Terraloon

Here’s the thing. In the EFL regs you are right there is a rule that you can’t be punished for the same period although the loss total is relevant and could impact. It’s not quite as simple as this but LC were punished for £20 million over and got 6 points for the years 21/2+22/23+23/24 . So say 2 points a year. So if the loss for the years 22/23+23/24+24/25 is say £20 million over then you would expect that it would only be another 2 points. However there isn’t the same rule in the PL rules re not being punished for the same period . That said in Everton 2 the IC did take into account that a punishment had already been handed down for the first 2 years.

If you cast your mind back to the 23/24 season the EFL wanted LC to produce a business plan but the club went all guns blazing to challenge the “request” to produce one and in the end it was ruled in March 24 that clubs relegated to the PL weren’t required to submit business plan in December ( I think) but by the next deadline then LC did have a player embargo put in place by the EFL. We simply don’t know what is going on re the 25/26 season in terms of having a business plan in place but even if you have one in place it isn’t a given that embargo follows. Something in the back of mind is saying that some other numbers are due to be sent in around now.

It’s talking about the specific point about the change in accounting year and how one season could and should have covered a 37 month period but that didn’t happen it’s that aspect that gives the clarity they are talking about, not I would add I am sure what happens to the one month not yet assessed as my inital thoughts were that the £2.8 m loss for that extra months will almost certainly be factored in to FU25

Leicester in 25/26 are affiliated to the EFL . So any 24/25 charge would have to be announced by the EFL . The PL statement made reference to the 20 PL clubs that played in the PL for the 25/26 season. If you remember the PL charged LC under EFL rules having taken over the investigation that was commenced in the EFL, the rules allow that investigation to follow clubs as they move either up or down from the PL. I have always stated that I think it’s 50-50 if there will be a 24/25 charge but if the PL started an investigation into LC for 24/25 and if the numbers exceed the allowable then the EFL would carry on the investigation and if there are any charges they would be in accord with the PL rulebook.

At 33 he almost certainly would be looking for a last deal but no doubt the one he is on currently is far too good. He might get a deal somewhere at say £10k a week so circa £1 million in total gross over 2 years but for one of the two years he would still be under contract at LC. Let’s assume that he is on say £40k a week and 26 /27 is indeed the last year. Well it’s worth to him is greater than 52 weeks because as it the last year there would be several weeks paid after the contract ends so worth say £2.2 m to him way in excess of the £1m that would be payable in 26/27&27/8 combined. My point is that he holds all the cards going into the last year . If I were his agent I would be looking for between 60&75% of the remaining sum maybe settling on 60-50% ish. Yes there would be savings to the club but as with many things LC there would have to be funds available to save . Also timing would be a thing . Is there enough capacity in the 25/6 PSR numbers to advance his costs ? If not what would the numbers look like if a replacement player is bought in? As for amortisation even when someone is signed on a free there will be agent fees etc and these costs are amortised over the contract period. To negotiate a settlement will cost agent fees and almost certainly LC would be liable for those costs and if the deal was indeed done in 26/27 not only would those fees be factored in but also fees from the original contract would have to be impaired in 25/26 . Its an incredibly complex set of calculations that will need to be carried out but at his age and the fact that he is indeed 33 I would be advising him, if I were his agent, just sit on your contract .

The question I guess we don’t know the answer to is will much change in terms of departures even if relegation is avoided ?

Stolarcyzk - No Vietes - Yes. Begovic - No Bausor - Yes. Nelson - Yes. Okoli - Yes Souttar - Yes. Kristiansen - Yes. Ricardo - No. Lascelles - No. Vestergaard - Yes. L. Thomas - Yes. Aluko - Yes. James - No. Winks - No. Choudhury - Yes. Aribo - No. Skipp - No. Page - Yes. Mukasa No. Ramsey - No. Golding - Yes. S. Thomas - Yes. Fatawu - No. Ayew - No. Richards - No. Mavididi - Yes. Decordova-Reid - Yes. Daka - No. Marcal - Yes. Monga - No.

