Terraloon

Laxative

It’s disappointing that there are still some that haven’t woken up to the sweet aroma of a Latte! The three finishes in the PL era that bought about European football were adventurers but as they say the league table doesn’t lie, well it certainly doesn’t at seasons end, no matter what the individual ability of the players who were at LC during the last 2 relegation seasons the squad, the players and yes the manager weren’t up to it . The writing was on the wall in season 22/23 after 10 games. Those 10 games yielded just 5 points any competent football club senior management team including the owner would have changed so yes the players, the manager cocked it up but any competent ownership would have acted way before Christmas 22

The parachute payments are based on a % of the equal share.

.Bear in mind those “ good placements “ generated bigger payments so maybe not parachute payments but those good placements were well rewarded

It’s why clubs get parachute payments. Club after club have been relegated but don’t fall foul of the FFP spends. Look at Southampton and even Ipswich for instance these clubs have managed to move players and reduced wage bills. In the written reasons it makes it pretty clear that the alarm bells were ringing in a season where the club had budgeted to sell a high value player ( so high it seems that no one was interested) and had built into its cash flow an 8th place finish.

It does. Yes the arrangements free up cash “ owed “or becoming due but company’s that allow you access to what in effect is future income don’t offer up the service out the goodness of their hearts they do so because they see a profit and a big one at that.

The other day I posted advising people to look away from City & Chelsea . They aren’t relevant to the situation leading up to the 6 point deduction people need to direct their anger to where it should be directed and that is the owner . I know that LC will have spent a fortune on the legal team and I suppose they did all they could in trying to muddy the waters at the IC however the hand they were dealt was a loser but if what is said around submitting the accounts for instance I do worry about the advice that has been given or maybe given but either not understood or ignored. It’s clear to me from some of the comments in the written reasons that the IC were far from happy with how the club’s arguments which in effect turned full circle and that would have done little to nothing to convince or get the IC on board. Ok six points, a number I was suggesting, is worse than no points and yes it makes a second relegation more likely but don’t get fooled . A club just relegated from the PL with millions still flowing by way of parachute payments is dealt a far better hand when it comes to fighting a further relegation and to be honest a six point’s deduction really shouldn’t be that damaging if LC was anything close to a well run club. Let that sink in for one moment. In terms of squad costs the club should be over the hill and far away when it comes to facing relegation. Falling further was something I dismissed but looking at form alone I genuinely believe that it’s now more likely than not the club will be plying its trade in EFL 1 come season 26/27. This saga, and that’s what it is, hasn’t come about because of a club claiming ambition it’s down to incompetence and that for me shows no likelihood in ending any time soon. There’s an owner who clearly ignored advice from in-house financial “ experts”. I am not surprised at when the numbers were laid bare but what do they say about when you are in a hole ? Had the club come out yesterday and taken it on the chin then maybe I personally would be able to view things a little bit softer but when the club almost snubs its nose then sorry I can’t view it ant other way than the club , no Top, got what he deserved the fans don’t deserve it and whilst I am always mindful of the the adage “ Be careful what you wish for” at this time I genuinely wonder if anything could be worse.

Ok but they werent

Thats just not right.

I have now had a chance to fully read the written reasons in depth and when you plot LC actions I genuinely can’t believe some of the things that have gone on. It’s been interesting to read some of the comments on here from those that feel that LC are the victims in this but to be honest the way the club has run its finances is beyond belief. For the club to try and shape the narrative that there was a victory because the PL argued for a larger points deduction and didn’t get it was pathetic. Just about every agreement LCs legal team made was dismissed . Save the agreement that the assessment should be other 36 months not 37 there was absolutely nothing to celebrate and even then that did little to nothing in terms of the ICs ruling. None of us have any input into decisions to be made re an appeal but if I personally was in the room I would say take your medicine and move on.

Nor me The only positive from a LC perspective that I can see is that they managed to win the argument that the it should be measured over 36 not 37 months all that really did though was reduce the amount of “ overspend “ by just under £3 million so £20.8m was below my worse case scenario of £30 m but still far too much. As for 24/25 it seems to me the club infer that that 3 year period is ok but that may simply be the club trying to control the narrative.

