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

[Aleksz]

31 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

We were dead to rights. We just had a lawyer go through the rule book to look for loopholes.

Literally this, they were spot on, we just had a lawyer good enough to pull us out of the shit.

 

Writing off the likes of Maguire and co is naivety. Burying your heads in the sand. 
 

Better hope that it’s someone else, or if it is us that De Marco has another MOTM performance in him. 

[Finnegan]

18 minutes ago, Frank Large's Black Book said:

'scuse me.  Dumb Question Alert.

 

Why are teams worried (or not) about breaching?  Surely to god they a) know the rules, and b) know their numbers.

What exactly is difficult?

 

Note:  this is a serious question, not an invitation to rant on about our leadership - again.

 

All laws have an element of interpretation, right? Millions of lawyers around the world are arguing countless cases at any given moment based on the fine details of wording. 

 

The more complex a set of laws, the more complex interpreting them becomes and the greater room for disagreement. 

 

The thing with PSR / FFP is it's not just a case of sums. If it was just purely what is our net spend, everything in vs everything out then - sure - you'd more or less have an objective figure to rule on. 

 

But it's not, there's an enormous list of things you include (salaries, agent fees, transfer costs, etc) and don't include (buildings and infrastructure, such as the training ground) and when you start getting down to the fine details of what types of sponsorship you're allowed from who and when and for how much then you're really going down a rabbit hole. 

 

It's why it's a lawyer that got us out of the mess last time not just an accountant. It's far more about laws and their wording than just money. 

 

[Gamble92]

Borson lost all credibility when he misleadingly said he had no idea why Man United got the COVID payment they did. Tried to take some attention away from his Manchester City by deliberately misleading everyone. 

 

I'm okay with misinformation if there's been a genuine error, but to pretend it was some back hander given to them by the Premier League was so poor from him. His bias crosses a line and is probably perfect for Talksport, but no credible channel should have him on. 

[Pliskin]

4 minutes ago, Aleksz said:

Literally this, they were spot on, we just had a lawyer good enough to pull us out of the shit.

 

Writing off the likes of Maguire and co is naivety. Burying your heads in the sand. 
 

Better hope that it’s someone else, or if it is us that De Marco has another MOTM performance in him. 

Not necessarily true. Maguire uses the phrases “should”, “could”, “might”, “Potentially”…… this is all based on what he thinks “might” stand a chance of happening. He doesn’t know for certain, and he hasn’t actually comment and said “Leicester are going to breach” it’s because he doesn’t want to look silly if we don’t. He doesn’t have access to our accounts so most of what he says is based on theory and predictions. 

[CosbehFox]

5 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

Borson lost all credibility when he misleadingly said he had no idea why Man United got the COVID payment they did. Tried to take some attention away from his Manchester City by deliberately misleading everyone. 

 

I'm okay with misinformation if there's been a genuine error, but to pretend it was some back hander given to them by the Premier League was so poor from him. His bias crosses a line and is probably perfect for Talksport, but no credible channel should have him on. 

He’s in completely denial about Man City’s cheating so take from that what you will 

[Finnegan]

1 minute ago, Pliskin said:

Not necessarily true. Maguire uses the phrases “should”, “could”, “might”, “Potentially”…… this is all based on what he thinks “might” stand a chance of happening. He doesn’t know for certain, and he hasn’t actually comment and said “Leicester are going to breach” it’s because he doesn’t want to look silly if we don’t. He doesn’t have access to our accounts so most of what he says is based on theory and predictions. 

 

Maguire is very good when looking backwards. 

 

When the financials become public record, he's good at picking through them and explaining to the layman what they - and the relevant laws - mean. 

 

He's less good at the mystic Meg act he's been attempting at the last few years since he became famous. 

 

No club is out there showing him their books before they've had to submit them. He might know some accountants who might gossip a bit but it's something it's impossible to be "in the know" about. 

 

And what gossip he does get, he's said that people inside LCFC are very confident. What "sources" could he possibly have outside the club that know what we've spent? 

