Mr Popodopolous

The EFL are relentless with this stuff tbh. *They pursued Derby not only for their Period going back to 2017-18 but looked again going as far back as 2014-15 to reassess the Relevant Period ending in 2016-17 and all subsequent ones to 2021. This was in Spring 2021 onwards. *They had multiple Hearings with Derby during the Covid Lockdown season. *They challenged Audited Accounts for both Derby and Sheffield Wednesday in a PSR Context. They won too. These begun in 2019-20 though. *Talking of which they kept up their Cases v Derby and Reading irrespective of Covid-19. *They didn't drop a Soft Embargo v Reading in 2020 or FFP charges 2021 just after Covid. *They appealed a case about a Business Plan v Birmingham despite The nation having entered Lockdown and won in respect of the right to get a Business Plan binding. Covid and in the case of Derby Administration post Covid didn't really halt their pursuit of Clubs who had overspent.

Surely there is a £83m Upper Limit for the Period ending 2023-24? No? I should also add that the Business Plan would be pertaining to hitting PSR not breaking even as such. Lastly I'd also suggest that it can depend. E.g. the EFL have a Points Tariff, any overspend exceeding £15m is a 12 Point Deduction as a starting point. The PL seem less hardline with it. There is a sliding scale or was.. *£15m+ over Limits ie Limits + £15m + more=12 Points £12.5m-£15m=9 Points £10m-12.499m=8 Points £8m-£9.99m=7 Points £6m-7.999m=6 Points £4m-5.999m=5 Points £2m-3.999m=4 Points £1-1.999m=3 Points I now understand your point a little better. Yes breakeven but it also depends..Upper Limits are capped after an EFL Breach. So that £19m minus Add-backs and then the huge 2022-23 Loss is capped at £35m under EFL Rules.

There are specific criteria for what can and can't count for certain Allowables. I still stand by my overall view of £25m or so for a typical year in respect of FFP Allowables. Some individual areas maybe a bit higher, some a bit lower. Basic terms for tbis year. £35m, £35m and £13m £25m + £25m + £25m +£1.4m (Covid claim in 2021-22). £159.4m in aggregated Pre Tax Loss to this year could be the limit. Minus £92.4m already accounted for in 2021-22. The one that surprises me still is a potential to last year. Given the higher Loss Limits, the Lower starting point and the bigger Covid stuff.

Could be. It is the Women's side as such and these Accounts are published that is excludable. I stick by my £25mish for total Allowable expenses in a year. Somewhere between £2.3-3.3m in a a Year. Albeit the charge or Embargo is for figures after these excluded. The Women's side isn't t that huge albeit rising in the Grand Scheme. Accounts for last season aren't there yet.

The apparent -9 limitation is interesting as EFL Championship 3 year fail deductions can rise as high as 21. Albeit that is for the very very worst cases and Clubs voted in more fixed but not entirely fixed or binding levels. Essentially..dunno how it would cut across 2 divisions. £39m 3 Year Limit Excess of £15m+, so just under 40%..-12 prior to mitigating factors. If the case merits no mitigation, then aggravation if needed can push it up to -21. Clubs voted for this in 2018.

Just an example. Just trying to think of what Leicester's angle could be.

By way of example, the working of the Club may show methods that are non-permissible by the Rules which are clear. I dunno selling a Training Ground as I mentioned before...Profit doesn't count towards the Calculations at EFL level and that is crystal clear.

Could do, depends on the size of the Forecast Overspend. It all helps.

Ah interesting segue on all that. When Reading were under their Restrictive FFP Embargo in 2021-22 and 2022-23 they made some notable signings in that context. Rahman- £50k per week, Drinkwater- £120k per week. Season loan each. Their cap without loan fees was £8.5k per week, at most they paid 10% collectively for the pair. Kieran Maguire said Chelsea covered all the wages for at least one. Marina Granovskaia > Kia Joobrachian < Dai Yongge. Essentially he was a mutual friend or Business client Idk of the 2. Same connection got Rahman (again) season long loan and potentially Casadei half-season. Under that tough Embargo. Dai Yongge is Chinese, Abramovich is Russian. You just wonder.

Add-ons accrue as they arise, become due and not before. Base fee would hit the P&L straight away, add-ons as and when they are hit.

I reckon for Leicester it is probably around £25m per annum in FFP Allowables. Swiss Ramble said between £15-20m. Like you I applaud the transparency of Ipswich. Clubs should have to publish, but clubs vote on the Rules as of now and most wouldn't concur I expect.

