lcfc_forever

They’re inconsistent - more wrong than right but did call Vesty turning down a move to Fulham first.

Of course not, but the poster said there wasn’t an example of his doing something like that so provided it. And he was poor like I said for the first half of the season, not helped by Faes. But it’s to his credit he’s improved significantly and that should be recognised.

So he did do it then. Look, he was crap for much of the season but let’s give credit when it’s fair.

You saw Vardy’s goal last week right?

After the poor first half of the season, been one of most consistently good players in the second half of the season. Read he had another good game today. Pleased for him, especially after all the flak he got.

I believe!

No, not for 23/24 according to Maguire. They can only charge us for 24/25 - if they think we're going to break FFP rules, they can put a business plan on us earlier like they threatened to do in 2024.

Kieran Maguire on his 'Price of Football' podcast re-confirmed that it's his understanding a points punishment has to apply this season. I suspect that the club's understanding too which is why they are now being cooperative. However, they could add a financial punishment that would apply next season. He said EFL could come after us for 2024/25, not 23/24. So the next few weeks are going to be huge to make sure we don't break PSR again for 24/25 - I think the deadline is 30 June? If the EFL suspect that we're going to break PSR, they could put us on a business plan before charging the club and hearing the case around December.

I think he’s on this forum! But not sure about his username. I remember he called the Tete signing.

Let’s keep hoping this is right re. Russell Martin getting the job

Was that Stefan Borson? Maguire's podcast is released tomorrow, will check that out to see if he's still saying punishment for 23/24 has to apply this season.

That's what I'm hoping. Parker and Gerrard were heavily backed to get the job when Enzo got it.

So fed up, this stinks. Bored with that style of football.

I wonder if this is why the club is now being so much more cooperative? They know this, and will then be focused on getting our house in order for 24/25? Maybe this is an overly optimistic way of thinking! I'm sure Maguire will have spoken to people before saying this, he's got a lot of sources close to this.

Thanks for flagging this - for anyone interested, he's on from around 9.17am and as you say, there's no ambiguity on this - he thinks the punishment has to come this season. So the PL can't impose a points deduction for next season. But he does flag that the EFL could hit us as well next season but we won't know till December as it depends on our 24/25 results. I can imagine our summer transfer window we'll be having to recoup a lot more than purchasing to make sure we don't breach to reduce the possibility of EFL hitting us.

Agree Ric - I don't get it either. Seems to be that as the charges were announced after the rule was tightened up, it's OK but how does that stand up legally? But looks like the club have accepted that the PL does have the power to do this. It's interesting how the club have become a lot more conciliatory and talked about being cooperative. You'd think either they know we're in big trouble and so doing all they can to mitigate, or they know it won't be a big punishment so willing to go along with it. Based on what I've read, it seems we may not have gone over the limit hugely but the club's behaviour may put us in more trouble. Our case I guess will be: It wasn't clear whether we were a PL or EFL club, so the club in our rights not to engage fully until that was sorted so we didn't prejudice our own case. Now this has been clarified, the club is being fully cooperative. The PL have said that punishment should be in-season so unfair for the club to hit next season. While they may argue the delay came from submitting the accounts, the arbitration committee needed to rule first anyway to clarify who has jurisdiction and it was a PL decision to take Leicester to that court after the appeals committee had already ruled on 22/23. The rule change came after the accounts were submitted, so the club should have some mitigation here.

If RvN goes, it might not be Martin replacing him.

Phew!

The Athletic suggested punishment may be harsher, not because of how far over the limit we are, but because of 'aggravation' rather than accepting the punishment. They also say the PFL will argue the delay in settling the matter this season was caused by the club not submitting their accounts in time. Looking very difficult for the club

Yeah, that's what I think but the club's statement accepts that the PL's jurisdiction has been established for the period ending FY24 so doesn't look like we can get off this on a technicality, and it's about mitigation and context now. I very much doubt they can retrospectively apply a rule so I suspect the Tribunal has decided, look you can get away with saying you were not a PL not EFL side for one year, but it's not plausible for two years running. Punishments should be applied in season so we could challenge there saying the process has taken too long? And how the PL can apply a punishment in the EFL will be a subject of contention. Perhaps the only good thing is our losses were less for 23/24 than 22/23?

If they could retrospectively apply it, they would have done it for 22-23 as well don't you think?

Legally, you can't retrospectively apply the rule. They've clarified this for future cases but doesn't apply to historical ones.

So seems like the FPL taking us to tribunal failed for 22/23 - shows we were in the right. But looks like the tribunal says there may be doubt we can use the same 'loophole' again for 23-24. Hopefully we get some more info on this. Even if we don't get punished, the uncertainty this creates is hugely damaging. We missed out on a number of player the previous summer because of this, so the risk is it happens again.

Fair on Akgun, I should have made clearer which ones were superb but Akgun clearly had potential, while Cannon was an effective signing in that he did a job for us and we got our money back from a PSR view. Tanner said it was Cooper who pushed for Edouard, and they made a point of Cooper having coached Skipp before - he did play him regularly after signing him but lost patience with him.

Adding the club's statement here so it's in one thread. https://www.lcfc.com/pages/en/media-article/lcfc-statement-20-may-2025 LCFC Statement: 20 May, 2025 Leicester City FC notes the Tribunal decision which has been published today. The Club is pleased that it successfully defended the Premier League’s challenge to the Appeal Board decision in relation to the PSR assessment period ending FY23, which was the main focus of these proceedings. The Premier League’s own rules provide a deliberately high threshold for any challenge to the decision of an Appeal Board. In this case, the Appeal Board’s decision was only capable of being overturned if it could be shown to have resulted from a “perverse interpretation of the law” or was a decision “which could not reasonably have been reached”. The Appeal Board decision was reached by a highly experienced panel (including two former Court of Appeal judges) and, although the tribunal may have disagreed with the decision, it dismissed the Premier League’s challenge, finding (consistent with the arguments made by the Club all along) that the Appeal Board decision “could not sensibly be seen as resulting from a perverse interpretation of the law”. The tribunal also concluded that the Premier League was successful in establishing jurisdiction on one of the two grounds argued by the Premier League with respect to the assessment period ending FY24, and the Premier League has now referred this to an independent Commission. Consistent with its previous commitments, the Club intends to engage cooperatively in this matter now that the Premier League’s jurisdiction has been established for the period ending FY24. However, we will not be able to comment further on these proceedings until they are concluded, due to their confidential nature.