Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[MPH]

1 hour ago, Wymsey said:

Why didn't Everton get their total points penalty all at once?

 

two seperate offenses 

[Matt]

18 minutes ago, Corky said:

They had no interest in points deductions until the threat of the regulator came in. No surprise they haven't got a clue what to do.

They're literally making it up as they go along.

 

Also when the 'Greedy Six' flirted with a breakaway it was said 'You can give point deductions out, it only punishes the fans', what's different now? What's different for all the points deductions to 'smaller' clubs in the past.

 

Hey, we're guilty, I hold my hands up and it cannot be defended, i'm actually for punishments, but let's have it across the board with transparency.

 

The way this is been handled highlights that a regulator is needed now more than ever. It'll never actually happen though.

[coolhandfox]

53 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

Everton still have a third case - regards stadium interest payments. I believe this is one of the key reasons a number of clubs have halted stadium developments 

It's a total mess, too many grey areas.

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, Product of 84 said:

I'd also add that our breaches are also partly because the Prem didn't get there points deductions sorted in a timely fashion. If they had Everton would have been relegated and we'd have stayed up. You could also argue if Man City had been properly, and timely sanctioned we'd have had two further seasons in the Champions League. 

 

I really do hope we go after this. Even if it means we get a massive points deduction or fine or both. It needs someone to have a proper go at defending themselves and pointing out the wrongs. 

 

I also don't see how we can be deducted points for an accounting window in a different season to both Forest and Everton. 

It should be the central argument of our case. We're being punished by the Premier League because we've spent more than we've earned. We spent in order to qualify for the Champions League and in both seasons spent the majority of it in the Champions League places. 5th would have been enough to qualify in both the seasons Manchester City should have been banned.

 

Here's the second season we should have been in the Champions League:

 

Basic participation in the Champions League is 330% higher than Europa League before you even get to bonused for winning a match or progressing to knockouts.

 

Neither does it include the potential sponsorships and merchandising deals we would have been able to make.

 

Our argument needs to make it very, very clear that if the Premier League had dealt with a club that had been explicitly cheating - not overspending based on ill thought out rules - I mean explicit, brazen industrial cheating for 15 years, perhaps Leicester City would not have been in danger of breaking these demonstrably absurd spending rules.

 

That then puts the Premier League in a position - given how they've treated Leicester, Everton and Forest, they absolutely cannot let Manchester City off the hook. They HAVE to throw the book at them, and I mean at the very least expulsion from the Premier League and a 500 points deduction.

 

Anything less would cause outcry in the rest of the sport.

 

Which will then put us in a position to sue the Premier League and Manchester City for what they have done.

[southfox66]

Can someone explain to me if you have an owner who could cover the losses why should you be punished, if wouldn't happen it if was different type of  commercial business. If it was owner who spent more than they had available to them I could understand the rule.

[st albans fox]

37 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

. They HAVE to throw the book at them, and I mean at the very least expulsion from the Premier League and a 500 points deduction.

 

Anything less would cause outcry in the rest of the sport.

 

Which will then put us in a position to sue the Premier League and Manchester City for what they have done.

Really ?

[st albans fox]

23 minutes ago, southfox66 said:

Can someone explain to me if you have an owner who could cover the losses why should you be punished, if wouldn't happen it if was different type of  commercial business. If it was owner who spent more than they had available to them I could understand the rule.

Commercial business’ can go bust and disappear 

football clubs are part of the community and the idea is that they should be protected from owners that spend what they don’t have and go into too much debt.  Whilst an owner may be willing to cover the debt now, whose to say that will be the same in twelve months time?

[urban.spaceman]

21 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Really ?

For 15 years worth of industrial cheating, it would be ideal.

[Nolucklcfc]

I think if we go up it’ll be 8 points and we will get it down to 6. Staying down doesn’t bear thinking about tho

[LFEFox23]

Do we have any idea when we’re expecting to hear our outcome? 

[Finn Claw II]

By the time we go up (if we go up) our finances will be in much better order.  Assuming we don’t splurge £100m on random players on massives wages  we also managed to get relegated which is punishment enough, 

 

I’m expecting sub 6 points 

[Clever Fox]

20 minutes ago, LFEFox23 said:

Do we have any idea when we’re expecting to hear our outcome? 

After the Court Case I would say.

[ClaphamFox]

29 minutes ago, LFEFox23 said:

Do we have any idea when we’re expecting to hear our outcome? 

I don't think a date has even been set for the commission hearing, so probably not for a while yet...

[Tom12345]

10 hours ago, hackneyfox said:

How would you get rid of him then?

Which club could we force to sign him and how would we force him to agree to go for a lower salary?

Or would you just pay him off, in which case we're no better off.

I think you missed my point.

