Transfer embargo

[Motty]

27 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Did you find this out yourself or was it something you’d heard from a reputable source.  ?
if true it’s a big problem 

in addition to us being unable to renew contracts of existing players we may have wanted to (according to owynn PA ) without efl approval 

 

you’d assume that the club would understand all the issues before ‘going to war’

 

It's in the rule book appendix 5 section 5.1

[Clever Fox]

20 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

There are two issues, one the rules are bent and two, we and others, broke them, they are not related.

Yes, But did we break them knowing they were stupid rules and uninforcable.

 

For instance Forest had a very legitmate reason for defering the sale of a player until the Summer. 

 

Legally you're are entitled to protect your Assets and not be forced to under value sell them.

 

The Rules seem like they were written on a Knapkin over a Coffee and not fit for purpose.

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

Yes, But did we break them knowing they were stupid rules and uninforcable.

 

For instance Forest had a very legitmate reason for defering the sale of a player until the Summer. 

 

Legally you're are entitled to protect your Assets and not be forced to under value sell them.

 

The Rules seem like they were written on a Knapkin over a Coffee and not fit for purpose.

 

clearly the authorities don’t agree with that because they found forest guilty 

 

End of year accounts are end of year accounts. financial deadlines have to be met . If you don’t want to undersell a particular asset then sell others or don’t spend until the following  financial year begins.  

[Corky]

4 hours ago, Footballwipe said:

It's nice to see some fans firing their ire in the right direction.

 

You know, we might successfully appeal this embargo or any points deduction, but the simple plain fact is we absolutely should not be breaching these rules in the first place. That is on our ownership and senior management structure.

 

We know there's no accountability, but in my Disney dreamworld I'd love them to say "you know what... We gambled and it didn't work, we made mistakes that led us to this position. We don't agree with the rulings but we're sorry we let it get this bad in the first place."

 

But no, deflect, defend, bed in and pretend like the EFL and Premier League have spun a wheel on who to penalise next. 

The hardest thing is to look at yourself and admit wrongdoing. Very easy to scream and accuse others. 

 

The fact is, we lost £92 million in one year in a period we were permitted to lose £105 million over three. The Premier League, EFL, Big 6, cartel or whoever is next to blame did not force us to do that. We could have halved that loss and probably complied. We chose not to sell a player and risked it. That is our doing.

 

The rules are restrictive but that is what they are. We managed to cope for nearly a decade before it without fuss. I feel this posturing will deflect from the bigger issue that we need serious reform within.

[coolhandfox]

17 minutes ago, Corky said:

The hardest thing is to look at yourself and admit wrongdoing. Very easy to scream and accuse others. 

 

The fact is, we lost £92 million in one year in a period we were permitted to lose £105 million over three. The Premier League, EFL, Big 6, cartel or whoever is next to blame did not force us to do that. We could have halved that loss and probably complied. We chose not to sell a player and risked it. That is our doing.

 

The rules are restrictive but that is what they are. We managed to cope for nearly a decade before it without fuss. I feel this posturing will deflect from the bigger issue that we need serious reform within.

That's not how the PSR calculation works, we would have had healthy expenditure to deduct for the 93m los in the accounts.

 

The loss after those and used for PSR calculations would have been around - 75m.

Edited 23 March by coolhandfox

[sylofox]

38 minutes ago, Corky said:

The hardest thing is to look at yourself and admit wrongdoing. Very easy to scream and accuse others. 

 

The fact is, we lost £92 million in one year in a period we were permitted to lose £105 million over three. The Premier League, EFL, Big 6, cartel or whoever is next to blame did not force us to do that. We could have halved that loss and probably complied. We chose not to sell a player and risked it. That is our doing.

 

The rules are restrictive but that is what they are. We managed to cope for nearly a decade before it without fuss. I feel this posturing will deflect from the bigger issue that we need serious reform within.

