Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[dannythefox]

3 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

How on earth would they get to -10? Kieran Maguire reckons our breach will be slightly less than Forest's and they only got -4 (which they are appealing). What is it that convinces you that we'll be hit harder than both Everton and Forest when they obtained a sporting advantage while we were relegated?!

I hope you’re right. They all hate us and they’ll make an example of a team probably us 😆

[iancognito]

4 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

That would set a new precedent would it not? Or has it never needed to happen before therefore only new in occurrence rather than the rule itself.

 

Our situation of being relegated sets the precedent. He was very clear the Prem have made a point of no suspended sentences for clubs so there would have to be a discussion with the EFL about imposing PL sanctions in another league going forward.

 

5 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

Well he's the expert so I defer to his superior knowledge, but didn't the EFL recently admit that there was no way to punish us for our PL breach while we were in the EFL? This is what they said:

"Having taken legal advice, the EFL has confirmed to all parties that whilst it would want to respect any decision of a Premier League disciplinary commission (and vice versa) to deduct points in the EFL, it does not have the power under the regulations as currently drafted."

I think the key word there is currently and they would try to make us the exception because we're the only club that got relegated before any punishment could be handed out and again this is why they've changed the timescales now to allow punishment within the same season.

28 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

What ‘lack of candour’? We haven’t even begun to deal with the independent panel yet.
 

The likely sanction will be a 4-6 point penalty next season. This will make life harder for us, sure, but it won’t necessarily define our future for an extended period. 

I reckon 8. Borson was saying our breaches are worse than Forest and Everton and because we're kicking the can down the road we likely won't get mitigation even with an appeal. If 10 is the benchmark for administration cases, they'll go for as high as possible.

[iancognito]

9 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Yes - with the panel. Our process hasn’t started yet, which means we still have the opportunity to be open and honest with the panel that reviews our case. 

Maybe but we can only hope it's a fair panel.  Knowing our luck it will consist of Keith Stroud, Garth Crooks and the chairman of the Sky Blue Supporters Trust 😄

[ClaphamFox]

13 minutes ago, iancognito said:

 

Our situation of being relegated sets the precedent. He was very clear the Prem have made a point of no suspended sentences for clubs so there would have to be a discussion with the EFL about imposing PL sanctions in another league going forward.

 

I think the key word there is currently and they would try to make us the exception because we're the only club that got relegated before any punishment could be handed out and again this is why they've changed the timescales now to allow punishment within the same season.

I reckon 8. Borson was saying our breaches are worse than Forest and Everton and because we're kicking the can down the road we likely won't get mitigation even with an appeal. If 10 is the benchmark for administration cases, they'll go for as high as possible.

Did Borson explicitly say that he thinks the EFL/PL could agree new rules and impose them retroactively on us? If so, I’d love to know his reasoning. I’d imagine that we’d launch a robust legal challenge against that if they attempted it. 
 

It’s interesting that he thinks our breach is worse than those of Forest and Everton. Kieran Maguire reckons ours is slightly lower than Forest’s. I guess we won’t find out until the panel delivers its verdict.

 

Dis Borson predict eight points or is that your guess? 

Edited 16 April by ClaphamFox

[leicesterseddon]

Has anyone seen a credible estimate of our PSR loss for 22/23 (as opposed to the actual loss)?

[ClaphamFox]

Just now, leicesterseddon said:

Has anyone seen a credible estimate of our PSR loss for 22/23 (as opposed to the actual loss)?

Kieran Maguire reckons £25-30m for the period ending June 2023. But it seems Stefan Borson thinks it’s worse than that. 

[leicesterseddon]

12 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Kieran Maguire reckons £25-30m for the period ending June 2023. But it seems Stefan Borson thinks it’s worse than that. 

 

Thanks. And am I right in thinking it's 3 points for a breach, plus an extra point per £6.5m over (based on previous cases)?

 

So we're looking at -7 potentially, assuming there is no mitigation?

 

Although I suppose it's more complicated, because of the calculation being over a 3-year cycle?

Edited 16 April by leicesterseddon

[iancognito]

40 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Did Borson explicitly say that he thinks the EFL/PL could agree new rules and impose them retroactively on us? If so, I’d love to know his reasoning. I’d imagine that we’d launch a robust legal challenge against that if they attempted it. 
 

It’s interesting that he thinks our breach is worse than those of Forest and Everton. Kieran Maguire reckons ours is slightly lower than Forest’s. I guess we won’t find out until the panel delivers its verdict.

 

Dis Borson predict eight points or is that your guess? 

My guess.

 

Jim White asked him specifically if there could be a double points deduction and he said it was a strong possibility. And then he pushed him about that meaning the EFL and PL discussing a way to make that happen and he said yes again but like everyone is saying the club would surely fight against that for all the reasons previously in their favour.

 

I don't think anyone "knows" but Borson was sitting there pulling out specific lines from previous judgements and account documents to back up what he was saying. His point on Chelsea was that selling a couple of hotels works for now but it doesn't help them for next season when they'll still be hundreds of millions out of line.

[Ric Flair]

2 hours ago, iancognito said:

 

Our situation of being relegated sets the precedent. He was very clear the Prem have made a point of no suspended sentences for clubs so there would have to be a discussion with the EFL about imposing PL sanctions in another league going forward.

 

I think the key word there is currently and they would try to make us the exception because we're the only club that got relegated before any punishment could be handed out and again this is why they've changed the timescales now to allow punishment within the same season.

I reckon 8. Borson was saying our breaches are worse than Forest and Everton and because we're kicking the can down the road we likely won't get mitigation even with an appeal. If 10 is the benchmark for administration cases, they'll go for as high as possible.

I can't see how this would stand up. Any joined up punishment for the PL and EFL would have to come in to effect from an agreed date in the future. The EFL have already admitted they have no legal recourse to do so.