Golding I am convinced was a player that had to be signed from Chelsea in order for them to pay the £30 m that was recorded when KDH was sold to them. What is interesting is that if you add the fee that was paid for Golding ( £5 m ) to the £25 m that Chelsea got for KDH when they sold him to Everton spookily that comes to the £30 million they paid for KDH in the first place.!

It simply isn’t as easy as that. Almost certainly the local plan designates Seagrave an employment/ recreational land/ sporting fields or something along those lines without doubt it is not earmarked for housing. There are situations where a change to designated usage can be agreed but it’s far from straight forward. Add to that LC Council are obliged to keep a register of pitches in use ( within the least 3 years) almost certainly all the pitches at both Seagrave and Belvoir are included in that register. What that means is that if a planning application was made for either sites which entailed a reduction in the number of pitches then Sports England who have to be consulted and they will object to planning that doesn’t entail a replacement pitch being put in place on another site Let’s just suppose that they could demolish Seagrave and sell the land for housing then a sum of close to £100 m would need to be achieved to cover the loss of the asset and even then there would be issues around claiming PSR credit for selling a training ground. To complicate matters even further Seagrave was built having received a £91 million loan from KPI . A question I can’t answer is what are, if any, the conditions attached to that loan? Seagrave will prove financially to be a millstone around LC necks. My estimate is that it costs around £5 million a year to run , Charlie suggests it’s £15m. I hope he isn’t close to being right because the reality is that the clubs likely income in 26/27 and 27/28 won’t be able to justify close to the sum I mention and certainly not the £15m he suggests. What would I do ? Well explore the possibility of selling Belvoir. Could more pitches be developed at Seagrave to compensate? Could the WSL be accommodated at Seagrave? Will LC Council support any application for housing , will Sports England object and finally what will disposing of Belvoir look like in both in terms of cash from the sell but also how much will be saved in terms of annual running costs ?

I along with quite a few others have speculated as to what now happens and yes it is just that, speculation. We still don’t know a lot as to the here and now but what little we know as facts don’t paint a pretty picture. The soon to be published accounts will reflect a year when once again LC received significant broadcasting and commercial deals due to the club plying its trade in the PL but as we won’t know see the actual numbers for the current season for at least 14 months and as a they say about politics a day is a long time well in business 14 months is a lifetime. In previous accounts the comment that the club can only be treated as feasible if there is continued financial input from KP, financial institutions continue to allow borrowings and of substantial income from transfer fees continues. Back to the speculation and here is perhaps the most worrying in that it isnt just that this seasons cupboard is bare but before the first session of 26/27 takes place the money the PL intends to provide a buffer has been spent. Of course KP may well step in to plug any shortfall but even that isn’t a free pass as it were because there are limits as to how much can be introduced by way of equity and if those cash injections are by way of loans well then interest is factored into the PSR calculations. The clubs income in 25/26 will have dropped from 24/25 and in 26/27 it will drop even further so it’s as much now about reducing costs and whilst of course the obvious ones such as wages have to be prioritised as Charlie pointed out some of those costs simply can’t be reduced.

Sorry but we simply don’t know the extent of the clubs liabilities nor how things have changed , save a few snippets, since the end of the 23/24 accounting year. Charlies point wasn’t that the club can’t meet its current liabilities but more that the person running the accounts seems to be using all the levers available to pay todays liabilities but not from today’s income included in those levers is the drawing down of monies that realistically will be needed for next season. Potentially another example of LC kicking the can down the road ? I worked in debt management and yes unpaid wages would be a major red flag and there’s no suggestion that is happening but you talk as if you know what’s going on re creditors we don’t know either way but surely you can see why alarm bells are ringing.? Often when I dealt with distressed companies to the outside world every thing seemed fine but almost in a blink of an eye something goes wrong and bang the whole deck of cards crumble. As for losing equity in the club in terms of KP that ship has long since sailed and who knows there may well be significant tax benefits in Thailand in allowing debt to be written off in another tax regime. I simply don’t know nor I would guess do you but one thing I do know is that I wouldn’t at all be surprised if at some point the club does enter administration .