Not sure if you have written that correctly. You can only lose £35m in a year and total £105m in 3yrs.

 

If we really did lose £92m in one year we are way over and have no excuse for that.

 

Seems we first need to clear out our accounts department and start again. A group of Alevel students could have done better.

[coolhandfox]

11 minutes ago, sylofox said:

Not sure if you have written that correctly. You can only lose £35m in a year and total £105m in 3yrs.

 

If we really did lose £92m in one year we are way over and have no excuse for that.

 

Seems we first need to clear out our accounts department and start again. A group of Alevel students could have done better.

You can lose over 35m a year as long as you are under for the 3 year rolling period.

 

The annual loss is just the start of the calculations not the end point as you have healthy expenditures to deducted as part of the PSR calculation.

[JimmyC74]

The sad reality is whenever in recent times we have paid enlarged fees to push us on (see Slimani, Daka, Soumare) it hasn’t worked, they haven’t pushed us on.That’s in a football sense, up the table, deeper in cup competitions or in terms of increased financial rewards

 

and sadly we haven’t been able to sell them either and we have been burned for it.

 

whatever happens next a root and branch review (and change) in the football leadership role (DofF) is a must.

 

 

[coolhandfox]

I find it interesting that the EFL have charged us when the accounts under jurisdiction 23-24, are still in progress.

 

 

[Clever Fox]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

 

clearly the authorities don’t agree with that because they found forest guilty 

 

End of year accounts are end of year accounts. financial deadlines have to be met . If you don’t want to undersell a particular asset then sell others or don’t spend until the following  financial year begins.  

I hear what you're saying, though I think you may be missing my point.

 

I remember reading this somewhere, in Law you cant be forced or instructed,  by Contract or otherwise to make your circumstances worse off financially by the actions of others.

 

I'm sure some of the Legal heads on here might be able to throw some light on it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lcfc_forever]

As an earlier poster said, it’s OK to criticise both the board and the authorities about the mess we’re in - it’s not an either/or. The board are culpable for putting us into a position where we can be punished, and the authorities for not being clear whose jurisdiction we come under, inconsistency and the nature of the rules which favour the biggest clubs. 

Edited 23 March by lcfc_forever

[Clever Fox]

3 hours ago, Corky said:

The hardest thing is to look at yourself and admit wrongdoing. Very easy to scream and accuse others. 

 

The fact is, we lost £92 million in one year in a period we were permitted to lose £105 million over three. The Premier League, EFL, Big 6, cartel or whoever is next to blame did not force us to do that. We could have halved that loss and probably complied. We chose not to sell a player and risked it. That is our doing.

 

The rules are restrictive but that is what they are. We managed to cope for nearly a decade before it without fuss. I feel this posturing will deflect from the bigger issue that we need serious reform within.

Where does the increase in Player valuations play a part ? For instance KDH was home grown but is now work say 40 million surely that must offset losses somewhere at least on paper.

 

Surely Squad Value must come into it at some point. 

Edited 23 March by Clever Fox
Spelling typo

[Finn Claw II]

The 30th June date is a bit odd in terms of the current rules.  You are also incentivised to sell home grown players.

 

but overall spending within your means isn’t a bad aim.  
 

It’ll be interesting to see what punishment Man City gets in the end is all I would say.

[LVFox]

21 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

Where does the increase in Player valuations play a part ? For instance KDH was home grown vut is now work say 40 million surely that must offset losses somewhere at least on paper.

 

Surely Squad Value must come into it at some point. 

Happy to be corrected here, but it doesn't, and to be honest that's the correct thing to do.

 

Valuation is subjective and could easily be exploited beyond belief. The only tangible way of valuing a player is how much they are bought and sold for, which is how its recognised now.

[m4DD0gg]

Putting aside the obvious corruption in the premier league, the PSR/FFP rules are anti-competitive to say the least.

 

In what other business are you not permitted to invest money into something even in the knowledge it will be at a loss?

