advantage in a way just like Everton did would have been the far savvy approach

It is called a sanctions agreement and yes one could be put in place ( but I would imagine unlikely) any sanctions agreement agreed between the club and the PL still has to be confirmed by what is in effect an IC.

The Club owns them but the club is owned by KPI.In effect it’s not really relevant.The bit that is interesting is the purchase was via an HP agreement that is flexible but I doubt that any cash actually changes hands just adds to the overall debt The land ownership seems excessive but seems to have been independently valued.

They aren’t suing the PL at all. What City have done is take a matter to arbitration under PL Rule X. An arbitration panel made up of one arbitrator appointed by the PL and one by City and a third appointed by the two Pl/ club appointed ones This is all about City disagreeing with having to prove that sponsorship etc from an associate party is fair value. There is also another matter that they want compensation because of the rule. The rule was approved by the required majority 70% but that’s something else that City want changed If city win this one it effectively will mean that they , Newcastle and possibly the likes of Chelsea and others owned by hedge funds will become even more powerful that they are now

Good try. At this point in time the embargo is still in place.Arguing it was premature, which was Cities argument and the process not being started are two separate matters. The EFL process will in all likelihood be considered have started because on 31/3 City had to produce statements to the EFL those statements included income to date and projected, steps being taken to close any gaps. Those submissions didn’t persuade the EFL that there wouldn’t be a breech hence the embargo. Thats just my view but to be fair I only have very limited legal training and no doubt the KCs will argue their case based on who pays the piper as it were

The reason I drew attention to E77 and E79 is because they in effect cover two eventualities My reading of the rules is this E77 .The EFL by virtue of their defined process has in effect already started the process for 23/24 .We know this because of the Embargo being put in place. This rule allows the EFL and PL to agree that the matter can be concluded by the PL. E79. is all about Arbitration. Again City took both the EFL & PL to Arbitration. This rule allows any outstanding Arbitration issues to ( again if both leagues agree) be passed from the EFL to the PL. Section X is the PL defined process for cases referred to Arbitration

Read rule E77 and rule E79

I read that article and thought how poor it was. Simply be a it was saying clubs had “ definitely “ failed etc. Its a basic schoolboy error on behalf of the author ( who is an agent) because he like us have no idea of club submissions etc the only thing we do know is that the EFL were projecting Leicester would be over

Sorry but this simply not the case. One IC at appeal agreed with Everton’s arguments that it was perverse to receive a points deduction in excess of the number deductible from entering an insolvency event. That is a reasonable argument but the rules as written give ICs the ability to deduct any amount of points. It’s unlikely that they will go in excess of 8 points but it wasn’t illegal it’s simply that the second IC thought the sanction was disproportionate indeed as we know the starting point in a first charge seems to be 6 points that number in theory was reduced by 2 points in the Forest case and stayed the same in the Everton case. The PL argued in the Everton case that there were aggravating factors . In terms of co operation the mitigation is for how the club have conducted itself through but mainly the IC will take into account how a club has engaged with the authorities. There is an expectation that a club will as a minimum adhere to the requirements detailed in the rule book so there is no Brownie Points awarded for doing what the rules require namely acting in good faith

See the rule E79 This rule seems to allow the PL, with the agreement of the EFL to take over a dispute that exists between clubs that were in the EFL and get promoted to the PL.In this instance of course that is Leicester In effect the 23/24 PSR ( FFP) dispute that Leicester have with the EFL can it seems be dealt with by the PL

Bearing in mind the fact that the playoff final was played on 26 /5 ( after the 3rd Saturday in May)no one would have known all teams that would or wouldn’t be playing in the 24/25 PL

Chelsea haven’t bought out the last two years of his contract they have paid compensation for him to be released from his contract. Add to that it’s likely that there is a sum in that number re other members of staff that will follow

I actually don’t think the EFL rules have the same provision in terms of taking a case over from the PL but they do have a rule that clubs promoted from or relegated from the EFL remain under their disciplinary procedures hence why the 2013/14 breech was dealt with by the EFL and likewise why the EFL dealt with the Sheffield Utd charge. Also it’s why Trevor Birch had to backtrack re the EFL implementing any sanction if handed down by the PL in 23/24 to Leicester it simply isn’t allowed at the present I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the EFL rules are changed idk to enable them to take over cases in respect of cases relegated from the PL and started under that jurisdiction

My guess would be that it would first be the subject of a charge(s) , then possibly arbitration all under the PL jurisdiction. That said it’s possible that arbitration would be prior to any 24/25 charge. The Man City case at the High Court if nothing else has led us to the confirmation that the PL is considered competent to hear arbitration/ disciplinary matters so challenging that aspect would be churlish. The route to take any dispute out of the league would and could only be on a point of law and again I would imagine that would again prove fruitless. So the process in all likelihood would be 1)charge/ arbitration, 2)IC appointed 3) Directions etc 4) Hearing 5) Appeal There is no process to challenge any appeal save on a point of law. As I pointed out months ago I was always concerned that Leicesters tactics earlier in the year could backfire and if two charges follow promotion without any reduction ( akin to Forest) for assisting the league in progressing the case then sorry that is a massive miscalculation on behalf of the board.

From my reading of the rules the club doesn’t have a say in the matter being passed to the PL. I mentioned the point yesterday because many had assumed any EFL breach would be held in limbo as it were but as the article confirms the 22/23 period will be dealt with by the PL in 24/25 as we already knew but as now know it’s likely the 23/24 case will also be in the 24/25 by the PL.