Les-TA-Jon

I guess Foxestalk thinks it should be something like: Fatawu > Ayew Buononotte / El Khannous > Ndidi Ricardo > Justin ???

I’m just saying it’s not correct to say there’s no attacking threat

Apart from Vardy, Ayew and Mavididi?

This is the Match Thread in a nutshell

One thing that's often missing from the Man City conversation is that the current charges relate to the period of 2009 to 2018. Pretty sure PL was investigating from 2021 onwards and then charged in 2023 and now here we are with the trial starting in 2024 and going into 2025. They'll probably get whatever punishments/decisions in mid to late 2025 and then start appealing/taking it to higher courts etc. Could be 2026 or later that something actually happens. The question is, what happens to the period of 2018-2026? Surely they will have been cheating/breaking the rules in a similar fashion in that period too? Won't the PL be perpetually investigating them and trying to bring punishments in?

It's the next 7, not just 4 that could be crucial

They can give punishments whilst we're in the PL, yes. But they can only apply once we're back in the EFL.

I look forward to our next legal challenge

Sure. But it's more correct to say, we didn't break the rules, but we did spend more than the allowable losses. Saying we simply didn't break the rules and nothing else, doesn't show the full picture does it?

So this does confirm that the allowable loss for 3-year rolling period ending 23/24 is £83m not the 'normal' £105m? Because of the season in the EFL? I thought I'd seen some reporting/rules/quotes saying there was confusion over whether it was £83m or £105m?

I'm not sure you'll ever understand this, based on your many comments on the matter, but I'll give it one more try - can you see the distinction between: Rules as Written, LCFC did not breach the spending rules, as per the decision by the appeal board, as quoted LCFC did exceed the allowable losses by (as reported) by around £25m

In my experience they defend quite a lot

That's all fair enough and valid concerns. But what I don't get is seeing some questionable setups/tactics in 3 games and just blindly assuming that will continue for 35 more games

And whos to say he won't do similar in future games, against non-Top 6 opposition? Buonanotte, El Khanous and Edouard will all be more integrated come Palace/Everton games. I imagine our midfield will be Winks, Skipp and El Khanous/Buonanotte more times than it will be Ndidi in their place.

Yeah that's the point right - we don't know how he'll set up in future games, so it seems illogical to think that 2 games so far represent how he'll approach the next 35...

Funny idea, but I suppose there is something to stop them. Chelsea FC would have to purchase the hotels 'at fair market value' and then sell them again 'at fair market value' Doing so again and again would be harder to make any sort of 'profit' in the accounts. It would only work if Chelsea FC could purchase the hotels at a nominal or non-fair market value, but the PL would have to ratify that - and wouldn't.

We've only played 5th placed and 4th placed Spurs and Villa at home so far. We were right to prioritise a more defensive setup in those games. I really don't understand why people seem to be extrapolating the setup in those two games as if that's how he'll set up in each and every game. We haven't even played a fixture with El Khanous and Edouard integrated into the squad yet

I'm really not sure this logic is correct at all. Just because one rule was poorly drafted and didn't account for one very specific set of circumstances doesn't mean the entire set of rules is vulnerable to legal challenge.

They do though. Had Everton / Forest been relegated instead of us, they could have made the same (successful) case for appeal.

But that's not the case. The rules were found to not be enforceable, in the specific instance of a club being relegated whilst also breaching the allowable losses. That situation only applies to LCFC. The new ruling yesterday doesn't open anything up for other clubs.

It's the FA that charged us, not the PL. And this idea that because of the PSR thing the PL will now be giving us poor decisions is weird too, since the PL have no control over officials - they're employed and managed by the PGMOL?

It's mad to me that the PSR reprieve yesterday has spawned a ton of negativity and deterministic defeatism about the manager. How about we judge him over the run of 7 crucial games between now and the start of November, rather how we get on against 5th and 4th placed Spurs and Villa?

It wasn't a breach of the rules, because of the technicality, and subsequent decision by the appeal board. But we still exceeded the allowable losses all the same. Surely you can see the distinction?

We breached in the sense that the allowable loss is £105m and we went over that.