Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
happy85

PSR RULE CHANGE

By happy85, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

TheGoldenGod

TheGoldenGod

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, dr.o.ball said:

If they won't/can't whack Man City they won't us either but where that leaves Everton and Florist I don't know 

 

Our sentence will be resolved way before Man City's so there's a flaw in your logic there! How quickly this gets voted in (if at all) will determine if we get punished for 23/24 etc. The current charge will stay regardless I imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ClaphamFox

ClaphamFox

Posted
Posted
Just now, Super_horns said:

 

Can they really scrap the current system having punished 2 clubs already?

 

Might be a few lawyers from Forest and Everton asking that..

 

Feel the horse has already bolted on that one.

It's a good question. Hence why we will likely be punished for 2020-2023 irrespective of whether the rules are scrapped or not. But if PSR IS going to be abandoned, it will likely reduce the appetite to make an example of any club with excessively harsh penalties. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGoldenGod

TheGoldenGod

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

 

Can they really scrap the current system having punished 2 clubs already?

 

Might be a few lawyers from Forest and Everton asking that..

 

Feel the horse has already bolted on that one.

So the rules can never change again because two clubs have been punished? Don't think it matters what's happened before, football is ever evolving!

Edited by TheGoldenGod
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foxmeister

Foxmeister

Posted
Posted

So the rules, voted in by 2/3 of the clubs, were to protect the big 6 monopoly and the abolition of them, supported by 17 clubs, is to protect the big 6's monopoly.

 

Some of the conspiracy theories on here make flat earthers look rational.

 

My personal favourite being Daka's goal at Leeds being disallowed so the EFL could make more money out of a Leicester vs Southampton play-off final!

 

We are not being persecuted, relax.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SouthStandUpperTier

SouthStandUpperTier

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

 

Can they really scrap the current system having punished 2 clubs already?

 

Might be a few lawyers from Forest and Everton asking that..

 

Feel the horse has already bolted on that one.

And the lawyers from those clubs that are well run and actually abided with PSR rules will also have something to say I suspect.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scotch

Scotch

Posted
Posted

They'll introduce this with the understanding that any club charged with rule breaks within the last 2 years will still be punished but any longer than that and they won't. It'll then take them 2 years and a day to get around to charging Man City. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dr.o.ball

dr.o.ball

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TheGoldenGod said:

Our sentence will be resolved way before Man City's so there's a flaw in your logic there! How quickly this gets voted in (if at all) will determine if we get punished for 23/24 etc. The current charge will stay regardless I imagine.

I do agree that my logic is simplistic, but also that this won't be as straight forward as cut off dates, that's why lawyers earn the big bucks. And look how well Man City's have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolhandfox

coolhandfox

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Ricey said:

Any change will be for next season onwards. It won’t mean that we escape points deductions for last season and this season.

I think it would give the charged clubs a strong argument that the rules aren't fit for purpose and could result in a legal challenge. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Super_horns

Super_horns

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, TheGoldenGod said:

So the rules can never change again because two clubs have been punished? Don't think it matters what's happened before, football is ever evolving!

True but some will say it potentially protects bigger clubs who might be in trouble.

 

Seems a way off yet .

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chelmofox

Chelmofox

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Would this mean Man City avoid punishment? 

They avoid punishment no matter what. Apparently its too complicated so we let them carry on regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
katieakita

katieakita

Posted
Posted

Less of a problem if Everton and Forest stay up. Also seems hard to see how the failure to punish Man City did not have a massive effect on our finances. Surely the EPL failure  to follow its own rules takes some explaining 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chelmofox

Chelmofox

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Scotch said:

They'll introduce this with the understanding that any club charged with rule breaks within the last 2 years will still be punished but any longer than that and they won't. It'll then take them 2 years and a day to get around to charging Man City. 

Interestingly all points deductions so far have been manufactured to not impact relegation. Wonder if we will end up getting something paltry like 2 points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LVFox

LVFox

Posted
Posted

So, if ive understood this right. The way to stop clubs jeopardising their future by spending too much comparative to revenue, is to make that spending even more expensive, leaving the club's with even greater exposure to debt?

 

Perfect

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MPH

MPH

Posted
Posted

its the biggest ' roll over and tickly my belly' that they could possibly come up with.  it's basically an admittance that they have 'lost' the fight against the big 6. i see it as a last ditch attempt to stop the big 6 from trying a breakaway league again..

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viva

Viva

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, MPH said:

its the biggest ' roll over and tickly my belly' that they could possibly come up with.  it's basically an admittance that they have 'lost' the fight against the big 6. i see it as a last ditch attempt to stop the big 6 from trying a breakaway league again..

Except this new rule would also help clubs further down the table, like us, Everton and Forest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
honeybradger

honeybradger

Posted
Posted

Why are we talking about the big 6? The only clubs that have broken these new PSR rules are relegation scrappers like Everton, Nottingham Forest and ourselves. If we don't want our club getting hit by consecutive points deductions and being thrown into championship mediocrity this is the best case scenario for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twitcher

Twitcher

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, TheGoldenGod said:

It's the hope that kills you! 

At the same time it just gives these charlatans that run our club a way out, still need to be held accountable!

 

Also worth noting in that article the Premier League have s**t the bed realising the rules they've implemented to stop clubs spending had made their beloved transfer windows boring and diminishes their product. YOU HAVE TO LAUGH!

Yea they've realised we'd become the same as the Scottish Premier and other leagues, where only a few dominant clubs rule. Let's face it, the current rules even prevent Newcastle and all their money from joining the big boys party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twitcher

Twitcher

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Don't think we'll be let off that easily. We'll still get whacked for breaking the rules as they were at the time.

But then surely so would Man City, so if this is part of the reason for bringing this in, as some have said, it wouldn't save Man. City either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
filbertway

filbertway

Posted
Posted

I look forward to us running up massive losses paying random 28-31 year olds 80k a week to sit in the crowd because they're not good enough to get into our squad

 

On the plus side - this will accelerate the destruction of football in the country

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
SouthStandUpperTier

SouthStandUpperTier

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Lets face it, whatever system of rules they decide to implement is going to be heavily loaded in favour of the 'big 6'.

 

It won't happen, but the fairest system would be the introduction of a flat salary cap, like in the NFL. It would have to be reasonable too. Say £100m per season for your 25 man squad. Like I say though, it would never happen. The PFA wouldn't want it for starters.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MPH

MPH

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Viva said:

Except this new rule would also help clubs further down the table, like us, Everton and Forest. 

 Sure Forest and Everton can manage it for a couple of seasons ( spending big) but long term it would be unsustainable for them.. but make no mistake, the likes of Man City are the main benefactors here...

 

 

I will say though that Newcastle owners are probably keen for this to happen , but it also makes it possible for foreign investors to buy a sleeping giant, again...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mickyblueeyes

Mickyblueeyes

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

 

Can they really scrap the current system having punished 2 clubs already?

 

Might be a few lawyers from Forest and Everton asking that..

 

Feel the horse has already bolted on that one.

The problem we have is that there exist no precedent. However, what we can apply is treatment of regulators (in this case the PL) in other industry - particularly public bodies. 

 

The underlying principle is that a regulator holds no direct liability (there are exceptions but generally this is the case). Provided that the rules at the time of applying were correct, there would be little recourse for historic. 

 

More so, on a change of rules the bodies impacted would agree where one set of rules apply and where another ceases - again, protecting the regulator from future claims. 

 

The PL in this instance is a regulator enforcing the rules. And in this case, those rules chosen by the ones governed by it. 

 

Of course, variable ins and outs but that is the logical answer if I am asked. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...