 

I hope in our legal action we blow the whole thing wide open.

[JimmyC74]

1 minute ago, LVFox said:

Happy to be corrected here, but it doesn't, and to be honest that's the correct thing to do.

 

Valuation is subjective and could easily be exploited beyond belief. The only tangible way of valuing a player is how much they are bought and sold for, which is how its recognised now.

Think you are correct. Cost price of transfers is included on the balance sheet and amortised, I am not sure that an arbitrary value is applied to youth players but could be wrong.

[Dahnsouff]

2 hours ago, Clever Fox said:

Yes, But did we break them knowing they were stupid rules and uninforcable.

 

For instance Forest had a very legitmate reason for defering the sale of a player until the Summer. 

 

Legally you're are entitled to protect your Assets and not be forced to under value sell them.

 

The Rules seem like they were written on a Knapkin over a Coffee and not fit for purpose.

Not sure how that is relevant tbh, stupid rules or not, we signed up to them. 

[cjslcfc]

7 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Not sure how that is relevant tbh, stupid rules or not, we signed up to them. 

 

Whilst I agree to some extent, from what I gather some of our argument (largely around the timing of things) is that we didn't sign up to the new rules around expedited process and we want things to happen at the rate they should not based on what the teams this season agreed to.

 

It does seem we are taking the route of "your rules are written appallingly and ambiguously, please can you deal with us at the appropriate and proper time and not try and make an example of us". Much the same with our response to both the EFL requesting a business plan (on which we were backed by an independent panel) and yesterday putting us under embargo despite not having finished the season or accounting period yet where plenty of time remains to try and comply. 23/24 ends at the end of June so they are massively over-reaching to try and make an example of it and we are standing our ground.

 

There's been plenty of talk back from the club about authorities reaching outside of their jurisdiction or power but at no point has the club said it refutes the allegations of breaching the rules for the PL. I am sure the acknowledgement of rule breaking will come (alongside evidence of how hard we tried to mitigate) but you wouldn't put that in public whilst opening legal cases / defences against both the EPL and EFL!

 

Add to this that the rules are changing again from next season (I think!) for the EPL and it's just a complete shitshow on both sides to be honest.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, cjslcfc said:

 

Whilst I agree to some extent, from what I gather some of our argument (largely around the timing of things) is that we didn't sign up to the new rules around expedited process and we want things to happen at the rate they should not based on what the teams this season agreed to.

 

It does seem we are taking the route of "your rules are written appallingly and ambiguously, please can you deal with us at the appropriate and proper time and not try and make an example of us". Much the same with our response to both the EFL requesting a business plan (on which we were backed by an independent panel) and yesterday putting us under embargo despite not having finished the season or accounting period yet where plenty of time remains to try and comply. 23/24 ends at the end of June so they are massively over-reaching to try and make an example of it and we are standing our ground.

 

There's been plenty of talk back from the club about authorities reaching outside of their jurisdiction or power but at no point has the club said it refutes the allegations of breaching the rules for the PL. I am sure the acknowledgement of rule breaking will come (alongside evidence of how hard we tried to mitigate) but you wouldn't put that in public whilst opening legal cases / defences against both the EPL and EFL!

 

Add to this that the rules are changing again from next season (I think!) for the EPL and it's just a complete shitshow on both sides to be honest.

If that is our intent then fair play, all for sticking it to corrupt establishment as a basis for a challenge, but as misdirection to hide our poor financial management, then not so much.

 

The deal with the deadlines for accounts, their differences is clear and we won that initial battle, so also fair enough.

[lcfcbluearmy]

I think what the EFL are doing does appear to be wrong to me as surely we can't have broken their rules until the end of the season so how can they put us under embargo before we have broken the rules. If we do break the rules at that point we should be punished but not preemptively because they believe we might?

[Chrysalis]

Should we merge the threads, two discussions on one thing.

