Leicester at risk of another Premier League PSR charge over latest accounts

[Bert]

3 minutes ago, DezFox said:

I assume these are realiable,  how confident are you that that’s that then? 

He does say it’s only a forecast. Nothing set in stone. But I think we are kidding ourselves if we aren’t ridiculously close. 

[RizLCFC]

37 minutes ago, 87fox said:

Swiss Ramble has us at £12 million over the threshold (after allowable deductions and including the KDH money).



https://swissramble.substack.com/p/which-clubs-are-restricted-by-psr-bde

(You get one free article if you download the Substack app and verify your phone number)

For anyone not understanding how other clubs have passed, read the article as it breaks down each club individually.

But if the allowable loss threshold is £105m, which some have suggested, then we are fine according to the figures above. For the record, I don’t think for a second that we haven’t breached.

[Bert]

Apparently the club are confident. But that doesn’t give me any confidence  

[FrankieADZ]

Just now, Bert said:

Apparently the club are confident. But that doesn’t give me any confidence  

maybe some beer and cake will help with that, they are good at that

[kenny]

39 minutes ago, 87fox said:

Swiss Ramble has us at £12 million over the threshold (after allowable deductions and including the KDH money).



https://swissramble.substack.com/p/which-clubs-are-restricted-by-psr-bde

(You get one free article if you download the Substack app and verify your phone number)

For anyone not understanding how other clubs have passed, read the article as it breaks down each club individually.

The cost of the Womens team hasn't gone up in 3 years seems highly unlikely. 

 

The team is now littered with international players and the manager is on £200k+ per year alone. Bearing in mind the club pays over the odds salaries to the men, it would be a shock if it isn't the same for the womens team. 

 

The costs of running Belvoir drive will be included in there which won't be cheap as its a full Premier League standard training ground.

 

I also suspect we will lump some costs of running the KP Stadium into that calculation as the Stadium as much the Womens home ground as the Mens.

 

[Leicesterpool]

Bored of reading stories like this, we get punished but clubs like Man City, Chelsea can get away scot free.

[stb1996]

Is there danger that our defence of being a championship club for the breach in 22/23, combined with definitely being a championship club in 23/24 mean we're liable for T-1, and therefore subject to the £83m allowable losses rather than £105m?

[CL Fox]

48 minutes ago, 87fox said:

Swiss Ramble has us at £12 million over the threshold (after allowable deductions and including the KDH money).



https://swissramble.substack.com/p/which-clubs-are-restricted-by-psr-bde

(You get one free article if you download the Substack app and verify your phone number)

For anyone not understanding how other clubs have passed, read the article as it breaks down each club individually.

Pretty sure our allowance is 35m for 23/24.

[Bert]

3 minutes ago, stb1996 said:

Is there danger that our defence of being a championship club for the breach in 22/23, combined with definitely being a championship club in 23/24 mean we're liable for T-1, and therefore subject to the £83m allowable losses rather than £105m?

Wasnt there a point made from X Yesterday that means we get the £35m? And if so I would say this would be why the club seem confident. 

[LCFCJohn]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

My only niggling doubt about the KDH transfer is that I seem to recall it being reported at the time that the transfer went through on the 1st or 2nd of July but that the club 'should' have been able to include it in 2023/24 because we'd agreed a deal with Chelsea (and could prove it) before 30 June. My worry - possibly baseless - is that because the transfer went through after 30 June, our right to include it within 2023/24 was entirely at the discretion of the PL - ie, they weren't compelled by the rules to give us that flexibility. Because if we were dependent on the PL's good will for KDH's transfer to be included within 2023/24, then....well, I think we all know what the outcome will be.

I can’t see that holding up legally if challenged by De Marco. The PL should be consistent and not making it as as they go based on their feelings towards a particular club so whilst what you say makes perfect sense, I couldn’t see it holding up.

[stb1996]

2 minutes ago, Bert said:

Wasnt there a point made from X Yesterday that means we get the £35m? And if so I would say this would be why the club seem confident. 

Think this was based on the wording of the rules being very ambiguous, and that the £35m is based on only being in the EFL for 1 season. But if we'd (successfully) argued we were an EFL club for the 22/23 period, then that's 2 seasons consecutively and therefore we're liable for the reduced allowable losses?

[Bert]

2 minutes ago, stb1996 said:

Think this was based on the wording of the rules being very ambiguous, and that the £35m is based on only being in the EFL for 1 season. But if we'd (successfully) argued we were an EFL club for the 22/23 period, then that's 2 seasons consecutively and therefore we're liable for the reduced allowable losses?

