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
Ian Nacho

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

By Ian Nacho, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Terraloon

Terraloon

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just a thought if the accepted argument was / is that LCFC wasn’t within the PLs jurisdiction for 22/23 will the PL be arguing that the allowable deductions and indeed the £35 million allowable excess isn’t relevant more that the allowable have to be in accord with the EFL rule book.Will City have won a battle but will that victory come back and bite on the bum ? Surely it can’t be argued that LCFC weren’t affiliated to any league . Or can it ?


Just another point is that the parachute payment in 23/24 will have been circa £40 /£45 million which is around £65-70 million short of the sum received in the 22/23 season 

 

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-citys-111m-boost-parachute-8481558

 

By my back of a fag packet calculation even if the allowable sum is £105 million(3x£35 million) and say deductibles amount to say £ 20 million Pa making £165 million going into the 23/24 season for PSR calculations there was circa £15-£20 million to make up so even a£1 loss would see a breech 

Edited by Terraloon
Chrysalis

Chrysalis

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 06/01/2025 at 17:46, Stevosevic said:

Ruud been lied to in his recruitment hasn’t he lol 

All the experienced managers will stay away from us now, Ruud this is his first EPL job, so he took the gamble.

Edited by Chrysalis
ClaphamFox

ClaphamFox

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

All the experienced managers will stay away from us now, Ruud this is his first proper management job, so he took the gamble.

What evidence do we have that Ruud was lied to?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
ClaphamFox

ClaphamFox

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

We know nothing of what has been said or not said.

Wouldn't put it past the club to have misled him but we have no proof.

He seemed remarkably relaxed when asked about the PSR stuff in his press conference on Thursday. He did not come across like a man who felt he’d been deceived.

  • Like 4
funkyrobot

funkyrobot

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Terraloon said:

Just a thought if the accepted argument was / is that LCFC wasn’t within the PLs jurisdiction for 22/23 will the PL be arguing that the allowable deductions and indeed the £35 million allowable excess isn’t relevant more that the allowable have to be in accord with the EFL rule book.Will City have won a battle but will that victory come back and bite on the bum ? Surely it can’t be argued that LCFC weren’t affiliated to any league . Or can it ?


Just another point is that the parachute payment in 23/24 will have been circa £40 /£45 million which is around £65-70 million short of the sum received in the 22/23 season 

 

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/leicester-citys-111m-boost-parachute-8481558

 

By my back of a fag packet calculation even if the allowable sum is £105 million(3x£35 million) and say deductibles amount to say £ 20 million Pa making £165 million going into the 23/24 season for PSR calculations there was circa £15-£20 million to make up so even a£1 loss would see a breech 

You don’t get a parachute payment if you go straight back up. 

Bluetintedspecs

Bluetintedspecs

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

He seemed remarkably relaxed when asked about the PSR stuff in his press conference on Thursday. He did not come across like a man who felt he’d been deceived.

Yes very confident and assured and stated that nothing had changed regarding what he'd been told in the discussions over PSR and finance 

jbflcfc

jbflcfc

Posted
Posted

I honestly don’t think he would have come given no reassurance of this situation.

 

Seems fairly chill about it in his press conferences.

 

 

ScotFox1

ScotFox1

Posted
Posted

All this chat is based simply on a 'best guess' and of course we will find out for sure next week.. we all love juicy speculation!

But I'm also curious who else might be in trouble?  

Whilst the focus has been on us for a breach.. who else might be secretly nervous?

And what about Man City?

 

What a mess!!

Number 6

Number 6

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

This was published this morning on The Athletic. It suggests we may have a strong case in arguing for the £105m vs the £83m PSR threshold.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6049650/2025/01/11/leicester-psr-loophole-wrexham-europe/

 

Kieran Maguire has picked up on it…

 

 

 

I find Swiss Rambles suggestions of £83m entirely unconvincing too. Says it doesn't make sense for £105m but that's exactly how the rule is written. No suggested of a reduction in amount for T.

 

Handbook: https://www.premierleague.com/about/publications

 

Can see a successful legal challenge from us if we've fallen between -£83m and -£105m.

 

Screenshot_20250111-110855.png

  • Like 2
Chrysalis

Chrysalis

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

What evidence do we have that Ruud was lied to?

None, although there is no evidence the other way either.

I dont remember saying it has factually happened, the comment on the managers is why would they join a club with so much lingering financial issues, bad management and yet still not able to build a squad to get them higher than yo yo club level.
Its too early really to use Ruud as a gauge, I think the earliest he would start moaning would be after the window closes, and likely nearer to the end of his reign.

fox_favourite

fox_favourite

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Number 6 said:

I find Swiss Rambles suggestions of £83m entirely unconvincing too. Says it doesn't make sense for £105m but that's exactly how the rule is written. No suggested of a reduction in amount for T.

 

Handbook: https://www.premierleague.com/about/publications

 

Can see a successful legal challenge from us if we've fallen between -£83m and -£105m.

