Leicester 'could face points deduction next season'

[st albans fox]

14 minutes ago, davieG said:

Seems like they've only read the headlines.

 

The Arsenal View - https://untold-arsenal.com/archives/107782

 

But now moving on… we have the case of Leicester City.   They have been fighting the League in terms of their breaches of  Profitability and Sustainability Rules,   Because they have appealed we don’t know how many points they are having deducted, but that deduction will apply this coming season.

The appeal of Leicester has always (to me if no one else) looked rather weird since the essence of it seemed to be (and here I quote the Telegraph) “the Premier League had no jurisdiction to punish the club as the alleged breach occurred in the 2022/23 season, when they were last competing in the top division.”

 

In reply the Premier League said: “An independent Commission has dismissed a challenge by Leicester City FC that it has no jurisdiction to consider an alleged breach of Profitability and Sustainability Rules. 

“In March, the Premier League referred the club to the Independent Commission for the alleged breach. Leicester City subsequently challenged the Commission’s authority to hear the case.   The alleged breach relates to the PSRs for Season 2022/23, when the club was a member of the Premier League.”

Of course, if Leicester won their case and had their points deducted last time they were a Premier League club it would make no odds except the record would show them coming bottom rather than 18th.  Here’s the table as it was recorded at the time…

 

 

	Team	P	W	D	L	F	A	GD	Pts
17	Everton	38	8	12	18	34	57	-23	36
18	Leicester City	38	9	7	22	51	68	-17	34
19	Leeds United	38	7	10	21	48	78	-30	31
20	Southampton	38	6	7	25	36	73	-37	25

 

 

 

As ever in nonsense appeals like this, there is an independent commission to have a look, and they of course said this was all a load of turnips, and so Leicester appealed against the findings of the appeal.   Their actions form a notable contrast with those of Everton and Nottingham Forest who have appealed according to the rule book and then accepted the ruling and simply got on with matters.

Because we don’t know how many points Leicester will be deducted I guess the league tables will leave them with all their points in the new season, until the matter is decided.   Possibly in 2025.

The rules clearly state that clubs cannot exceed losses of £105 million over a three-year reporting period.   Leicester didn’t just exceed that figure they drove a coach, several horses and quite possibly a couple of tanks through it knocking up losses of £182.20m in just two seasons.  That is to say they were 73% over the limit.

Another person who has no idea what the psr rules are (because they’re not relevant to the rich six )

[ClaphamFox]

47 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Another person who has no idea what the psr rules are (because they’re not relevant to the rich six )

It isn't just fan sites. The journalist who wrote this article in the Mirror apparently has no idea of the difference between an overall financial loss and a PSR loss. 

But then again, half our own fans don't seem to get it either, so maybe it's unfair to expect other people to...

[davieG]

5 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

It isn't just fan sites. The journalist who wrote this article in the Mirror apparently has no idea of the difference between an overall financial loss and a PSR loss. 

But then again, half our own fans don't seem to get it either, so maybe it's unfair to expect other people to...

Aye but at least our fans have a legitimate interest and are not trying to make money with ignorant half truths

[davieG]

https://eplindex.com/114446/revealed-bad-news-for-leicester-city-as-their-psr-fate-is-revealed.html

 

Revealed: Bad News for Leicester City as Their PSR Fate is Revealed

Jul 4, 2024
By
Alex Bates

Leicester City’s Premier League Predicament: Facing PSR Charges
Leicester’s Struggle Against Premier League Authority
Leicester City’s ongoing battle with Premier League authorities took another hit as their appeal against a Profit and Sustainability (PSR) charge was dismissed by an independent commission. This ruling means the Premier League retains the power to enforce actions against the Foxes for alleged financial breaches during the three seasons leading up to 2022-23. Initially charged in March, Leicester’s contention stemmed from their status in the English Football League (EFL) at the time of the charge, arguing the Premier League’s lack of jurisdiction over them due to their relegation in 2023. Despite this, the commission affirmed the top flight’s authority to continue its pursuit.

