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

[Pliskin]

I imagine what the PL will try and do is engineer a breach. So they will probably see if we breach at £85m and then charge in accordance with that… we will then challenge that and face another legal battle to get it overturned. I also expect an irrational deduction too…….

[Corky]

1 minute ago, Pliskin said:

I imagine what the PL will try and do is engineer a breach. So they will probably see if we breach at £85m and then charge in accordance with that… we will then challenge that and face another legal battle to get it overturned. I also expect an irrational deduction too…….

I don't think they would, to be honest. Deducting points is not a good look for the league and brings uncertainty so why risk it for petty grievances?

 

If you work well within the guidelines, there is no issue. You push them and that is where problems arise.

[ClaphamFox]

9 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

I imagine what the PL will try and do is engineer a breach. So they will probably see if we breach at £85m and then charge in accordance with that… we will then challenge that and face another legal battle to get it overturned. I also expect an irrational deduction too…….

The PL doesn't determine the deduction. The independent panels that deal with the sanctions have consistently imposed much lower points deductions than the PL asked for...

Edited 13 January by ClaphamFox

[CosbehFox]

As Clapham mentions, the process is a carry on. 

 

The PL charge and level a point deduction. The independent panel which is made up of actually really high ranking solicitors makes the points deduction smaller. 

 

It's most as if it's a whole game to make it look like the PL have control and teeth when they don't. If the PL had confidence in their own rules, they would allow an independent auditor to do the FFP checks and report to a legal independent panel for there. If they did that though, they would be perceived not to have control. 

 

I think the club are fools but this whole show about FFP is a ****ing joke. If you going to implement something like this, do it properly. 

[Corky]

3 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

As Clapham mentions, the process is a carry on. 

 

The PL charge and level a point deduction. The independent panel which is made up of actually really high ranking solicitors makes the points deduction smaller. 

 

It's most as if it's a whole game to make it look like the PL have control and teeth when they don't. If the PL had confidence in their own rules, they would allow an independent auditor to do the FFP checks and report to a legal independent panel for there. If they did that though, they would be perceived not to have control. 

 

I think the club are fools but this whole show about FFP is a ****ing joke. If you going to implement something like this, do it properly. 

Agreed. This has been in place since 2013(?) and ten years before anyone was charged with anything. I doubt all clubs in that time stayed within the limits every year.

[Stevosevic]

38 minutes ago, StanSP said:

I'm surprised there was nothing in last night's gossip/newspapers about what could happen today. Usually by 11pm the articles are written, so to not hear anything is good? 

I would think so.

 

No statement etc… means no charge. 

I would have thought if we were getting a charge today there would have been noise in the papers last night? 

[suffolk fox]

7 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

I would think so.

 

No statement etc… means no charge. 

I would have thought if we were getting a charge today there would have been noise in the papers last night? 

There was a fair amount of news re this last week.  Normal crap sources though Football insider, talkshite and the sun.  Even made the mail and the Scottish Express.  Stated we would breach?  How, they know god knows.

[ClaphamFox]

6 minutes ago, suffolk fox said:

There was a fair amount of news re this last week.  Normal crap sources though Football insider, talkshite and the sun.  Even made the mail and the Scottish Express.  Stated we would breach?  How, they know god knows.

It wasn't 'news'. A few football finance experts (Borson, Maguire, Swiss Ramble) made their own estimates and concluded we'd likely breach, but it wasn't based on any inside information or knowledge of our accounts. It was pure guesswork. Usually around now somebody (typically Ornstein) has posted actual information about which teams will be charged, but that hasn't happened yet.

Edited 13 January by ClaphamFox

[Bluetintedspecs]

16 minutes ago, suffolk fox said:

There was a fair amount of news re this last week.  Normal crap sources though Football insider, talkshite and the sun.  Even made the mail and the Scottish Express.  Stated we would breach?  How, they know god knows.

They all refer to the clickbait 'football finance experts' Maguire and Borson's guesstimates who in turn defer to the 'opinion and guesswork' of Swiss Ramble.

None of the articles are accurate or fact based cos they have not seen our last accounts submitted end of December.