The other bit about Business Plans is that the EFL can now, for their own clubs mainly, seek to.pre-empt breaches before they happen. In effect the idea is to prevent Breaches before they can occur with agreed Spending Plans etc. Up to 2 years in advance. More restrictive Powers available if clubs don't play ball. FFI exists at both levels but the PL are probably lighter touch with it.

The Business Plan is an interesting element that the media haven't discussed by drawing on past cases enough. The PL appear to have no equivalent fwiw. Birmingham In 2017-18, Birmingham failed the 3 Years ending that year. As well as Points they were under a Business Plan. They got 7 pts for the overspend, 3 more for rising losses and 1 back for cooperation. (£9.5m over the £39m or something). The Business Plan was designed to keep them compliant in 2018-19 and 2019-20. Where the EFL went wrong was to not seek to attach some automatic deduction to it and to stipulate how Compliance should be achieved in a more Binding manner. Birmingham were agitating to get their full Embargo lifted to a softish one after FFP failed and adding Pedersen for a fee when under a Soft Embargo so the EFL arguably had more leverage in Summer 2018. Anyway they were charged with breaching this too some time between Summer 2019 and January 2020 by not selling Che Adams in particular in January 2019 and achieving compliance in late May by selling and leasing back St Andrews. EFL lost their case but Appealed and won! No Sanction was handed down but crucially they won the debate of Binding Commitment vs Best Endeavours in Summer 2020. Reading Much like Birmingham they failed but ran aground massively. £18-19m over £39m limits aka 12 point deduction territory. Like Birmingham they were Embargoed and latterly allowed to add players in very strict terms (6 signings max, No Fees, No Loan Fees, individual wages not exceeding £8.5k per week etc). There was an Agreed Decision whereby Reading got an immediate -6 and had targets to adhere to until end of June 2023 and a Suspended -6 which kicks in at the first sign of fail if either Upper Loss Limits of the Business Plan. It was that or the EFL would have pushed for -12 instantly at a Hearing. This Agreed Decision remained in play until June 2023 and Reading had to cut wage by and to £x, likewise with Amortisation and raise £x in Player Sale Profits. Had to do so in particular by January 2023. Failure to do sees RPTs and Player Sale Profits post March 1st removed from Business Plan and -6 kicks in automatically. However suspended deduction kicking in doesn't water down or remove obligation to comply with FFP for Year ending 2022-23 either ie that in itself can incur Sanctions.

Yeah, it confuses me slightly, we can extrapolate when the numbers are out..clearly if Maddison in 2023-24 then there is a major breach to last year. For simplicity purposes let's assume Maddison in 2022-23 as originally assumed. I reckon Leicester Profit on Disposal this year including Loan Fees but excluding Maddison is probably £45-50m. Projected Accounts would include that and on the basis of future Receipts might either include a Promise to sell £x by end of June or actually forecasting their Accounts to include it. Say the Forecast 3 Year Breach is I dunno £20m..adding another £20m to Forecast Trsnrer Profit or simply adding it to the likely £45-50m would fix the Projection but still leave an Embargo in play pending completion. No club has yet to my knowledge put in a straight up overspend in that manner to the EFL in March so there are a lot of unknowns. Who knows perhaps Leicester have pledged to the EFL that they will sell whatever it takes by end of June..Embargo in March can hold a club to that.

The EFL IMO overreached unless it was a clever ploy by them (unlikely) on their attempts to impose a Business Plan and the different interpretations of 'T'. The commercial sceptic in me says about Settlements with Leicester and Bournemouth under the old Regulations, that given they were out of reach and the PL were less than helpful in enforcement that there was a mutually acceptable wording and fine to draw a line given it dragged for so long. However, the Sanctions were very limited then too. Had Leicester not gone up the worst they would have got was an Embargo in January 2015. It was a Strict Liability Offence or something like. Fine on a sliding scale Promoted (which the PL didn't really help to collect as they thought the Regulations were flawed and diverged from their own) and Embargo if not.

