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

[The boy Linacre]

8 minutes ago, slymunn said:

They both signed the season before. We signed Faes the window Fofana left.

"Rodgers panicked bringing in Bertrand & Vesty when Fofana was injured".

He got injured against Villareal 5th Aug 2021, out for much of the season, Bertrand had joined the week before, Vesty joined 8 days later.

"We are definitely light in the area," said Rodgers, who confirmed the club had a small list of players identified as potential signings.

He came back against Rennes 17th March in the Conference League

 

They were 2 of the worst purchases, from a team we had beaten 9-0.

Edited 10 January by The boy Linacre

[slymunn]

1 hour ago, don_danbury said:

they didnt.

I didn't read this correctly. I took it as when he left, rather than injured...hence my reply! 

Edited 10 January by slymunn

[dmayne7]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

Those bemoaning the rules thst are hampering us, if the rules were relaxed do you really trust the current setup to rebuild us? The horse has bolted, whilst uts frustrating I'm in some ways glad we aren't able to do what the hell we want. We need a huge shake up from top to bottom.

But do you actually think we're going to get that shakeup? If they made a couple of coaches the fall guys for the biggest failure in PL history, whilst still being aware we were in trouble financially, what an earth makes you think they'd actually bother to change things up now?

 

The people running the club are absolute morons but if you want a bit of context for how broken these rules are, Ipswich spent more in the summer transfer window then we ever have in one, gross or net. Now, they should be able to spend lots as a newly promoted club but if I team that spent most of a decade set in the top half of the PL table, winning the FA Cup and PL, with several European appearances, can't comply with the rules despite selling key players and not spending lots of money on transfers, there is something seriously broken.

[davieG]

23 minutes ago, dmayne7 said:

But do you actually think we're going to get that shakeup? If they made a couple of coaches the fall guys for the biggest failure in PL history, whilst still being aware we were in trouble financially, what an earth makes you think they'd actually bother to change things up now?

 

The people running the club are absolute morons but if you want a bit of context for how broken these rules are, Ipswich spent more in the summer transfer window then we ever have in one, gross or net. Now, they should be able to spend lots as a newly promoted club but if I team that spent most of a decade set in the top half of the PL table, winning the FA Cup and PL, with several European appearances, can't comply with the rules despite selling key players and not spending lots of money on transfers, there is something seriously broken.

Our wages are the tipping point which also stopped us selling unwanted players 

[lcfc_forever]

Just now, davieG said:

Our wages are the tipping point which also stopped us selling unwanted players 

Not defending the board but the fact we offered higher wages meant we could attract those targets to Leicester - we have to pay a premium vs. London clubs. But then they tend to have the benefit of higher revenues. 

[davieG]

1 minute ago, lcfc_forever said:

Not defending the board but the fact we offered higher wages meant we could attract those targets to Leicester - we have to pay a premium vs. London clubs. But then they tend to have the benefit of higher revenues. 

I don’t think there were many players we signed that they would have wanted even those who we sold for big fees it was after we’d proved them worthy and the big wages didn’t keep them here. 

[dmayne7]

Just now, davieG said:

Our wages are the tipping point which also stopped us selling unwanted players 

I know but the especially galling thing is that it's hardly like we dished our huge wages on free transfers to compensate for a lower transfer spend or attract players that would otherwise have been unobtainable. That of course our problem because the ownership started handing out hideous contracts just to keep very average players (Hamza being on £50k a week plus after playing about 20 games is the one that sticks out) or out of a misconceived sense of loyalty.

 

It's a 2 parter:

 

If a club that had the success we did, whilst not actually spending huge sums on players and selling it's best players, can get relegated (partly because it couldn't spend) and still find itself on the end of charges, the rules are clearly not fit for purpose.

 

On the other hand, we must have the most commercially inept football execs in English football to not capitalise on our success and still end up breaching financial rules.

[dmayne7]

6 minutes ago, lcfc_forever said:

Not defending the board but the fact we offered higher wages meant we could attract those targets to Leicester - we have to pay a premium vs. London clubs. But then they tend to have the benefit of higher revenues. 

I just replied to DavieG with the complete opposite viewpoint. Who did we actually sign, where you thought they were a massive coup? Tielemans who has already been here on loan and out of favour at Monaco, but probably justified that wage. The only other one, and I don't think he was even on a huge wage, is Ricardo because he'd been linked with much bigger clubs.

 

Otherwise they were all played that we should have been able to attract but we seemed content to just pay 20-50% over the market rate on their wages. We didn't get a competitive advantage from that, but that's our fault for pissing the money away.

