Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[Ric Flair]

The club will use the fact we got rid of our captain and didn't replace him except for a free transfer 3rd choice and sold our most coveted asset for £70m and only brought in a modest replacement for £15m in our attempts to comply ahead of 2022/23.

 

However, our plummet in to the relegation places, which saw us lose £35m in place money and our need to try and get urgent additions in to stay up in Jan, meant we've spiralled and seemingly breached.

 

Whether that makes any mitigating argument I don't know. I find it hard to have any sympathy for us as we know the chronic mistakes we made before and during this. 

[Mike Oxlong]

10 minutes ago, lcfcbluearmy said:

You could also say that 2 clubs that also cheated one that has been charged for two years in a row stayed up at our expense so we didn't gain a sporting advantage over teams that also broke the rules

Yeah, but they will/have been punished for the period(s) in which they broke the rules as will we. I don’t think the measure of sporting advantage is restricted to the effect on two other teams. If the whole division has been at it then that’s a different consideration. 

[UniFox21]

3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

The club will use the fact we got rid of our captain and didn't replace him except for a free transfer 3rd choice and sold our most coveted asset for £70m and only brought in a modest replacement for £15m in our attempts to comply ahead of 2022/23.

 

However, our plummet in to the relegation places, which saw us lose £35m in place money and our need to try and get urgent additions in to stay up in Jan, meant we've spiralled and seemingly breached.

 

Whether that makes any mitigating argument I don't know. I find it hard to have any sympathy for us as we know the chronic mistakes we made before and during this. 

It'll be important to note that as fans we look at this incredibly cynically, we have underlying issues with how the club is run. 

An independent panel won't have those views, so potentially will see a club having massively tried to cut it's cloth, realising they were in trouble, spending reasonably and still falling foul. I would argue that isn't huge mismanagement 

[UniFox21]

Forest basically told they should have taken steps to reduce their losses by selling players earlier. 

So maybe we won't get much mitigation 

 

 

[AKCJ]

13 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Forest basically told they should have taken steps to reduce their losses by selling players earlier. 

So maybe we won't get much mitigation 

 

 

The fact Forest have been deducted points for making sure they get a good deal on their most valuable asset shows how much of a farce these so-called Profit and Sustainability rules are. They need binning and an independent regulator needs to be brought in. These rules are pathetic.

[moore_94]

15 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Forest basically told they should have taken steps to reduce their losses by selling players earlier. 

So maybe we won't get much mitigation 

 

 

I imagine we will get the same response then - should’ve been looking to sell in January 23 in order to try and comply rather than spending £30m+ on players

[Chelmofox]

9 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Forest basically told they should have taken steps to reduce their losses by selling players earlier. 

So maybe we won't get much mitigation 

We've had 2 players public state that they wanted to leave but had their offers blocked (Iversen and Praet). They clearly aren't going to take into consideration the fact we weren't offered what we thought was fair value.

 

Only other mitigation available is that but not buying the summer we were relegated we put ourselves in danger, but then buying in the Jan window surely removes that mitigation too.

 

I really dont think this is going to go well.

[Chelmofox]

4 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

The fact Forest have been deducted points for making sure they get a good deal on their most valuable asset shows how much of a farce these so-called Profit and Sustainability rules are. They need binning and an independent regulator needs to be brought in. These rules are pathetic.

Tells you all you need to know. You have to weaken your team to comply, regardless if you think you might be able to get better offers at a later date or move on different players at later dates. It also doesn't take the player into consideration. Brendan Johnson arguably hasn't had as good a season at Spurs, and as a player may have benefited from another season at Forest where he was performing and settled. We know he didn't want to move to Brentford. 

 

Its all utter bollox.

 

 

[smudgerfox]

Since the next three year period includes two £90m+ losses plus a Championship season as yet incomplete (as an accounting period) - what do we need to do to comply for the next accounting period? By my estimates we are allowed £35m x 2 + 1 x £13m = £83-million in losses. So even before this season's losses, we need to raise income by £100-million, less the transfer fee for Harvey Barnes? Anyone know if that is the case? If so we can forget signing or re-signing anyone...

 

 

 

[STUHILL]

I think it is going to be 6 points when all is said and done. 

Just get on with it.

[AKCJ]

5 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

Tells you all you need to know. You have to weaken your team to comply, regardless if you think you might be able to get better offers at a later date or move on different players at later dates. It also doesn't take the player into consideration. Brendan Johnson arguably hasn't had as good a season at Spurs, and as a player may have benefited from another season at Forest where he was performing and settled. We know he didn't want to move to Brentford. 

 

Its all utter bollox.

 

 

Sell your best players on the cheap so the big six can improve. It's all it's about.

[RowlattsFox]

Frustrating that the only way clubs can sustain the rules is by selling their best players constantly. Obviously makes good business sense but it also makes it extremely difficult for anyone to keep building a team that can challenge. 

[coolhandfox]

People getting there knickers in a twist about a double points deduction, it highly unlikely as the commission in Everton Appeal the commission used the following benchmarks.