At this point in time it’s impossible to know how much debt the club has and to who it’s owed post 30/6/24 Here we are the best part of 20 months on from the last published set of accounts knowing not much save the club have factored all fees yet to be paid but it doesn’t just end there because the parachute payment due not just for 25/26 have been advanced but also the sums due for 26/27 in effect cash due to fund in part the 26/27 year is almost certainly been used this season. Bear in mind that in Jan 26 the club entered into another agreement providing a facility with that Aussie Bank but this agreement isn’t secured against future fees or parachute payments, they are already committed, this time the security is against every fixed asset the club owns. Charlie is spot on when he points out that factoring these matters are red flags. I am not sure that I heard Charlie say it was normal to take out parachute payments in advance of the year they would fed into cash flow. His point about the change of Christmas pay date in isolation may not have been the issue but I actually think taking all things into consideration it all adds to the negativity. You say the only way that LC go into Administration is if KP can’t pay but that isn’t correct there is at least one other possibility and that is they , KP, won’t pay any more and if that’s the case then then leads to even darker thoughts. We have absolutely no idea what creditors are being paid on time if they indeed are. When clubs particularly in the EFL are in arrears with say other clubs or HMRC for we don’t get to hear about debts of that nature if the club has agreed a payment arrangement as for other creditors any business that is fire fighting tends to prioritise payments based on who is pushing the hardest at some point those owners will see one of the balls drop as it were. The likelihood is that the club will limp on ( unless Top opens his cheque book) but just as there was an inevitability that the day of judgment would arrive for those PSR matters if the signs are being read correctly then at some point sooner rather than later the weight of debt or put another way the lack of cash could well be catastrophic To a degree any money borrowed , save income already committed ( parachute payments and transfer fees still due ) is borrowed against future ticket sales the problem comes for instance if season ticket renewals don’t reach projections or God forbid relegation means prices have to be reduced

There are sorts of options and one of which we shouldn’t loose sight of is the club World Cup. The failed SL wasn’t any alternative to the PL it was an add on that would have replaced the CL. Where they got in wrong in planning was not having a promotion and relegation mechanism had they thought that aspect through pretty sure we would have either seen it introduced by now or it was to be implemented very soon. The fall out from the failed SL hasn’t really forbidden such a league say under the control of UEFA or come to that FIFA but you can bet your bottom dollar that the top European leagues will be exchanging views as to how a SL project could be revisited but don’t dismiss the possibility that the PL could be revamped as I said less clubs and maybe a couple of games less alongside a UEFA SL, aUEFA EL and a UEFA Conference where all clubs (8) that weren’t subject to either of the 2 relegation places qualify for those UEFA tournaments

That’s not what the PL said. Here’s exactly what they have put out To provide certainty for all clubs and fans, the Premier League will be seeking to have the appeal resolved urgently, and in any event before the end of the EFL season. The timings in terms of how long LC or the PL will be allowed to submit all their papers is guided primarily by the PL rulebook but it’s perfectly in line with those rules for either party to ask for more time. All I believe the PL is saying is that in any of their submissions to the IC they will ask for time lines to be enforced rigorously.The ultimate decision is exclusively in the hands The parties are given 14 days from publication of the written reasons to appeal and you can’t just say “We appeal” you have to provide far more details re the grounds . Bear in mind that it’s unlikely that the IC will allow any further evidence be produced the appeal therefore will be around what the panel got it wrong or at least in the eyes of the appellant . As I said yesterday the PL can and will make comment at the hearing around the quantum and process the IC adopted to arrive at the sanctions and yes they may well be arguing that the failure to submit will be an aggravating and if that succeeds that could in itself cause the appeal board to amend the points deduction. I understand why LC appealed indeed I pointed out some weeks ago factors that needed to be taken into account by the club when making the call but even if the points deduction is suspended at the point of the last game it’s within the rules of the EFL to implement points a deduction way past the last league games of the season. My belief is that they can be applied right up to the time of the league AGM which will be at some time in June