[Claudio Fannieri]

13 minutes ago, lcfc_forever said:

Not defending the board but the fact we offered higher wages meant we could attract those targets to Leicester - we have to pay a premium vs. London clubs. But then they tend to have the benefit of higher revenues. 

Problem is some of those targets were absolute muck, we have offered and paid extortionate wages to players like Choudhury, Ward, Bertrand, Vestergaard, Skipp, Edouard, Daka, Soumare you could also probably throw Praet and Perez into that group as well. 

[lcfc_forever]

2 minutes ago, Claudio Fannieri said:

Problem is some of those targets were absolute muck, we have offered and paid extortionate wages to players like Choudhury, Ward, Bertrand, Vestergaard, Skipp, Edouard, Daka, Soumare you could also probably throw Praet and Perez into that group as well. 

Agree - our scouting suffered under Rodgers. I feel it has been better under Glover but then our problem has been a lack of a proper DoF.

 

We keep switching strategies as we change managers, so we end up with players that don't fit. We need to stick to a style/approach chosen by the DoF and pick a coach to suit it, not the other way round. 

[lcfc_forever]

10 minutes ago, dmayne7 said:

I just replied to DavieG with the complete opposite viewpoint. Who did we actually sign, where you thought they were a massive coup? Tielemans who has already been here on loan and out of favour at Monaco, but probably justified that wage. The only other one, and I don't think he was even on a huge wage, is Ricardo because he'd been linked with much bigger clubs.

 

Otherwise they were all played that we should have been able to attract but we seemed content to just pay 20-50% over the market rate on their wages. We didn't get a competitive advantage from that, but that's our fault for pissing the money away.

Fofana is one example. We beat Milan to his signature, and wages would have been part of the reason why. 

[The boy Linacre]

TBH It'll be all decided Monday/Tuesday

IF we aren't liable/culpable we can bring in the 4 players we need, purchases or loans, RVN will stay and we have every chance of staying up

IF we are found guilty, presume we will get a points deduction, if I was RVN I would walk, the hierarchy mismanaged and probably lied to him and we are down, no players or manager of any note would would come here.

I just hope they can count OR they have been stupid beyond the extreme.

 

[Fox92]

25 minutes ago, lcfc_forever said:

Not defending the board but the fact we offered higher wages meant we could attract those targets to Leicester - we have to pay a premium vs. London clubs. But then they tend to have the benefit of higher revenues. 

I can never understand this argument because we're not talking about good targets/good players. We have the likes of Vestergaard and Daka on "premium" wages.

[UniFox21]

1 hour ago, Ashley said:

Adding to this. It'll be the same people who moan when Newcastle, Manchester Coty or Chelsea open the war chest. 

At least now they have to appear they aren't spending, whilst getting other clubs they fund to buy players for them or off them.

[RowlattsFox]

You can't always get recruitment right, but you can't afford to get as many wrong as have. Wages are something you can control, and this is where the board have got it horribly wrong. Huge wages to begin with and some ridiculous extensions, add our inability to get anyone out the door when they don't want to be here. 

 

 

 

 

[lcfc_forever]

11 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

I can never understand this argument because we're not talking about good targets/good players. We have the likes of Vestergaard and Daka on "premium" wages.

There is hindsight bias to some of this - Daka and Soumare were two of the most sought after talents in Europe. Even the players that worked out we had to pay higher wages to attract them in the first place.

 

But agree, the scouting suffered under Rodgers - he had too much power in the end and Rudkin was happy to give it to him. 

[davieG]

8 minutes ago, lcfc_forever said:

There is hindsight bias to some of this - Daka and Soumare were two of the most sought after talents in Europe. Even the players that worked out we had to pay higher wages to attract them in the first place.

 

But agree, the scouting suffered under Rodgers - he had too much power in the end and Rudkin was happy to give it to him. 

There’s high and too high and I don’t recall any of the rich six being after them. 

[ClaphamFox]

34 minutes ago, The boy Linacre said:

TBH It'll be all decided Monday/Tuesday

IF we aren't liable/culpable we can bring in the 4 players we need, purchases or loans, RVN will stay and we have every chance of staying up

IF we are found guilty, presume we will get a points deduction, if I was RVN I would walk, the hierarchy mismanaged and probably lied to him and we are down, no players or manager of any note would would come here.

I just hope they can count OR they have been stupid beyond the extreme.

 

RVN sounded pretty relaxed about it in his press conference yesterday. It wasn’t clear whether that’s because he’s been reassured by the club that we won’t be charged or has already been told we will be charged and has just accepted it.