Edited 13 January by Bluetintedspecs
Typo

[Tommy G]

22 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

It wasn't 'news'. A few football finance experts (Borson, Maguire, Swiss Ramble) made their own estimates and concluded we'd likely breach, but it wasn't based on any inside information or knowledge of our accounts. It was pure guesswork. Usually around now somebody (typically Ornstein) has posted actual information about which teams will be charged, but that hasn't happened yet.

Can we pin this so the posters in this thread who seem to comment constantly about a breach can process it slowly and digest it and think before they type rubbish. 

[suffolk fox]

19 minutes ago, Bluetintedspecs said:

They all refer to the clickbait 'football finance experts' Maguire and Borson's guesstimates who in turn defer to the 'opinion and guesswork' of Swiss Ramble.

None of the articles are accurate or fact based cos they have not seen our last accounts submitted end of December.

Thanks for the explanation.

[Chrysalis]

3 hours ago, Fox 4 Life said:

I just cannot see how it is anything but 83m. We got out of the last charges because we were not deemed to be a Premier League club so how on earth will we be measured against a threshold for the Premier League. We can hope but I just don't see it.

Some time back someone posted a quote of the PSR rules which stated reduced PSR applies if the "season before" was in the championship, so last season we still would have had the EPL quotas as daft as it sounds, however obviously I dont vouch for the accuracy of that quote or for my interpretation.

 

However this would also mean our second season in the EPL assuming we stay up would have the reduced limit as it would include this season's reduced quota.  So rather than escaping it, its just a kick the can down the road.

Edited 13 January by Chrysalis

[Chrysalis]

2 hours ago, The boy Linacre said:

Yeah Forest got 4 for £36m breach, rumour has it ours is £12m, so a 1/3, & round it down

Doesnt work like that, you breach or you dont breach.

[Levi Port]

6 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Doesnt work like that, you breach or you dont breach.

You are deducted more/ less points based upon the scale of the breach. I’m sure there is legislation outlying the exact numbers and how it scales, but I can’t see it 

[Les-TA-Jon]

The PL handbook is here: https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2024/12/11/e9aa1b9e-a7d5-4788-8afe-6e07b8a5f5fc/TM1603-PL_Handbook-and-Collateral-2024-25_11.12_DIGITAL.pdf

 

Page 99

Page 103

Page 135

 

So for this period which we're currently reporting on: 

• T = year ending June 30th 2024
• T-1 = year ending May 30th 2023
• T-2 = year ending May 30th 2022

We were only in the Football League for "T" not "T-1" - doesn't Rule E.54 plainly state that the £22m reduction for allowable losses will not apply?  

 

EDIT: I think the above clearly shows that last season (T) won't be reduced by £22m (even though we were part of The Football League). But as @filbertway rightly points out, our previous appeal hinged on us successfully arguing that by the end of the accounting period for the relegation season (T-1) we were part of The Football League, not the Premier League. 

 

Therefore, surely, our allowable losses will be reduced by £22m? 

 

(Unless 'for each season covered by T-1...in which the Club was in membership of The Football League" is contestable. Because that season wasn't covered by us being an EFL team. It was only a small portion of it?) 

 

 

 

 

Edited 13 January by Les-TA-Jon

[ClaphamFox]

Just now, Levi Port said:

You are deducted more/ less points based upon the scale of the breach. I’m sure there is legislation outlying the exact numbers and how it scales, but I can’t see it 

This was published by a law firm last May. Apparently the PL has provided very little guidance for the independent panels to work from, making it very difficult to predict the level of deduction any team might have for a certain level of breach. However, at a basic level it seems that if you breach, the starting point is a three point deduction. After that, aggravating and mitigating factors can be considered which may increase or reduce the deduction. You'd assume that a large breach is one of the aggravating factors considered, while a very small breach might be a mitigating factor. I'm just guessing though...

 

https://www.2harecourt.com/2024/05/30/psr-points-deductions-a-guide-to-the-lack-of-guidance/

[Terraloon]

1 hour ago, CosbehFox said:

As Clapham mentions, the process is a carry on. 

 

The PL charge and level a point deduction. The independent panel which is made up of actually really high ranking solicitors makes the points deduction smaller. 