This is from memory so may not be 100% accurate I believe there is a cut of date should a club suffer an Insolvency Event that being some time in March. However something in the back of mind is suggesting if after the cut off date a points deduction can be carried forward but issues around completion of that insolvency event put a clubs very membership of the EFL in jeopardy. But of course we aren’t talking about an Insolvency Event. I would imagine that any points deduction for other matters can be applied up to the last match of the season. Post that last match you would fall foul of the leagues AGM .If any deduction would have put LC in a relegation place then the EFL would be under great pressure at their AGM not to place LC in the 26/27 EFL 1 Not going to fully work through the timings and or consequences around play offs or promotion because I suspect that neither are likely.

Everything I see suggests that Lascelles is still injured but even if that’s wrong and he is fit, starting him would be a major gamble with further injury breakdown a real possibility , yes I know that life itself is a gamble. Add to that that he would be so far from match fitness at best he in my mind should be on the bench. Aribo possibly will start but I am far from sure what he will bring to the party the fact that Southampton managers ( plural) haven’t seen enough in him and it’s not as if Saints squad couldn’t do with a midfielder. Like Lascelles effectively walking away from the remaining time left in their contracts suggests to me that they are playing for a LC contract in 26/7. Richards is stepping up from Chelsea’s U21. He may or may not be a revelation but can LCFC really afford to almost be acting as a development club at this stage of proceedings ? Not so sure Chelsea are even remotely happy with his progress indeed he wasn’t even in the squad when their U21 played LC under 21 . Mukasa is an interesting one. A player clearly highly thought of and for me the only loan signing I actually applaud.

Don’t know if they are showing the game but there was a Pub called the Vines not far off the City centre which from memory has or should I say had mulipe screens showing different games.

Not sure I would agree with you assessment. The likelihood is that Newcastle have paid his contract up effectively he is never going to return to Newcastle. As for not given someone a 6th month contract if he can’t play in the next few weeks , without knowing the details of that contract you really can’t make an informed decision on that .irrespective it’s not actually 6 months it’s almost certainly going to be around 13 weeks. So more like 3 months. If he signs a deal, at little to no cost with the opportunity to prove his fitness then what’s the risk financially to LC ? He isn't a 25 year year old who has just suffered an ACL it appears that this 32 year old who sadly hasn’t been able to recover from an ACL . There are 16 games left in the regular league season he isn’t going to be close to match fitness even in the less demanding Championship.

The 10 point thing may of course turn out to be right and my feeling is that many who are suggesting that number are basing it on the first Everton offence. I think we need to ignore anyone who is suggesting they are ITK in terms of what the IC will rule. WHO knows the commission might not even rule in the PL /EFL favour. Without wanting to get further into debates about jurisdiction or how other clubs ( ManCity, Chelsea) aren’t being treated the same I don’t think some really grasp just how deep the do do that LC potentially are in. People need to be mindful that the main charge is under EFL rules and it’s under that jurisdiction that the club is certainly for 25/26 and seems likely for 26/27. The point I am making here is that the EFL process is set out in far more detail which will leave little room for the IC to manoeuvre when it comes to any sanction it just is that once there is a ruling I expect some sort of action by the EFL not so much for 24/25( 50-50in my view) but potentially going forward for 25/26 (T) 26/27 (T+1) and 27/8 (T+2) So back to your question I think if the charge is proven the first question will be is the excess in circa the £30 million my worse case scenario calculations estimate if it is worry. If the two PL charges are proven then worry more if that renders any claim to mitigation a waste of time. But even worse potentially would be a claim that those two “ proven “ charges could be assessed as aggravating factors. Would these two charges normally result in a points deduction? Probably not but for me it depends how this impacts the EFL charge. So my guess entry would be 6-9 points . Without any reduction likely but it’s how LCs non submission of documents and or failure to assist may have compounded matters further.

I am sceptical that the PL would contemplate or are indeed even able to discuss a sanctions agreement at this point. The norm when these type of settlements happen, is they are agreed before any charges reach an IC.Even if the parties agree a settlement they still have to be rubber stamped by an IC The conduct of disciplinary matters once an IC has been formed falls to the panel and unless charges are withdrawn or from some unlikely directions from the panel I doubt is the case here. The first we will hear is when the written reasons are published on the PL website and if I had to guess it’s very very close to reaching that point. My take is that this matter is still very much in the hands of the IC who will have heard all the arguments at the hearing and the parties legal submissions will almost certainly have been fully detailed in their original submissions. I really doubt arguments are continuing. I would expect that when we get sight of the written reasons the IC members will all be either retired judges or serving KCs . If that’s right we aren’t talking about individuals who will struggle with interpreting a set of rules that in the overall scheme of things that will cause them any real issues.