 

Whilst there are clear and obvious differences between the Premier League and the Football League, the Football League scheme for profitability and sustainability is structurally similar to that of the Premier League, and the EFL Guidelines for sanction in this area are the closest available benchmark. A six point sanction is broadly in line with those. It is also not out-of-kilter with any other available benchmark, including those under the Premier League Rules themselves (such as the automatic sanction for insolvency of nine points).

 

Not a chance anyone is getting 9 point or more moving forward as you can rightly argue that's disproportionate.

 

It will be 6 like Everton (After appeal) and Forest (Who then had 2 knocked off on appeal) 

 

So worse case will be 6 or best case 4 in my opinion 

Edited 7 May by coolhandfox

[Groby_Blue]

1 minute ago, RowlattsFox said:

Frustrating that the only way clubs can sustain the rules is by selling their best players constantly. Obviously makes good business sense but it also makes it extremely difficult for anyone to keep building a team that can challenge. 

Which is the whole point of the rules.... 

[coolhandfox]

11 minutes ago, smudgerfox said:

Since the next three year period includes two £90m+ losses plus a Championship season as yet incomplete (as an accounting period) - what do we need to do to comply for the next accounting period? By my estimates we are allowed £35m x 2 + 1 x £13m = £83-million in losses. So even before this season's losses, we need to raise income by £100-million, less the transfer fee for Harvey Barnes? Anyone know if that is the case? If so we can forget signing or re-signing anyone...

You also have healthy deductions, which reduces the amount of the loses for PSR reasons, you can't just take the overall loses from the accounts. 

[Ric Flair]

We'll find it very difficult to defend that £100m + worth of players have ran their contracts down, likewise another £50m + this summer.

[Basildon Fox]

Where ours differs is that we have potentially breached because of not getting a Champions League place 2 seasons in a row and this is why we want more clarification on potential breaches by Man City and Chelsea.  If it is found that they are under investigation during that 2 season period then we have a major case of being cheated in the first place and the knock on effect has caused us to breach and in effect then cheat too.

 

The Premier League will not want to upset the big boys so it will be interesting to see whether we can prove it.

[Chelmofox]

3 minutes ago, Basildon Fox said:

Where ours differs is that we have potentially breached because of not getting a Champions League place 2 seasons in a row and this is why we want more clarification on potential breaches by Man City and Chelsea.  If it is found that they are under investigation during that 2 season period then we have a major case of being cheated in the first place and the knock on effect has caused us to breach and in effect then cheat too.

 

The Premier League will not want to upset the big boys so it will be interesting to see whether we can prove it.

Pretty sure the name 'Man City' will be allowed no mention at all in our case.

[Basildon Fox]

7 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

Pretty sure the name 'Man City' will be allowed no mention at all in our case.

Quite probably but that is the reason why the club want an open hearing so all of these potential breaches will have to be disclosed.  If there is a chance that we have breached due to being cheated out of a top 4 place in the first place, how will they be able to fine or points deduct us without hearing the previous breaches first.  They try to get away with it saying it is more complex etc. which is posh speak for we don't want you to know.

[st albans fox]

21 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

We'll find it very difficult to defend that £100m + worth of players have ran their contracts down, likewise another £50m + this summer.

Not completely sure about that 

we have players to sell who won’t leave because they’re running their contracts down to leave on a free. To argue that we should sell assets to cover the shortfall has to take that into account.  I suppose it depends if we really did have offers for players in summer 22 and Jan 23 that we knocked back. 

[davieG]

4 minutes ago, Basildon Fox said:

we don't want you to know.

Or more likely We don't know what we're doing.

[UniFox21]

27 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Not completely sure about that 

we have players to sell who won’t leave because they’re running their contracts down to leave on a free. To argue that we should sell assets to cover the shortfall has to take that into account.  I suppose it depends if we really did have offers for players in summer 22 and Jan 23 that we knocked back. 

You'd then argue Jan 23 through to Jan 24 should really be only time it's looked at. We sold Fofana for £70m having just finished comfortably mid table in summer '22. 

 

No reason we should have foresaw going down. Obviously the management financially was a car crash but still. And as you say, we can't be held completely accountable for players refusing to sign contracts and clubs not bidding for them. 

[pkonline]

I can't see it being more than 6 points. 

The rules are made up as they go along, and already most clubs have realised this isn't the way to solve the bigger issue of financing.

[Finnegan]

2 hours ago, moore_94 said:

I imagine we will get the same response then - should’ve been looking to sell in January 23 in order to try and comply rather than spending £30m+ on players

 

Yep. We won't get much mitigation, there's no real argument. You can't say "well, we went down anyway..." We'll definitely get a points deduction.

 

It's just it'll probably be as pathetic as Forest's and Everton's.

[Gamble92]

2 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

Forest basically told they should have taken steps to reduce their losses by selling players earlier. 

So maybe we won't get much mitigation 

 

 

We're heading for the harshest possible punishment but I think that will be -6 given they realised Everton's should never have been -10