[KFS]

I know this forum sometimes has an inability to consider two arguments concurrently, but here’s your daily reminder that this is the fault of both the PL (EFL) and Jon Rudkin.

 

thanks 

[cjslcfc]

Just now, Dahnsouff said:

If that is our intent then fair play, all for sticking it to corrupt establishment as a basis for a challenge, but as misdirection to hide our poor financial management, then not so much.

 

The deal with the deadlines for accounts, their differences is clear and we won that initial battle, so also fair enough.

 

I think it's probably somewhere in between.

 

The owners will have had the best legal advice (they can afford it) so that will be guiding our approach, both publicly and privately. However, it does feel like the tactic is to ensure that any sanction comes next season to give us the best chance of promotion this season. All this whilst also having a pop at rules that appear to be manifesting in securing the anti-competitive oligopoly where only the "Big 6" (TM) can afford to cherry-pick the talent they want from the lesser-revenue / profit generating clubs because they all have to sell to comply with rules that inhibit genuine ambition.

 

Obviously our case is nuanced but as an example how ridiculous is it that the EFL have been so public about their intentions and our finances this season (which hasn't yet even nearly finished from a financial point of view), which in turn will completely hamstring us in getting good value from sales of players to then be able to comply with the rules? Yes, you can argue we brought this upon ourselves (we should take a large portion of the blame) but to do what they are doing without the season being finished shows malicious intent IMO. As I've said in another thread, with respect to the EFL it is an old grudge against us from 2013/14 and maybe even back to 2002. They've already been proven to be straying from their own rules in our case.

 

 

[Chrysalis]

5 hours ago, Le Renard said:

In my conspiratorial mind, the 22/23 season is starting to make sense.  The club tried to sell players but were being lowballed because they knew we were up crap creek without a paddle.  Agents were probably telling their players that the club didn't have a brass farthing to its name, so other clubs weren't going to pay the fee Leicester wanted.  Hence the "run down your contract for a fat payday" scenario that the club faced and is still facing.  Add the manager to the mix, who was sulking, lost his way, and is partly responsible for the mess the club was in.  Then add to the mix, a board that seemed to be absent and had buried its head in the sand, and voila you had the perfect storm. 

 

Why is it our club seems to be the masters of shooting ourselves in the foot, head, arse, and then blowing its genitals off?  It is never a dull day in 'Alice in Foxes land' ....it's time to bring back the 'Mad Hatter' as DoF to sort it out with a few head butts here and there.

 

Clubs sell players for low fees all the time, we only have ourselves to blame for our inability to shift players we dont want.

 

If we think someone is worth 20 million and we paying them 5 million in wages.  We get an offer for 10 million, we turn it down, but if we didnt turn it down we have offset half of that 20 million and removed the 5 million wages, a 15 million gain.

I have seen some mention that if we sell for less than amortised value its a loss, I disagree.  If you have a player who e.g. is on the books for 20 million per year, so e.g. 60 million purchase 3 year contract.  You then sell that player for 10 million in their final year, so half of the amortised value, its not a further loss, its just reducing the 20 million accounting cost down to 10 million (plus the wages saved).

Combination of short contracts, high wages, and stubbornness on player values have contributed significantly to the PSR breach.  Then the bad footballing decisions like insisting on tippy tappy football managers and sacking Rodgers way too late are the icing on the cake.  The training ground I also consider a mistake, and how we didnt take advantage of winning the EPL and several years of top flight football to not expand the stadium by now I dont know, all shambolic management.  We even accepted KP as a shirt sponsor for 2 million a season whilst we were EPL champions, thats how bad our approach has been.

Edited 23 March by Chrysalis

[Suzie the Fox]

Wait.. So if we go, up we canot buy any players even if we sell some and make some ££ ?

Then what do we do with our midfield? Ndidi out of contract and KDH will be on a few clubs radar. How do we go about replacing them.. Are we allowed loaned players?