The reality in all this is that the world wide attraction of the PL still grows. World wide broadcasting income isn’t static indeed that area of income growth continues. Hard to accept I know but the bigger clubs in football, and thats the likes of Man U, Man City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and maybe Spurs are the main draw when it comes to TV audiences. The draw of many of the other PL clubs such as Wolves, Bournemouth, Brentford and probably even Newcastle is limited and when it comes to the Championship clubs and that includes Leicester sadly the only way a television deal of any value could be negotiated by the EFL was from a broadcaster that needed to add something to their main PL package. Along with the deals for the SPL in terms the additional sky subscriptions that EFL and Scottish football attracts is minimal. Sky in my opinion is a villain and a good guy when it comes to broadcasting at some point they will loose the bulk of the domestic Sky packages and that will be ITV and some in terms of the financial Armageddon most EFL clubs will suffer not only will broadcasting income drop but without the TV exposure the advertising income and probably sponsorship deals be far less lucrative. If you look at accounts down through the pyramid most clubs are trading in a manner that potentially would lead to insolvency. Should a SL eventually be formed be it a British/English or European league then that in all likelihood would send financial shockwaves down through the pyramid . Sky almost certainly wouldn’t be able to afford to attain the broadcasting rights and the likelihood is that the league would in partnership with one of the huge conglomerates such as Amazon would step up and as we know already the likes of TNT & Amazon who already have some of the smaller domestic PL deals show no appetite for games that don’t involve PL clubs. But worse would be if the super league ,if formed, were to break from the current regulatory bodies namely the FA, UEFA and FIFA. These keep many things in check, I know at times it doesn’t seems so. In just one simple area such as stability of players contracts that would enable the real big boys to laugh at the security of players contracts affords clubs . On that point we are sadly already reaching a point where EU rulings where FIFA will just as they did when the Bosman and Webster rulings be forced into amendments to their rules particularly around compensation when a player decides to leave before their contract ends and claiming Sporting Just Cause.

This is an excellent post

From memory Chelsea had to have the sell ratified under the PL rules and again from memory there were requirements around timing and fair value but any issues that may have been rumoured seems to have been dismissed or not not factual. The 74 charges , Fa ones, that Chelsea face could well result in sporting sanctions but my guess would be that’s £100+ million still being withheld from Blue Co purchase will be attractive to the FA. City do face specific charges around FFP / PSR

In terms of charges in the EPL Chelsea couldn’t be charged because they were perfectly entitled to carry out the hotel transactions.Completely different debate about the rules themselves. In terms of Man City charges they are not just significant in numbers but also they cover multiple types of alleged indiscretions. Theirs is a truly complex set of charges . These charges won’t be dropped / withdrawn the IC will either find some or all of them proven or not proven. It’s interesting you talk about the big 6 being in with cahoots and here we are with Man City facing those 115 charges and Chelsea with 74 FA charges pending.

By appealing against the points deduction LC have re opened up scrutiny of not only how the case was concluded but above all how IC arrived at the points deduction.The PL didn’t need to lodge an appeal against the points deduction because it was pretty much assured that LC would The PL will repeat their arguments re points deductions and as I said whilst to date an IC hasn’t increased a points deduction it’s not forbidden. In effect the appeal IC like many ICs before can and possibly will amend the initial award. The appeal panel has the power to do so. Most journalists are only looking at the PLs appeal which is not suggesting any further points deduction but my guess would be that they believe it should have been assessed as an aggravating factor as a minimum The appeal panel can amend the ICs award as it thinks fit and that could mean a complete rewrite of their findings bear in mind the PL could easily argue about the process being independent and any points increase came about because of LC appeal they, the PL, were only appealing against the non award of a sanction re the non submission of the accounts.

