Terraloon

There wasn’t anything in PL that restricted the sanctions when it came to PSR charges faced by both Everton and Forest and almost certainly Leicester will have to deal with next season. The initial IC in the Everton case went to great lengths to point out that the rules as written gave them license to deduct as many points to as they think appropriate. Everton successfully argued on appeal that the offence( PSR excess )in no way should be sanctioned greater than the stated sanctions for Administrations. But that’s just one ICs view not a precedent Just referring back to the PL charge and potentially the EFL one for 23/24 the EFL statement following Trevor Birch’s infamous letter is a concern because yes it confirms legal opinion that EFL& PL rules as written don’t allow for a sanction awarded by one set up to be implemented by another I think it’s worth keeping a close eye on both bodies AGMs and see if they introduce rules to get around the issue if so then potentially real issues in 24/25

Yes in that the two leagues have a coordinated approach to allowable sums.

The problem then is if the league appeal, which they can but irrespective Forest received significant mitigation for the way they put their hands up and didn’t obstruct the process

You are 100% correct at present there isn’t any mechanism for a second breach but after all the shenanigans of last season I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the EFL & PL ( probably would need FA input) do get to a point where IC sanctions do follow the club.

It is of that there is no doubt but here’s something to factor in since the turn of the century including interim managers Chelsea have had 23 managers/ head coaches. Leicester have had 29

I am far from sure why so many rely on this Bronson chaps opinion Ok he used to be an advisor to City many years ago and yes his training is legal but he is relying on is statutory accounts which yes point outs potential issues but he has absolutely no idea what PSR submissions look like nor has he any idea the context of conversations between clubs and the PL and that is key. The funny point is when he gets proved wrong he still lobs grenades in trying to prove how right he is . He simply can’t accept that he really isn’t in the know Its abundantly clear that he is completely blinkered when it comes to matters City again he has no idea what is in the PL hands nor indeed does he have realistically have a clue as to how city officials have acted.But is his mind no case to answer so that’s the end of it Just on that City matter Bluemoon is going round in ever decreasing circles. They really are over complicating what the PLs approach will be, what matters can or can’t be heard due to time barred matters, why the SCO or HRMC aren’t involved ( in the case of taxation matters will or have been looked but that won’t be put in the public domain by HMRC ) Based not on what I know and that’s more about process rather than case specific matters the PL have in effect accused City of failing to report and account with matters in accordance with the rules. There isn’t a claim to fraud within the statutory accounts it’s claimed that money flowing into their accounts when tracked back didn’t originate from the sponsor nothing illegal in that . The PL are likewise saying both in the case of players payments and manager payments that sums paid to them should have been paid by the club not others . There isn’t it seems a claim by the PL that tax/nic / vat is underpaid nor would it be against the law of the land for what I believe are shadow or second contracts but it’s against the rules. There is an old saying thou doth protest too much and that’s what seems to be going on at every club from Forest to Everton, from City to Chelsea and of course at LCFC and sadly any sort of belief that there’s nothing to see because the owners just wouldn’t do that is naive in the extreme and this is is where all matters link when it comes to very wealthy individuals almost all of them dance to a different tune to us mere plebs

The trouble is when you win the sort of victory via a judicial system that Leicester clearly have you then have given those that have taken the beating a clear way forward and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that those gaps will now be closed The core issue here isn’t who could or couldn’t proceed with PSR violations it’s have there been any. I think it’s pretty clear that the numbers would suggest that charges are going to be determined and all that is happening is the can has been kicked down the road. Get promoted and the PL will pursue their 22/23 charge which if proven will almost certainly be a points deduction add to that if there is a breech for the 3 year cycle ending 23/24 in the EFL ( which the EFL have already predicted) then the gap in the rules that LCFC have exposed namely there isn’t a rule in place in either the PL or EFL rules to facilitate point deductions in one set up to be imposed by the other will be closed in the two leagues 24/25 rule books. If the unthinkable happens and promotion isn’t achieved then I don’t expect that any sanction for the PL 22/23 charge will be enforced in the EFL but it will be suspended till such time as promotion is achieved. In a way it’s a repeat of the Everton two charges. They fought that the earlier one was dealt with earlier and by delaying itThe PL rules caught up with then meaning they faced two charges in the same season

A couple of the charges are PSR breeches but not to do with the £105 m limit.

Not suggesting it will happen but there simply aren’t any restrictions at all when it comes to what an appeal panels powers indeed at W78.8 of the Appeal Boards Powers it states that it can make “Such order as it thinks fit” The first thing that Forest have to do is convince the IC that an appeal is allowed.

Interesting . Not sure the numbers are correct but does highlight the massive issues in terms of the sqaud at seasons end irrespective of which league LCFC ply their trade next season Alas free transfers are rarely just that when you add in bigger signing on fees and wages and agents wanting their xtra wedge it’s quite staggering how much they cost. Similarly when you sell a player the costs involved, the transfer levy paid to the authorities any profit is soon reduced. That said a real bonus when you sign a player with sums still to be amortised the sums left to depreciate going forward disappears.

