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

[goose2010]

47 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

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

We get that you dont like King Power but mate its getting pretty boring now. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

3 minutes ago, goose2010 said:

We get that you dont like King Power but mate its getting pretty boring now. 

Pop me on ignore then 

[gw_leics772]

16 hours ago, Lambert09 said:

From percys article.

 

what a crock of shit. How can you be punished for 3 years cumulative losses in chapionship when 2 of 3 were in prem with different rules. Should have to wait 3 years, or at least pro rata it for 1 year. 

 

 

[Jattdogg]

Lets face it, we have no effing clue what this really means for us and just have to see how it all unfolds.

 

Just focus on trying to get promoted and deal with it if and when any sanctions come. Its out of our control (club, do your job).

Edited 7 March 2024 by Jattdogg

[UniFox21]

2 minutes ago, gw_leics772 said:

From percys article.

 

what a crock of shit. How can you be punished for 3 years cumulative losses in chapionship when 2 of 3 were in prem with different rules. Should have to wait 3 years, or at least pro rata it for 1 year. 

 

 

They wonder how so many clubs get around the rules with litigation when this is the state of them

[CosbehFox]

If you want an example of how dim they are at the top.....

 

it's going to be a tight fit financially on the 23/24 accounts - why have we committed ourselves upon promotion to spending £16-18 million on two players with obligation clauses? One of which isn't very good. 

 

That's absolute madness by whoever executed that deal considering players will need to be sold. 

[purpleronnie]

Might be a good idea to ease up the mocking of everton and notts forest for their possible deductions.

[CosbehFox]

3 minutes ago, gw_leics772 said:

From percys article.

 

what a crock of shit. How can you be punished for 3 years cumulative losses in chapionship when 2 of 3 were in prem with different rules. Should have to wait 3 years, or at least pro rata it for 1 year. 

 

 

Exactly Forest's problem. 

[UniFox21]

Just now, purpleronnie said:

Might be a good idea to ease up the mocking of everton and notts forest for their possible deductions.

Its an interesting one, we're set to breach the EFL mitigated losses of £83m, a situation we're in because of their breaking of rules. 

 

Then if we go up having broken rules, one or two of Leeds/Ipswich/soton will miss out on promotion etc 

[An Away Move]

2 minutes ago, purpleronnie said:

Might be a good idea to ease up the mocking of everton and notts forest for their possible deductions.

Not if we can comply. Why is everyone assuming we haven’t. We’re just on course to not comply. Sell players, which I assume is in the plan, and we avoid falling foul. 

[pkonline]

10 minutes ago, gw_leics772 said:

From percys article.

 

what a crock of shit. How can you be punished for 3 years cumulative losses in chapionship when 2 of 3 were in prem with different rules. Should have to wait 3 years, or at least pro rata it for 1 year. 

 

 

I thought it would be breach 2 years PL + 1 year equivalent EFL pro rata?

[pkonline]

8 minutes ago, purpleronnie said:

Might be a good idea to ease up the mocking of everton and notts forest for their possible deductions.

I don't think there's been much of that - think most fans are pretty sympathetic to their issues - because it can happen to anyone.

[StanSP]

Who fancies going to The Winchester...? 

 

 

 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

5 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

If you want an example of how dim they are at the top.....

 

it's going to be a tight fit financially on the 23/24 accounts - why have we committed ourselves upon promotion to spending £16-18 million on two players with obligation clauses? One of which isn't very good. 

 

That's absolute madness by whoever executed that deal considering players will need to be sold. 

Yunus' obligation is also dependent on a certain number of appearances, is it not?

[moore_94]

1 minute ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Yunus' obligation is also dependent on a certain number of appearances, is it not?

Both are

[ClaphamFox]

6 minutes ago, pkonline said:

I thought it would be breach 2 years PL + 1 year equivalent EFL pro rata?

This is correct.

[Fox 4 Life]

The irony of us "trying to sue" Everton, makes Rudkin look even more ridiculous.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

14 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

If you want an example of how dim they are at the top.....

 

it's going to be a tight fit financially on the 23/24 accounts - why have we committed ourselves upon promotion to spending £16-18 million on two players with obligation clauses? One of which isn't very good. 

 

That's absolute madness by whoever executed that deal considering players will need to be sold. 

Wait - you’re criticising two deferred deals for players that have significantly  contributed to the teams efforts this season?

 

The clauses are triggered based on appearances and promotion, with the fees coming out of the following PS&R period.

 

I’d say that’s more astute than madness.

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

3 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Wait - you’re criticising two deferred deals for players that have significantly  contributed to the teams efforts this season?

 

The clauses are triggered based on appearances and promotion, with the fees coming out of the following PS&R period.

 

I’d say that’s more astute than madness.

Yunus significantly contributed?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

26 minutes ago, gw_leics772 said:

From percys article.

 

what a crock of shit. How can you be punished for 3 years cumulative losses in chapionship when 2 of 3 were in prem with different rules. Should have to wait 3 years, or at least pro rata it for 1 year. 

 

 

That is pro-rata.

 

£35 million for the two Premier League seasons, £15 for this year’s Championship season.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Just now, Chocolate Teapot said:

Yunus significantly contributed?

Who would have played in midfield if he wasn’t available and playing recently.

[HankMarvin]

30 minutes ago, gw_leics772 said:

From percys article.

 

what a crock of shit. How can you be punished for 3 years cumulative losses in chapionship when 2 of 3 were in prem with different rules. Should have to wait 3 years, or at least pro rata it for 1 year. 

 

 

It’s not, it’s 35m 35m prem and 13 for the championship 

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

1 minute ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Who would have played in midfield if he wasn’t available and playing recently.

He's playing because there's no one else available, I just don't think he's significantly contributed.

[iancognito]

34 minutes ago, gw_leics772 said:

From percys article.

 

what a crock of shit. How can you be punished for 3 years cumulative losses in chapionship when 2 of 3 were in prem with different rules. Should have to wait 3 years, or at least pro rata it for 1 year. 

 

 

This is what Everton argued and was part of the reason they got pts back. The new rules will still take another couple of points off.

[K789]

2 minutes ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

He's playing because there's no one else available, I just don't think he's significantly contributed.

Yunus I get, cannon seems like madness tho when we knew daka wasn't going