EFL Statement - Club has no obligation to submit and agree business plan

[Tommy G]

Just now, Chocolate Teapot said:

Sensationalizing you say? 

That’s not what sensationalising means mate - I am suggesting there is a chance Susan Whelan may get some further remuneration for her activities elsewhere not solely for her work at LCFC - which is quite feasible.

[ealingfox]

Just now, Chocolate Teapot said:

Sensationalizing you say? 

 

Nah come on, that bit didn't stack up. To my memory our director remuneration was always really low compared to other clubs when the Swiss Ramble charts rolled round each year. 

[filbertway]

Rudderz has about 4 gigs with King Power doesn't he? Imagine they all pay pretty well.

[Webbo]

Assuming get promoted, which is very likely.  Worse case scenario we get get the same punishment as Everton which may lead to us being relegated.  We may get relegated any way.

If we don't get promoted we may face a point deduction which will make it hard to get promotion next season, but the club will still survive. 

Can all the drama queens on here just calm the fck down.

[EastAnglianFox]

I understand that we could have the richest person on the planet in charge and it wouldn't change anything but im just asking is there anything out there at all we can do to raise more money other than possibly having to sell our biggest assets?

 

I guess if there was other clubs would have already found that loophole 

Edited 7 March by EastAnglianFox

[Tommy G]

14 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Rudderz has about 4 gigs with King Power doesn't he? Imagine they all pay pretty well.

More speculation 

[Happy Fox]

8 minutes ago, EastAnglianFox said:

I understand that we could have the richest person on the planet in charge and it wouldn't change anything but im just asking is there anything out there at all we can do to raise more money other than possibly having to sell our biggest assets?

 

I guess if there was other clubs would have already found that loophole 

Training ground could be sponsored?

[ClaphamFox]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Assuming get promoted, which is very likely.  Worse case scenario we get get the same punishment as Everton which may lead to us being relegated.  We may get relegated any way.

If we don't get promoted we may face a point deduction which will make it hard to get promotion next season, but the club will still survive. 

Can all the drama queens on here just calm the fck down.

Those outcomes are very asymmetric.

 

If we don't get promoted it won't be just the points deduction we'd have to worry about - we'd also have to slash our wage budget, which would make it even harder to get out of the division. Years of stagnation could follow.

 

If we get promoted and come straight back down while complying with the PSR rules (whatever they are at that point), we'll be in a much better position to push for promotion again.

 

We really need to get promoted.

[moore_94]

30 minutes ago, K789 said:

We may also be 1 x trey nyoni 5 mill from Liverpool away. Tribunal must be soon.  Who knows 

Should be getting more than that more him as well when you consider Chelsea had to pay up to about £4m for a 14 year old and Nyoni has already had first team involvement

[Levi Port]

Well for those complaining there is not enough jeopardy in games this season, here it is 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

6 minutes ago, Happy Fox said:

Training ground could be sponsored?

Naming rights to the stadium, but it's KPFC so we can't do that. 

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

 

 

We really need to get promoted.

Well obviously that's the preffered outcome.

At the start of this season, the same bed wetters were saying we'd be relegated to league 1, a few seasons in the championship don't seem so bad compared to that.

 Whatever happens its not the end of the world.

[HankMarvin]

EXCLUSIVELeicester exploit huge loophole in football's spending rules to avoid punishment this season after claiming to be both a Premier League and EFL club at the SAME TIME

 

Leicester have escaped sanctions for potential spending breaches this season 

The Foxes told both Premier League and EFL they didn't have to meet their rules 

Football's spending rules are facing further scrutiny after it emerged that Leicester have dodged sanctions this season by claiming to be both a Premier League and an EFL club at the same time.

 

Mail Sport has learned that Leicester have not complied with the Premier League's new fast-track system for potential spending breaches this season despite being at risk of breaking their Profit and Sustainability rules [PSR] for 2022/23 as they were relegated at the end of that campaign, but also avoided being subjected to an EFL spending plan this year on the grounds that they were a top-flight club last season.

