Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[urban.spaceman]

21 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

How would they be able to justify it being higher than Everton's deduction?

They can't.

[coolhandfox]

Jesus people still going on about massive point deduction.

 

They will not get anything more than 8 points to stick as you only get 9 for going insolvent.

 

The Everton and Forest cases and appeals have set the bench mark. 

Edited 28 May 2024 by coolhandfox

[Finnegan]

If we get a 15 point deduction after appeal I'll eat @Miquel The Work Geordie's pubes. 

[Mike Oxlong]

6 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

If we get a 15 point deduction after appeal I'll eat @Miquel The Work Geordie's pubes. 

More watchable than Crossbar Challenge or Sam Bailey as the half time entertainment 

[ClaphamFox]

2 hours ago, HankMarvin said:

The club made losses of 215m over a 3 year period.

33.1m 20/21

92.5 21/22

89.7m 22/23

 

(Costs associated with infrastructure investment, youth and women's teams can be deducted when calculating PSR losses)

is that going to be 110m?

permitted losses 3 year cycle 105m 

plus the Covid year so not sure how the ground lies with the first breach.

 

Last 23/24 season, permitted losses £83m 3 years 

what we do know is the previous 2 seasons losses £182.2m losses 

 

(Again minus costs Costs associated with infrastructure investment, youth and women's teams can be deducted when calculating PSR losses)

 

Thats before you factor in this seasons losses, plus the delaying of submitting finance plan and spending prior to the season starting.

When we were charged by the PL, Kieran Maguire (who spends his life studying this stuff) looked at our financial statements over the past three years and estimated that our PSR loss would be £25m - ie, less than Forest’s. I don’t know how he came to that figure and he could of course be wrong, but that was his conclusion. 

 

We haven’t breached PSR for the season just gone and still may not. We were completely vindicated in our refusal to submit a business plan to the EFL, so we can’t get punished for that. 

Edited 28 May 2024 by ClaphamFox

[HankMarvin]

41 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

When we were charged by the PL, Kieran Maguire (who spends his life studying this stuff) looked at our financial statements over the past three years and estimated that our PSR loss would be £25m - ie, less than Forest’s. I don’t know how he came to that figure and he could of course be wrong, but that was his conclusion. 

 

We haven’t breached PSR for the season just gone and still may not. We were completely vindicated in our refusal to submit a business plan to the EFL, so we can’t get punished for that. 

Forest permitted losses was 61m over a 3 year Cycle not sure how that is even comparable.

 

“Forest's losses to 2022-23 breached the threshold of £61m by £34.5m”

 

25m less than Forest wouldn’t even be a breach.

“The Premier League charged Leicester in March over an alleged breach of the league's PSR and the EFL has subsequently placed the club under a transfer embargo”

 

 

 

We haven’t breached PSR for this season just gone because the accounts are not released until March/April.

 

What exactly make you think we wouldn’t breach psr at £83m 

after 2 seasons of 170m losses

Then a 3rd season with less income, prize money etc less players sales than previous years and those seasons mentioned resulted in losses of 90m?

Even if by some sort of miracle we made no losses for the championship year and sold 10 players we would’ve still had 170m losses over 3 seasons 

Minus the exemptions for PSR Calculations mentioned previously.

 

I mentioned the business plan not being submitted because the resulting sanctions for breaches are less severe for clubs that are working towards reducing losses. It can and will be argued that by delaying the submitting of the business plan and spending £50m on new players despite know the financial predicament the club was in will be viewed as bending/exploiting the rules. 

 

Here is more info taken from a sky article

 

“They give pretty clear indicators of why the Premier League has charged Leicester, although it's very important to point out that these two successive losses of £92.5m and £89.7m are not the specific PSR loss figures - which, remember, allows for a maximum of £105m of losses over any three-year period.

 

Nevertheless, these accounts give a very clear indication of the fact that Leicester have lost huge amounts of money in the past two years, hence the PSR charge.

 

Leicester and the Premier League are keeping those PSR numbers closely guarded, as they are at the core of their legal dispute

These elements, which are part of the £89.7m losses, are not included in the PSR calculations. For example, depreciation, expenditure on women's football, community development expenditure, academy expenditure are not included.

Leicester have recorded these huge losses, despite £74.8m of profit in terms of player sales in this latest accounting period, which includes the sale of Wesley Fofana to Chelsea and James Maddison to Tottenham”
 

 

Edited 28 May 2024 by HankMarvin

[ClaphamFox]

9 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

Forest permitted losses was 61m over a 3 year Cycle not sure how that is even comparable.

 

“Forest's losses to 2022-23 breached the threshold of £61m by £34.5m”

 

25m less than Forest wouldn’t even be a breach.

“The Premier League charged Leicester in March over an alleged breach of the league's PSR and the EFL has subsequently placed the club under a transfer embargo”

 

 

 

We haven’t breached PSR for this season just gone because the accounts are not released until March/April.

 

What exactly make you think we wouldn’t breach psr at £83m 

after 2 seasons of 170m losses

Then a 3rd season with less income, prize money etc less players sales than previous years and those seasons mentioned resulted in losses of 90m?

Even if by some sort of miracle we made no losses for the championship year and sold 10 players we would’ve still had 170m losses over 3 seasons 

Minus the exemptions for PSR Calculations mentioned previously.

 

I mentioned the business plan not being submitted because the resulting sanctions for breaches are less severe for clubs that are working towards reducing losses. It can and will be argued that by delaying the submitting of the business plan and spending £50m on new players despite know the financial predicament the club was in will be viewed as bending/exploiting the rules. 

 

Here is more info taken from a sky article

 

“They give pretty clear indicators of why the Premier League has charged Leicester, although it's very important to point out that these two successive losses of £92.5m and £89.7m are not the specific PSR loss figures - which, remember, allows for a maximum of £105m of losses over any three-year period.

