Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[trooky]

16 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

There's no precedent or grounds for that. 

 

Exactly, our losses for 21/22 and 22/23 are very similar to Everton who received -8 points deduction and no embargo.

 

It could be argued in 22/23 we tried to address our PSR issues by making no signings and payed the ultimate price in relegation.

 

If the EPL want clubs to do the right thing and to encourage compliance with PSR then our punishment should be more lenient than Everton's.

 

Otherwise what's the point of PSR if you can spend what you like to stay in the league and receive a more lenient punishment than a team that tries to comply and is then relegated?

[happy85]

Does anyone know why we are taking PL through legal action ? 

 

 

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, happy85 said:

Does anyone know why we are taking PL through legal action ? 

 

I don’t think we are now once it was accepted that the efl cannot impose any epl points deduction this season. 

[ClaphamFox]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

I don’t think we are now once it was accepted that the efl cannot impose any epl points deduction this season. 

That's right. I'm pretty sure our only outstanding legal action is against the EFL for the transfer embargo it slapped on us because it thinks we might breach PSR for 2021-24. 

 

I assumed that the embargo would automatically lift once we officially become a PL member again, but the Guardian article discussed above suggests that the PL might decide to keep it in place. I've no idea whether they are allowed to do that, but if they do it would be incredibly harsh given that the embargo relates only to a possible breach of the rules rather than an actual breach. It would be an extraordinary move by the PL, though no doubt one that would be cheered on by lots of other clubs. 

[Bilo]

1 hour ago, trooky said:

Exactly, our losses for 21/22 and 22/23 are very similar to Everton who received -8 points deduction and no embargo.

 

It could be argued in 22/23 we tried to address our PSR issues by making no signings and payed the ultimate price in relegation.

 

If the EPL want clubs to do the right thing and to encourage compliance with PSR then our punishment should be more lenient than Everton's.

 

Otherwise what's the point of PSR if you can spend what you like to stay in the league and receive a more lenient punishment than a team that tries to comply and is then relegated?

It's also worth pointing out that Everton's -8 is the result of two sanctions, so no Premier League club has ever received more than -6 for any one breach of PSR. As you rightly say, we also have the mitigating factors of trying to comply with PSR but cutting our cloth and the fact that the two teams who finished directly above us, thus causing the financial shock of relegation, were in breach.

[moore_94]

 

[LVFox]

Sounds like this is a real opportunity for the PL to even the playing field a little.

 

Let's hope it goes through.

[Gravel]

6 minutes ago, LVFox said:

Sounds like this is a real opportunity for the PL to even the playing field a little.

 

Let's hope it goes through.

It is an opportunity to even things out but also opens up opportunities for crazy bastard owners to go for broke and bankrupt their clubs with silly spending to stay in the promised land.

 

Not sure which I prefer.

[LVFox]

40 minutes ago, Gravel said:

It is an opportunity to even things out but also opens up opportunities for crazy bastard owners to go for broke and bankrupt their clubs with silly spending to stay in the promised land.

 

Not sure which I prefer.

It does beg the question of how screwed every relegated side to the championship will ever be!

[Harboro]

20 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

There's no precedent or grounds for that. 

 

If they push through a. Rule change this season before we are a PL club then surely it could be applied, as we’d have to sign up to the rules to play in the league next year

[UniFox21]

46 minutes ago, Harboro said:

If they push through a. Rule change this season before we are a PL club then surely it could be applied, as we’d have to sign up to the rules to play in the league next year

They'd have around a month to do so, they're not that organised  

[FrankieADZ]

 

[ClaphamFox]

26 minutes ago, FrankieADZ said:

 

Good news if true, but not particularly surprising - it would have been a very weird move for the PL to uphold an EFL transfer embargo for a suspected PSR breach when it doesn't use that punishment itself. 

 

The article is poorly written, though. It says that we are "locked in an extraordinary legal battle with the Premier League" but doesn't explain what we're battling with them about - which would be useful to know given that the threat to impose a points deduction this season has already been removed. It also says that any hope of mitigation for the 2020-23 breach has been removed because of our "aggressive legal threats", but fails to mention that our legal challenges so far have been completely vindicated. Will the independent panel punish us for correctly challenging the EFL/PL for breaking their own rules? I'd be interested to see how they could justify that...

 

 

Edited 29 April by ClaphamFox

[urban.spaceman]

40 minutes ago, FrankieADZ said:

 

More sinister bollocks:

 

"Leicester have already been charged with breaching the Premier League's PSR limits last season, which is set to lead to a points deduction in the top-flight next season, particularly given any hope of mitigation has been removed by their aggressive legal threats."