 

In an extraordinary set of circumstances Leicester told the EFL in November that they did not have to comply with their regulations as they were a Premier League club last season, yet were not forced to abide by Premier League rules the following month when other clubs at risk of a PSR breach had to submit their accounts.

The Leicester case appears to expose a huge loophole at the heart of the football's controversial spending rules, which the club have exploited to give themselves the best chance of returning to the Premier League this season. 
 

Leicester could still be charged for breaching the Premier League's £105million loss limits last season, but any punishment and points deduction would apply next season and not jeopardise their promotion hopes, whereas Everton and Nottingham Forest are both facing points deductions this season for overspending during the same period.

Leicester City have exploited a huge loophole to avoid complying with Premier League and EFL spending rules following their relegation last season.

 

Enzo Maresca's Leicester are on course for an immediate return to the Premier League 

The anomaly has arisen after the Premier League introduced new rules for dealing with potential PSR cases last summer following complaints that Everton avoided a points deduction that would have seen them relegated last season, but did not apply them to Leicester. 
 

Under the new regulations clubs at risk of a PSR breach must submit their accounts three months earlier than their rivals on 31 December so that any disciplinary case can be concluded and any sanctions applied by the end of the season. 
 

Premier League sources confirmed to Mail Sport that their new standard directions only apply to Premier League clubs.

Everton and Forest both submitted their accounts to the Premier League in December and were subsequently charged with spending breaches for three years concluding with the 2022/23 season, with their cases to be heard over the next few weeks, but Leicester were not required to do so. 
 

Leicester's accounts must be filed by the end of this month and any punishment will be delayed until next season, by which time they are likely to be back in the Premier League, as Enzo Maresca's side lead the Championship by three points with 10 games remaining.

 

 

To complicate matters further Leicester are also at risk of breaching spending rules for the current season after the EFL's independent club financial reporting unit concluded the club 'was forecasting to breach the Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) loss limits for the three-year period ending with financial year 2023/24'.

 

In November the EFL made an application to make Leicester submit to a business plan which would have limited their spending this season, but the club successfully argued that EFL Rule 2.9 did not apply to them as they were a Premier League club last season.

Leicester are permitted to lose up to £83m over the past three years - £70m for two years in the Premier League and £13 million for this season in the EFL. 

Leicester sold midfielder James Maddison to Tottenham for about £40m last year 

They reinvested some of that cash in midfielder Harry Winks for £10m to help their bid to return to the Premier League at the first time of asking 

 

Their 2021/22 accounts showed a £92.5m loss, and another big loss is expected in their 2022/23 accounts.

Leicester could still avoid PSR charges for 2023/24 by raising funds through player sales by the end of June. If they fail to do so then the anomalies in the rules could have major consequences next season and leave Leicester facing two punishments in the same season.

 

The Premier League and EFL are understood to be holding talks over how to achieve greater alignment in their regulations to avoid similar situations occurring in the future.

Edited 7 March by HankMarvin

[Babylon]

47 minutes ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

1) I know you base your whole arguments on the basis that it's all speculation and no one has a clue but that's total bullshit tbh.

 

2) In any article written the club have a right of reply and can deny what's alleged, but in this case they've actually confirmed it. When they submitted the projections for the 23/24 season accounts they were on track to break FFP, that's in plain sight. The club have then got off from revealing their business plan to address this for the 23/24 season on a technicality, which has led the EFL to then release a statement saying they're going to change the rules which the club have confirmed with their own statement. 

 

3) In addition to this, I'm seeing Percy's name dragged through the mud and accusations that he's a 'click bait' journalist, which is pretty ****ing reductive and also hilarious given his track record with the club - he doesn't report shit, he never has done. For anyone unaware of journalistic practices as well, he'll have made the club aware he's producing the story and detailing what's in it - again, they have a right of reply here. The fact the club haven't refuted anything in this piece confirms the club are absolutely in a sticky situation financially. As has been alluded several times by several posters on here, many of whom are very reliable (one in particular) the suggestion is the club are going to have to sell regardless of whether we go up or not, this situation all but confirms that.

