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

[Les-TA-Jon]

29 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

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...

Not particularly?

 

We had to submit by 31/12/24. 

The PL has to respond within 14 days. 

 

That's the 14/01/25

 

So unless it's kept in-house for a while, we'll find out tomorrow/this week? 

 

[st albans fox]

The PL do not want to charge a PL club and then suffer an appeal and hearing and potential cancellation of the charge with everyone knowing about it. 
I wonder if they will contact us to discuss our defence etc on the understanding that it’s all kept out of the public domain?  On the basis that neither club nor the PL want their dirty washing aired for the media etc to make headlines etc out of it. There may be stuff going on but we may not hear about it. 

[Mickyblueeyes]

Just now, st albans fox said:

The PL do not want to charge a PL club and then suffer an appeal and hearing and potential cancellation of the charge with everyone knowing about it. 
I wonder if they will contact us to discuss our defence etc on the understanding that it’s all kept out of the public domain?  On the basis that neither club nor the PL want their dirty washing aired for the media etc to make headlines etc out of it. There may be stuff going on but we may not hear about it. 

I think you've hit nail on head - I wouldnt be surprise if this was exactly the case having read the extract a few posts up. 

[ForestAreMagic]

43 minutes 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 

Looks to me that it’s cut and dried - you have a £105m limit.  It’s the wording that matters, not the spirit.  I’m not as close to this as you are as Leicester fans but if you’re under the £105m I don’t see any way you can be charged.  

[filbertway]

I find it impressive that we were not Championship or Premier league club on 30th June 2023.

[foxfanazer]

1 minute ago, filbertway said:

I find it impressive that we were not Championship or Premier league club on 30th June 2023.

We really are too good for the championship but not good enough for the prem

[Les-TA-Jon]

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?  

 

 

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I find it impressive that we were not Championship or Premier league club on 30th June 2023.

As per our successful appeal to the PL's previous charge, we successfully argued we were a EFL team (which I think you're alluding to?). 

 

But as per the rules above, the debate isn't really about whether or not we were officially a PL or EFL club at the end of the previous accounting period. 

 

It's about which years the EFL reduction apply to or not. The rules cleary say they apply to years 2 and 3 of each rolling period, not to year 1. 

[filbertway]

1 minute ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

 

 

 

As per our successful appeal to the PL's previous charge, we successfully argued we were a EFL team (which I think you're alluding to?). 

 

But as per the rules above, the debate isn't really about whether or not we were officially a PL or EFL club at the end of the previous accounting period. 

 

It's about which years the EFL reduction apply to or not. The rules cleary say they apply to years 2 and 3 of each rolling period, not to year 1. 

So...if we argued we were an EFL team, am I being dumb, or does that not mean we were an EFL team during T-1?

[ClaphamFox]

32 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

Not particularly?

 

We had to submit by 31/12/24. 

The PL has to respond within 14 days. 

 

That's the 14/01/25

 

So unless it's kept in-house for a while, we'll find out tomorrow/this week? 

 

That makes sense, but I’m sure I read somewhere that the PL tends to avoid making these kind of announcements on match days - which would rule out tomorrow, Wednesday and Thursday. I can’t confirm that this is true, however…

[Les-TA-Jon]

6 minutes ago, filbertway said:

So...if we argued we were an EFL team, am I being dumb, or does that not mean we were an EFL team during T-1?

T = last season (EFL team)

T-1 = relegation season 

T-2 = finished 8th 

 

You're right though I suppose - our previous appeal was about T-1 wasn't it. I.e we were relegated and transferred our PL share before the end of the accounting period. 

 

This very much muddies the waters! 

[filbertway]

3 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

T = last season (EFL team)

T-1 = relegation season 

T-2 = finished 8th 

 

You're right though I suppose - our previous appeal was about T-1 wasn't it. I.e we were relegated and transferred our PL share before the end of the accounting period. 

 

This very much muddies the waters! 

This is what is confusing me yeah  

 

We argued we weren't a Prem team so surely the Prem would argue the deduction would apply to that period. If De Marco manages to successfully argue we were and EFL team and EPL  team on the same date in 2 different appeals then he's an absolute genius

 

[marcymarc666]

33 minutes ago, foxfanazer said:

We really are too good for the championship but not good enough for the prem

Leicester's life story on the whole !

[KingsX]

6 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Happy PSR Day

Is that

  Pray for Salvation from Relegation?

or

  Pray for Salvation from Rudkin?

[StanSP]

If we stay up for a few season, stay PSR compliant and then get relegated to Championship (say 2027/28), can they backdate and apply a points deduction based on a breach last season? Or is it time-barred? 

