Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[Dan]

I don't think you could entirely bash somebody for not calling out the Rodgers contract at the time simply because it wasn't clear what the terms were or what the situation was going to be. That contract was absolute suicide and completely beyond our means - it was a contract we should've never offered. We were simply not of that echelon. That was the day we had started ceding control of what had gotten us to where we were - what had actually had us punching above our weight as a club. We cashed in and backed the wrong horse in the process.

 

It reminds me a touch of the PSG / Mbappe situation where they have quite openly sold out just to keep him. To then come out of it with little face saved and looking pretty small-time in the process. We treated Rodgers like he was bigger than the club. From that day we were on the decline.

[Gamble92]

7 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

I don't think you could entirely bash somebody for not calling out the Rodgers contract at the time simply because it wasn't clear what the terms were or what the situation was going to be. That contract was absolute suicide and completely beyond our means - it was a contract we should've never offered. We were simply not of that echelon. That was the day we had started ceding control of what had gotten us to where we were - what had actually had us punching above our weight as a club. We cashed in and backed the wrong horse in the process.

 

It reminds me a touch of the PSG / Mbappe situation where they have quite openly sold out just to keep him. To then come out of it with little face saved and looking pretty small-time in the process. We treated Rodgers like he was bigger than the club. From that day we were on the decline.

A lot of how they have operated was with the worst case scenario simply not a possibility. Until then it actually happened.

 

The new contract would have been because of the likes of Tottenham already sniffing around him and probably a bigger compensation for us when the "inevitable" poach did happen. 

[st albans fox]

It seems chelsea have performed the same trick in this financial year too

having taken cobham training ground into their ownership ten years ago for approx £20m, they’ve sold it to another group Co for around £150m  

I suppose they must be confident of getting the hotel through if they’ve bothered to do this 

 

mind you, justifying the hotel appreciating in value in prime west London housing space is one thing - having what is effectively arable farming land in Surrey go up that much is quite another.   Surely the authorities would require at least having planning permission to build houses in place to allow that ??  checking club badge …….  Nah 

[FrankieADZ]

oh yeah this is fine aint it

[Jon the Hat]

Makes no sense - if investing in your training facilities etc is not counted as expense for psr, then nor should sale of such facilities.  What next selling the stadium? 

[Dan]

If that's how Chelsea are getting around it then teams need to take no notice going forward surely. That should be the end of the rules there and then.

[filbertway]

On 10/05/2024 at 14:35, trooky said:

What exactly are the owners getting away with? There are far worse owners around than ours. 

 

They backed Rodgers to try and achieve champions league football and nearly succeeded.

 

It's not the owners fault that the team blew it twice, otherwise the financial situation would be a completely different story.

 

Would it have been much different?

 

We'd have been stuck with essentially the same squad and had very little maneuverability in the market. The only difference is that we'd need to be able to juggle an extra 6+ games.

 

We've given massive long contracts to players not worthy of them - Champions league football likely wouldn't have altered our trajectory a great deal.

 

Proabably would have brought in an extra 30-40 milllion (depending on how we did) going in as 4th seeds I can't imagine we'd have fared too well.

 

Let's be conservative and say we signed 3 players for a combined 60 million and gave them all 80k a week for 4 years.

That's an extra 27million a season we're committing to for 4 years.

 

Given our awful financial management I genuinely think that getting into the champions league would probably have been more detrimental to us 4/5 years down the line.

[Claudio Fannieri]

2 hours ago, FrankieADZ said:

oh yeah this is fine aint it

I wonder if we may do something similar or be in the process of doing it subject to it being approved/accepted for Chelsea. 

[Chrysalis]

On 03/05/2024 at 12:06, ClaphamFox said:

There continues to be a lot of chatter online about Leeds (and possibly other clubs) suing us because we've been promoted after being charged with a PSR breach. However, I'm completely ignorant on the law in this area and have found nothing online that provides clear guidance. Does anybody know how much of a case they'd have? Specifically, could they sue us for a 2020-23 breach given that we were relegated at the end of it and did not deprive them of a place in the PL? Their fans seem convinced they've got a case because they think we should have been given a points deduction this season and have gained an advantage by avoiding that - but given that PL/EFL rules did not enable a points deduction this season, would that hold any water, legally speaking?

 

Just curious really. A lot of very angry people online are frothing at the mouth at the prospect of us being sued out of existence, but none of them seem to know anything about the law - they're just confusing what they want to happen with what is likely to happen. Can anybody provide a cool, objective legal perspective on the issue?

It wont go anywhere, there is no provision for it in the EFL rules, and usually these kind of threats evaporate in sports, it just isnt worth turning the clock back.

[Chrysalis]

On 07/05/2024 at 11:26, Mike Oxlong said:

We must have gained an advantage through the overspend. We gained by improving our prospects of remaining in the division. The fact that we were so inept at utilising the advantage can’t be mitigation on any logical analysis. Maybe some legal eagle will prove otherwise ? 

