Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[Chrysalis]

So you think this is nothing to do with how embarrassing it would be for the sport if the winner of many previous league titles was found to be cheating, whilst at the same time saying they dont need to be regulated?

[CosbehFox]

Just now, Chrysalis said:

So you think this is nothing to do with how embarrassing it would be for the sport if the winner of many previous league titles was found to be cheating, whilst at the same time saying they dont need to be regulated?

What does that have to do Leicester City’s failure to keep up with FFP sustainability rules?  

[Chrysalis]

Just now, CosbehFox said:

What does that have to do Leicester City’s failure to keep up with FFP sustainability rules?  

Its all to do with fair and consistent enforcement of rules.  The whole thing loses credibility when its only selectively applied.

 

Its clear the entire thing is in the process of falling apart, the only question is how long it will take and what changes will happen.

You are right I have no legal knowledge, and as such some of what I said could be considered complete nonsense but I think I have a point on the EPL not being keen on doing something against man city as they are trying to keep up an appearance of a competition in a healthy state.

[CosbehFox]

2 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Its all to do with fair and consistent enforcement of rules.  The whole thing loses credibility when its only selectively applied.

 

Its clear the entire thing is in the process of falling apart, the only question is how long it will take and what changes will happen.

You are right I have no legal knowledge, and as such some of what I said could be considered complete nonsense but I think I have a point on the EPL not being keen on doing something against man city as they are trying to keep up an appearance of a competition in a healthy state.

Man City’s case is because of a complete different set of rules within FFP. There’s no ability to be consistent if it’s for breaking different rules. 

Edited 13 May by CosbehFox

[orangecity23]

RE: the Chelsea selling themselves their own hotel and now training ground thing - if that is going to be allowed for FFP, and they aren't going to question the values paid into the clubs (70 million for the hotel, imagine it's similar or more for the training ground) - is there anything to stop the outside company selling the assets back to the club at nominal amounts, i.e. a £1? Becuase if they don't care about that either, these nobheads could do this shit again and again every season, continually flogging themselves their own hotel endlessly for 70 million a pop.

[Les-TA-Jon]

10 minutes ago, orangecity23 said:

RE: the Chelsea selling themselves their own hotel and now training ground thing - if that is going to be allowed for FFP, and they aren't going to question the values paid into the clubs (70 million for the hotel, imagine it's similar or more for the training ground) - is there anything to stop the outside company selling the assets back to the club at nominal amounts, i.e. a £1? Becuase if they don't care about that either, these nobheads could do this shit again and again every season, continually flogging themselves their own hotel endlessly for 70 million a pop.

Clubs are free to do it, but the PL gets to decide if it allowable as an add-back, I think. 

 

If Chelsea and the PL are in dispute, it will presumably be around this. 

[ithuriel]

I remember  when they used to do individual sponsors per player, back in the day of Little and O'Niell, wonder if they could do that again to generate a bit of cash, on top of the £25 ST tax

 

[st albans fox]

34 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

Clubs are free to do it, but the PL gets to decide if it allowable as an add-back, I think. 

 

If Chelsea and the PL are in dispute, it will presumably be around this. 

Correct 

the PL will judge that the amounts paid/received are fair value.  It could be that they’ve now done a second deal (for the training ground)  in order to try and force the first one through at the very least.   Working out a fair value for the training ground will be difficult. 

 

these type deals are  not allowed n the efl 

[Vlad the Fox]

By Jove I’ve got it!!! 
 

Insert a release clause of say, £45m, into rudkins contract and then have Leuven come in and activate it. Everyone’s a winner.
 

Except maybe Leuven.

 

Sorry Leuven.

[Babylon]

On 11/05/2024 at 20:11, inckley fox said:

People often say that you can't sell people unless offers come in, so I thought it was curious that Praet said the club had previously held out for a higher price for him, after receiving an offer. It goes to show that, on at least one occasion, we were turning down bids for unwanted players.

 

Obviously I understand that there's a balance to be struck between getting a good fee and having your pants pulled down, but it might add some weight to the argument that the club could and should have been doing more to clear the decks.

It's not that curious, if it's going to take more to replace someone than you're going to get, and you have a limited budget. You are better to keep the players, which is the situation we've been in. 

[Babylon]

On 11/05/2024 at 18:43, Strokes said:

No but we balanced the books each year with a big exit, we should have in hindsight sold Tielemans or Maddison after the FA cup win. 
We definitely had a bit of bad luck with injuries at bad times, that didn’t help.

If we got an offer that was good and the players actually wanted to go. Tielemans seemed to be after a free from the start. 

[inckley fox]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

It's not that curious, if it's going to take more to replace someone than you're going to get, and you have a limited budget. You are better to keep the players, which is the situation we've been in. 