 

[CosbehFox]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Maguire is very good when looking backwards. 

 

When the financials become public record, he's good at picking through them and explaining to the layman what they - and the relevant laws - mean. 

 

He's less good at the mystic Meg act he's been attempting at the last few years since he became famous. 

 

No club is out there showing him their books before they've had to submit them. He might know some accountants who might gossip a bit but it's something it's impossible to be "in the know" about. 

 

And what gossip he does get, he's said that people inside LCFC are very confident. What "sources" could he possibly have outside the club that know what we've spent? 

 

De Marco. He’s chums with him. Had him on his pod and always exchanging tweets 

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

De Marco. He’s chums with him. Had him on his pod and always exchanging tweets 

 

It would be a little bit surprising if, having successfully defended us, he's then out telling Maguire we're absolutely ****ed

 

[Aleksz]

11 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

Not necessarily true. Maguire uses the phrases “should”, “could”, “might”, “Potentially”…… this is all based on what he thinks “might” stand a chance of happening. He doesn’t know for certain, and he hasn’t actually comment and said “Leicester are going to breach” it’s because he doesn’t want to look silly if we don’t. He doesn’t have access to our accounts so most of what he says is based on theory and predictions. 

And we don’t think that he’s quite obviously in the pockets of people that are very much in the know, journos, likes of de Marco as mentioned above and can align his very already good financial knowledge with the bits he hears on the grapevine? 
 

Come on. No smoke without fire and all that. 

[Bilo]

3 minutes ago, Aleksz said:

And we don’t think that he’s quite obviously in the pockets of people that are very much in the know, journos, likes of de Marco as mentioned above and can align his very already good financial knowledge with the bits he hears on the grapevine? 
 

Come on. No smoke without fire and all that. 

Journalists thrive on interaction. A headline of 'Nobody knows whether Club X will comply' gets no clicks and the journalist gets no exposure. Making reasonable, educated projections based on past experience and the perception of the audience, particularly when Club X has either breached before or been within a hair's breadth of it with much media fanfare, gets clicks.

 

It would be unfair to label it clickbait as we probably aren't a million miles away or a picture of financial health, but there's an element of self-promotion among freelance journalists because they have to keep themselves relevant and noticed. 

[ClaphamFox]

5 minutes ago, Aleksz said:

And we don’t think that he’s quite obviously in the pockets of people that are very much in the know, journos, likes of de Marco as mentioned above and can align his very already good financial knowledge with the bits he hears on the grapevine? 
 

Come on. No smoke without fire and all that. 

That's exactly what I said to my fellow jurors when I was called up for jury service! Surprisingly, they not only ignored me but also got me removed from the jury. So disappointing 

[Aleksz]

1 minute ago, Bilo said:

Journalists thrive on interaction. A headline of 'Nobody knows whether Club X will comply' gets no clicks and the journalist gets no exposure. Making reasonable, educated projections based on past experience and the perception of the audience, particularly when Club X has either breached before or been within a hair's breadth of it with much media fanfare, gets clicks.

 

It would be unfair to label it clickbait as we probably aren't a million miles away or a picture of financial health, but there's an element of self-promotion among freelance journalists because they have to keep themselves relevant and noticed. 

Well obviously, we’re all sat here debating and providing conjecture over who it may be. Maybe it’s us, maybe it’s Everton. Who knows, either way the journos have done their job on that front. 
 

But I’m pretty certain he’ll be spot on that there’s something coming out about one club in the next week or two. And he’ll know who that is. Regardless that no one “has shown him their books”. 

[justfoxes]

On 01/01/2025 at 21:09, Ric Flair said:

KDH sale not included in 2023/24 is surely incorrect. If it isn't and we fail because of it then we are utter morons.

That would be Rudkin and CO’s utter incompetence Top needs to realise they are useless and are taking us into oblivion and will continue to Fuch us over with PSR every year, Top needs to sack the incompetent ones and replace them with someone who knows what they are doing before it’s far too late !!