You could be right, truth is none of us really know what the ins and outs of it are. 

[stb1996]

1 minute ago, Bert said:

You could be right, truth is none of us really know what the ins and outs of it are. 

It's a total guessing game at the moment. It would be a vindictive move from the PL/EFL to try and spin our defence for the breach in 22/23, but I certainly wouldn't put it past them to consider it

[stu]

If Swiss Ramble is correct and we are 12 million over then based on Everton's 2 point penalty for 16.6m loss last year then we should expect a similar deduction.

 

Not the end of the world, but obviously we are struggling to get any points at the minute to claw them back.

[Bert]

1 minute ago, stb1996 said:

It's a total guessing game at the moment. It would be a vindictive move from the PL/EFL to try and spin our defence for the breach in 22/23, but I certainly wouldn't put it past them to consider it

Me either, would imagine after the embarrassment we’ve caused them they’ll be trying to get as much as possible. 

[kenny]

48 minutes ago, 87fox said:

They've got Bournemouth, Ipswich, Man Utd, and Forest as particularly close (passing by £1m-£2m), Newcastle close (passing by £7m) and everyone else easily passing.

They only cover the current PL teams so no indication on the clubs relegated in 2023/24.

 

I wonder what man utd put down to claim £210m in adjustments. I guess spurs will be stadium repayments.

 

Brighton, Man City and West ham smashing it.

[Ricey]

4 minutes ago, stu said:

If Swiss Ramble is correct and we are 12 million over then based on Everton's 2 point penalty for 16.6m loss last year then we should expect a similar deduction.

 

Not the end of the world, but obviously we are struggling to get any points at the minute to claw them back.

Everton's second deduction was lower because they took into account that they had already been punished for 2 out of the 3 years. We don't have that luxury.

[AKCJ]

Ipswich only being £2m in the green after they've spent effectively **** all shows how much of a disgrace these rules are.

 

They are only here to serve the Sky 6.

[Ricey]

My prediction is that we have breached and the club have known that since the summer, however they will release a strongly worded statement denying it, with the aim of turning the fans against the Premier League and not the club. It's what they do.

[Ric Flair]

Swiss Ramble is the best of the best but I do wonder if the training ground sponsorship has been picked up by all these financial experts trying to project potential figures.

[stu]

2 minutes ago, Ricey said:

Everton's second deduction was lower because they took into account that they had already been punished for 2 out of the 3 years. We don't have that luxury.

Forest got 4 points deducted based on a 34m loss so more than double of Everton's, so surely 2 points would be 'fair' based on past outcomes?

[Ricey]

2 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Ipswich only being £2m in the green after they've spent effectively **** all shows how much of a disgrace these rules are.

 

They are only here to serve the Sky 6.

Ipswich only have an allowable loss of £39M because they have 2 Championship seasons and 1 League One season in their three-year period. During that time they would have had two lots of promotion bonuses to deal with as well.

[Ricey]

Just now, stu said:

Forest got 4 points deducted based on a 34m loss so more than double of Everton's, so surely 2 points would be 'fair' based on past outcomes?

Forest got 6 points, as it was their first offence, but it was lowered to 4 points because they self reported and co-operated fully.

[Number 6]

5 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Swiss Ramble is the best of the best but I do wonder if the training ground sponsorship has been picked up by all these financial experts trying to project potential figures.

Yeh don't think he's got this. Got +£10m of exceptional items but not sure if that's manager comp?

[st albans fox]

32 minutes ago, stb1996 said:

Is there danger that our defence of being a championship club for the breach in 22/23, combined with definitely being a championship club in 23/24 mean we're liable for T-1, and therefore subject to the £83m allowable losses rather than £105m?

We didn’t argue that we were a championship club for 22/23. It was that our accounts didn’t close until  3 weeks after we were no longer a PL club so we couldn’t be charged by the PL for a breach at that date. 
the debate over whether our allowable losses are 83 or 105 million could well be the issue here. The PL will be arguing that we must get to 83m (hence charging us) and we will be arguing that this isn’t correct.  Looks like mr de Marco is going to be busy. However, if we’re charged and a commission looks at it and docks us 6 points then it’s going to be v messy whilst we appeal and the legal case for 105 is put forward.  The deduction will go onto the league table, even though we’ve appealed. We won’t know where we stand (and neither will clubs above us).  The PL will be slaughtered in the media 

Edited 8 January by st albans fox