Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[Dahnsouff]

7 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

Well, we did this with Cags who we know didn't sign another deal. Benching him (to be fair there were likely several reason why) wasn't met with fan approval. Can you imagine if we were benching Cags and Youri. 

Think that’s a retrospective conclusion, and one not necessarily indicative of the reason of his omission at the time. Lots of weirdness going on with Cags at the time.

[Chrysalis]

6 hours ago, Babylon said:

It's not that curious, if it's going to take more to replace someone than you're going to get, and you have a limited budget. You are better to keep the players, which is the situation we've been in. 

My view is usually if its a 1st team player, especially key player, you keep the player, the offer would have to be completely mental to make it worth it, as an example I dont think its worth accepting the rumoured 20-40million for KDH.

 

Bit part players on big wages, I think its worth cutting losses though, bite your tongue on the not meeting valuation.

[Chrysalis]

39 minutes ago, Babylon said:

And his attitude could still have been the same, and then we've got no player to use. Also, did it work with soyuncu?

Well to be fair with Soyuncu he seemed to be dropped for a falling out with the manager.  When he was brought back in the team his attitude was pretty good.  You cant blame him for not renewing when we had no interest in playing him.  We even turned down an offer for him at the start of our relegation season.

[themightyfin]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Yes he wasn’t on the standard 80k but he was on double plus a bit what you’ve quoted 

No he wasn't.  

[st albans fox]

29 minutes ago, themightyfin said:

No he wasn't.  

Then he must have taken a v large s/o fee as part of his remuneration over the period of his contract. we had him on loan for a few months and he was resident in Monaco for a short period between the end of the loan and the start of his Lcfc contract. I wonder if the s/o fee can be paid whilst still a Monaco resident and therefore not subject to tax ???

[inckley fox]

11 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

It isn't just about the cost of finding a replacement for unwanted players, though. I think if we sell a player for less than his amortised value, we have to record a loss - which can have obvious implications for PSR. If there were no PSR rules to worry about, a club might decide to just take a hit and sell an unwanted player at a loss. But because the current rules penalise clubs for making losses on players, getting rid of players you don't want is much more complicated. 

Yes, I can totally understand that. Really, I'm only speculating, because you have to imagine that something, somewhere, which seemed to make sense at the time got us into this fix.

 

I'm not sure what it was. Maybe we could have accepted apparently underwhelming offers for players here and there. Maybe our recruitment shifted too much towards established talent. Maybe we splashed out too much on contract extensions. Or perhaps it was general incompetence.

 

I just thought it was interesting that we'd turned down bids for Praet, because there was so little evidence that we'd ever had offers to turn down for anyone. It's a reminder that there could have been more, some of which might have been more respectable. And it obviously begs a question as to whether accepting the bid could have improved our financial situation in any way.

 

But you're completely right. The answer to that question might just be 'no'.

Edited 14 May 2024 by inckley fox
I used the word 'just' about forty times.

[Claudio Fannieri]

16 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Imo, one of our biggest issue was not accepting release clauses (after Kante)

we ended up paying too much in wages and ended up without fees in more cases than was necessary 

Couldn’t agree more, whilst release clauses do place a ceiling on what you can earn for a player, it’s far better to recoup £35-40m than end up pricing players out of moves and then watch them sit there and wind down their contracts and end up with zilch. 
 

We had a spell where we seemed to be selling players at a decent premium, Drinkwater, Mahrez, Maguire and Chilwell and whilst there was the Fofana deal, we did seem to lose our way when it came to moving players on, almost like we believed our own hype and that every outgoing had to be for ridiculous money, our model as a consequence ground to a halt and we stagnated. 
 

 

Edited 15 May 2024 by Claudio Fannieri

[ozleicester]

Why dont we support players who choose to run their contract down. They are entitled to do so, if the club value them enough they will make offers to keep... if not, the player has every right to go where they are valued.

[Chrysalis]

On 14/05/2024 at 15:47, Chrysalis said:

My view is usually if its a 1st team player, especially key player, you keep the player, the offer would have to be completely mental to make it worth it, as an example I dont think its worth accepting the rumoured 20-40million for KDH.

