HankMarvin

How did ayew stay on so long, wank subs managers fault

Doesn’t change the fact that we still have a tight financial restriction in place to meet a reduced PSR value. Do you really think after buying players cooper wanted he will be sacked so quickly? Not to mention the 3 year contract for him and the additional costs of all the staff that were appointed. Then you factor in Potter and all his staff, it’s just not going to happen so early.

“That is because they were used to being told exactly what to do in almost every aspect of the game by his predecessor Enzo Maresca. Cooper prefers players to think for themselves and make their own decisions, which some Foxes have found difficult. His habit of asking them for input on tactics — and even about potential signings — has also left a few of them nonplussed” Almost like that’s why he wants senior pros with experience, seems like he is out of his depth

Been posted

I think the 13 month extended financial year changes this. Net Spend Calculation Net spend is usually calculated as the difference between a club's expenditure on player purchases and the income received from player sales within a specific period, typically a season or financial year. If a club extends its financial year to 13 months, the transactions that fall within this extended period would be included in that year's net spend. This could mean that a club's net spend for that season might encompass transactions from an additional month compared to a standard 12-month period. Impact on the Season's Net Spend Seasonal Net Spend For practical purposes in football, net spend is often calculated based on the football season, which usually runs from July to June, corresponding with the traditional transfer windows. If a club extends its accounting period to 13 months, it may choose to report its net spend to match the new extended period. If the net spend calculation is adjusted to reflect the 13-month period, it might include transfers from July of the following season, potentially changing the net spend for that season. For example, a transfer that would have been counted in the next season under a 12-month period might now be included in the current season's net spend. When Does the New Net Spend Period Start? After the 13th Month: If the club adheres to the 13-month period, the new net spend period could logically start at the end of the 13th month. This means that for the next accounting period, the net spend would begin from the end of the extended period (e.g., if the period ends in July, the new period would start in August).

Net spend isn’t £50m because as we know KDH was added to last years accounts.