 

4) And then for the speculation - well your argument we can just make up a sponsorship on the basis that we're premier league is a really good one, and one that's never going to fly sadly. The premier league are all over stuff like this, particularly with Newcastle. They'll know our precarious financial situation and there's further stuff to this - from '26 betting companies are out, scrutiny against other deals that the club have done with companies with little information available... So to accuse others of wild speculation with this is bizarre when you yourself are speculating. Transfer income is the largest income for any football clubs P&L, our commercial revenue has topped £40m once (when we were in Europe) and given there's a large hole in the finances (as the projections suggested) the only way you're going to address this is selling a player, you're not going to be able to double your commercial revenue overnight on the basis that you're a premier league club. Well you can but you're not going to get away with it.

 

5) So this situation is pretty ****ing worrying for the ones that care about the club, that put their heart and soul into supporting the club and spend their hard earned cash following the club up and down the country. I can't put this any better than what @CosbehFox said yesterday, this a grave situation that impacts things far wider than the club and those highly paid executives and owner who've made decisions that have led us into this mess should face questions, including the bloke in charge of the football operation (which is the biggest department in the entire football club with the clue being in the name) who takes home an annual salary most of us won't earn in our lifetimes and is in charge of one of the things we hold most dear should face some scrutiny.

1) You should really attempt to actually read before posting. 

 

Stan said "How much would we need to get in through player sales before end of June to even have a sniff of being okay for next season?". That's a very specific request isn't it. The response of nobody has a scooby is perfectly correct. Are you actually attempting to argue that anyone on here could possibly answer that?

 

2) It's not a technicality at all. The panel clearly said that how we interpreted it is correct, and it's not even a case of ambiguity. The EFL even admitted their own rules aren't written very well in their own evidence. We've followed the process as it's written down. As for the right to reply, how many clubs actually do that? Few. It's not an admission of anything. 

 

3) Percy clearly stated it depends on our results, I'll repeat it again. PSR calculations are entirely different to a set of accounts, us making a loss doesn't automatically mean we fail PSR. If he knew the details, he'd give the details. But the fact is he doesn't give much detail at all other than us making a loss, which I'm sure we all knew was on the cards. 

 

"The key point is how much Leicester’s losses were in the 2022-23 season when they were still in the Premier League." He doesn't even attempt to answer it. Is it £20m, £40m, £60m £80m... you tell me? Or has nobody actually said? Apparently, not actually knowing and admitting we don't is a bad thing; what planet?

 

4) Once again, you fail to read what's been said. I didn't say make up a fake sponsorship. I said IF we gain promotion it gives us many avenues to increase revenue BEFORE the June deadline for PSR. That could include new sponsorship (not made up, real valid sponsorship), more corporate, more advertising. That's not speculation, that's the reality of being a premier league club. 

We don't know what the hole will be in the finances. Maybe that increase is enough, maybe it won't be enough. We have no idea how much needs to be met, but you can't ignore the fact there is a relatively easy cash boost sat there to come in on promotion. Even when the accounts appear, we won't have a full picture, as so much can be written off under PSR. 

 

5) I'm sure everyone is worried, but until we actually have the facts, it's just a bunch of hand-wringing. 

 

 

[Vestan Pance]

15 hours ago, Holly B said:

Tens of millions ?!?!

Dont talk shite 

 

Keep taking the King Power kool-aid 

[Pliskin]

I don’t know how many times this has to be said….

 

Percy knows as much as us. Which is nothing! 

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

I shouldn't find any of this funny but I can't stop giggling at those who will happily hang their hat on Percy or Sky when it comes to transfers but the veracity on anything remotely negative is immediately questioned.

 

I suppose journalists don't lie about good news, only bad news.