 

Bit part players on big wages, I think its worth cutting losses though, bite your tongue on the not meeting valuation.

Seems Iverson we have failed to sell again, we keep asking for too much.

[David Hankey]

Why haven't Man City been investigated yet? Will it be a sky-blue wash?

[UniFox21]

1 minute ago, David Hankey said:

Why haven't Man City been investigated yet? Will it be a sky-blue wash?

They're being investigated

The charges against them are significantly more complex than "did they breach ffp over this year/3 year period. 

[weller54]

Manchester City's titles should be looked upon in the same way as Lance Armstrong's 7 Tour de France wins.

[David Hankey]

17 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

They're being investigated

The charges against them are significantly more complex than "did they breach ffp over this year/3 year period. 

Ok accept that but why are the authorities dragging their feet as it could be another year before any verdict.

 

You would think they would give it some priority given the number of charges involved.

[sylofox]

2 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

Ok accept that but why are the authorities dragging their feet as it could be another year before any verdict.

 

You would think they would give it some priority given the number of charges involved.

Because it's 115 cases of creative accounting. They know City will take it to court. So they need to prove they are correct in all cases.

 

How stupid will they look if a court throws it straight out.

[David Hankey]

1 hour ago, sylofox said:

Because it's 115 cases of creative accounting. They know City will take it to court. So they need to prove they are correct in all cases.

 

How stupid will they look if a court throws it straight out.

Agree, you don't want it to turn out like the Post Office's greatest miscarriage of justice debacle.

Edited 17 May 2024 by David Hankey

[UniFox21]

28 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

Ok accept that but why are the authorities dragging their feet as it could be another year before any verdict.

 

You would think they would give it some priority given the number of charges involved.

Because the size of the case, the fact Man City have already started litigation against every line of the charges, every charge etc 

They're doing their upmost to try to slow this down for as long as possible 

[st albans fox]

Saving on parachute payments next season means that each PL club receives an additional £5m above expectation 

 

[Claudio Fannieri]

9 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Saving on parachute payments next season means that each PL club receives an additional £5m above expectation 

 

Good news for us as a club but got too be honest the principle doesn’t sit well with me. If this money was earmarked for EFL and is now not due it should be redistributed within the pyramid and grassroots. Not shared amongst the already greedy fat cats. 

[Ric Flair]

14 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Saving on parachute payments next season means that each PL club receives an additional £5m above expectation 

 

I could source us a couple of Scandinavians for that.

[st albans fox]

9 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I could source us a couple of Scandinavians for that.

Already spent on rudkin’s promotion bonus !

[Guest Bilo]

Call me dense, but is there any particular reason why King Power couldn't use Leuven to nominally buy a player or two and then 'loan' them to us in exchange for one of our youth or fringe players?

[Dr The Singh]

22 minutes ago, Bilo said:

Call me dense, but is there any particular reason why King Power couldn't use Leuven to nominally buy a player or two and then 'loan' them to us in exchange for one of our youth or fringe players?

U are Dense

Edited 19 May 2024 by Dr The Singh

[MPH]

On 15/05/2024 at 03:30, ozleicester said:

Why dont we support players who choose to run their contract down. They are entitled to do so, if the club value them enough they will make offers to keep... if not, the player has every right to go where they are valued.

 

I think the concept of a contract is lost on some people  . Would fans prefer a Fofana situation where a. Player shows public disloyalty and wants to break their contract? Instead, a players shows the loyalty, behaves professionally  throughout and still gets vilified. It’s baffling.

[Wymsey]

How Everton haven't been relegated over their own troubles, especially when they're now struggling to fund their new stadium, is quite bewildering to be quite honest.

Edited 19 May 2024 by Wymsey

[ealingfox]

On 18/05/2024 at 09:52, st albans fox said:

Saving on parachute payments next season means that each PL club receives an additional £5m above expectation 

 

 

Not sure when this rule changed if it did but I'm sure it used to be distributed between EFL clubs rather than PL clubs. Disgraceful if they've changed that rule to suit themselves.