Les-TA-Jon

Hang on, didn’t the PL want to charge us for 22/23? And that’s the loophole one. So had loophole not existed we would have also gotten a deduction? If so, hard to say that Everton stayed up at our expense. unless I’m mixing up my accounting periods , charges and rulings

I can see 2 reasons why the PL didn't charge us back in Jan. They were awaiting the result of the recently concluded appeal - because one half of that appeal was to confirm whether or not the PL had jurisdiction over LCFC. They wouldn't want to embarrass themselves again We submitted accounts late Probably a bit of both?

It's not a great look for the club is it. They're either sure he's gone, but being secretive about it or they don't know what their plan is for the manager/preseason/summer window.

Estimated book value of £4m or £5m this summer. Could be difficult to find a buyer, with 1 year left on his deal. Then factor in we have no other strikers (other than a 16 year old Jake Evans) and I think he'll be staying.

The average fan near where I sit in H1 meets every sideways or backwards pass with a groan or an expletive. People seem to think that anything that isn't a forward move is negative. The game isn't that simple. I mean most crosses that result in a goal go backwards...

@urban.spaceman just for clarity on my position Current status quo is clearly in favour of the 'big clubs' - it's a cartel Current PSR rules are not fit for purpose, use an outdated allowance figure and ultimately don't at all achieve what they are ostensibly about - i.e protecting clubs from irresponsible owners Current PSR rules, because they're based on revenue and loss, massively favour the current big clubs and hugely restrict the ability of small to medium sized clubs from ever progressing Man City's case has dragged on for far too long and directly affecting our chances (2 seasons at least when we would have done better if they had been appropriately punished) We have consistently voted in support of the current PSR rules Other clubs such as Fulham, Palace, Brentford, Brighton, Bournemouth, Villa etc have all been able to avoid breaches whilst being reasonably competitive The above grievances are valid, but I don't see them as directly applicable or fully relevant to our specific PSR cases over the last 2-3 seasons LCFC have had 3 seasons at least to cut our cloth accordingly but have had a very scattergun and unfocused strategy in terms of how to address our current situation

Well they had 1 interpretation of the rules and we had another. We successfully argued the loophole in our favour. The PL 'breaking their own rules' is one possible way of framing that. Another is that they simply thought their rules worked in one way, but we proved (on a technicality) that they didn't. Well, they didn't get us the first time and they've quite rightly closed the loophole. They're pursuing us again, because we've breached PSR again. Well, we know that PSR isn't based on total losses, it's based on allowable losses including add-backs. So quoting [insert club name]'s total losses is irrelevant until we know the total PSR calculation. Totally agree that all clubs should be made to publish PSR calculations publicly Again, we know that debt isn't part of PSR...

I'm just fed up of the Man City whataboutism when they're clearly different kinds of cases. I'm not saying PL failing's on Man City haven't affected us. I'm just saying that PSR wise, I can't see what the PL and EFL have done that particularly out of the ordinary or different for us compared to other clubs? I do think last season, the leagues acted improperly and conspiratorially in terms of trying to police us when we were going back and forth between the divisions - but I don't know what hard/public evidence there is of what they specifically did.

The Man City thing is irrelevant, because that's not PSR per se and is such a large and unique case. The points deduction looming over us took longer because of our legal challenge. Not sure what evidence there is that the PL deliberately delayed processes to harm our chances?

And so it shouldn't. There's room for the club to want to appease and please fans, whilst also ensuring that high level strategic decisions are not based on the whims of the fanbase. The tactical/managerial wants of 90% of the fanbase is "GET IT FORWARD"

In pursuit of PSR rules, I'm not sure what evidence there is that we've been treated differently than anyone else? All clubs have been under the same rules the whole time. Everton and Forest got points deductions for breaching. Any clubs that are perceived to have been spending like crazy (Man City, Chelsea, Man Utd etc) have found a way of complying within the rules (selling hotels to themselves, selling women's teams to themselves etc). It's not 'right' but it isn't against the rules as written. And the other big spenders don't fall foul of the rules, because they have much higher revenues. We would have been charged for breaches by now too, but found and (rightly) exploited a loophole. The PL and EFL have (rightly) closed that loophole. We're still likely to have breached in other periods and they're now pursuing us for those. I don't get what the controversy is there?

Your pictures explain it. PL didn't change anyone with PSR breaches in Jan 2025, including Leicester But they did say, regarding Leicester: "The matter remained "the subject of confidential arbitration proceedings" So they wanted to charge us, but couldn't or didn't want to until those proceedings concluded - which was they did, resulting in the announcement on Tues. Part of that proceeding was determining whether (A) PL had jurisdiction over Leicester for PSR ending 23/24 and (B) the appeal of Leicester's appeal (loophole argument) PL was unsuccessful with B but successful with A - they probably didn't want to charge us with PSR breach in Jan 2025, until they knew the outcome of B - to avoid further embarrassment.

Also note that the version of this regime that 'wasted' money on / overpaid for players like Coady, Vestergaard, Ayew, Reid, Eduoard, Skipp, etc is the one that's ambition was limited by PSR situation. Just imagine what kind of state we'd be in if Top and Rudkin had been allowed to do what they like...

Why? He's good enough for 1 more year in the PL. He deserves it and doesn't owe LCFC anything. I'd rather seen him play at the highest level than disappear off to Scotland, Saudi or MLS. Rooting for him to get to 151 PL goals.

Last season Southampton: Only failed to score in 5/46 games - league high 22 game unbeaten run Goals for: Ipswich: 90, Leicester: 89, Southampton: 85, Leeds: 81 4-0 vs Blackburn 5-0 vs Swansea 4-0 vs Sheffield W

I thought the PL and EFL had closed the loophole and also given each other the power to provide punishments on each other's behalf? I.e the PL is charging us for breaking EFL PSR, because we're currently under PL jurisdiction and then (probably next season) the EFL can impose any punishment on the PL's behalf.

It’s factually accurate. But it’s a weird twist of things is all.

Bad transfer. But reported fee of €3m over 4.5 years is ‘only’ £550,000~ per year on the accounts

Just seen this Forest stat Ignores the fact that it’s only possible due to the points deduction they had. And when we won the League we went from 41 points to 81.

Ah OK. I wonder how you've got to that figure or what info informs it. And I think we're using £83m limit for period ending 23/24 right, since that final season was in the EFL? '£39m allowable loss + £22m for each PL season in the period'

What is a health deduction? My understanding is that add-backs are typically: infrastructure, youth development, women's football, community investment, depreciation of assets

Whatever mate, I think you've proven you're totally unmoving on this issue. Personally I had a great day on Sunday recognising and celebrating our greatest ever player.

It's also just such a strategic mess isn't it? Fight the PSR under technicalities and loopholes, whilst overpaying for average players. Appoint a cheap, pragmatic manager whilst also allowing player power to force him out, with no credible plan to replace him with a better manager. Bullishly fight off points deductions, after the threat of them have already affected the window, kicking the can down the road, rather than taking it during the season we were likely to go down anyway. Sign Coulibaly for £3m, don't play him - when he was available on a free this summer.

What the hell can we use otherwise? As I said, our loss is £119m more than the allowance. I'm not saying we've breached by that much, because we don't know what add-backs we've got - but it's a starting point.

Sure. I''m just saying, it's the unknown add-backs that's the point of uncertainty. £83m allowable losses vs £202m losses doesn't make for good reading. Given we've not done any Chelsea style shenanigans, I can't see where we're getting £100m+ of add-backs from.