 

 

Sky? Has anyone believed a word they said in the last decade? The simple fact is the video they put out of Dorsett last night was just simply wrong. They clearly read the EFL post and ours and not the judgement. To suggest it had anything to do with what we submitted this March is laughable. The decision from the panel was taken in January, and held back until after the January transfer window. 

 

Percy is up and down; he clearly doesn't have the access he once did. But again, the article is speculative and clearly is hung around what our results are, that nobody even knows yet... let alone the PSR calculations from them. Because we have another 4 months until those are met and a lot can happen in that time. I don't doubt we are going to post a loss, we got relegated... of course we are. It's the finer details that matter, and he simply can't know them all, because he doesn't have a crystal ball to see into the future. 

 

What we'd need to find would be entirely different if we got promoted, compared to if we didn't due to all the increased revenues. 

 

[st albans fox]

46 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

I’d assume we would get 35m+ for KDH.

 

JJ I’m really not sure anyone pays us more than 15m with his prior injuries and inconsistency. 
 

Nelson has significant value.

 

Faes maybe? 
 

Hermansen certainly 25m+
 

Jakub probably 7.5m+
 

I’d suggest we might be able to make profits on the likes of Cannon and Mavididi.  

if you knew we were desperate for money, would you pay 35m for kdh ?

 

JJ would likely bring in around £10/15m if he doesn’t have any further injury issues 

 

neslon is not exposed enough to bring in more than about £10m imo

 

Faes has £9m left on his amortisation this summer. We wouldn’t get more than £12/15m for him so that’s a possible 6m in the plus column 

 

Mads had approx 5m left on his fee. I suppose we could get £15m somewhere which brings in 10m 

 

jakub - all profit but surely no one is paying more than £3/5m for him (and that being generous) 

 

4 minutes ago, Babylon said:

 

4) Once again, you fail to read what's been said. I didn't say make up a fake sponsorship. I said IF we gain promotion it gives us many avenues to increase revenue BEFORE the June deadline for PSR. That could include new sponsorship (not made up, real valid sponsorship), more corporate, more advertising. That's not speculation, that's the reality of being a premier league club. 
 

Without knowing for sure, my suspicion is that sponsorship deals run to end June ref ffp to be in line with everything else.  I would be astonished if we could make deals for 24/25 and include the income in psr accounts for 23/24. 

[Chrysalis]

1 hour ago, Qwerty said:

My understanding is that “complying” involves creating a business plan that we have to agree to and stick to.  That would be almost impossible surely, for a club who don’t know if they’re going to get promoted. At a time of possible change, we wouldn’t want to be tied to a legally binding business plan if we didn’t have to be. 

That does seem overly restrictive on the club, if what you say is true then it adds a new tint to it.

[HankMarvin]

10 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Sky? Has anyone believed a word they said in the last decade? The simple fact is the video they put out of Dorsett last night was just simply wrong. They clearly read the EFL post and ours and not the judgement. To suggest it had anything to do with what we submitted this March is laughable. The decision from the panel was taken in January, and held back until after the January transfer window. 

 

Percy is up and down; he clearly doesn't have the access he once did. But again, the article is speculative and clearly is hung around what our results are, that nobody even knows yet... let alone the PSR calculations from them. Because we have another 4 months until those are met and a lot can happen in that time. I don't doubt we are going to post a loss, we got relegated... of course we are. It's the finer details that matter, and he simply can't know them all, because he doesn't have a crystal ball to see into the future. 

 

What we'd need to find would be entirely different if we got promoted, compared to if we didn't due to all the increased revenues. 

 

But the financial rewards for promotion are spread over the next 3 seasons after promotion, not counted for this season. 

For example the playoffs 
 

The prize money for winning the 2023 playoffs is £178 million, distributed over the subsequent three seasons. This money can provide financial stability, allow the club to strengthen its roster, and enable it to compete with the world's best teams

 

The merit payments from where you finish in the championship wouldn’t be that significant from 6th to first.