 

Screenshot_20250111-110855.png

This would tie in with the club being 'confident'. So I'm guessing they're basing it off 105m and not 83m and if the EPL want to be a div about it, they'll try for 83m. In that case we'll put up a stink, hopefully win and the premier league will have egg on their face again. It's big for the premier league to get right as it is for us to not breach. They make the wrong call again and we appeal and win, it would make a mockery of them

Edited by fox_favourite
  • Like 2
Number 6

Number 6

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, fox_favourite said:

This would tie in with the club being 'confident'. So I'm guessing they're basing it off 105m and not 83m and if the EPL want to be a div about it, they'll try for 83m. In that case we'll put up a stink, hopefully win and the premier league will have egg on their face again. It's big for the premier league to get right as it is for us to not breach. 

Yep. PL may not care as it would **** up anything we wanted to do in January and probably condemn us anyway, so could see them try and charge us anyway (unless this would mean them having to go after Ipswich or Southampton too). I don't see how they can argue £83m from how the rules are written though. They've argued spirit of the laws before but this is why our legal team have continued to bloody their nose.

  • Like 1
markko

markko

Posted
Posted

So we are looking at June 23-24. It is now January. This cannot be right to have this hanging over you during the only period you can trade in the season. I don't know if it is the media just stirring it but it is not very clear and is ruining and already depressing season. It may be we should just breach, breach and breach some more and by the time they catch up there will be a backlog behind Man City!

fox_favourite

fox_favourite

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Number 6 said:

Yep. PL may not care as it would **** up anything we wanted to do in January and probably condemn us anyway, so could see them try and charge us anyway (unless this would mean them having to go after Ipswich or Southampton too). I don't see how they can argue £83m from how the rules are written though. They've argued spirit of the laws before but this is why our legal team have continued to bloody their nose.

Spirit of the rules is not legally binding so using that as a defence would show their rules are poo on a stick. 

 

That is equivalent as stamping your feet saying "it's not fair!" 

Edited by fox_favourite
  • Like 3
Bilo

Bilo

Posted
Posted (edited)

So my reading is that, as argued by Nick Di Marco, we were a Championship club as of T1 (June 30th 2023), rendering us immune from PL jurisdiction, but T2 was June 30th 2024. For the latter, the Premier League share had been transferred to us by either Sheffield United, Burnley or Luton and we are therefore classified as a Premier League club as of that date.

 

Ergo, a team can only be classified as a Championship club if they spent both T1 and T2 in that division, meaning that the effect of the loose wording of the rules is that clubs who are relegated from the Premier League but are immediately promoted become Premier League clubs for the season they're in the Championship for the purposes of Premier League rules. If we successfully prove that argument, that could mean that the EFL may not be able to touch us either as we were not a Championship club at the end of the 23-24 accounting period as we had transferred our Championship share to one of the relegated clubs and taken up our Premier League share.

 

Forest had a lower boundary because, in the season they were promoted, they were a Championship club in the entire season (20-21) prior to the accounting period and therefore could not use the same defence we have used. 

 

If this is the case, that's good for us but bad for the competition as it would mean that newly relegated clubs effectively have an extra £22m headroom over their rivals as well as the highest point of parachute payments. 

 

Unless I am misunderstanding it all.

Edited by Bilo
  • Like 2
st albans fox

st albans fox

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

 

 

Unless I am misunderstanding it all.

I don’t think you are - it’s a shitshow 

they should be rewriting it - I doubt they are though 

 

Wonder what Southampton are thinking about their June spend 2024 ……

Edited by st albans fox
urban.spaceman

urban.spaceman

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Bilo said:

So my reading is that, as argued by Nick Di Marco, we were a Championship club as of T1 (June 30th 2023), rendering us immune from PL jurisdiction, but T2 was June 30th 2024. For the latter, the Premier League had been transferred to us by either Sheffield United, Burnley or Luton and we are therefore classified as a Premier League club as of that date.

 

Ergo, a team can only be classified as a Championship club if they spent both T1 and T2 in that division, meaning that the effect of the loose wording of the rules is that clubs who are relegated from the Premier League but are immediately promoted become Premier League clubs for the season they're in the Championship for the purposes of Premier League rules. If we successfully prove that argument, that could mean that the EFL may not be able to touch us either as we were not a Championship club at the end of the 23-24 accounting period as we had transferred our Championship club to one of the relegated clubs and taken up our Premier League share.

 

Forest had a lower boundary because, in the season they were promoted, they were a Championship club in the entire season prior to the accounting period and therefore could not use the same defence we have used. 

 

If this is the case, that's good for us but bad for the competition as it would mean that newly relegated clubs effectively have an extra £22m headroom over their rivals as well as the highest point of parachute payments. 

 

Unless I am misunderstanding it all.

T2 was released in 1992.

  • Haha 2

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...