LCFC will NOT face any charges for breaching PSR

[Tommy G]

2 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

I would say we stood in the dog shit but a lawyer advised that we change our shoes before we walk through the house.

Ok but you get my point, the fact remains we didn't breach PSR.

 

We lawyered up and represented ourselves well to navigate really poorly drafted rules, which any business can do by the way and is commonplace with dispute resolution.  

 

I'd rather we did that than lay there and became the Premier League Bonnie Blue and get rogered in front of everyone. It's given us the best opportunity to survive and time for the football to do the talking. 

[KingsX]

8 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Is that Nick De Marco? because if so he has nothing to do with this.

 

Yes, of course it's him.  Because most credible report (not the UK clickbait bollocks FT went nuts debating) stated we would escape sanction via PSR loopholes very similar to those he exposed last time.

 

Are you so sure he wasn't continuing to work with the board on this?  No, you just believe they were able to get the wage bill in order.  Which I don't believe for one minute.

[trooky]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

However, City's dispute is not over. The Premier League have announced that they are still locked in "confidential arbitration proceedings" over City's 22-23 accounts. An appeal board found in City's favour in September, ruling that the Premier League did not have the jurisdiction to charge them as they were not a member club at the end of the financial year, having been relegated to the Championship. That decision is being appealed by the Premier League.

 

In a statement, the Premier League said: “Issues as to the jurisdiction of the Premier League over Leicester City Football Club in relation to PSR compliance are currently the subject of confidential arbitration proceeding

The PL are seething 😂 that we complied this time and are re-writing their useless rule book so they can appeal the appeal panels final decision. 

 

What a set of vindictive *****, just accept we won the Premier league and screwed your ****ing PSR rules. 

 

Leave us alone and save your money for the Man City appeals. 

[jonthefox]

The FA are the only ones who haven’t taken points off us this season. 

[Mickyblueeyes]

Can I just say, there is plenty and I mean PLENTY to criticise the club on. Appointing good lawyers and preparing a defence and/or scrutiny of the rules to protect the business - whether we were in the shit or not, is not one of those reasons, 

 

That happens in businesses the world over. Shit goes wrong. It’s how you clean up that shit which builds good businesses. If the club approached all issues like this, we would all still be 97% approval of ownership club. 
 

They (whoever was in charge of this approach which I am assuming is the General Counsel) has done it exactly how they should and protected the club, 

Edited 14 January by Mickyblueeyes

[FrankieADZ]

so Jordan moans about us doing it but admit hed have done it himself

 

pot calling kettle

[filbertway]

20 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Not sure what that means. I know the PSR rules are there to protect the big 6. 

 

Most if not all clubs in the PL are backed by wealthy owners and are suffocated by the rules rather than their ability to keep a club solvent. 

 

In that case are you pushing for the wealthy clubs to have their own competition, a bit like the European Super League, so that way they are in their own competition away from clubs like ours who can;'t compete.

 

 

So say Top is allowed to spend what he wants.

 

In June 2023 turnover reported by clubs

Leicester  £177m.

Chelsea £512m. 

Spurs £550m

 

Do you think top would spend 350m a season of his own money to try and keep up with these clubs?

 

Do you think any businessman/collection of business men would throw almost a billion pounds at a club over 3 years and expect no return?

 

If the answer is yes, then fair play. We massively disagree on the core argument.

 

If the answer is no then that means the clubs would instead run up a debt of 1bn over 3 seasons, whether that be in loans from the owner or some mad bank with no foresight.

 

My point is, PSR or no PSR, the teams that earn the most money will spend the most. Wanting a system where random businessmen can come in, rack up a load of debt against a club and then walk away with the club in flames is absolute madness in my opinion.

 

[PaulW]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

However, City's dispute is not over. The Premier League have announced that they are still locked in "confidential arbitration proceedings" over City's 22-23 accounts. An appeal board found in City's favour in September, ruling that the Premier League did not have the jurisdiction to charge them as they were not a member club at the end of the financial year, having been relegated to the Championship. That decision is being appealed by the Premier League.

 

In a statement, the Premier League said: “Issues as to the jurisdiction of the Premier League over Leicester City Football Club in relation to PSR compliance are currently the subject of confidential arbitration proceeding

If the Premier League were confident of their position, they wouldn't have agreed to go to arbitration.