In simplistic terms yes.

 

However I think in practical terms, not for the relegation season, by overspending so much in previous seasons we crippled ourselves, couldnt keep key players in the summer, only made signings after a late big money sale, and it likely largely contributed to the very delayed sacking of Rodgers.

So my argument is we would have finished lower in previous seasons, but probably also wouldnt have been as bad in the relegation season.

[Death by Football]

3 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

It wont go anywhere, there is no provision for it in the EFL rules, and usually these kind of threats evaporate in sports, it just isnt worth turning the clock back.

I agree. There's nothing they can sue us for.  We didn't deprive them of a spot in the Prem because they would have just occupied the third relegation spot and the precedent that has now been set is a max 6 point deduction prior to any appeal.  Last time I checked, we finished 7 points ahead of Leeds although that does include points accrued in August which I think may be invalid for some reason.

[Chrysalis]

On 07/05/2024 at 20:27, 5waller5 said:

0 Points / Case dismissed is my prediction.

 

Our defence will surely be - Man City denied us £100m+ in Champions League revenue. Our case cannot be heard first because their breach caused ours. 
 

I think we’ll go hard and threaten to put the whole thing into the public domain. 
 

They will sh!T themselves that they’ll either have to answer those awkward press (and possibly govt) questions, expel MCFC from the league, or drop the case against Leicester.

They’ll take the easy route.

 

Thats probably the best defense, pull a Shearer.

[CosbehFox]

Man City’s lack of punishment in that season has nothing to do with the Premier League. It was an UEFA charge which was appealed successfully via CAS. So it can’t form any part of a defence. 
 

Also the person representing us also has represented or is representing Man City, Forest, Newcastle. So don’t expect any criticism thrown towards his clients. 

Edited 13 May 2024 by CosbehFox

[Chrysalis]

On 08/05/2024 at 12:45, Babylon said:

They don't really consider much. Their attitude is, you knew the rules and in the worst case scenario should basically no over spend. 

 

We have some mitigation, such as clubs broke the rules, helped get us relegated and made our losses worse. But we had giant losses the year before, so even that's not a massive mitigation. 

I really think our best defense as was stated in an earlier post to threaten to throw a fit on the Man City lack of enforcement, as two seasons of been screwed out of CL , isnt just TV money but probably also had a big impact on Maddison and Tielemans extending contracts which in turn had an impact on Tielemans leaving for nothing.

Going hard on EFL proved to work, and I dont see why we cant play poker with the EPL either, because otherwise it is accepting a points deduction and acting all meek with future compliance when they know they can roll us over.

Its either this or just accept it and dont mess up the finances again.  This means dont budget for higher league positions and European competition that are not a sure thing or make player salaries variable based on league position and European qualification.  Really we need to pick a direction and go hard in that direction, not some middle ground.  Middle ground is a sign of indecisiveness at the top of the club.

Edited 13 May 2024 by Chrysalis

[Chrysalis]

23 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

Man City’s lack of punishment in that season has nothing to do with the Premier League. It was an UEFA charge which was appealed successfully via CAS. So it can’t form any part of a defence. 
 

Also the person representing us also has represented or is representing Man City, Forest, Newcastle. So don’t expect any criticism thrown towards his clients. 

The EPL has drawn up multi year charges against them but as of yet not applied any punishment.  Not talking about the failed UEFA case.

[CosbehFox]

6 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

The EPL has drawn up multi year charges against them but as of yet not applied any punishment.  Not talking about the failed UEFA case.

In which case then you can’t use a non concluded legal case as a precedent. Currently as it stands it’s only alleged Man City denied us CL money rather than proved. 
 

Their case isn’t defined by public information such as accounts/FFP cals. 

Edited 13 May 2024 by CosbehFox

[CosbehFox]

Also Nick De Marco isn’t going to undermine his biggest client (by some distance - to the point he’s regularly in Dubai)

[Chrysalis]

Just now, CosbehFox said:

In which case then you can’t use a non concluded legal case as a precedent. Currently as it stands it’s only alleged Man City denied us CL money rather than proved. 

We can still threaten to make ourselves a nuisance about it, and ask them to conveniently take a long time to conclude our case for our silence, do these even fall under legal cases? PSR/FFP already is probably illegal as it breaches fair competition rules by restricting investment.

[Chrysalis]

1 minute ago, CosbehFox said:

Also Nick De Marco isn’t going to undermine his biggest client (by some distance - to the point he’s regularly in Dubai)

Oh if they are also a client, thats a good reason why we probably wouldnt consider it.

 

In which case we just have to avoid making the same mistakes again, as any other defense isnt going to get us off the hook.

