Terraloon

Before this one issue is finally resolved there will be four stages and this is the first. An appeal will probably be frivolous and the actual question re the PSR breaches will almost certainly be proven and so to an appeal which again will probably just be a delaying tactic. For me the written reasons produced by the IC didn’t seem that complementary in terms of assessing the case put forward by City it will be difficult to argue that there has been expected co operation and that in itself will compound the matter.

It is indeed but I can only think that a decision was taken at the point of the IC being set up that Sheffield Utd were going to be relegated in effect meaning that had the PL taken over then any points deduction would be rendered meaningless. Indeed Sheffield’s main case at the IC was all about which league had jurisdiction an argument they didn’t win You have to remember that the PL already have charged city with two things Exceeding PSR limits and non submission of accounts those charges will almost certainly be proven as matter of fact. You then have the likely ( not guaranteed) EFL charge which by the sounds of it will depend on what happens over the next two days and that investigation will almost certainly be under PL jurisdiction. I keep making the point that all City did when it challenged the EFL initially re the requirement to submit a business plan by 31/12 was kick the can down the road and yes had it submitted one then in all likelihood the transfer embargo would have been in place in January but as we know now no players were bought in in the January window. Come 31/3/24 that illusive business plan was submitted and yes there was confirmation through arbitration that a sanction handed down by a PL points deduction couldn’t be imposed by the EFL but that realistically could have been settled without referral to a panel that action by City was criticised by the arbiters. In any sort of relationship in football you have to build up goodwill. Of course you don’t let yourself get walked over but City were always going to have to submit accounts so why make a song and dance about not copying in the PL. Had the PL got then on time there was no way that they could be charged under the enhanced 2023 rules so it really was no more than a pyrrhic victory.

I suspect it hasn’t Almost certainly it would take that sort of majority to get the rule changed but that I very much doubt is going to happen . As for a vote to stop it happening again I very much doubt that will happen.

In accord with EFL rules by 31/3 each season clubs have to submit their calculations for T-1, T-2 based on the figures already submitted in 23/24 that mean T-1 was 22/23 & T-2 was 21/22 but they also have to provide in year numbers for T which was 23/24. Based on the numbers submitted the EFL and no doubt City were estimating that there was going to be a breech in 23/24 in effect the process re T was commenced and as we know as a consequence of that a transfer embargo was put in place

Take a look at page 142 https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2024/03/04/0910e1b3-f94a-41a5-9818-6e1b5c961a9a/PL_Handbook_2023-24_DIGITAL_26.02.24-v3.pdf E77&E78 The problem for the PL was at the time (6/6/23) when City ceased to be a PL club there wasn’t any outstanding charge or investigation outstanding. That meant that within the PL rules there was no way that the matter could follow city into the EFL. So fast forward 12 months and their is an investigation matter outstanding against City under EFL jurisdiction so in accord with the PLs rules tat investigation can be now be taken over by the PL.

The change of rules re away teams getting a share of the gate receipts happened in 1983 some 9 years before the formation of the PL

But all that has done is delay matters.

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