[coolhandfox]

40 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Big clubs will always be able to spend more though, this helps prevent countries being able to come in and completely dwarf us.

 

Do you think it's a good idea for clubs to be losing to be running up hundreds of millions pounds of debt trying to compete with clubs that turnover 2 or 3 times more than them?

I agree, but lots of businesses run at a loss for years to gain a foothold. 

 

It took Netflix 10 years to turn a profit. 

 

 

[Ted Maul]

14 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Can I just say, there is plenty and I mean PLENTY to criticise the club on. Appointing good lawyers and preparing a defence and/or scrutiny of the rules to protect the business - whether we were in the shit or not, is not one of those reasons, 

Appointing industry leaders in specific fields generates positive results... who'd have thought it? Not usually the club's style.

[The Hitman]

Has it been said that we have passed due to getting the £105m or did we get below £83m too?

 

If we’ve got below £83m loss then that means we’re in a better position going forward. 

[Iwebema]

11 minutes ago, filbertway said:

My point is, PSR or no PSR, the teams that earn the most money will spend the most. Wanting a system where random businessmen can come in, rack up a load of debt against a club and then walk away with the club in flames is absolute madness in my opinion.

This is what PSR is meant to prevent, which it does and that's a good thing, you don't want clubs billions in debt to a wealthy owner. 👍

 

The issue is it came in too late and the "big 6" already started on an unfair level, having commercial revenues so far ahead of everyone else, the only way to really compete now is to increase yours to their levels, but to do that you need to keep churning your playing staff by feeding the best to the "big 6" In order to comply.

 

Anchoring to me would be fair, or having an average max amount of commercial revenue apply to PSR. I certainly think there are other ways to do it that are more pro competition. But agree it can't be just allowing rich people to pump money in and then leave when they get bored and ask for it all back.

Edited 14 January by Iwebema

[Wymsey]

5 hours ago, EnderbyFox said:

 

 

Everton… it COULD be you

Haven't they been let off, too?

[Muzzy_no7]

Usually Simon Jordan tends to make good points and rightly calls out things but today, my god he’s got it so wrong. What a clown. 

[AKCJ]

13 minutes ago, filbertway said:

So say Top is allowed to spend what he wants.

 

In June 2023 turnover reported by clubs

Leicester  £177m.

Chelsea £512m. 

Spurs £550m

 

Do you think top would spend 350m a season of his own money to try and keep up with these clubs?

 

Do you think any businessman/collection of business men would throw almost a billion pounds at a club over 3 years and expect no return?

 

If the answer is yes, then fair play. We massively disagree on the core argument.

 

If the answer is no then that means the clubs would instead run up a debt of 1bn over 3 seasons, whether that be in loans from the owner or some mad bank with no foresight.

 

My point is, PSR or no PSR, the teams that earn the most money will spend the most. Wanting a system where random businessmen can come in, rack up a load of debt against a club and then walk away with the club in flames is absolute madness in my opinion.

 

Yes. Look at Man City and Newcastle's owners.

 

There are people on this planet that have unfathomable wealth. It's all a big game to them.

[AKCJ]

1 minute ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Usually Simon Jordan tends to make good points and rightly calls out things but today, my god he’s got it so wrong. What a clown. 

He started going off about how we avoided the "obligation" to provide the EFL with a business plan. That's when I realised that he doesn't have a clue.

 

The reason we didn't provide the EFL with a business plan was because it wasn't an obligation.

[Scotch]

1 minute ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Usually Simon Jordan tends to make good points and rightly calls out things but today, my god he’s got it so wrong. What a clown. 

It's because he's bought into the likes of what Borson has been saying, chose his camp and doesn't want to back down but it's a sh!tty narrative to spin because people now believe we've weasl3d out of something again when there is nothing to suggest that. 

[Iwebema]

4 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Usually Simon Jordan tends to make good points and rightly calls out things but today, my god he’s got it so wrong. What a clown. 

He went in to hard too early on all the fake leaks and it's 2025 Internet culture, never ever admit you were wrong, if anything double down in a more angry way

[TheGoldenGod]

1 minute ago, Scotch said:

It's because he's bought into the likes of what Borson has been saying, chose his camp and doesn't want to back down but it's a sh!tty narrative to spin because people now believe we've weasl3d out of something again when there is nothing to suggest that. 