I totally agree that on many occasions it's simply cheaper to keep hold of a player who's going to be of use, rather than accepting a fee which wasn't what you hoped and being forced back into the market. That could also be the case with Ndidi, Vardy, or even Tielemans some time back. You could also extend that argument to contract extensions for the likes of Mendy and James in the past, who might have represented a lowish-cost risk on renewal instead of prompting the need for more costly recruitment. Okay, people criticised those decisions with hindsight, but these are players who had looked useful at times, so I get the logic. When the books are well-balanced, at least.

 

However when that player is Praet, who hasn't impacted on this season (nor any of the last few) to any significant extent, then you have to wonder a bit. Especially given that the prevailing point of view is that we should have been looking to cut wages across the board in ways which we failed to do. Presumably not all of that is a case of the club having done literally everything in its power to adhere to the rules, otherwise it'd be a truly hopeless situation for the future, and leave no lessons to be learnt.

 

Of course, without knowing any of the details it's impossible to draw any watertight conclusions, but it is an indication that offers come in for relatively unneeded players without us knowing, and that we don't always choose to clear the decks.

[ClaphamFox]

4 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

I totally agree that on many occasions it's simply cheaper to keep hold of a player who's going to be of use, rather than accepting a fee which wasn't what you hoped and being forced back into the market. That could also be the case with Ndidi, Vardy, or even Tielemans some time back. You could also extend that argument to contract extensions for the likes of Mendy and James in the past, who might have represented a lowish-cost risk on renewal instead of prompting the need for more costly recruitment. Okay, people criticised those decisions with hindsight, but these are players who had looked useful at times, so I get the logic. When the books are well-balanced, at least.

 

However when that player is Praet, who hasn't impacted on this season (nor any of the last few) to any significant extent, then you have to wonder a bit. Especially given that the prevailing point of view is that we should have been looking to cut wages across the board in ways which we failed to do. Presumably not all of that is a case of the club having done literally everything in its power to adhere to the rules, otherwise it'd be a truly hopeless situation for the future, and leave no lessons to be learnt.

 

Of course, without knowing any of the details it's impossible to draw any watertight conclusions, but it is an indication that offers come in for relatively unneeded players without us knowing, and that we don't always choose to clear the decks.

It isn't just about the cost of finding a replacement for unwanted players, though. I think if we sell a player for less than his amortised value, we have to record a loss - which can have obvious implications for PSR. If there were no PSR rules to worry about, a club might decide to just take a hit and sell an unwanted player at a loss. But because the current rules penalise clubs for making losses on players, getting rid of players you don't want is much more complicated. 

[Ric Flair]

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

It's not that curious, if it's going to take more to replace someone than you're going to get, and you have a limited budget. You are better to keep the players, which is the situation we've been in. 

It's a balancing act.

 

Take Tielemans for example. We supposedly paid £40m for him on a 4 year deal and he was one of our highest earners. Let's say he was on £100k a week. That's £15m per year each year.

 

Once we'd won the FA Cup and it became clear he wasn't going to sign a new deal and the financial issues will have started to be flagged internally, anything above £20m once he entered his final 2 years (plus saving £10m + in wages) is financially better. 

 

The art of finding a replacement for half what we paid for Tielemans (Kockü was a realistic target in the summer of 2021) on less wages and you're better off. 

 

The problem for us was the perfect storm of paying the majority of the squad big wages and having a chunk running their contracts down where they'd probably not get the same money elsewhere or were banking on going on a free to get the big bonus pay day. So to try and lower the wage bill was hard.

 

New additions coming in on far less than players no longer wanted here or even squad players from the off is politically hard to manage as well.

[themightyfin]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

It's a balancing act.

 

Take Tielemans for example. We supposedly paid £40m for him on a 4 year deal and he was one of our highest earners. Let's say he was on £100k a week. That's £15m per year each year.

 

Once we'd won the FA Cup and it became clear he wasn't going to sign a new deal and the financial issues will have started to be flagged internally, anything above £20m once he entered his final 2 years (plus saving £10m + in wages) is financially better. 

 

The art of finding a replacement for half what we paid for Tielemans (Kockü was a realistic target in the summer of 2021) on less wages and you're better off. 

 

The problem for us was the perfect storm of paying the majority of the squad big wages and having a chunk running their contracts down where they'd probably not get the same money elsewhere or were banking on going on a free to get the big bonus pay day. So to try and lower the wage bill was hard.

 

New additions coming in on far less than players no longer wanted here or even squad players from the off is politically hard to manage as well.

Agree on all but he was not one of tbe highest earners. Reported to be  £33,333 a week. He was signed before the huge contacts were given so makes sense. 

[Detroit Blues]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

It's a balancing act.

 

Take Tielemans for example. We supposedly paid £40m for him on a 4 year deal and he was one of our highest earners. Let's say he was on £100k a week. That's £15m per year each year.

 

Once we'd won the FA Cup and it became clear he wasn't going to sign a new deal and the financial issues will have started to be flagged internally, anything above £20m once he entered his final 2 years (plus saving £10m + in wages) is financially better. 

 

The art of finding a replacement for half what we paid for Tielemans (Kockü was a realistic target in the summer of 2021) on less wages and you're better off. 