Edited 7 March by HankMarvin

[st albans fox]

Here’s a thought 

we get promoted 

we are subsequently found guilty of breaking EFL psr. 
 

they cannot sanction us with points so they fine us.

 

ipswich finish third and fail to get promoted via the play offs 

 

are Ipswich able to sue us for PL monies based on this ?  Perhaps this could be the reason why we were rumoured to have dropped our interest in taking Everton to court for damages?    Assuming we do go up I suggest we all get behind the team finishing third in the play offs !!!!!

[CosbehFox]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

 

Here’s a thought 

we get promoted 

we are subsequently found guilty of breaking EFL psr. 
 

they cannot sanction us with points so they fine us.

 

ipswich finish third and fail to get promoted via the play offs 

 

are Ipswich able to sue us for PL monies based on this ?  Perhaps this could be the reason why we were rumoured to have dropped our interest in taking Everton to court for damages?    Assuming we do go up I suggest we all get behind the team finishing third in the play offs !!!!!

Yes if you use the Middlesborough&Wycombe v Derby case as an example. 

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

Yes if you use the Middlesborough&Wycombe v Derby case as an example. 

Boro came to an agreement with Mel morris

wycombe came an agreement with Derby’s administrators 

 

hopefully that means there is no precedent to be drawn on at this stage. I guess it’s in everyone’s interest to keep it that way because no one knows when it might be them in the frame ……

[HankMarvin]

8 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

You are asking who he had access to previously and why he doesn't now, then claiming with certainty that is untrue - mind boggles. 

 

To translate for you, what he is saying is Percy's articles were spot on, every time under Pearson and during our Championship winning period - but the tone of his reporting and accuracy, and how loose the report was last night with lots of could maybe and probablys in it would suggest he isn't as tight with whoever he was tight with before.

 

Its common knowledge every Journo has moles within clubs - it may of been your best mate Rudkin, or someone equally as influencial. Percy won't leak that - but the quality of his reporting suggests he might not be getting as bigger bite now compared to what he was used to before. 

I don’t think it was just on the ball with Pearson, up until Rodger’s went he was getting exclusives on transfer news then it seemed to sour 

 

from 

The Leicester logjam: Why Brendan Rodgers' transfer plans have been paralysed

 

and May 2023

 

“Complacency, contract mismanagement and a lack of ruthlessness: How the Leicester dream turned sour

Just seven years after that fairytale win, Leicester find themselves going from Premier League champions to playing in the Championship.”

 

In a way it’s a double edged sword as a journalist, if you have to write negative articles. 
Don’t bite the hand that feeds you and all that.

 

 

 

Edited 7 March by HankMarvin

[CosbehFox]

30 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Sky? Has anyone believed a word they said in the last decade? The simple fact is the video they put out of Dorsett last night was just simply wrong. They clearly read the EFL post and ours and not the judgement. To suggest it had anything to do with what we submitted this March is laughable. The decision from the panel was taken in January, and held back until after the January transfer window. 

 

Percy is up and down; he clearly doesn't have the access he once did. But again, the article is speculative and clearly is hung around what our results are, that nobody even knows yet... let alone the PSR calculations from them. Because we have another 4 months until those are met and a lot can happen in that time. I don't doubt we are going to post a loss, we got relegated... of course we are. It's the finer details that matter, and he simply can't know them all, because he doesn't have a crystal ball to see into the future. 

 

What we'd need to find would be entirely different if we got promoted, compared to if we didn't due to all the increased revenues. 

 

We are putting your head in the ground if we take this view though. 

 

You only need to look at the building evidence - Saints and Villa's accounts, EFL's early warning, Percy will to commit it to print. 

 

It's churlish to ignore the signs and sit there like the dog in the meme whilst it burns. 

 

At the very least, it's' going to be tight and places further onus on this seasons accounts in a season with significantly reduced income. Which further highlights the need to sell. 

Edited 7 March by CosbehFox