A statement from Leicester reflected their discontent: “LCFC notes the publication today of the decision of the Premier League Commission. The Club is disappointed with the decision, which does not appear to reflect the wording of the Premier League’s Rules, and has lodged an appeal.”

Financial Fair Play and Leicester’s Premier League Return
The heart of the issue lies in Leicester’s financial operations during their recent Premier League campaigns. The club, having made a triumphant return to the Premier League by clinching the Championship title last season, finds itself grappling with substantial losses. Their latest financial statements up to June 30, 2023, reveal a staggering £89.7 million loss, bringing their total deficit across the scrutinized period to over £215 million.

Despite these daunting figures, Leicester’s situation is somewhat mitigated by the possibility of claiming ‘add backs’. This means certain expenditures, notably those on football infrastructure, could be offset against their losses. The rules of the top flight permit clubs to incur losses up to £105 million over three years—or £35 million annually—before sanctions are applied. In the previous financial year alone, Leicester reported a record loss of £92.5 million, and a year before that, a £33.1 million loss—even as they celebrated their first FA Cup victory.

Leicester’s Defence Against Premier League Charges
Leicester’s stance has been one of resilience and defiance against what they perceive as overreach by football authorities. When charged, the club expressed their surprise and disappointment, particularly over the timing, as they were no longer in the Premier League. They vowed to defend themselves “from any unlawful acts by the football authorities, should they seek to exercise jurisdiction where they cannot do so”.

The Premier League, however, confirmed the appeal’s dismissal, stating, “An independent Commission has dismissed a challenge by Leicester City FC that it has no jurisdiction to consider an alleged breach of Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSRs).”

Looking Ahead: Leicester’s Premier League Challenge
As Leicester City gears up to navigate through these tumultuous waters, the broader implications for their future in the Premier League cannot be understated. The outcome of their final appeal will crucially dictate not just potential sanctions but will also test the governance and enforcement of financial regulations within English football. For a club that has experienced both the zenith of a Premier League title and the nadirs of financial losses, the journey ahead is fraught with challenges but also opportunities for redemption and resilience.

In sum, Leicester City’s saga with the Premier League over PSR charges encapsulates a broader narrative of financial management, regulatory challenges, and the harsh realities of football economics. As they continue to contest the league’s authority, the football world watches closely, keen to see how this battle will shape the future of club governance in the Premier League.

[coolhandfox]

If you take you time to research and read about PSR it's pretty simple to understand the basics.

 

But I think it highlights a lack of transparency, I think it should be mandatory that all clubs included their PSR calculation in their accounts. Take a look at Ipswich account who have included the calculation.

 

It makes it easier to understand where clubs are and where they need to be.

Edited 5 July 2024 by coolhandfox

[urban.spaceman]

 

[Adster]

43 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

Up the fvcking Di Marco then

[les-tah]

Is there any chance the Premier League just reach out to us and say stop dragging this on please just accept a 3 point deduction and we will all move on?

[KFS]

39 minutes ago, les-tah said:

Is there any chance the Premier League just reach out to us and say stop dragging this on please just accept a 3 point deduction and we will all move on?

That’ll be the angle we’re going for

[Les-TA-Jon]

11 minutes ago, KFS said:

That’ll be the angle we’re going for

The new development yesterday was that LCFC had challenging the notion that the PL had jurisdiction over us for the full period in question, in the first instance, based purely on a very technical and hyper-literal reading of the PL rules. 

 

That challenge was rejected and the decision was that the PL does have jurisdiction and the Independent Commission can go ahead and rule on PL's charges to us. 

 

LCFC have appealed that decision. 

 

So it seems like our strategy is still to try and find loopholes.

[CosbehFox]

2 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

If you take you time to research and read about PSR it's pretty simple to understand the basics.

 

But I think it highlights a lack of transparency, I think it should be mandatory that all clubs included their PSR calculation in their accounts. Take a look at Ipswich account who have included the calculation.

 

It makes it easier to understand where clubs are and where they need to be.

If they were transparent, it would make a huge difference. 
 

Lots of foreign leagues run a license system and some of them run full transparency of that process 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

 

This looks significant.

 

Clear sign that can kicking is a good ploy.

 

[Guest Col city fan]

Any more news on this? 