[sylofox]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

The PL do not want to charge a PL club and then suffer an appeal and hearing and potential cancellation of the charge with everyone knowing about it. 
I wonder if they will contact us to discuss our defence etc on the understanding that it’s all kept out of the public domain?  On the basis that neither club nor the PL want their dirty washing aired for the media etc to make headlines etc out of it. There may be stuff going on but we may not hear about it. 

Not a chance in hell we sit down and explain our defence outside of a legal hearing. Doing that would be suicide by our legal team.

[AKCJ]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

If we stay up for a few season, stay PSR compliant and then get relegated to Championship (say 2027/28), can they backdate and apply a points deduction based on a breach last season? Or is it time-barred? 

IIRC Sheffield United were charged by the EFL for the -2 point deduction they have for this season while they were still a Premier League team. I'd imagine it would be similar.

[Blue-fox]

30 minutes ago, KingsX said:

Is that

  Pray for Salvation from Relegation?

or

  Pray for Salvation from Rudkin?

They aren’t mutually exclusive 

[Mickyblueeyes]

2 minutes ago, sylofox said:

Not a chance in hell we sit down and explain our defence outside of a legal hearing. Doing that would be suicide by our legal team.

No it wouldnt. that is how a without prejudice all parties call/meeting works. It happens up and down the country. its how a negotiation comes about. 

 

There will also be disclosure process and pre-action protocol for the independant hearing if it got that far - its never going to be a complete surprise for either party on the day of the hearing. 

[sylofox]

2 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

No it wouldnt. that is how a without prejudice all parties call/meeting works. It happens up and down the country. its how a negotiation comes about. 

 

There will also be disclosure process and pre-action protocol for the independant hearing if it got that far - its never going to be a complete surprise for either party on the day of the hearing. 

I'm not saying we won't talk. But we won't offer up our whole defence.

[Mickyblueeyes]

Just now, sylofox said:

I'm not saying we won't talk. But we won't offer up our whole defence.

IF there was a without prejudice call to offer some sort of negotiation to come to a settlement - we would set out our defence at some point either in correspondence, response or via a telephone conversation. 

 

If this progressed to hearing, we would at some point set out our defence before the hearing. 

[Bert]

26 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

IIRC Sheffield United were charged by the EFL for the -2 point deduction they have for this season while they were still a Premier League team. I'd imagine it would be similar.

Yeah but we’ve won the case against that particular charge the EFL wanted. They can no longer pursue that. 

[Bert]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

So...if we argued we were an EFL team, am I being dumb, or does that not mean we were an EFL team during T-1?

Didn’t we argue that we were neither? Else surely we’d have been charged by one of them. 

[urban fox]

The argument as to whether or not we were a efl or PL team is not relevent. The rule says the deduction will not apply if the club were an efl team during the SEASON to which the accouning period t-1 refers.

We successfully argued we were not a PL club, having given up our share, however we had played that season in the PL not the efl.

If we rely on this defence, the current accounts will become t-1 next year and those accounts include the season that we played in the efl. We may still need to curb spending for at least the next two years until the current year drops out of the calculation.

Whilst the rules are a mess, one catastrophic year can mean three years of being unable to invest without major sales for any team other than those with the most revenue.

[Lambert09]

12 minutes ago, urban fox said:

The argument as to whether or not we were a efl or PL team is not relevent. The rule says the deduction will not apply if the club were an efl team during the SEASON to which the accouning period t-1 refers.

We successfully argued we were not a PL club, having given up our share, however we had played that season in the PL not the efl.

If we rely on this defence, the current accounts will become t-1 next year and those accounts include the season that we played in the efl. We may still need to curb spending for at least the next two years until the current year drops out of the calculation.

Whilst the rules are a mess, one catastrophic year can mean three years of being unable to invest without major sales for any team other than those with the most revenue.

It won’t though because of the all the back door deals that go on and allowing the sale of assets. I honestly don’t think you’ll see another club punished after this because the loop holes have been found. 
 

For whatever reason, we didn’t exploit any. after the deals with spurs recently it would have been fairly simple to say we will pay 24 m for skip if you take wormLeighton for 2m or something like that. 

[TommyK]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

The PL do not want to charge a PL club and then suffer an appeal and hearing and potential cancellation of the charge with everyone knowing about it. 
I wonder if they will contact us to discuss our defence etc on the understanding that it’s all kept out of the public domain?  On the basis that neither club nor the PL want their dirty washing aired for the media etc to make headlines etc out of it. There may be stuff going on but we may not hear about it. 

Wed be pretty stupid to tell them what our defense would be outside of a official hearing.