When I saw that there was a deal in place to sign Lascelles I thought fair enough but having looked at his personal situation, including contract and injuries then sorry I am far from sure. Sadly he had a ACL injury which meant in seasons 24/25 and season 25/26 he has played a grand total of 19 minutes . Most of this season, the last of his contract, he has been injured and there are rumblings that he failed his medical . If Newcastle are allowing him to come for free then there is little risk but sorry his injury record alone puts into question his ability to hit the ground running. The two youngsters on loan will have no experience of fighting for survival and both will know that they will go back to their parent clubs . That may work in LC favour but its experience and guile that’s needed and that brings me on to Aribo yes he has experience, yes he is fit but is he going to provide a step up in terms of skill set ? The reality for me is that the transfers are probably going to cost little to nothing at a time when the squad is crying out for competent, fit experienced players but for a variety of reasons the window really doesn’t tick any boxes for me. More a worry come seasons end even if relegation is avoided this will be the sort of market the club now trades

Played more games this season for Jamaica than he has for Chelsea U21s

He can’t even make their matchday squad ! He might prove to be a decent signing hence why I said I would reserve judgement. Be honest are you excited by this signing?

I am not going to deal with every point you raise because, well, they aren’t quite how it happened. However a couple of points. 1) The case against the EFL was following a remark from Trevor Birch where he suggested that the EFL would enforce any punishment handed out by the PL.The case went to arbitration but from memory by then the EFL had been given legal advice that they couldn’t. Even then the panel said that LC didn’t engage correctly with the EFL before taken the actions they did. 2) It subsequently was ruled that the appeal board had incorrectly interpreted the jurisdiction for 22/23. So in a way it’s not well founded relying on anything that came out of the appeal hearing. 3) In relation to Everton’s 3 year period to the end of 21/2 season the accelerated process hadn’t been agreed indeed they only came into being in the 23/24 season . By 1/3/22 the PL had identified that Everton would be in breech of the £105 limit and pushed forward with their investigation but as the eventual commission said this was a far from straight forward case . The PLs case at directions hearings was that the matter should be dealt with in time for any penalty to be imposed in 22/23 but the commission ruled in Everton’s favour because they made the case to delay.Hence why the penalty for this charge was imposed in 23/24. 4) The second Everton charge was announced in January 24. This was in respect of the 3 year period ending June 23 . The hearing was under the accelerated 23/24 rule and as you state the second points deduction also took place in 23/24 . How on earth could the assessment for the 3 years ending in June 23 resulted in a sanction in the 22/23 season which ended in May 23? 5) You talk about LCs 22/23 breech being dealt with in 23/24 ( the club were an EFL club in that season ) That’s what the whole point about jurisdiction is about. ( see 2) above. 6) The notion of sporting advantage comes about simply because it’s been stated by earlier IC that spending over the allowable sums means over the three year period that a club has gained a sporting advantage (over the whole period and not just one year in isolation ) over those that didn’t exceed the upper threshold.

Played a grand total of 111 minutes this season over 7 games. He couldn’t make their squad it seems for EFL ,FA cup games or even the majority of their Championship games Of course we need to reserve judgement but this smacks of a very cheap deal.

My view has been that the two PL charges are to try and close down any claims by LC around mitigation. It’s almost certain that if they ,PL, prove these two charges I would imagine that if say the FFP charge attracts 9 point deduction ( God forbid) then I can’t see how that number would be reduced akin to how Everton and Forest who were able to argue mitigation. Having said all that if it’s ruled that the April rule is valid in respect of these two charges , what I mean is that the offences were post that rule change, ( the nightmare scenario) I don’t think in isolation those charges would lead to a sporting sanction ( points/ transfer embargo) but if I am wrong and a points deduction is thought appropriate then it’s within the PL discipline rules that a sporting sanction can be the outcome.

Yep that’s correct in terms of an FFP charge but of course there are 3 charges. Of course however the excesses of 21/2 &22/23 irrespective will be factored in and had there been a deduction in respect of the earlier two years , bearing in mind the EFL rules around double jeopardy then any sanction being faced for 23/4 would be nothing. I can’t get my mind clear re the other two charges but the rule change which enables punishments handed down following a PL charge may give grounds to argue that the offence/ s were prior to that rule change but without seeing time lines it’s impossible to even get a perspective

Sadly you may be right but sadly this is yet another example of the consequences of the negligence displayed by the owner