ClaphamFox

I'm pretty sure the IC was only looking into one charge. Although we were originally charged for 22/23 the case was never heard because an appeal board accepted our argument that the PL didn't have jurisdiction. A tribunal later said they disagreed with the appeal board's decision, but the threshold was too great for them to consider a reversal (ie, the PL couldn't punish us for that period). So I think the IC is only looking at 23/24. @Terraloon may be able to confirm.

No limit on how many loan players we can sign, but you’re only allowed to name five in a matchday squad.

“Hey Premier League! Leicester here. Listen, this PSR stuff has been dragging on a bit, hasn’t it? Shall we just drop it?” ”Yeah alright.” Why not? Worth a try….

Our only hand to play would be emotional blackmail, like some heartbroken sap trying to guilt trip an ex girlfriend into sleeping with him one more time because of all the hurt she caused when she left. The only good thing about this daft idea is that it has provided temporary respite from the equally daft idea that Joe Aribo somehow = Russell Martin.

JJ doesn’t play 10.

Until last year the PL wasn’t able to take action against a club once it had been relegated. Then last April they changed the rules so that this can now happen. They then used this rule change to charge us for the period 2021-24. Is that not a retrospective application of a rule change?

They’re trying to apply it retrospectively to us for 2021-24,

This is the April 2025 rule change: https://www.sportspro.com/news/premier-league-psr-financial-rules-handbook-leicester-city-championship-april-2025/ “With the Premier League smarting from losing the legal case to Leicester, the top flight has updated its handbook, which was published on 11th April and now states that clubs who are relegated to the Championship remain bound by PSR rules. It also states that the Premier League’s board can enforce sanctions imposed by the English Football League (EFL) on clubs who are then promoted to the top tier. The new rules state: ‘If a club is relegated from the [Premier] League, that club shall, notwithstanding relegation, remain bound by rules … as if it were still a [Premier League] club, until such time as it has complied with all of its obligations relating to its last season as a club.’ The rules add: ‘If any club is found to have been in breach of any EFL regulation … the board shall have the power to impose any penalty on that club.’

I’m a complete hypocrite because very recently I was saying that he shouldn’t come back, but having seen how much better we looked with him yesterday I think he needs to play. Our only objective right now is survival—we’re not in a position to take a moral stand on his inclusion.

The Mirror story says we’ve only approached him to take over for the rest of the season, not permanently. And even the interim gig seems very unlikely.

Probably not unless he hears how to do all that on the radio, like he did the points deduction thing.

We’re not getting rid of him this window.

It’s clearly not true.

Well he’s going to struggle to pass a medical with a hamstring injury that’s going to keep him out until March. Plus, we have him on a season long loan with an option to buy. So I’d say this ‘friend’ of his is having you on.

For anyone getting excited about the prospect of Vestergaard leaving, reports tgis morning suggest he’s just managing an injury…

No I don’t. But the previous post that you agreed with said “We deserve everything coming our way”. It didn’t say, “We deserve everything coming our way provided it’s limited to 6-10 points.” Thanks for clarifying your position, but there are plenty of others who seem to be salivating at the prospect of us being hit very hard.

I enjoyed Enzo’s time with us fan and was sorry when he left, but I’m not convinced his high risk/high reward approach would solve our problems right now. It needs a lot of coaching to play his way, and we don’t have the luxury of time for him to get it right.

That’s a very odd statement. Do you really trust the authorities to deal with us justly and reasonably? Would a 20-point deduction be ‘fully warranted’? 50? Yes our owners are fully responsible for the mess we’re in, but that doesn’t mean we should assume any deduction we get will be fair and appropriate. It seems weirdly masochistic when our own fans say things like, “we deserve everything coming our way”, as if they’re actually excited about the prospect of us being dealt with unfairly.

I ran into a neighbour in my Oxfordshire village last night. He commiserated with me on our 10-point deduction and was surprised when I told him we don’t yet know what the deduction will be. It turns out he’d been listening to our game yesterday on his car radio on TalkSport and they were talking about the 10-point penalty as if it had already been decided and was common knowledge. Now I know the media spouts a lot of nonsense on this topic, but it’s odd how they seem so certain and so specific about our deduction (the BBC were saying exactly the same last week). There are going to be a lot of very disappointed fans of other clubs if it turns out to be less.

The Mirror story suggests we’ve only asked Maresca to take charge until the end of the season, which would enable him to take whatever job he wants in the summer. However, I agree this seems very unlikely. I just don’t see what’s in it for him.

Martin is still 5/1 with most bookmakers. If I were as certain it is him as some people on here seem to be, I would be filling my boots. I don’t think it’s going to be him. It’s very clear that we desperately need somebody to come in and instil defensive structure, organisation and resilience into our fragile group of players. A brief glance at Martin’s track record shows that he is emphatically not the man for that job. There is simply no way that anybody—not even Top or Rudkin—could convince themselves that Martin is the answer to our problems.

Martin is a free agent and we are without a manager. If we’ve recruited him and we’re acquiring loan players at his behest, why hasn’t it been announced yet? Ans why has no journalist got the story?

Have there been any reports of Winks and Vestergaard not getting on? Because if not that’s a pretty speculative theory. And it would be a very odd move to drop a first choice central defender from the matchday squad to allow room on the bench for midfielder who has been frozen out for months.

Why would that be the case given they play in different positions?