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

[Blodge96]

9 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.

Anyone got any more detail on the Training Ground sponsor stuff? 

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, Blodge96 said:

Anyone got any more detail on the Training Ground sponsor stuff? 

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-city-handed-15m-ffp-9236048#amp-readmore-target

 

[Mr.Bingles]

Sick of hearing about all this to be honest. It seems to me that the likes of Chelsea and Man City get away with it as they're seen as a top six club and anyone challenging the established Hierarchy are punished for attempting to build a competitive club able of competing against the big six. To me this PSR seems like a way to curtail the ambitions of "smaller" clubs. The whole thing seems designed to maintain the Status Quo. If they really wanted to make things fair why not introduce a level playing field and have a club salary cap across the whole league. Have the cap high enough to allow owners to build great squads but even enough to create true competition. The current system is utter w@nk. 

[ClaphamFox]

Still no mention of any of this on the Mercury website. And given that these days the Mercury will publish any old bit of baseless tittle tattle for clicks, its complete silence on an issue that may genuinely have a major impact on our season is somewhat surprising.

[UniFox21]

1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said:

Still no mention of any of this on the Mercury website. And given that these days the Mercury will publish any old bit of baseless tittle tattle for clicks, its complete silence on an issue that may genuinely have a major impact on our season is somewhat surprising.

Difference being the transfer clicks don't cause the club any negative media speculation.

 

Wouldn't shock me if they'd been told not to or been threatened with reduced access

[ClaphamFox]

3 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Difference being the transfer clicks don't cause the club any negative media speculation.

 

Wouldn't shock me if they'd been told not to or been threatened with reduced access

This is my suspicion too.

[Number 6]

20 minutes ago, Number 6 said:

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

There is a corresponding -£10m in Chelsea's exceptional items so looks like this is the case.

[Fox85]

Can see the stadium being extremely aggressive to the owner and the board members agaisnt QPR.

 

No updates from the club ever.

No reassurance about the PSR.

No signings to show the fans they are serious about staying in the prem.

 

Honestly the best thing to happen is for the club to go up for sale now and have a fresh start for everyone involved 

[Ric Flair]

Swiss Ramble have included the training ground sponsorship, they've responded to me on twitter. 

[CL Fox]

14 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

This is my suspicion too.

Certain articles / tweets that have been critical in the last 18 months have had journos pulled to onside for a 'conversation'. No one has been banned but that threat always looms however it's not like any of them get preferential treatment or fed anything. 

[Wymsey]

Can someone please provide the latest on this case, to those who have just opened this thread?

Edited 8 January by Wymsey

[CH1_Fox]

Increasingly looking like this boils down to interpretation of the allowable losses for last season then.

[moore_94]

Just now, Wymsey said:

Can someone please provide the latest on this case to those who have just opened this thread?

Club think they will be fine

 

SwissRamble have us £12m over

 

May be a question of the allowance we are given whether it is £83m (where SwissRamble has us £12m over) or £105m (where we would be fine)

[RowlattsFox]

2 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Can someone please provide the latest on this case, to those who have just opened this thread?

We're ****ed......one way or another

[Bluetintedspecs]

1 hour ago, Bourbon Fox said:

Username checks out

Possibly so, I'd much rather lean towards positivity than my default being overtly negative and anti pretty much everything about the club.

Alien concept to lots on this forum but each to their own eh 

[Bert]

1 minute ago, Wymsey said:

Can someone please provide the latest on this case, to those who have just opened this thread?

No one fully knows what’s going on. Indications from “experts” are it seems to be we are in breach. Most people on here trying to find ways to convince themselves and everyone else we’ve not breached. Will know for sure by Tuesday. 

[TheRobbosuite]

If they charge us, even if we end up getting off again, imagine the impact on the team until we find out the outcome, which could be anytime March to May.

[pkonline]

18 hours ago, KFS said:

Yup - it’s the same old ‘we were in league one once’ rebuttal. This club can be bigger and better if run properly. Simply saying we overachieved is massively defeatist and small minded imo. It’s the typical talksport response I wouldn’t expect from a Leicester fan 

Think you've misinterpreted the point.

Leicester is not a League One side.

Historically, we have always floated between divisions 1 and 2. 

We are not a massive club like Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, and to think we are in their same league is delusional.

[87fox]

Swiss Ramble and Stefan Borson have had an interesting back-and-forth about the T / T-1 / T-2 issue on X. I think this is what it's going to boil down to. Ie, we are £12m over on the PL's intent of the rules, but we are £10m under on the way the rules are actually written.

[pkonline]

17 hours ago, Vestan Pance said:

Loosing nearly £90m per season is not anywhere near where we have always been. We have to play by the rules, and with the current setup we have zero chance of doing that and remaining competive.

Fully agree the rules and there are we have broken them.

What people on here cannot have is both ways - complain when we haven't signed 10 star players every transfer window, and then complaining when the club are struggling to generate income and spending.

[K789]

2 minutes ago, 87fox said:

Swiss Ramble and Stefan Borson have had an interesting back-and-forth about the T / T-1 / T-2 issue on X. I think this is what it's going to boil down to. Ie, we are £12m over on the PL's intent of the rules, but we are £10m under on the way the rules are actually written.

From that they're not sure so a lawyer will pick holes in it

[Lionator]

We lost £151m in 2022/23?? Sorry but that’s terrifying. £312m over three years is also completely crazy and unsustainable. The board are not fit for purpose.

[HankMarvin]

14 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

Club think they will be fine

 

SwissRamble have us £12m over

 

May be a question of the allowance we are given whether it is £83m (where SwissRamble has us £12m over) or £105m (where we would be fine)

“Having extended their accounting period to 13 months - filing on 30 June 2023 - to bring Leicester's accounting in line with the rest of the business, the Foxes were not a Premier League member, having handed in their shares after relegation, and therefore could not be bound by the top flight's rules”

The loophole can’t go both ways though can it, on one hand they have said last season they were not a pl member at that time. How can they then claim the £22n reduction doesn’t apply to them the 35m PSR limit is for the top flight teams per season?

What ever the outcome, it’s as shady as **** for a second season. 
Why not just clear the decks and spend less. Ward, Iversen etc 

cannon and coady totally not needed 

Edited 8 January by HankMarvin

[blueharmie]

Sack the board. 

 

Time to go top.

[87fox]

1 minute ago, HankMarvin said:

“Having extended their accounting period to 13 months - filing on 30 June 2023 - to bring Leicester's accounting in line with the rest of the business, the Foxes were not a Premier League member, having handed in their shares after relegation, and therefore could not be bound by the top flight's rules”

The loophole can’t go both ways though can it, on one hand they have said last season they were not a pl member at that time. How can they then claim the £22n reduction doesn’t apply to them the 35m PSR limit is for the top flight teams per season?

 

Good point!