My thoughts going back some weeks ago were that there would be 6 points but I voiced my concerns around three factors 1) The size of the breach 2) The failure to submit the end of year accounts 3) Failure to co operate Having read the ICs written reasons it’s pretty clear that the £20+ million excess was viewed as significant ( which of course it was) . In terms of the next 2 charges against LC were proven with ease. Cities claim that they co operated was fanciful. It is fact that to date no club has ever had their points deduction increased following their appeal but it’s not a rule that forbids such an increase but it’s a possibility. It’s worth remembering that the charges were under the EFL rulebook where there are clear guidelines as to how many points should as a starting point be deducted and taking those guidelines into account then the entry points deduction should have been 12 points . The argument around improving numbers attracted a 1 point mitigation so based on the PLs take the points lost should be 11 but then their argument would be that the failure to assist and failure to send in accounts should add to the points deducted. The IC concluded that the points deduction guidelines should be adjusted to the % excess over the upper limit of EFL allowable of £39 m. If a clubs allowable was ( LC was £83m) in excess of £39m . In those guidelines if the excess is over £15m then the entry point should be 12 points. Why I personally have concerns that this adjustment is potentially flawed is simply this that no where in the EFL or come to that PL rules are they adjusted to %.Put another way if say a club with a 3 year turnover of £39 m exceeded the allowable sum by £39 million they would have the same starting points deduction as a club whose 3 year turnover was £130 m who exceeded by £39 million. . No where in the guidelines does it say the guidelines should be converted to % . Add to that there was a allowance granted following the IC ruling was dispute as to what length the three accounting ( periods) should cover .Due to a step taken by LC whereby they extend the accounting year 22/23 to cover a 13 month period an action that enabled them to avoid 22/23 charges The PL argued that the excess should be measured over a 37 month period( 3 accounting years ) which in turn have been increased the excess by circa £3m which in turn even using the ICs adapted sanctions chart would lead to extra points deduction I suspect that LC will repeat many if not all the arguments it put forward at the original hearing. I suspect that they will be unsuccessful. As I keep saying it’s the PLs appeal that worries me. I can see why the PL will argue that conversion to a % of excess against the staring point was flawed likewise not assessing over 3 accounting years even though they were 37 months is likewise flawed.

As I said the PL appeal worries me . The PL won’t necessarily be arguing for the case to be re run but will solely focus on sanctions applied whereas LC will almost certainly be trying to open up again the arguments already ruled on both concerning jurisdiction and authority but if, no ,when they loose yet again those arguments which I suspect even the legal team will be anticipating, then they, LC, will try and get the 6 points reduced. But that’s where it goes back to the PL appeal because as I keep saying the two minor charges have been proven and whilst they might not in themself lead to additional points deductions they will be arguing as a minimum the 1 point mitigation will be removed but just as likely they will be wanting the way in which the IC calculated the 6 points.

Some weeks ago I floated the notion that potentially taking the matter to appeal and maybe even arbitration could result in the matter being kicked even further down the road.We now come to the stage where I think it’s likely until LC appealing is rule on the points may well have to be reinstated You will have seen that the PL are pushing for this to be in effect fast tracked to ensure the matter is resolved asap

It is but as I have just posted the behaviour and actions of lack of them should be treated as aggravating factors. What that means that the entry point of 7 points should have been increased and not reduced as has happened

To be fair it’s a valid question but as I said some weeks ago proving the charges that weren’t the main FFP charge, should probably have been taken as aggravating factors which in themselves probably wouldn’t lead to a points deduction but as a minimum should have led to 7 points and not the 6 the sanction was mitigated down to.

The appeal by the PL worries me. They the PL are arguing that to not punish the two proven offences 1) Failure to Supply accounts & 2) Failing to co operate could be used as a precedent going forward I have to admit I was surprised that the IC allowed mitigation but didn’t see failure to co operate as an aggravating factor which my guess is that is the main point of their appeal. Make no mistake the PL will be arguing for over 6 points and LC appealing was inevitable but having read the written reasons I can’t see the clubs appeal being successful.