Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
ClaphamFox

Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

By ClaphamFox, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

sylofox

sylofox

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Terraloon said:

The PL changed the rules in June 24 as to how they would deal with cases for 23/24 trading years so yes they could change the rules at the two ( EFL& PL) AGMs 

While you are time travelling 😆 🤣  Do we stay up next season.

  • Haha 2
Terraloon

Terraloon

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, sylofox said:

While you are time travelling 😆 🤣  Do we stay up next season.

Don’t think you want to know the answer to that.

 

All I can say is that putting 13 players behind the ball was a cunning yet destined to fail tactic

  • Haha 2
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Don’t think you want to know the answer to that.

 

All I can say is that putting 13 players behind the ball was a cunning yet destined to fail tactic

Moyes it is then ……..

  • Haha 2
Terraloon

Terraloon

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Motty said:

OK I'm not talking about the psr charges as they were in place whilst we were in the prem. Mainly the efl and prem being able to agree the cross over of sanctions this prem season, to be applied to last year's breaches.

I know that last year's psr whilst in the championship can be calculated as well as last 2 prem seasons.  ?13 mill in championship approx for one season. So when they look at the figures to punish transgressors before the end of this season we will already have been punished for the 2bprem seasons. As Everton this season.

Following the ruling by the EFL panel in effect no more than delaying the submission of future financial information by what 13 or so weeks that information was I would imagine submitted on or before the 31/3 /24 deadline.

 

All we  know at this point much but we do know one thing that is that the club in its submissions have confirmed that they will be in excess , for the 3 year monitoring period ending 23/24 of the EFL upper threshold which is £83 million . 2 PL years of £35 million and 1 EFL year of £13 million

 

The concern  is that the EFL in accord with their rules charge Leicester . We know that the EFL are tweaking their rules around FFP following Leicesters challenging the rules which potentially enable clubs promoted to the PL to have any sanction follow into the PL.

 

At this point in time Leicester haven’t been charged with exceeding the 22/23 monitoring period which would have been £105 million or the 23/24 period which will only allow £83 million . I think it’s safe to assume that there is a PL charge incoming post after 6 June

 

 I know some won’t agree but I do wonder if , Leicester had just complied with the EFL requirement to submit a business plan by 31/12 and the 22/23 accounts to the PL , then the 22/23 case may or may not have resulted in a PL points deduction known already and idc a points deduction stranded in EFL with out even the possibility of it following to the PL
 

Chrysalis

Chrysalis

Posted
Posted
On 30/05/2024 at 09:05, st albans fox said:

Did anyone notice villa’s new deal with adidas is worth £17.5m per season (poss rising to 20 but unlikely to ) 

for context, Nike pay liverpool £30m 

 

I smell something 

I always said we failed commercially after our on the pitch success, from a commercial perspective (whether corrupt or not) we massively under performed, which has ended up contributing to the situation the clubs ambition couldnt be financed.

  • Like 2
Chrysalis

Chrysalis

Posted
Posted
On 30/05/2024 at 10:20, st albans fox said:

I’m referring to villa’s deal being about 10m too high 

Liverpool is one of the most profitable deals out there for Nike. They deserve the 30m 

Am I missing something Villa are currently one of the top clubs in the EPL and will be in the CL next season, why is it too high?

 

Are clubs outside of the historical big clubs not allowed to have lucrative deals or something?

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Am I missing something Villa are currently one of the top clubs in the EPL and will be in the CL next season, why is it too high?

 

Are clubs outside of the historical big clubs not allowed to have lucrative deals or something?

The deals have to make commercial sense. kit sponsors will not usually hand over more money than they will get back in shirt sales. The judgement on villa is that they will be a long way short. 

Chrysalis

Chrysalis

Posted
Posted
On 31/05/2024 at 23:00, st albans fox said:

The deals have to make commercial sense. kit sponsors will not usually hand over more money than they will get back in shirt sales. The judgement on villa is that they will be a long way short. 

I was looking at it from a brand awareness benefit. I get the point you making.

 

Currently their kits are on sale at £28 (old kit), normal price is supposedly £70. so yeah a lot of sales needed to hit those numbers.   I seem to remember we ourselves got a following overseas after the title win, although Villa have not won a title in recent years and during this era of football.  