[Bilo]

Just now, Aleksz said:

Well obviously, we’re all sat here debating and providing conjecture over who it may be. Maybe it’s us, maybe it’s Everton. Who knows, either way the journos have done their job on that front. 
 

But I’m pretty certain he’ll be spot on that there’s something coming out about one club in the next week or two. And he’ll know who that is. Regardless that no one “has shown him their books”. 

We might well run it close, without a doubt. 

 

I suspect he isn't naming the club as both clubs are either close, uncertain or have a good defence. 

[Number 6]

Anyone could come out saying "One club has a high chance of breaching" and know that

 

1. It would generate chat and clicks

2. It would probably be true

 

You don't need insider info for that statement.

[Bilo]

5 minutes ago, Number 6 said:

Anyone could come out saying "One club has a high chance of breaching" and know that

 

1. It would generate chat and clicks

2. It would probably be true

 

You don't need insider info for that statement.

It's interesting to me that they aren't naming the club. 

[ClaphamFox]

I had a glance at the Everton forum. They seem convinced it's us and that we'll get a massive deduction because it's our 'second offence' - apparently ignorant of the fact that it would only be our second offence if the PL were able to pin anything on us last time. I mean, you'd think up there they'd have a bit more knowledge of how the law works...

[CrazyKopCorner]

1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said:

I had a glance at the Everton forum. They seem convinced it's us and that we'll get a massive deduction because it's our 'second offence' - apparently ignorant of the fact that it would only be our second offence if the PL were able to pin anything on us last time. I mean, you'd think up there they'd have a bit more knowledge of how the law works...

They probably mean that we were in breach but that they couldn't pin it on us due purely to a technicality 

[Tommy G]

34 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

De Marco. He’s chums with him. Had him on his pod and always exchanging tweets 

But no one within the club will leak financial information before the club file the accounts for public viewing? Unless the FD want's the sack and his contract ripped up. Same goes for a well respected Lawyer leaking any said info to a Journo.

[ClaphamFox]

5 minutes ago, CrazyKopCorner said:

They probably mean that we were in breach but that they couldn't pin it on us due purely to a technicality 

Indeed. But as far as the law is concerned we didn't do anything wrong. You can't punish somebody more severely because you tried to prosecute them before but failed. If we are in breach, it will be our first offence. 

[CrazyKopCorner]

1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said:

Indeed. But as far as the law is concerned we didn't do anything wrong. You can't punish somebody more severely because you tried to prosecute them before but failed. If we are in breach, it will be our first offence. 

It as far as the law is concerned but human nature is spiteful and may lead to additional charges 

 

I'd be interested to know the prosecution guidelines i.e £20m over 3 points? or is a % of your T/O

 

I'm assuming it must be contractual and clear? If not, as a lawyer I'd be all over it 

[Tommy G]

3 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Indeed. But as far as the law is concerned we didn't do anything wrong. You can't punish somebody more severely because you tried to prosecute them before but failed. If we are in breach, it will be our first offence. 

I think there is a section of our fan base that are genuinely gutted we didn't get a points deduction this season. 

[Number 6]

2 minutes ago, CrazyKopCorner said:

It as far as the law is concerned but human nature is spiteful and may lead to additional charges 

 

I'd be interested to know the prosecution guidelines i.e £20m over 3 points? or is a % of your T/O

 

I'm assuming it must be contractual and clear? If not, as a lawyer I'd be all over it 

Doubt they'd ever introduce something like this because then if you know you're gonna breach, you'd be as well to push it as far in that threshold as you could. Each case will be judged subjectively, there's too much nuance for boundaries.

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

I think there is a section of our fan base that are genuinely gutted we didn't get a points deduction this season. 

 

And who are desperate for us to get one now. 

 

[CosbehFox]

11 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

But no one within the club will leak financial information before the club file the accounts for public viewing? Unless the FD want's the sack and his contract ripped up. Same goes for a well respected Lawyer leaking any said info to a Journo.

He hasn't leaked information - he's just mentioned that the club are confident