ClaphamFox

Our relegation triggered a clause in our contract with FBS that led to them ceasing to be the shirt sponsor (although they still sponsor the training kit). If we get promoted, will that deal be revived? It was reportedly worth £10m per year, which may come in handy in June….

Given that such a penalty didn’t exist at the time, how were we lucky? And even if we were docked 10 or even 12 points that season, we’d still have been promoted automatically, so what difference would it have made?

Was he? The vain little sod

Yes.

We don't know anything for certain yet, but it seems likely that we've breached PSR rules for the 2020-2023 period. Unlike Everton and Forest, we were relegated at the end of the period so did not gain a sporting advantage. We also tried harder than they did to restrict our spending in 2022/23. So we'll probably argue that our efforts to comply caused us to get relegated, so punishing us again with a points deduction will be unfair. Whether this carries any weight is anybody's guess. We may well be in line to breach for the period ending June 2024 too, but there are three months before the end of this period so there is still - theoretically at least - time for us to avoid a breach through player sales, commercial deals or a combination of both. There are reports that if we end up breaching for this period, other Championship clubs may sue us.

That's two-thirds of my Wednesday morning commute sorted...

Which is presumably what fans of other clubs will be saying about us very soon...

This time next year they're going to be running 24-hour courts to deal with all the breaches, like they had to after the London riots in 2011.

Sky has just reported that we could face a charge for breaching PSR rules 'within days'. The story seems more or less exactly the same as the one reported at the beginning of the month. It's not clear whether anything has actually changed, but the story reasserts the claim that our accounts covering last season will show that we have breached over the three-year period ending 30 June 2023. It also says that "a number of Leicester's competitors at the top of the Championship are monitoring the situation closely and will consider taking action if they are convinced Leicester have gained an unfair advantage". Which seems a bit odd as the period covered by this story ended in June 2023, when we were relegated. https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13089224/leicester-facing-potential-points-deduction-for-alleged-breach-of-premier-leagues-profit-and-sustainability-rules

This is correct. Barnes wanted to stay, which was indeed a complicating factor. Maddison's move to Spurs had basically already been sorted.

I'm pretty sure Labour is supportive. Given that the aim of the bill is to protect the pyramid and prevent wealthy foreign owners from forming breakaway closed shop leagues, it would be very surprising if Labour opposed it. It will go through.

Danny Ward is refusing to leave because he doesn’t want to take a pay cut: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/68566562.amp Did anybody hear Stolarczyk interviewed on the When You’re Smiling podcast last night? He came across really well - very humble and determined. He also sounded more like he came from Prestwold than Poland…

Exactly.

I think it’s because they didn’t try to deceive the PL with dodgy accounting, whereas Everton apparently did.

The PSR rules are going to be scrapped anyway, so it's a bit of a moot point.

The government is trying to introduce legislation that would mean clubs couldn't be part of a European closed shop while still competing domestically. If they succeed in passing that legislation, it will kill the European Super League stone dead. No PL club would choose to abandon domestic competition.

They won't 'clear off' though, will they? They'll still be in the PL and dominating proceedings even if they're in the super league as well.

Do you not think we should be careful what we wish for? We may find ourselves appealing against a decision in the not-too-distant future...

It's not my argument. If you read the panel ruling on Everton's appeal, they place great emphasis on sporting advantage. It seems to be a major factor in determining punishment.

Their argument is actually a good one. if the aim is to help clubs achieve sustainability, it obviously makes more sense to wait a while and get a lot more money for a player than sell him on the cheap. Selling Johnson for less may have helped them to meet PSR rules but would have been worse for their sustainability because it would have brought in a lot less money. The rules are daft, which is why they're being scrapped.

It doesn't work like that. First, Forest aren't getting done for one year - they're getting done for the three year period up to June 30 2023. You don't get penalised for one year only. Second, you haven't factored in the level of breach, nor whether any sporting advantage was gained. We don't know what level our breach will be (if indeed there is one) and, unlike Everton and Forest, we were relegated at the end of the three-year period, so did not gain a sporting advantage. I'll be astonished if ours is more than Forest's.

How did you figure that out?

If we're charged, I've no doubt we'll be arguing that if we hadn't imposed an effective transfer embargo on ourselves in the summer of 2022, we'd likely still be in the PL now.

Forest get four points, but likely to appeal: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/18/nottingham-forest-docked-four-points-premier-league-financial-rules-breach-profitability-and-sustainability?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Scott Parker is on Zoopla checking out houses around Quorn and Woodhouse as we speak...