Chrysalis

Chrysalis

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, HankMarvin said:

“The amount of points deducted will depend on how much Leicester have breached the permitted losses, and it is thought to be significant”

 

Percy

Whats that based on?

KFS

KFS

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, HankMarvin said:

“The amount of points deducted will depend on how much Leicester have breached the permitted losses, and it is thought to be significant”

 

Percy

But has anyone considered why? I think the people running our club are a bunch of morons, but how can you expect a team pipped a CL place multiple times because of a team yet to be charged, and a Prem place last year because of two who actually were to reduce their spend as heavily as required?  If our lawyer has any clue he’ll be pinning our case on those two issues. I still think we’ll not get a deduction at all, personally. 

  • Like 1
Footballwipe

Footballwipe

Posted
Posted
On 30/05/2024 at 10:20, st albans fox said:

I’m referring to villa’s deal being about 10m too high 

Liverpool is one of the most profitable deals out there for Nike. They deserve the 30m 

Liverpool is a terrible comparison though because they deliberately took a lower £30m to gain a higher royalty % of each shirt sold. They actually earn around £100m from the deal, apparently, when you factor in their royalty payment.

 

It's also worth noting that Newcastle are also moving to with Adidas in a deal worth a reported £30m, but could be around 17m depending on their performance based on what's been reported.

 

Villa is a huge upgrade but it's not as fishy as you're desperate to make it out to be, tbh.

  • Popular Post
ROB-THE-BLUE

ROB-THE-BLUE

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Pretty balanced article which deals in facts rather then speculation.

Written by a toilet thief 

 

 

Screenshot_20240604-072342~3.png

Edited by ROB-THE-BLUE
  • Haha 8
sylofox

sylofox

Posted
Posted

Can't we just sell KDH to OHL for £90m now. Then buy him back for £90m in July.

 

After all Chelsea can sell themselves a hotel.

  • Haha 2
westernpark

westernpark

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, sylofox said:

Can't we just sell KDH to OHL for £90m now. Then buy him back for £90m in July.

 

After all Chelsea can sell themselves a hotel.

Why would we buy him back for that much? 

sylofox

sylofox

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, westernpark said:

Why would we buy him back for that much? 

So you think KP would allow us to bankrupt our sister club.

Vlad the Fox

Vlad the Fox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ROB-THE-BLUE said:

Written by a toilet thief 

 

 

Screenshot_20240604-072342~3.png

BullMashit. It’s a balancing act, we don’t want to decimate the squad and condemn ourselves to relegation before a ball is kicked, therefore I feel the club will be pragmatic about the situation. Try to reduce spending and still try to remain competing by make purchases where neccasery, if that means we still break psr by a smaller amount then so be it.  

sylofox

sylofox

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, westernpark said:

But then the transaction will have served no purpose? 

It would put £90m in our bank for end of psr ffp financial year meaning we would not fail it. Then pay it back.

 

I would guess it would not comply with the rules as we are not Chelsea. But it was said as a joke.

westernpark

westernpark

Posted
Posted
Just now, sylofox said:

It would put £90m in our bank for end of psr ffp financial year meaning we would not fail it. Then pay it back.

 

I would guess it would not comply with the rules as we are not Chelsea. But it was said as a joke.

Ah right, no I understood it was a joke. I just didn’t realise you could buy him back at the same price to improve PSR.

lcfc278

lcfc278

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Footballwipe said:

Liverpool is a terrible comparison though because they deliberately took a lower £30m to gain a higher royalty % of each shirt sold. They actually earn around £100m from the deal, apparently, when you factor in their royalty payment.

 

It's also worth noting that Newcastle are also moving to with Adidas in a deal worth a reported £30m, but could be around 17m depending on their performance based on what's been reported.

 

Villa is a huge upgrade but it's not as fishy as you're desperate to make it out to be, tbh.

Interesting though, a Villa fan at work said he thinks it's been inflated. One of their owners, Nassef Sawiris, also owns a 7% stake in Adidas so you can see why people might thinks it's a little dodgy. Obviously it's nothing on the likes of Chelsea and Man City though.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...