[iancognito]

48 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I can't see how this would stand up. Any joined up punishment for the PL and EFL would have to come in to effect from an agreed date in the future. The EFL have already admitted they have no legal recourse to do so.

They're fighting fires with all the loopholes IMO. Whether it's our relegation situation, Chelsea treating it like Monopoly and selling their hotels or just the tariffs they're trying to enforce. The lawyers are running rings around a billion dollar business. Whenever this regulator comes about it's just going to get worse.

[Chrysalis]

23 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I can't see how this would stand up. Any joined up punishment for the PL and EFL would have to come in to effect from an agreed date in the future. The EFL have already admitted they have no legal recourse to do so.

My thoughts also, its making the EPL and EFL look like bitter children.

[LcFc_Smiv]

Been speaking to someone today who was

previously employed by the club who said the financial issues are far bigger than what has been let on. He also stated there’s been a couple of redundancies already. I don’t know him well enough to take the information as gospel but he also has no reason to lie and the conversation came up genuinely enough.

[volpeazzurro]

22 hours ago, LcFc_Smiv said:

Been speaking to someone today who was

previously employed by the club who said the financial issues are far bigger than what has been let on. He also stated there’s been a couple of redundancies already. I don’t know him well enough to take the information as gospel but he also has no reason to lie and the conversation came up genuinely enough.

Sounds as if the club has been ran by a bunch of imbeciles! How can you overspend by so much knowing what the rules are. Top is also culpable. I wonder if the rest of the family business empire is run in such a shambolic way since his father died?

Edited 18 April by volpeazzurro

[ithuriel]

A points deduction, have they seen us play?

Be a bit like offering a starving man a Pot Noodle.

 

[Wymsey]

1 hour ago, ithuriel said:

A points deduction, have they seen us play?

Be a bit like offering a starving man a Pot Noodle.

 

Going off-topic, slightly, this brand's most-recent advert of a woman slurping the product loudly must be up there as one of these worst adverts ever made..

[ithuriel]

5 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Going off-topic, slightly, this brand's most-recent advert of a woman slurping the product loudly must be up there as one of these worst adverts ever made..

Really, really annoying, they've altered it now so no slurping but whoever thought that was a good idea?

[Terraloon]

I am far from sure why so many rely on this Bronson chaps opinion 

 

Ok he used to be an advisor to City many years ago and yes his training is legal but he is relying on is statutory accounts which yes point outs potential issues but he has absolutely no idea what PSR submissions look like nor has he any idea the context of conversations between clubs and the PL and that is key. The funny point is when he gets proved wrong he still lobs grenades in trying to prove how right he is . He simply can’t accept that he really isn’t in the know

 

Its abundantly clear that he is completely blinkered when it comes to matters City again he has no idea what is in the PL hands nor indeed does he have realistically have a clue as to how city officials have acted.But is his mind no case to answer so that’s the end of it

 

Just on that City matter Bluemoon is going round in ever decreasing circles. They really are over complicating what the PLs approach will be, what matters can or can’t be heard due to time barred matters, why the SCO or HRMC aren’t involved ( in the case of  taxation matters will or have been looked  but that won’t be put in the public domain by HMRC ) 

 

Based not on what I know and that’s more about process rather than case specific matters the PL have in effect accused City of failing to report and account with  matters in accordance with the rules.

There isn’t a claim to fraud within the statutory accounts it’s claimed  that money flowing into their accounts when tracked back didn’t originate from the sponsor nothing illegal in that . The PL are likewise saying both in the case of players payments and manager payments that sums paid to them should have been paid by the club not others . There isn’t it seems a claim by the PL that tax/nic / vat  is underpaid nor would it be against the law of the land for what I believe are shadow or second contracts but it’s against the rules.

There is an old saying thou doth protest too much  and that’s what seems to be going on at every club from Forest to Everton, from City to Chelsea and of course at LCFC  and sadly any sort of belief that there’s nothing to see because  the owners just wouldn’t do that is naive in the extreme and this is  is where all matters link when it comes to very wealthy individuals almost all of them dance to a different tune to us mere plebs 

 

[Daggers]

14 hours ago, ithuriel said:

Really, really annoying, they've altered it now so no slurping but whoever thought that was a good idea?

Jon ‘the big slurp’ Rudkin. 
 

Why did you even have to ask?

[Glorious Leicester Fan]

Question.

 

I’ve just read that the Chelsea have sold their 2 hotels to a company that is owned by the owners of Chelsea; thus allowing them to adhere to FFP for 2022/23. 
 

Is there anything stopping us doing the same and selling Seagrave to a company owned by Top?

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

7 minutes ago, Glorious Leicester Fan said:

Question.

 

I’ve just read that the Chelsea have sold their 2 hotels to a company that is owned by the owners of Chelsea; thus allowing them to adhere to FFP for 2022/23. 
 

Is there anything stopping us doing the same and selling Seagrave to a company owned by Top?

In the EFL, yes.

 

In the Premier League by the time we go up, probably yes, but only for non-big six clubs.

[StanSP]

 

 

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

Have some self reflection, Premier League.

 

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

(PS)

 

Probably not their best advocate.

 

 

 

[Chrysalis]

Finally some sense.  Although nothing suggesting it will replace PSR, but its a step towards same limit for all clubs.

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 19:41 by Chrysalis

[K789]

On 18/04/2024 at 00:01, LcFc_Smiv said:

Been speaking to someone today who was

previously employed by the club who said the financial issues are far bigger than what has been let on. He also stated there’s been a couple of redundancies already. I don’t know him well enough to take the information as gospel but he also has no reason to lie and the conversation came up genuinely enough.

Obviously don't know your source but it's business as usual down there om told and the women's team has been heavily backed also