One bit that confuses me slightly is the Maddison sale. 30th June I was convinced and I guess everyone else has been too. If post 30th June maybe it saves Leicester to this year but would absolutely seal a major breach to last. Income minimum was down £25-30m based in 8th to 18th and no European Revenue. May have been significantly higher as Leicester didn't appear in Deloitte Money League Top 30 for 2023. Could be due to a lack of data but fairly accurate to date. Everton on £170m came in 30th so by process of elimination Leicester may come in below that. All will be revealed soon I suppose. My own gut feeling was Leicester with Maddison sale in 2022-23 numbers pass to last season but crunch to this. There was a 13th month to be included last year as Leicester moved to end of June, that added costs net of income probably. Maybe there was some Impairment which again counts vs FFP but can ease it a bit moving forward and make offload of players easier. I did ballpark estimate of Leicester total club (ie Football, non Football plus NI and Tax on PAYE) as being £90m or so this season. Income probably around down £100m from 2021-22 to now, maybe more.

Thank you. I agree it will if there have been breaches proven catch up eventually, I don't see how a club if proven wriggle out in the long run if PSR breached.

It's genuinely hard to say isn't it because the Fast Track process actually looks built in to the CFRU to CFRP Referral Process. CFRP are the External Body who are appointed to deal with P&S Breaches in the EFL. I'm not saying I'm definitely correct but it seems like uncharted territory to say the least. EFL Regs do state that FFP/P&S are a Reserved matter for the CFRP and that they can also decide matters as to their own jurisdiction...so anyone's guess in a sense? Possible but remote that they can also adjudicate on more than one matter at once..ie could they adjudicate on both their jurisdiction and the P&S alleged breach.

One last thought. Albeit it is remote as it would imply your hierarchy haven't understood the Rules correctly or the slight difference in the Championship. Your hierarchy have said that yes there is an overspend but a sale and leaseback or outright sale say of a Tangible Asset puts back under the limit. The issue there is that since summer 2021, Fixed Asset Sale Profits or Losses have been excluded from the FFP calculations, certainly at Championship level and always at UEFA level. It caused a lot of controversy. This last paragraph may not be popular but nobody made Leicester hierarchy if this has happened, put in a Forecast Breach for the period ending 2023-24. I've been forecasting issues in this regard since early on in the season.

'T' means the present year. As the last case vs the EFL proved, Leicester vigorously argued that and won the case that 'T' was this season and this was correct because it wasn't to be assessed until March- EFL wanted a Business Plan ahead of January to enforce cutbacks and sales or face the consequences with points. EFL argued that 'T' was 2022-23 which is plain wrong as the above and subsequent rules and definitions show! T-1 is 2022-23 and T-2 is 2021-22. However had they won that case they could've gone ahead of pushing for the alleged breach to 2022-23 to be dealt with this year and the Business Plan to get compliant by March on top or face further consequences. There were a couple of points I read with interest. As it happens I decided to get the Rules together in some sort of chronological order. Terraloon is correct in a lot of what they say but not all.. Why are Leicester under an Embargo now? Because of this or this. Either the P&S Submissions outright show a fail or show a fail thst will be corrected by end of June. Either is an Embargoable offence. In respect of the specifics of the Rules themselves. Effectively 2021-22, 2022-23 Actual Accounts and P&S/FFP returns and the club submitted Forecast for this present year. As above. Had Leicester not submitted the estimated Profit and Loss for the present season, based on Burnley last year this seems to be an Embargoable offence. 2.1.3 does not show unless the EFL have put Leicester under Embargo for the wrong offence. I think Rule 16.2 covers failure to submit Accounts to the Football League for last season. Unless the League have deliberately or incompetently Embargoed for the Wrong offence then yes it is the P&S Calculation being in excess or fine but only on the basis of sales by end of June. The P&S/FFP Form itself. Last two year actual and current Forecast. The unknown I guess is Transactions with Related Parties. On a sidenote, the press coverage of this has been poor. This is a separate Offence or alleged Breach/schedule to the PL. The PL is literally an alleged overspend to 2022-23, this is the EFL Regs and if it is a Forecast Overspend then 2.10.3 logically follows on from 2.10.1. As for the PL alleged Offence(s) that runs on their timetable and I dunno what is done if Accounts not submitted? Embargo? In respect of the Embargo, I expect the League would object if a club while under said Embargo sought to renew contracts on major wages. What kind of wages might... *Vestegaard *Ndidi *Praet *Albrighton *Iheanacho *Vardy ...be on? Whether the League would be minded to play ball would in the first instance depend on what terms Leicester seek to renew on. Probably the lower wages the better. Oh and Nigel Pearson, we thought he was great at Ashton Gate. Disgrace him and his team were sacked in October.

Hi all. I wonder if I can post this time.