Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[UniFox21]

1 minute ago, coolhandfox said:

It comes down to narrative and interpretation, Everton argued they were the PL and argued they were not, part of which I believe was down to the timing of the loans.

 

As far as I'm aware, you can't deduct Stadium expenses if they are pre-planning permission. I think I read somewhere some Everton loans pre-dated planning permission being granted.

 

There are so many shades of grey in this which makes it a mess. 

Hugely.

Mentioned the other day that there seems to be confusion between clubs and leagues about these rules. Then the version of the rules used, what's applicable etc 

Lawyers should be having a field day at all these loopholes

[MPH]

6 hours ago, KFS said:

This is all ****ing bollocks. 
 

1. how are we even in the same conversations as Forest and Everton? 
2. why the **** is Rudkin still our DoF? This is gross negligence 

3. the game is completely corrupt and designed to restrict anything but the power 6

 

Any other fan complaining about us can **** off too. I didn’t see your club sticking it to the big boys for the last 10 years. 

 

im not sure I understand this post. You speak with disdain about Forest and Everton with their rule breaking but when it’s us who may have  broken the rules it’s because the game is corrupt and designed to restrict anything but the ‘ power 6’

 

 

to be fair, if we are criticizing Forest and Everton for breaking the rules, we just need to take this on the chin if we have too. 

[UniFox21]

1 minute ago, cjslcfc said:

 

Apparently Hall may not end up playing the required amount to enforce the purchase.

 

Agree though that Gallagher will be one of the main candidates for sale. Similarly Broja.

Every Eddie Howe interview about it has implied he'll probably be signing. 

 

Just now, Always Next Year said:

Chelsea won’t get punished if they break the rules, protected species look at Man City and all the delaying tactics there lawyers know more about the rules of the game than any of the football associations in this country, where pissing head wing if we think they will be punished 

Lawyers can't delay the FFP charges due to the laws the club's passed.

Man City has 115 charges not solely relating to FFP and significantly more complex than "have team x lost too much". The issues are not comparable.

[Daggers]

Burn down Seagrave and add extra computers, calculators and watches to the insurance claim. Maybe even the odd Gucci belt too. 

[coolhandfox]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

That was not a personal insult, I enjoy your posts. It was a joke, I apologise if that's not how you've received it.

No need to apologise; likewise, I was being over-sensitive. 

 

I love this place, but sometimes I find the negativity overwhelming, makes me a bit tetchy.   

[coolhandfox]

4 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Hugely.

Mentioned the other day that there seems to be confusion between clubs and leagues about these rules. Then the version of the rules used, what's applicable etc 

Lawyers should be having a field day at all these loopholes

It is a minefield; even when clubs admit to breaking the rules, like Everton and Forest, it is not straightforward.  

 

They need to simplify it, which I think they will do in the summer. 

[FosseSpark]

the issue creating these rules is the presence of sovereign wealth funds (Man City, Newcastle) and ridiculous investment groups (Fenway etc) in football, attracted by the enormous potential value of clubs. If it were against premier league rules for these entities to be owners, and clubs had to be owned / financed by individuals, then the ability of clubs to drive up costs for the rest would be much more limited. 

I think  the sooner they create the Sovereign Wealth Super League and reset the Premier League and EFL rules on ownership the better

Edited 8 March 2024 by FosseSpark

[cjslcfc]

5 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Lawyers can't delay the FFP charges due to the laws the club's passed.

Man City has 115 charges not solely relating to FFP and significantly more complex than "have team x lost too much". The issues are not comparable.

 

Absolutely this. Fed up of the "look at Man City, why is everyone else getting charges finalised when they have 115 outstanding" etc....

 

Incredibly complex case vs. the cut and dry simple "overspend" charges. You can't wait for that to finish before sorting everything else it would be ridiculous.

 

The rules themselves are being shown to be highly anti-competitive and restrictive more so towards the small to medium clubs who have ambitions or do well for a short period of time and then suffer a season of failure (like us).

Edited 8 March 2024 by cjslcfc

[moore_94]

8 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Every Eddie Howe interview about it has implied he'll probably be signing. 

 

Lawyers can't delay the FFP charges due to the laws the club's passed.

Man City has 115 charges not solely relating to FFP and significantly more complex than "have team x lost too much". The issues are not comparable.

 

[ClaphamFox]

I wonder if the KP will cease to be the KP before the end of the season, and become something like the Thai Airways Stadium? Likewise I wonder if our shirts may start bearing a different sponsor's name before the end of the season, or even if Seagrave might become a sponsored training ground...

Edited 8 March 2024 by ClaphamFox

[An Away Move]

31 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I’d be tempted to sell Mads too if needed. We could easily pick up a decent goalkeeper on the cheap. 

Not playing in this system. He’s one of our most important players. 

[HankMarvin]

8 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

 

Chelsea to buy a Newcastle youngster n the next 6 months 🤔

[UniFox21]

13 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

It is a minefield; even when clubs admit to breaking the rules, like Everton and Forest, it is not straightforward.  