[CosbehFox]

Just now, Chrysalis said:

We can still threaten to make ourselves a nuisance about it, and ask them to conveniently take a long time to conclude our case for our silence, do these even fall under legal cases? PSR/FFP already is probably illegal as it breaches fair competition rules by restricting investment.

In what forum can you threaten to make a nuisance of yourself ? PL just call your bluff and let you run off to the media. Smaller clubs don’t give a **** cos you are their rivals and you’ve cheated. Bigger clubs brush it offish 
 

They are held in the same format as legal cases in case they have to escalate. Bit like adjudication or employment hearings. Hence why we have KC’s involved. 
 

You can’t have your own case heard and start waffling on about another case. Using other examples can’t be used as a defence. It would be like a murderer saying ‘yeah but don’t go too harsh on me because you haven’t punished the serial killer yet.’ 
 

You can only use precedent as a way of debating punishment 

[sylofox]

7 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

We can still threaten to make ourselves a nuisance about it, and ask them to conveniently take a long time to conclude our case for our silence, do these even fall under legal cases? PSR/FFP already is probably illegal as it breaches fair competition rules by restricting investment.

It breaches nothing. It's a rule within a game voted in by the greater number of teams.

[Chrysalis]

4 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

In what forum can you threaten to make a nuisance of yourself ? PL just call your bluff and let you run off to the media. Smaller clubs don’t give a **** cos you are their rivals and you’ve cheated. Bigger clubs brush it offish 
 

They are held in the same format as legal cases in case they have to escalate. Bit like adjudication or employment hearings. Hence why we have KC’s involved. 
 

You can’t have your own case heard and start waffling on about another case. Using other examples can’t be used as a defence. It would be like a murderer saying ‘yeah but don’t go too harsh on me because you haven’t punished the serial killer yet.’ 
 

You can only use precedent as a way of debating punishment 

They trying to fight off the sport becoming regulated.  The last thing they need is Manchester City's situation out in the open.  To be frank, I am surprised all the existing clubs who have had deductions havent kicked of about that either, the sport is being very inconsistent, by only selectively applying punishments, with no regards to timing either.  Us kicking off and throwing a fit, especially if Forest join in makes it look like the EPL cant govern itself.

 

Shearer threatened the FA to stop playing for England and got off a ban.

 

Or maybe you think everyone is nice to each other behind closed doors?

 

Either comply or play dirty, no in between.

Edited 13 May 2024 by Chrysalis

[CosbehFox]

1 minute ago, Chrysalis said:

They trying to fight off the sport becoming regulated.  The last thing they need is Manchester City's situation out in the open.  To be frank, I am surprised all the existing clubs who have had deductions havent kicked of about that either, the sport is being very inconsistent, by only selectively applying punishments, with no regards to timing either.

 

Shearer threatened the FA to stop playing for England and got off a ban.

 

Or maybe you think everyone is nice to each other behind closed doors?

 

Either comply or play dirty, no in between.

So how we getting the Manchester City situation out in the open? 
 

Are Leicester City privy to this information? 
 

The reason other points deducted clubs haven’t kicked off is because the cases of Man City and FFP failure are vastly different. 

Edited 13 May 2024 by CosbehFox

[Chrysalis]

7 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

So how we getting the Manchester City situation out in the open? 
 

Are Leicester City privy to this information? 
 

The reason other points deducted clubs haven’t kicked off is because the cases of Man City and FFP failure are vastly different. 

Being different is just an excuse, are you representing the EPL or something.

 

Its quite simple, if they think Man City breached the rules, then they apply a points deduction, then the process is that can be appealed, this is what they have done so far against two other EPL clubs, so what is stopping them doing this process against a club who happens to be at the top of the table and won lots of previous trophies?

 

I can answer the question, they have shit the bed because Man City have made some kind of threat that makes them uncomfortable.

UEFA failed, but they at least tried to punish them.

Edited 13 May 2024 by Chrysalis

[CosbehFox]

6 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Being different is just an excuse, are you representing the EPL or something.

 

Its quite simple, if they think Man City breached the rules, then they apply a points deduction, then the process is that can be appealed, this is what they have done so far against two other EPL clubs, so what is stopping them doing this process against a club who happens to be at the top of the table and won lots of previous trophies?

No. I’m looking it from the prism of a minor knowledge in certain areas of law. 
 

Man City’s charges are incredibly complex. Largely through confidential information rather than public accounts. Some of it relates to off the book payments through third party companies, some of it relates to the illegal signing of under 16s. Effectively stuff that borders actual theft and therefore the PL need to get their evidence absolutely spot on. 
 

In case of Everton and Nottingham Forest, they had provisional copies of their accounts as early as December 2023 and therefore they have the evidence to charge quite quickly. The rule breaking is pretty damn clear hence both clubs admitted error (quickens things up) and the contention was the degree of punishment. 
 

It’s like trying to compare a case of a mafioso network which involves murder to a single case of murder. 

Edited 13 May 2024 by CosbehFox