[ClaphamFox]

12 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Any more news on this? 

The can was dropped in front of us yesterday when our challenge to the PL's authority to charge us was dismissed, but we then gave it an almighty kick by immediately appealing. It will be dropped back in front of us again when our appeal is rejected, but nobody really knows when that will be.

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

The can was dropped in front of us yesterday in front of an open goal and Daka put it into row Z.

 

[urban.spaceman]

Have the Premier League thought through a single permutation of their own rules? 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/04/premier-league-set-to-scrutinise-unofficial-deadline-day-transfers

[Foxin_Mad]

57 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Have the Premier League thought through a single permutation of their own rules? 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/04/premier-league-set-to-scrutinise-unofficial-deadline-day-transfers

No they are ****ing idiots, this is why I don't know why anyone sticks up for them.

 

The clubs ownership maybe shit but those running the Premier League are the most useless bunch of corrupt ***** out there. I wish more collective anger were aimed at them shit bags. 

[Wortho]

47 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

No they are ****ing idiots, this is why I don't know why anyone sticks up for them.

 

The clubs ownership maybe shit but those running the Premier League are the most useless bunch of corrupt ***** out there. I wish more collective anger were aimed at them shit bags. 

Top post!!! The PL aren’t fit for purpose and are so corrupt. I hope Man City have a result in their case against the PL.

[Chrysalis]

16 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Have the Premier League thought through a single permutation of their own rules? 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/04/premier-league-set-to-scrutinise-unofficial-deadline-day-transfers

All this nonsense because they refuse to have a flat spending limit, an insistence its tied to income/profit/losses.  Hence everything that affects an income now being scrutinised.  The latter would be a total non issue with a flat spending limit.

 

Whether something is value for money is between the two parties involved in the deal, who are the EPL to decide?, that applies to sponsorship, player transfers, player contracts, and so on.  Where was their scrutiny on Liverpool sponsorship deals, Manchester united shirt sponsorship, Arsenal Stadium rights.

Edited 7 July 2024 by Chrysalis

[ClaphamFox]

A little bit more on Man City's challenge to the PL...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/08/manchester-city-claim-premier-league-analysis-commercial-income-unfair

[Foxin_Mad]

On 07/07/2024 at 10:36, Chrysalis said:

Where was their scrutiny on Liverpool sponsorship deals, Manchester united shirt sponsorship, Arsenal Stadium rights.

No because the USA red cartel can do no wrong. They will just say global brand blah blah. Its tiresome. 

 

United have more in debt payments each year than our losses over 3 years!

 

 

[lcfc_forever]

The Telegraph article from Percy has been posted a few times but he says the club think they needed £40m to be PSR compliant for 23-24, and believe they achieved this following Maresca and KDH leaving for Chelsea. 

Edited 8 July 2024 by lcfc_forever

[st albans fox]

On 07/07/2024 at 10:36, Chrysalis said:

Where was their scrutiny on Liverpool sponsorship deals, Manchester united shirt sponsorship, Arsenal Stadium rights.

Pukka global business’ are queuing up to sponsor the rich six.
maybe they’re paying rather over the odds and there could be some shenanigans there but they want to sponsor them and it’s generally traceable.  
 

Chelsea’s infinite athlete deal is interesting as I believe it’s a boehly connected business so should be subject to greater inspection by the PL. 

 

 

[st albans fox]

33 minutes ago, Foxin_Mad said:

No because the USA red cartel can do no wrong. They will just say global brand blah blah. Its tiresome. 

 

United have more in debt payments each year than our losses over 3 years!

 

 

And they easily cover those interest payments because they generate many hundreds of millions in commercial income 

 

it’s just basic business

debt is fine if you have a lot of income 

 

[ClaphamFox]

7 minutes ago, lcfc_forever said:

The Telegraph article from Percy has been posted a few times but he says the club think they needed £40m to be PSR compliant for 23-24, and believe they achieved this following Maresca and KDH leaving for Chelsea. 

Other reports have suggested the same. I don't think we need to worry about a second breach now. It's just a matter of what we'll get for the 22-23 breach.