 

They need to simplify it, which I think they will do in the summer. 

Exactly, I know it can't be simple due to the complexities of finance and how things are hidden etc. 

But this level, as you say, where even when found guilty it's still a minefield. 

[urban.spaceman]

55 minutes ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

Think it depends on what they're for as you say, but I assume they're the day to day running of the club. King Power is a wealthy business, but isn't neccesarily cash rich. 

 

For context, here's a specific reason Everton failed FFP:

Everton used loans to pay for the day to day running of the club whilst funding the stadium themselves. The interest on the loans is what made Everton fail FFP. If they had used the loans for the stadium then the interest on them would have been dedcuted and they would have passed the £105m limit.

Everton failed FFP because of spending on players, not their stadium.

[Haywood_6]

FFP needs changing. They basically restrict any club outside the "Big 6" to compete with them. Because they can't spend as much.  It's basically saying to all other 14 clubs you all have to build 100,000 seater stadiums, generate multiple revenue streams, sell your best players for huge profits to even stand a chance of being able to spend the same money. It's just mad. All it does is reduces competition in one of the best leagues in the world. What's the point in having any ambition now with these rules.

[Ricey]

Encouraging/forcing clubs to sell their homegrown players is such a weird by-product of these rules.

[weller54]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

I wonder if the KP will cease to be the KP before the end of the season, and become something like the Thai Airways Stadium? Likewise I wonder if our shirts may start bearing a different sponsor's name before the end of the season, or even if Seagrave might become a sponsored training ground...

Ideal Sponsor for Seagrave....

[Jattdogg]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

I wonder if the KP will cease to be the KP before the end of the season, and become something like the Thai Airways Stadium? Likewise I wonder if our shirts may start bearing a different sponsor's name before the end of the season, or even if Seagrave might become a sponsored training ground...

I was about to say i wonder if someone, some company,  some monarchy (shady wealth fund like the saudis) will suddenly become partners, owners.   Then kp takes hit on running duty free as a back room arrangement or something haha.

 

End of the day we all have 0 feckin clue. No point speculating until we see published facts.

[orangecity23]

10 minutes ago, Ricey said:

Encouraging/forcing clubs to sell their homegrown players is such a weird by-product of these rules.

Encourages the big 6 to raid other clubs academy's as well, as happened to us with Trey Nyoni. Liverpool have previous there, helped themselves to Raheem Sterling from QPR. QPR ended up with an initial 450k, rising to 2 million. Liverpool made 45-50 million selling him to Man City. That 50 million would sure have helped out QPR when they were having financial troubles.

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, Fox85 said:

Best thing we can do is get rid of Vardy unfortunately due to his weekly earnings.

Get rid of Kel

Get Rid of Ndidi

Get rid of Ward 

Sell KDH 

 

And we will just have to rebuild bud just getting those wages off the books would set the club up for success 

We don’t need to get rid of those two

they’ll both have a taxi booked for the day after the last game …..

 

ward can be sold  (but who is going to buy him when he can sit around next season on 60k/week PL wage) 

[OntarioFox]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

Burn down Seagrave and add extra computers, calculators and watches to the insurance claim. Maybe even the odd Gucci belt too. 

Wonder if Madders left any of his manbags behind 🤔🔥

[st albans fox]

IF we go up, then presumably we will be treading carefully re bringing players in.  free transfers and some cheap journeymen 

 

how would this fit with enzo’s requirements which presumably require technical capable players ?  You’d assume that this type player won’t be affordable?   The club may decide that in the circumstances, trying to stay up with a Luton approach is more sensible than a Burnley one. 

[Chrysalis]

4 hours ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

The thing that has really ****ed us is the interest on the loans to Macquarie. Most of these loans were taken before interest rates sky rocketed and they won't be fixed rates.

Those loans were just stupid full stop, how does a club owned by a billionaire have enough cash flow issues to need to borrow from a commercial bank at commercial rates, what on earth has happened there.

Edited 8 March 2024 by Chrysalis

[Chrysalis]

4 hours ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

That's not the point i'm tryign to make though.

 

We don't have the cash to sign these players and others, clearly. In isolation the signings look good, but on the basis of what we're hearing they're not financially sound. 

Also claiming mitigating circumstances after buying Winks, Canon, Coady, and the loan players I think wont go down well.

[KFS]

2 hours ago, MPH said:

 

im not sure I understand this post. You speak with disdain about Forest and Everton with their rule breaking but when it’s us who may have  broken the rules it’s because the game is corrupt and designed to restrict anything but the ‘ power 6’

 

 

to be fair, if we are criticizing Forest and Everton for breaking the rules, we just need to take this on the chin if we have too. 

Please don’t lump us in with them two. We spent reasonably at least and in the context of our success. Champions League winners rocking up at newly promoted Forest with 20 mates is not what we did.