Spot on! He got so invested in Borson, he hung onto every word and then when Borson got it wrong, SJ couldn't comprehend it! He even started blaming the 'experts' in the end for the narrative.

[jayfox26]

57 minutes ago, PaulW said:

That's a bit like saying "I got away with that parking fine on a technicality, because I wasn't in the car park at the the time."  If highly qualified legal experts say that the various league management committees had no jurisdiction to bring the charges, then so be it.  They can't change the rules, ( however poor), afterwards and then charge us.

I agree, they can't change the rules and I'm surprised they are appealing it as it seems unlikely they will win. My point is, that we did breach PSR. The fact we haven't been charged shouldn't mean we all of a sudden have faith in the people running the club, the club is still an absolute shit show and heads should still have rolled for our failings but they just seem to brush it all under the carpet and carry on with nobody taking any kind of responsibility 

[gerrytaggart]

They learned not to mess with Rudders.

[trooky]

32 minutes ago, filbertway said:

So say Top is allowed to spend what he wants.

 

In June 2023 turnover reported by clubs

Leicester  £177m.

Chelsea £512m. 

Spurs £550m

 

Do you think top would spend 350m a season of his own money to try and keep up with these clubs?

 

Do you think any businessman/collection of business men would throw almost a billion pounds at a club over 3 years and expect no return?

 

If the answer is yes, then fair play. We massively disagree on the core argument.

 

If the answer is no then that means the clubs would instead run up a debt of 1bn over 3 seasons, whether that be in loans from the owner or some mad bank with no foresight.

 

My point is, PSR or no PSR, the teams that earn the most money will spend the most. Wanting a system where random businessmen can come in, rack up a load of debt against a club and then walk away with the club in flames is absolute madness in my opinion.

 

I any normal business you would expect a return on your investment, but football is different. Just look at the money Spurs, Chelsea have spent without a return.

[urban.spaceman]

12 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Big clubs will always be able to spend more though, this helps prevent countries being able to come in and completely dwarf us.

 

Do you think it's a good idea for clubs to be losing to be running up hundreds of millions pounds of debt trying to compete with clubs that turnover 2 or 3 times more than them?

They’re able to spend more because they’re given disproportionately more UK TV broadcasts, so more money in facility fees and bigger audience exposure to sponsorships and merchandisers. Even when we won the league we were still the 5th highest earners because 4 of the teams who finished 10 or more points below us had more games broadcast. 
 

Our ability to profit is directly controlled. 

[Spudulike]

9 minutes ago, jayfox26 said:

I agree, they can't change the rules and I'm surprised they are appealing it as it seems unlikely they will win. My point is, that we did breach PSR. The fact we haven't been charged shouldn't mean we all of a sudden have faith in the people running the club, the club is still an absolute shit show and heads should still have rolled for our failings but they just seem to brush it all under the carpet and carry on with nobody taking any kind of responsibility 

No, we didn't. That's the point. The Commission were clear on that.

[Muzzy_no7]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

So say Top is allowed to spend what he wants.

 

In June 2023 turnover reported by clubs

Leicester  £177m.

Chelsea £512m. 

Spurs £550m

 

Do you think top would spend 350m a season of his own money to try and keep up with these clubs?

 

Do you think any businessman/collection of business men would throw almost a billion pounds at a club over 3 years and expect no return?

 

If the answer is yes, then fair play. We massively disagree on the core argument.

 

If the answer is no then that means the clubs would instead run up a debt of 1bn over 3 seasons, whether that be in loans from the owner or some mad bank with no foresight.

 

My point is, PSR or no PSR, the teams that earn the most money will spend the most. Wanting a system where random businessmen can come in, rack up a load of debt against a club and then walk away with the club in flames is absolute madness in my opinion.

 

And now West Ham have access to 10’s of millions more in sponsorship, ticket sales and other revenue as a direct result of paying pittance for a colossal stadium gifted to them and any expense of said stadium is on the tax payer. 
 

Soon Everton will get loads more revenue too from a ground they haven’t paid for. 

Edited 14 January by Muzzy_no7