 

It's most as if it's a whole game to make it look like the PL have control and teeth when they don't. If the PL had confidence in their own rules, they would allow an independent auditor to do the FFP checks and report to a legal independent panel for there. If they did that though, they would be perceived not to have control. 

 

I think the club are fools but this whole show about FFP is a ****ing joke. If you going to implement something like this, do it properly. 

That’s not correct.

The PL do “ charge” if that’s what you want to call it and then a IC is appointed by a chap called Murray Rosen KC who is independent of the PL structure.

The IC is made of 3 qualified individuals from the pool that Rosen has available they certainly aren’t all solicitors . That IC will weigh up the evidence and make a ruling

Appeals for all intents and purposes another IC who will look at the first ICs assessment and ruling . 

[egg_fried_rice]

17 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

The PL handbook is here: https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2024/12/11/e9aa1b9e-a7d5-4788-8afe-6e07b8a5f5fc/TM1603-PL_Handbook-and-Collateral-2024-25_11.12_DIGITAL.pdf

 

Page 99

Page 103

Page 135

 

So for this period which we're currently reporting on: 

• T = year ending June 30th 2024
• T-1 = year ending May 30th 2023
• T-2 = year ending May 30th 2022

We were only in the Football League for "T" not "T-1" - doesn't Rule E.54 plainly state that the £22m reduction for allowable losses will not apply?  

 

 

 

 

Yep, PL have ****ed themselves with how they have written the rules and will be embarrassed in legal proceedings once again.

[Bert]

3 minutes ago, egg_fried_rice said:

Yep, PL have ****ed themselves with how they have written the rules and will be embarrassed in legal proceedings once again.

This has to be surely why the club remain confident. Technicality FC

[The Doctor]

46 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

The PL handbook is here: https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2024/12/11/e9aa1b9e-a7d5-4788-8afe-6e07b8a5f5fc/TM1603-PL_Handbook-and-Collateral-2024-25_11.12_DIGITAL.pdf

 

Page 99

Page 103

Page 135

 

So for this period which we're currently reporting on: 

• T = year ending June 30th 2024
• T-1 = year ending May 30th 2023
• T-2 = year ending May 30th 2022

We were only in the Football League for "T" not "T-1" - doesn't Rule E.54 plainly state that the £22m reduction for allowable losses will not apply?  

 

 

 

 

that is the wording, the spirit is probably different but let's be honest, a good lawyer can argue the sky is green on technicalities. If we're between 83m and 105m on losses then you can bet there will be a long legal battle 

[ClaphamFox]

1 minute ago, The Doctor said:

that is the wording, the spirit is probably different but let's be honest, a good lawyer can argue the sky is green on technicalities. If we're between 83m and 105m on losses then you can bet there will be a long legal battle 

Unless those discussions have already taken place & the PL has reluctantly concluded that it is unlikely to win such a battle because the wording favours our interpretation? 

 

I don't think we're going to hear anything today. Last year the news was leaked by Ornstein on Sunday and was being widely reported on Monday morning before being formally announced by the PL at midday The silence is almost eerie this year...

[Walshie is God]

Have we been charged yet? Isn't today the day?

Edited 13 January by Walshie is God

[egg_fried_rice]

Announce breach 

[ClaphamFox]

3 minutes ago, egg_fried_rice said:

Announce breach 

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, or close the wall up with our Leicester dead"

[Mickyblueeyes]

1 hour ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

The PL handbook is here: https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2024/12/11/e9aa1b9e-a7d5-4788-8afe-6e07b8a5f5fc/TM1603-PL_Handbook-and-Collateral-2024-25_11.12_DIGITAL.pdf

 

Page 99

Page 103

Page 135

 

So for this period which we're currently reporting on: 

• T = year ending June 30th 2024
• T-1 = year ending May 30th 2023
• T-2 = year ending May 30th 2022

We were only in the Football League for "T" not "T-1" - doesn't Rule E.54 plainly state that the £22m reduction for allowable losses will not apply?  

 

 

 

 

The PL have quite an extensive legal team. I cannot believe how they have signed off on that sort of drafting. Its incredible. If they try to hold us in breach, this is easy money and plenty of further accolades for the LCFC legal team. That is of course if we are within the limits pre-reduction.