Terraloon

Following the ruling by the EFL panel in effect no more than delaying the submission of future financial information by what 13 or so weeks that information was I would imagine submitted on or before the 31/3 /24 deadline. All we know at this point much but we do know one thing that is that the club in its submissions have confirmed that they will be in excess , for the 3 year monitoring period ending 23/24 of the EFL upper threshold which is £83 million . 2 PL years of £35 million and 1 EFL year of £13 million The concern is that the EFL in accord with their rules charge Leicester . We know that the EFL are tweaking their rules around FFP following Leicesters challenging the rules which potentially enable clubs promoted to the PL to have any sanction follow into the PL. At this point in time Leicester haven’t been charged with exceeding the 22/23 monitoring period which would have been £105 million or the 23/24 period which will only allow £83 million . I think it’s safe to assume that there is a PL charge incoming post after 6 June I know some won’t agree but I do wonder if , Leicester had just complied with the EFL requirement to submit a business plan by 31/12 and the 22/23 accounts to the PL , then the 22/23 case may or may not have resulted in a PL points deduction known already and idc a points deduction stranded in EFL with out even the possibility of it following to the PL

Don’t think you want to know the answer to that. All I can say is that putting 13 players behind the ball was a cunning yet destined to fail tactic

Sorry yes

Compensation would be amortised over the contract period but that doesn’t mean that the cash itself isn’t paid far earlier even potentially in one instalment

That’s right.

The PL changed the rules in June 24 as to how they would deal with cases for 23/24 trading years so yes they could change the rules at the two ( EFL& PL) AGMs

Sorry but I think you miss understand the establishment of precedent is established or indeed the principle of “ let it stand” The whole concept of precedent is where a decision is made by a higher court which then applies to similar cases being heard lower down the court process. it stands until, well , another precedent is set. The ICs are at the same level so one commissions ruling may well be referred to but they simply aren’t duty bound to apply the same sanction even if the cases are broadly similar. Bearing in mind what I have just said re precedent to date both PL cases have followed the conclusion in ( I think ) the Sheffield Wednesday case that by default club exceeding the spending limit has gained a sport advantage. As for the delayed Regulator their responsibilities as outlined in the now suspended bill don’t cover discipline matters in accord with league rules and trying to bring in a a club that is already subject to an IC and a club who are subject to an investigation wouldn’t in all likelihood have any bearing on matters

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