 

Why pay Ward 40k in the first place and have him on such long contract? Or why not have a get out clause or a relegation wage reduction clause for players like Ward? I guess Rodgers really rated him.

[Tom12345]

4 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

It should be the central argument of our case. We're being punished by the Premier League because we've spent more than we've earned. We spent in order to qualify for the Champions League and in both seasons spent the majority of it in the Champions League places. 5th would have been enough to qualify in both the seasons Manchester City should have been banned.

 

Here's the second season we should have been in the Champions League:

 

Basic participation in the Champions League is 330% higher than Europa League before you even get to bonused for winning a match or progressing to knockouts.

 

Neither does it include the potential sponsorships and merchandising deals we would have been able to make.

 

Our argument needs to make it very, very clear that if the Premier League had dealt with a club that had been explicitly cheating - not overspending based on ill thought out rules - I mean explicit, brazen industrial cheating for 15 years, perhaps Leicester City would not have been in danger of breaking these demonstrably absurd spending rules.

 

That then puts the Premier League in a position - given how they've treated Leicester, Everton and Forest, they absolutely cannot let Manchester City off the hook. They HAVE to throw the book at them, and I mean at the very least expulsion from the Premier League and a 500 points deduction.

 

Anything less would cause outcry in the rest of the sport.

 

Which will then put us in a position to sue the Premier League and Manchester City for what they have done.

Very good point. You need to send this to the club!

[coolhandfox]

Leeds account still not published......

[kingpowerout]

 

[Lutterworth Fox]

6 hours ago, Tom12345 said:

I think you missed my point.

 

Why pay Ward 40k in the first place and have him on such long contract? Or why not have a get out clause or a relegation wage reduction clause for players like Ward? I guess Rodgers really rated him.

Maybe Ward & Rodgers agreed to split the £40k every week, that's another £1M each every year.

[st albans fox]

14 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Leeds account still not published......

Apparently filed but won’t be available for us to see for approx ten days 

[Vlad the Fox]

19 hours ago, splinterdream said:

Supposedly theres about £35m spend allocated in accounts that are not stated as what it was for 

 

19 hours ago, iancognito said:

Please tell me we haven't given him and his mates £35m! That would be insane.

I’d heard that it would cost us £50m to get rid but couldn’t quite believe it, with the rumours that he accepted a reduced compensation deal to get out and assuming the £35m is correct it was quite possibly and staggeringly true after all. 
 

 

[urban fox]

Whilst I totally agree that we should have gotten CL the two years we finished 5th due to Man City not getting punished, it is not much of a defence re fair treatment of clubs by the PL as it was UEFA who failed to enforce the ban (on a legal technicality) not the EPL

[Vlad the Fox]

Regarding the women’s budget I was told at the end of last season it was rising to £10m this season from approximately £6m last. 

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, urban fox said:

Whilst I totally agree that we should have gotten CL the two years we finished 5th due to Man City not getting punished, it is not much of a defence re fair treatment of clubs by the PL as it was UEFA who failed to enforce the ban (on a legal technicality) not the EPL

If we could show actual contract offers and renewals offered in the period when Man City were banned (and we were way clear of 6th) and before CAS delivered their judgment then that could be some kind of mitigation for some of the loss.  Do you think that’s likely ?  More likely that we did budgets based on qualifying and then decided we couldn’t be bothered to redo them cos it was fun to spend the money and mix it with the big boys 

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, urban fox said:

Whilst I totally agree that we should have gotten CL the two years we finished 5th due to Man City not getting punished, it is not much of a defence re fair treatment of clubs by the PL as it was UEFA who failed to enforce the ban (on a legal technicality) not the EPL

Disagree. UEFA enforced the ban, but it was overturned by CAS on the technicality that it was "time barred" because UEFA took so long. And UEFA took so long because Manchester City refused to cooperate with ANY authority on the matter. The Premier League didn't even bother investigating Manchester City until 2018 and didn't bring those charges until February 2023, in which time (extending to the end of 2023) they won the Premier League 5 times, FA Cup twice, League Cup 4 times, Community Shield twice, a Champions League, a Super Cup and a World Club Cup.

 

Trophies that Villa, Watford, Sevilla and Fluminense could have won (specifically not mentioning the other clubs they beat to those trophies as they're just as corrupt) if they had been participating in a fair competition. Even now, sixteen years after they started this industrial cheating, they're in a manufactured 3-way title race, an FA Cup semi-final and a Champions League Quarter Final, all against other equally corrupt clubs, and the people that have lost out are those whose ambitions have been killed dead by rules that were designed specifically to protect the same corrupt clubs.

 

The Premier League destroyed the sport to placate cheats.

[CosbehFox]

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Apparently filed but won’t be available for us to see for approx ten days 

Interesting they holding off publically announcing the headline figures