 

The problem for us was the perfect storm of paying the majority of the squad big wages and having a chunk running their contracts down where they'd probably not get the same money elsewhere or were banking on going on a free to get the big bonus pay day. So to try and lower the wage bill was hard.

 

New additions coming in on far less than players no longer wanted here or even squad players from the off is politically hard to manage as well.

Yeah, also factor in the difference in places you might finish for prize money by keeping the high earning / more valuable players. Relegation aside, the difference between 17th and 12th would have been enough to pay for Tielemans annual wages. That said, he actually has to be a difference maker, and clearly by the end of his Leicester City stint, he wasn't. But the original vision of letting him run down his wages probably factored in a forecast of the revenue they'd get based on finishing in higher positions due to playing top quality players top dollars.

[foxgas]

4 hours ago, Babylon said:

If we got an offer that was good and the players actually wanted to go. Tielemans seemed to be after a free from the start. 

We should have transfer listed or dropped Tielemans for refusing to sign a new contract. He would then have been unable to play for Belgium in the world cup. Would have focused his mind on things. Club needs to get tougher with want away players.

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, themightyfin said:

Agree on all but he was not one of tbe highest earners. Reported to be  £33,333 a week. He was signed before the huge contacts were given so makes sense. 

Yes he wasn’t on the standard 80k but he was on double plus a bit what you’ve quoted 

[davieG]

40 minutes ago, foxgas said:

We should have transfer listed or dropped Tielemans for refusing to sign a new contract. He would then have been unable to play for Belgium in the world cup. Would have focused his mind on things. Club needs to get tougher with want away players.

We should have dropped him because didn't deserve to be playing judge on his performances and commitment on the pitch.

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

It's a balancing act.

 

Take Tielemans for example. We supposedly paid £40m for him on a 4 year deal and he was one of our highest earners. Let's say he was on £100k a week. That's £15m per year each year.

 

Once we'd won the FA Cup and it became clear he wasn't going to sign a new deal and the financial issues will have started to be flagged internally, anything above £20m once he entered his final 2 years (plus saving £10m + in wages) is financially better. 

 

The art of finding a replacement for half what we paid for Tielemans (Kockü was a realistic target in the summer of 2021) on less wages and you're better off. 

 

The problem for us was the perfect storm of paying the majority of the squad big wages and having a chunk running their contracts down where they'd probably not get the same money elsewhere or were banking on going on a free to get the big bonus pay day. So to try and lower the wage bill was hard.

 

New additions coming in on far less than players no longer wanted here or even squad players from the off is politically hard to manage as well.

Imo, one of our biggest issue was not accepting release clauses (after Kante)

we ended up paying too much in wages and ended up without fees in more cases than was necessary 

Edited 14 May by st albans fox

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, themightyfin said:

Agree on all but he was not one of tbe highest earners. Reported to be  £33,333 a week. He was signed before the huge contacts were given so makes sense. 

I find that very hard to believe. He signed the same summer that Perez joined who was on £70-80k a week minimum. Hamza Choudhury was reported to be on £60k around that time too.

 

Also it was said at the time that Tielemans was on around £80k a week tax free at Monaco so he'd not have come here on a paltry wage (for a PL footballer).

 

But then again this club is wild so perhaps there were a few bizarre wage salaries. 😂

[Dahnsouff]

1 hour ago, foxgas said:

We should have transfer listed or dropped Tielemans for refusing to sign a new contract. He would then have been unable to play for Belgium in the world cup. Would have focused his mind on things. Club needs to get tougher with want away players.

Very few teams have the luxury of leaving one of their best players out of the team on principle to be honest, but I do think player power has gone too far.

[Chelmofox]

6 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Very few teams have the luxury of leaving one of their best players out of the team on principle to be honest, but I do think player power has gone too far.

Well, we did this with Cags who we know didn't sign another deal. Benching him (to be fair there were likely several reason why) wasn't met with fan approval. Can you imagine if we were benching Cags and Youri. 

[ClaphamFox]

6 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Very few teams have the luxury of leaving one of their best players out of the team on principle to be honest, but I do think player power has gone too far.

We're not the kind of club that can afford to drop a first team player because they don't want to sign a new contract. You could make a case for saying that in his last season with us Tielemans didn't deserve to be in the team on merit, but that's a different argument.

 

1 minute ago, Chelmofox said:

Well, we did this with Cags who we know didn't sign another deal. Benching him (to be fair there were likely several reason why) wasn't met with fan approval. Can you imagine if we were benching Cags and Youri. 

Soyuncu wasn't left out because he refused to sign a new contract. There was obviously something very personal between him and Rodgers. 

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, foxgas said:

We should have transfer listed or dropped Tielemans for refusing to sign a new contract. He would then have been unable to play for Belgium in the world cup. Would have focused his mind on things. Club needs to get tougher with want away players.

And his attitude could still have been the same, and then we've got no player to use. Also, did it work with soyuncu?

Edited 14 May by Babylon