Les-TA-Jon

£83m allowable losses We lost £202m So we breached by £119m less whatever the add-backs are. Unless we have huge add-backs, it's the biggest breach by anyone, by far.

This suggests that the club forced Vardy to finish 1 game earlier, rather than it be his decision. I know you'll keep banging the drum on this point, but it seems obvious to me that it was Vardy's decision to stop with the Ipswich game and for many, legitimate reasons.

Hard to tell. PL PSR allowable loss is £105m for each 3 year period EFL PSR allowable loss is £39m for each 3 year period, increased by £22m for each PL season in that period So our allowable loss for period ending 23/24 is £83m Our losses for that period: 23/24 £19.4m 22/23 £89.7m 21/22 £92.5m Based on our published accounts we lost £202m for the period. So we breach that period by £119m minus the add-backs. Unless those add-backs are pretty sizeable, we'll have the biggest breach of any club yet. Everton breached by £16.6m and were given 10 points deduction, reduced to 6 on appeal Forest breached by £34.5m and were given 4 points deduction

There's total losses a club make vs PSR calculations - which is based on total losses + 'add backs' (a series of costs that are allowed to 'not count') So, for example, a club could have a £200m loss over a 3 year period, but have £100m of 'add backs' and not breach the £105m allowable losses threshold

We spent £3m on Coulibaly and didn't use him. And he was out of contract in the summer...

The worst thing is that of all the clubs to breach in recent years or come close to it - Forest, Everton, Villa - they have something to show for it. Progression up the table, PL survival, European football. We've technically breached 2 or 3 times and gotten relegated twice. Broken the loss making rules whilst also been less successful on the pitch - King Power masterclass.

As I said, back in Jan 2025 the PL said that no clubs had breached. But our 'non-breach' at the time was clearly based on the fact that we hadn't submitted our accounts (so how could the PL know whether we had breached or not) and that there was outstanding legal challenges/appeals/tribunal between us and PL. Now that that's been resolved, they can now charge us and the PL alleges that we did indeed breach EFL PSR for the period ending 23/24.

We rightly exploited a loophole. The PL and EFL have rightly closed the loophole. What's the problem? The big question now is, now that the loophole is closed, can the PL/EFL retrospectively charged us for breaching, during a period in which the loophole existed?

No We likely (or did) breached in 22/23 (Rodgers relegation season), but relegation happened and we appealed and used the loophole to avoid PL charging us PL appealed our appeal - which today announced to be found in our favour - i.e upholding the loophole argument EFL tried to charge us for 22/23 during Championship season but we successfully argued we weren't under their jurisdiction We seemingly came close to breaching 23/24 (promotion season) but no one knew how close, and then in Jan 2025 PL announced that no clubs had breached. But we weren't charged at the time because it looks like we didn't submit our accounts on time and there was the outstanding appeal tribunal between us and PL PL are now saying we did breach during 23/24 (promotion season) and are charging us for breaching EFL PSR rules (PL rules were revised earlier this season to close jurisdiction loophole and to allow both leagues to charge clubs in either division for breaches in any season)

I thought we literally are being charged for failing EFL PSR for 23/24? First bullet point here:

Where?

Source?

The question now is, will our next legal challenge/appeal be based on challenging the notion that the EFL and PL can enact these new rules retrospectively for a period covering when the rules were different? Or will we just accept it?

LCFC successfully defended the PL's challenge to the appeal board (when we successfully argued we were no longer a PL club after relegation in 2023 and wriggled out of a PSR breach) But since that result, the PL immediately charged LCFC with breaches - Failing EFL PSR for 23/24; failure to provide PL accounts by 31 Dec 2024; failure to assist PL with inquiries

So back in January the PL said all clubs had passed PSR and yet now they're charging us for failing 23/24 anyhow?

No, the Leicester statement confirms that: LCFC successfully defended the PL's challenge to the appeal board (when we successfully argued we were no longer a PL club after relegation in 2023 and wriggled out of a PSR breach) But since that result, the PL immediately charged LCFC with breaches - Failing EFL PSR for 23/24; failure to provide PL accounts by 31 Dec 2024; failure to assist PL with inquiries

Pretty sure I read that in some of the recent revisions to PL and EFL rules they closed loopholes and now both leagues can impose punishments on club regardless of which league they're currently in. But I could be wrong

I think this is overly optimistic. I think it's hard for any PL next season to justify starting him. And his loss of pace/press makes him less influential as an impact sub too. He's always been streaky and he'll get far fewer mins next season. Don't get me wrong I think he should be playing in the PL next season. We've been truly awful, failed to score in 16 matches, have 2nd lowest xG and yet, at the age of 38 Vardy has 10 goals and 4 assists. He has 145 PL goals. Give him chances in the box and he's still pretty lethal. Available on a free. 1 year deal is worth a punt surely for a mid-table side or one of the promoted sides. (Heck, even Man Utd and Arsenal could do with a striker). But I just think 5-10 goals max is more realistic

Yeah definitely this on Sunday. Hard to tell if it was poor decision making on his part or coached and he's still not quite comfortable with it.

I'm not really bothered about him either way, but he's decent enough when we've got bigger fish to fry and other positions that are a bigger priority throughout the squad. Probably not as high a ceiling shot stopping wise as Mads and obviously worse with his feet. Presuming Hermansen will be gone, Stolarczyk steps up, we sign a back up keeper and then have some other youth product as a 3rd choice. I'd rather that than spend funds on a new first choice keeper.

Cooper was awful RVN is awful But the RVN appointment proves that unless the replacement is a sure bet to be an improvement, there's no point in replacing the manager for the sake of it. Do I think we as a club could identify, attract and appoint a manager better than RVN? Yes Do I have confidence in the current setup being able to do that? Not really. The worst outcome would be giving RVN the preseason and window and then binning him off 10-15 games into the season if we don't start well. That will just continue this cycle of managers having their hands tied. So the club needs a clear strategy and to follow that with conviction - whether that's sacking RVN and bringing someone else in or keeping the faith with him.

TBH the way I've seen KS speak in interviews and podcast, about success, leadership, standards and Nigel Pearson, I could see him managing us one day.

Absolutely intentional. They didn't mention RVN, Top, Rudkin or Whelan over the PA. They showed RVN on the big screen briefly, followed by boos, then quickly cut away. I think Top was barely or never on the big screen?