Page 15 of their report Turnover £140.983 million Player sale profit. £. 1.898 Other operating Inc £. 2.035 Total. £144.916 million Staff Costs. £100.109 million Amortisation. £42.710 Agent fees. £5.058 ( source FA ) Total. £147.877 million

Their wages and amortisation alone accounts for over 100% of their turnover. The £71 million distorts matters beyond belief

Shareholders wrote off loans of £71 million which has been shown as exceptional income .Dont think that is allowed when it comes to FFP/PSR

Multi club ownership isn’t just applicable to the ones you mention. Brighton, Villa , Palace and indeed Leicester are in that number

They accepted the charge ( written reasons 1.3) and yes co operated with the process . The only way I can read the case is that they expected , and probably still do , greater mitigation should been applied Its important to note that the hearing will be before a completely different 3 members and when the likes of Sky say or even imply that it’s unlikely that the points deduction will increase that quite simply is folly and even then does that mean the six won’t be increased or the four ?

As none of Buck, Abromavich and Granovskaia are no longer involved with football in any capacity they can call them as witness but there is absolutely no way in which they can be force them to attend nor dare I say can any assumptions be made if they refuse. The PL or FA will have to have evidence to a level that will stand on its own before any charge would be made.

Sadly all sorts of contractural bonuses will have become payable , some in season , some at seasons ended even for players whose contracts have ended. Players being granted “ free transfers”very rarely just walk for nowt (unless of course their contract has ended and even then you can be pretty sure there would be a loyalty bonus due )they will have had their contract paid up in full or in part and then you have to work out if any of the transfer fee remains to be amortised if not the will be an immediate negative impact in the accounts

An absolute quality piece of work well done and thanks. No matter what happens re timings , jurisdiction and impending proceedings the only conclusion I can come to is that in all this LCFc are dammed if they get promoted and dammed if they don’t. I wish I could read it in another watch but the delays that have been argued and of course re the business plan in particular have done is kick the can down the road and at some point everything will catch up that is of course unless somehow an argument is won that no one had jurisdiction

Against showing legally games at 3.00pm for me it will damage lower league football it will almost certainly have a massive impact on non league attendances and indeed I have read it will certainly destroy participation in men’s park football. There really isn’t a lot of appetite for pay for view unless the top 5 or so clubs are involved. They would snatch your hand off if they had the offer to control their own home games.My guess is that the top 6 would create their own platform possibly sharing rights there would almost certainly be sone sort of linked deals to that package from the other 13 clubs but their return would be massively reduced

The setting of say 70%-85 of turnover on first team squads will mean that there is no benefit in increasing healthy expenditure ( woman’s football in particular) what using a % will do is open up the real possibility that you will see money flow out of football to shareholders b6 way of dividends

This is exactly right. My background is in compliance having spent time in debt management and a short period in football administration. The rules as they are aren’t a million miles away from being ok but what football is in grave danger of over complication and to a degree FFP already does that. A lot is made of clubs going into administration there aren’t that many nowadays and every club that goes into an Insolvency event is a disaster for ever club that suffers oblivion. The trouble with getting an owner, a majority shareholder or director putting up a bond is quite simply as you go down through the pyramid you will get less and less who will put their hands up . What would you do if an owner dies ? Or that bond is used and no other will put their hand up to take the club over ? The EFL, PL, and indeed the NL already have mechanisms in place to monitor creditors. Debt to HMRC is big red flag as is a club not filing returns and information already required in regulations. If a directors knew that putting a club into administration meant a guaranteed relegation that would send a far stronger message out in terms of deterrent rather than just a points deduction which often means clubs maintain thie place in the league hierarchy . I genuinely believe far earlier clubs would place the brakes on.

Was there a Freudian slip in there

I personally think the clamour for a Regulator is strange. Let’s be clear the PSR regulations will not be within the remit of a Regulator they simply won’t have input into enforcement of the EFL, PL, National League rule book or disciplinary matters. Their remit will be very narrow and it will come at a financial cost(based on todays costs over £10 million pa , and quite possibly some of the lower PL clubs , those who rely for over 85% of their income from broadcast will become increasingly less competitive on the field bearing in mind the suggestion is that the new PSR regulations will probably restrict wage costs to 70% of total income and likely squad costs ( wages+amortisation + agents fees) to a number between 70-85%. For reference over half of Championship Clubs are already spending over 100% of income on wages some as high as 128% Ok there might be a bit extra for clubs down the pyramid but the gap between the PL and Championship will still be massive and almost certainly clubs in say EFL 2 already pay some of their players circa £10k a week each that’s over half a million a year on one player from a business that generates probably no more that £7 million a year. As you can guess that I am far from convinced that the IR is going to solve the problems that there are in football and for me the clamour for VAR will be repeated and them some once a regulator has any input. National League Sth &Nth clubs almost certainly won’t have the structure in place that will be required, many clubs below the EFL rely very heavily on benefactors those clubs will simply not be able to live the dream. In effect non league football below the NL , Woman’s football and possibly academy football quite possibly will become second class. Has regulation worked in any industry that a government appointed regulator.

That’s not correct. If it was imposed following an Insolvency event almost certainly extensions wouldn’t be agreed but if my understanding is correct and the embargo is due to. Non submission of accounts or the like then almost certainly they will be allowed Heres what the rules say Yes, Clubs can offer new contracts to existing players, though this will be dependent upon the circumstances of the individual Club and will be determined by the League.

Some years ago I was doing some work at a non League club. Needed to boost income so all suggestions were welcome. Printed matter such as newspapers magazines and football programmes are VAT free. Bear in mind if you pay £10 entrance fee to get into a match 20% of that is VAT so the club only gets £8. A Matchday programme at the time cost £2 buy and one and pay to get in it would cost the punter £12 but the club only gets £10 A genius idea but doomed to failure came from one of the directors was to charge £11 for a matchday programme and give free entrance. As Del Boy would say everyone was a winner alas the VAT man he say no