 

Nevertheless, these accounts give a very clear indication of the fact that Leicester have lost huge amounts of money in the past two years, hence the PSR charge.

 

Leicester and the Premier League are keeping those PSR numbers closely guarded, as they are at the core of their legal dispute

These elements, which are part of the £89.7m losses, are not included in the PSR calculations. For example, depreciation, expenditure on women's football, community development expenditure, academy expenditure are not included.

Leicester have recorded these huge losses, despite £74.8m of profit in terms of player sales in this latest accounting period, which includes the sale of Wesley Fofana to Chelsea and James Maddison to Tottenham”
 

 

I didn’t say it was £25m below Forest’s.

[FrankieADZ]

i do wonder how it can be upto 15 points

[ClaphamFox]

3 minutes ago, FrankieADZ said:

i do wonder how it can be upto 15 points

It can’t.

[JimJams]

Or can it?

[foxfanazer]

1 minute ago, JimJams said:

Or can it?

Maybe.....but then again maybe not

[Unabomber]

I predict 4 points 

[TommyK]

Didn't we spend 100m on the training ground during the last 3 years period?

Edited 28 May 2024 by TommyK

[ClaphamFox]

14 minutes ago, Unabomber said:

I predict 4 points 

Leeds fans really would riot if that happened. They are very, very emotionally invested in us getting whacked with a huge deduction and being relegated. It means a great deal to them.

[kenny]

21 minutes ago, TommyK said:

Didn't we spend 100m on the training ground during the last 3 years period?

Not quite. It was completed in the first year of the cycle, so its feasible we paid the last 20-40% which would be up to £40m or so of allowable losses on PSR in that period.

 

We will also be claiming increase running costs as being towards youth development.

 

We will also be claiming all of the running costs of Belvoir Drive as it is now used by the Womens team.

 

Its far from clear cut what will happen IMO.

[Corky]

2 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

When we were charged by the PL, Kieran Maguire (who spends his life studying this stuff) looked at our financial statements over the past three years and estimated that our PSR loss would be £25m - ie, less than Forest’s. I don’t know how he came to that figure and he could of course be wrong, but that was his conclusion. 

 

We haven’t breached PSR for the season just gone and still may not. We were completely vindicated in our refusal to submit a business plan to the EFL, so we can’t get punished for that. 

Can't see why he would be wrong.

 

On last season, I think it was mentioned we needed to raise £30 million before the end of June so if that is correct, Maresca and his coaching staff may bring in half of that.

[HankMarvin]

14 minutes ago, Corky said:

Can't see why he would be wrong.

 

On last season, I think it was mentioned we needed to raise £30 million before the end of June so if that is correct, Maresca and his coaching staff may bring in half of that.

If KM is right and our PSR losses for 3 seasons are just £25m, then why keep the Barnes transfer until 23/24?

Surely the club would’ve been doing all it could to avoid a breach, potential sanctions, points deduction's etc

The punishments appear to be cumulative, so it would appear to be better to avoid a seasonal breach rather than soften the deficit of the following season and face two?

 

[Chrysalis]

As far as I know there is no direction provisions for size of breach, a larger breach merely means its harder to argue there was best intentions.  We now have a precedent that two punishments in one season are reduced, and if you avoid admin it has to be below the admin punishment.

[FoxinNotts]

3 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

As far as I know there is no direction provisions for size of breach, a larger breach merely means its harder to argue there was best intentions.  We now have a precedent that two punishments in one season are reduced, and if you avoid admin it has to be below the admin punishment.

Correct. But the ‘reductions’ were granted on the basis of good cooperation. We are not cooperating, but n fact we’re vigorously challenging the issue, so we expect no reduction and no help. We’ll get given the most severe punishment they can reasonably give. I think it’ll be eight points.

[Vlad the Fox]

1 minute ago, FoxinNotts said:

Correct. But the ‘reductions’ were granted on the basis of good cooperation. We are not cooperating, but n fact we’re vigorously challenging the issue, so we expect no reduction and no help. We’ll get given the most severe punishment they can reasonably give. I think it’ll be eight points.

Thought I heard on 5live that forest received just one point reduction for their cooperation, 2 half points on 2 counts. 

[FoxinNotts]

1 minute ago, Vlad the Fox said:

Thought I heard on 5live that forest received just one point reduction for their cooperation, 2 half points on 2 counts. 

Yes, im trying to say we’ll get zero points back, as we’re not cooperating 

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

If its -15 points, absolutely no point bothering.   Why be whipping boys with next to no chance of surviving in the league anyway.......  Just refund the all the fans and play the kids in protest

 

I actually think it would be a huge PR loss on the league, less so LCFC.

 

-6 points would hurt us a lot, but not an insurmountable challenge. -15 would be a joke.

[Chrysalis]

8 minutes ago, FoxinNotts said:

Yes, im trying to say we’ll get zero points back, as we’re not cooperating 

I am using Everton as the template for our punishment, did Everton get deductions for cooperation?

[Foxy_jim]

Everton got a decent total despite having 8 points taken off them and that's got to be the model we follow. Be nasty, hard to beat and well organised. Branthwaite and Pickford were their best players by a mile. They have zero quality going forward but still stayed up easily. I genuinely think the quality of the league will be much higher next season though, the promoted teams are better and teams like Palace, Bournemouth did really well. I predict Wolves, Brentford, Forest, Saints us and surprisingly Brighton might struggle. I think Ipswich will do well if they keep their gaffer.

[FoxinNotts]

10 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

I am using Everton as the template for our punishment, did Everton get deductions for cooperation?

I thought so. Might be wrong. We won’t get any back.