The skin tag of the first team squad

“OK, so why are they getting away with it? Good timing and bad drafting. Under the league’s PSR regime, clubs are obliged to provide their calculations of their financial position for the relevant season by the end of March, which means they are estimates as the rules allow clubs to choose a financial year-end between May 31 and July 31. Leicester, who were 17th in the table at the time, sent their PSR estimate to the league on March 28, 2023, with some “future financial information” following three days later. On April 24, the club sent a modified version of their estimate but they also did something far more consequential at Companies House, the UK’s registrar of companies, where they sent a notification to say they were moving their usual year-end from May 31 to June 30, thereby adding a month to the 2022-2023 financial year. Why? Well, some might say they did it to bring themselves in line with many other clubs. Some might suggest they did it to give themselves another month to sell players, like James Maddison, to bring themselves under the threshold. Some might speculate it is because they were nine moves ahead of the Premier League in a game of speed chess. But we are getting ahead of ourselves. The season ended on May 28, with Leicester, Leeds United and Southampton relegated. As per the rules, those three were asked to transfer their shares in the league to a promoted team a few days later, with Leicester sending their golden ticket to Luton Town “on or around” June 13, more than two weeks before their new financial year-end. We then fast forward to late February of this year, when Premier League clubs were meant to provide their audited accounts for the 2022-23 season for a final PSR assessment. Leicester wrote back, via their lawyers, asking why the Premier League wanted their accounts, as they were no longer members, and on March 1, as required under EFL rules, they sent their accounts to the EFL. Over the next week, letters went back and forth between the club and the Premier League, with both claiming to be confused as to what the problem was. On March 15, Leicester sent a letter-before-action to both leagues, threatening legal action if either tried to charge them with a PSR offence for the 2022-23 season. Two weeks later, on March 31, the Premier League picked up the gauntlet and charged Leicester, who immediately challenged its jurisdiction. That brings us up to speed in terms of the timeline, which is clearly laid out in the appeal panel’s 22-page ruling. So let’s get into the rules. The ruling starts by defining what a Club — yes, Club — is in terms of the Premier League rulebook, as Clubs are subject to the league’s rules for as long as they are members of the League. Again, the upper case is important, as we are not talking about any “association football club” or any league. This case is about Premier League Clubs and the League’s rules. The panel then goes through the relevant sections of the rulebook, highlighting the sections on how relegated clubs must transfer their share in the league to promoted ones and the fact that clubs are allowed to choose one of May 31, June 30 or July 31 as their financial year-end. We then get to a section on the PSR regime, which sets out how it works, before moving on to the Premier League’s “complaint” against Leicester and the first commission’s verdict on the jurisdiction issue. This section is a bit complicated but can be boiled down to the appeal panel saying the commission decided to give the league the benefit of the doubt in terms of what the rules actually say about when clubs are members of the league or not, and base its decision on “intention” of the PSR regime. From a legal point of view, the commission was effectively saying it is impossible — and not that important — to know at which point in the PSR cycle that Leicester went over the £105million threshold. The key point is that they clearly did and their overspending took place while they were a Premier League club. Leicester, who were represented by every governing body’s worst nightmare, Nick De Marco KC — football clubs’ go-to lawyer in disputes of this nature — said this was nonsense. “It is not only possible, it is obvious and it is necessary to determine the point of breach,” De Marco told the appeals panel. “It is how the rules work. The precise date of breach is clearly identifiable under the rules and it is crucial. “It is the accounting position at midnight on June 30, 2023, if that is the account-ending period. It is that date and time only that is determinative of breach or not.” Remember, Leicester officially stopped being a Premier League Club “on or around” June 13, when the share transfer to Luton was completed. And their financial year-end was June 30, 17 days after they joined the EFL. Seventeen days, the panel noted, in which Leicester could have sold another player or added another sponsor to bring them under the threshold. Mic drop. The league’s legal team tried to argue that everyone in football knows what the rules are for, who they should apply to and when they should come into force. It effectively made a “common sense” argument. The appeal panel, however, took the view that the rulebook is a contract between clubs and the league and the wording of contracts matters. “The Rules are, in relevant parts, far from well drafted,” is the panel’s withering assessment of the league’s contractual work. So, having tied up all the legal loose ends, the ruling concludes by saying “it follows” that the £105million loss threshold did not apply to Leicester when their PSR calculation “could be carried out and that LCFC was not in breach, and should not be treated to be in breach, of any rules”. It added that it “appreciates that this conclusion has depended on the club’s adventitious decision” to move their year-end but it results “from the discrepancy between the requirement of Rule A.1.8 (the one about being able to choose a year-end) and the chronology in the PSRs… (which) seem to have have been drafted without taking Rule A.1.8 into account”.”

I think the club will be doing everything they can to avoid giving the PL a chance of seeking harsher retribution in the future for breaches.

Fofana money is cashed at time of sale with Bank loan

who needs a new striker when this guy guarantees 6-10 points

Used to have players in his pocket, now he just try’s to squeeze into their arseholes

Dead weight just get rid of the players, could’ve taken multiple offers over last 2 years. Nah not good enough, in the meantime pay 2 years salary

Should’ve sold before teams realise he is a calamity

Loan till contract runs out then leaves on free

Simpson has the support Danny Simpson had just left ex-Foxes team-mate Riyad Mahrez when he accepted the boxing offer - but has been wished well by the likes of Jamie Vardy. He revealed: "I'm in the WhatsApp group, still with all the Leicester boys, called reunion, because it's nearly ten years since we won the league. "Everyone's just been saying good luck like Vards, Andy King - Wes Morgan was gonna try and come but he can't make it. "Ben Chilwell, all the lads have got games and stuff, so they they can't make it. "But everyone just said, listen, they said they wouldn't do it so good luck and and enjoy it.

You would hope so being that it’s the 3rd game, and some of the players haven’t experienced PL football before.

Seen it before, passive and give the other team the initiative early on. Villa didn’t look half as good when we put them on the back foot. Need to have a go at teams at home.

Who says it’s for nothing?

16:37 Ipswich move for Edouard as Broja pursuit stalls Mail Sport's SIMON JONES... Ipswich have made a fresh enquiry for Crystal Palace forward Odsonne Edouard as they struggle to reach agreement on Armando Broja. Last minute shopping on the back of another club bidding again

Not really the clubs fault for players rejecting them

Rejected them

Would’ve preferred him (unproven) rather than a striker rumoured to be on 60k + a week that is surplus to requirements

Chatgpmoore