 

Are you ****ing serious? The Premier League is the aggressor here. We're just defending ourselves BY MAKING SURE THEY ADHERE TO THEIR OWN RULES.

 

We've already caught them out for breaking their own rules TWICE.

 

We haven't asked for leniency or special treatment. Just that they treat us fairly, under the rules that applied to us in the time we were in their league.

 

The fact that journalists are using this sort of inflammatory language, when we now have two rulings and Everton's report in early April proving the Premier League are behaving irrationally and aggressively, is honestly disgraceful.

[ClaphamFox]

2 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

More sinister bollocks:

 

"Leicester have already been charged with breaching the Premier League's PSR limits last season, which is set to lead to a points deduction in the top-flight next season, particularly given any hope of mitigation has been removed by their aggressive legal threats."

 

Are you ****ing serious? The Premier League is the aggressor here. We're just defending ourselves BY MAKING SURE THEY ADHERE TO THEIR OWN RULES.

 

We've already caught them out for breaking their own rules TWICE.

 

We haven't asked for leniency or special treatment. Just that they treat us fairly, under the rules that applied to us in the time we were in their league.

 

The fact that journalists are using this sort of inflammatory language, when we now have two rulings and Everton's report in early April proving the Premier League are behaving irrationally and aggressively, is honestly disgraceful.

100%.

Over the past month I've lost count of the number of times I've heard journalists and 'experts' say that we because we've legally challenged the PL and EFL we can forget about getting a reduced points deduction for cooperation - yet NONE of them ever bother to mention that those challenges have been successful so far. If we'd have cynically delayed proceedings with frivolous legal challenges that were ultimately rejected, I could see their point - but clearly this is not what has happened. Punishing us for a successful challenge would be like a court acquitting somebody of a crime but then sending them prison anyway because they had the cheek to defend themselves. It's completely bonkers - yet this is apparently what a lot of sports journalists believe will happen 

 

 

 

 

[Poznan34]

1 hour ago, FrankieADZ said:

 

"while Leicester may also be forced to cash in on fellow home-grown players Hamza Choudhury, Sammy Braybrooke and Ben Nelson"

 

I hope that is just the journo plucking names of homegrown players out of a hat. Would be a huge shame to lose Braybrooke/Nelson before they've got going.

[trooky]

14 minutes ago, Poznan34 said:

"while Leicester may also be forced to cash in on fellow home-grown players Hamza Choudhury, Sammy Braybrooke and Ben Nelson"

 

I hope that is just the journo plucking names of homegrown players out of a hat. Would be a huge shame to lose Braybrooke/Nelson before they've got going.

I don't see Everton having a mass clear out of players to raise money for PSR so why should we?

 

We're already in breach for 21-23 so what good will it do? 

 

Any home grown player sold will have to be replaced, so it's not going to make a huge difference. The pure profit will be spent on increased wages for replacements.

 

We will just have to appeal our punishments like Everton, reduce the wage bill and get on with it because other clubs are in the same mess.

Edited 29 April by trooky

[filbertway]

Oh god please let us be "forced" to cash in on Hamza

[Lambert09]

4 hours ago, moore_94 said:

 

this graph lists how the 14 vote system should work…. but the big 6 just bully their opinions and you get foolish people who jump to their side and I feel like we’ve been one of those in the past. 

 

If anyone outside of them voted against it, then they are absolutely barmy. 

[talking_goldfish]

11 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

this graph lists how the 14 vote system should work…. but the big 6 just bully their opinions and you get foolish people who jump to their side and I feel like we’ve been one of those in the past. 

 

If anyone outside of them voted against it, then they are absolutely barmy. 

This has just been voted in, and Man City, Man Utd and Villa voted against it! Chelsea abstained

[pmcla26]

Just now, talking_goldfish said:

This has just been voted in, and Man City, Man Utd and Villa voted against it! Chelsea abstained

Villa have lots of money and ambitions to be part of that gang. They'll have to keep spending a lot to maintain where they are in the league so it makes sense, really. 

[UniFox21]

3 minutes ago, talking_goldfish said:

This has just been voted in, and Man City, Man Utd and Villa voted against it! Chelsea abstained

 

 

 

[Merging Cultures]

Keiran Maguire saying it's alongside the 85% turnover rule. Which would make no sense.

[Gamble92]

2 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

 

 

 

Sounds great but then they're already backtracking so much and saying how long it'll take to introduce if ever because of legal implications on current contracts. 

[st albans fox]

15 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

 

 

 

Assume villa voted against it because they now consider themselves a European comp club so have to meet uefa 70% t/o rules. 

Smacks of our attempts to stop those below catching us up a few years ago when we sided with the greedy six 

Edited 29 April by st albans fox