 

Tom Collomosse was on the WYS podcast last night. He didn’t have much to add that was new, but he did say that he thinks the club is holding off on spending money this window because it doesn’t want to do anything to upset the PL while the decision on whether to charge us is still in the air. Obviously any transfers this window won’t affect the calculation for 2021-24, but if we’re perceived to be taking the piss,it might sway the decision against us. Or so Collomosse reckoned anyway.

Edited 10 January by ClaphamFox

[lcfc_forever]

9 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

RVN sounded pretty relaxed about it in his press conference yesterday. It wasn’t clear whether that’s because he’s been reassured by the club that we won’t be charged or has already been told we will be charged and has just accepted it.

 

Tom Collomosse was on the WYS podcast last night. He didn’t have much to add that was new, but he did say that he thinks the club is holding off on spending money this window because it doesn’t want to do anything to upset the PL while the decision on whether to charge us is still in the air. Obviously any transfers this window won’t affect the calculation for 2021-24, but if we’re perceived to be taking the piss,it might sway the decision against us. Or so Collomosse reckoned anyway.

That's exactly what I was thinking with the reference to 'cheap full backs'. A factor in the removal of Cooper was his criticism of PL officials, so the club are clearly doing what they can to keep them sweet. 

[coolhandfox]

2 hours ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Although they won't have to watch their club be an absolute mess off the field, even if they did go down

Football changes all the time, owner changes, time change, there are no guarantees.

 

They are having there moment in the sun, let see where they are in 5-10 years time. 

 

[lcfc_forever]

13 minutes ago, davieG said:

There’s high and too high and I don’t recall any of the rich six being after them. 

I'm not going to dig into whether major clubs wanted those players but a lot of this is hindsight bias. 

 

We wanted to compete with the top 4, and paid wages accordingly. Failure was recruitment - they simply didn't perform to what we expected, and we know what happened next. 

[slymunn]

25 minutes ago, davieG said:

There’s high and too high and I don’t recall any of the rich six being after them. 

Patson Daka Liverpool transfer talks held

Man Utd and Chelsea can sign 'next Samuel Eto'o' for £110m less than Erling Haaland | Football | Sport | Express.co.uk
 

[Claudio Fannieri]

40 minutes ago, lcfc_forever said:

There is hindsight bias to some of this - Daka and Soumare were two of the most sought after talents in Europe. Even the players that worked out we had to pay higher wages to attract them in the first place.

 

But agree, the scouting suffered under Rodgers - he had too much power in the end and Rudkin was happy to give it to him. 

I agree to a degree in regards to Daka and Soumare in relation to signing them however did we really need to offer them both £80k per week. 
 

Daka was reportedly on £7k per week at RB Salzburg so even if we had offered £35k per week that would still have been 5x his salary, I can’t believe we thought it was financially savvy to offer him in excess of 10x his salary, and that is where we have lost all control of our costs. 

Edited 10 January by Claudio Fannieri

[coolhandfox]

3 hours ago, CosbehFox said:

I accept that. But Brighton’s success is never going to be define by trophies because realistically it’s extremely hard to do. We managed the trophies which was amazing.

Have you ask the Brighton fans? 

 

Expectation change, with that what you deem as success change in line with those expectations. 

3 hours ago, CosbehFox said:

However we are  burying our head in the sand saying ‘ooo yeah Brighton et al need to sustain it’. They are sustaining it in relation to their respective size. Eight years of top flight football is unparalleled to them. That argument isn’t acknowledging who Brighton, Bournemouth are and where they are from. These clubs aren’t expected to have five years plus in the top flight. 
 

The fairer argument for Leicester fans to make is comparing Leeds, Villa, Newcastle, West Ham. Clubs with heavy revenue streams compared to most but can’t sustain success beyond the odd good season 
 

If anything the argument about Brighton is right at the root of the issue in how a lot of Leicester fans view their club, punch up, not down. 

We massively drop the ball, become we became complacent, success is the prefect breeding for complacency, we thought we had cracked it, top 6 club on a regular basis and stopping doing the thing that got us there. 

 

Like Leeds in the, like Blackburn, like Newcastle at there zenith. 

 

The issue is everyone tries to compete with the greed 6 on wages and transfer fee to get Europe, or to win trophy and you can't. 

 

What you need to do is stick to your own plan and principle which is what Brighton, Brentford et al are doing at the moment. 

 

Edited 10 January by coolhandfox

[CosbehFox]

21 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Football changes all the time, owner changes, time change, there are no guarantees.

 

They are having there moment in the sun, let see where they are in 5-10 years time. 

 

EDIT: CHF has covered it well in his previous reply. 

 

 

 

Edited 10 January by CosbehFox