Premier League has charged LCFC with an alleged breach of PSR

[CloudFox]

I can't remember who mentioned it earlier in this thread, but they really should have a "pay to play" type rule with bonds and the like, instead of this anti-competitive system.

 

Heck, maybe even allow some sort of scaling of a bond where if you want to spend more, you have to increase the size of your bond with the league to do so. Any excess could be filtered down to grassroots football too.

 

I'm probably talking nonsense, but it would be one hell of a lot better than what currently exists.

[Les-TA-Jon]

2 minutes ago, katieakita said:

Not sure Man City have been treated the same 115 or so charges suggests otherwise and all last summer we were on for a big points deduction until was it the last day of the transfer window  it was announced we were not getting a points deduction. The EPL would have seen our skeleton argument with this (loophole) and unless they were using Post Offices lawyers must have been aware we would be found not guilty. IMVHO will not believe this delay did not hurt our recruitment of a manager and players for this poor campaign.

The Man City thing is irrelevant, because that's not PSR per se and is such a large and unique case. 

 

The points deduction looming over us took longer because of our legal challenge. Not sure what evidence there is that the PL deliberately delayed processes to harm our chances? 

[urban.spaceman]

24 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

The Man City thing is irrelevant, because that's not PSR per se and is such a large and unique case.

7 of those (130) charges ARE PSR breaches. Their case is also very relevant to ours. 

 

24 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

The points deduction looming over us took longer because of our legal challenge. Not sure what evidence there is that the PL deliberately delayed processes to harm our chances? 

There is a mountain of evidence that the Premier League have acted in *extreme* bad faith. 

Edited 22 May 2025 by urban.spaceman

[Les-TA-Jon]

26 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

7 of those (130) charges ARE PSR breaches. Their case is also very relevant to ours. 

 

There is a mountain of evidence that the Premier League have acted in *extreme* bad faith. 

I'm just fed up of the Man City whataboutism when they're clearly different kinds of cases. I'm not saying PL failing's on Man City haven't affected us. I'm just saying that PSR wise, I can't see what the PL and EFL have done that particularly out of the ordinary or different for us compared to other clubs? 

 

I do think last season, the leagues acted improperly and conspiratorially in terms of trying to police us when we were going back and forth between the divisions - but I don't know what hard/public evidence there is of what they specifically did.  

[urban.spaceman]

7 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

I'm just fed up of the Man City whataboutism when they're clearly different kinds of cases. I'm not saying PL failing's on Man City haven't affected us. I'm just saying that PSR wise, I can't see what the PL and EFL have done that particularly out of the ordinary or different for us compared to other clubs? 

 

I do think last season, the leagues acted improperly and conspiratorially in terms of trying to police us when we were going back and forth between the divisions - but I don't know what hard/public evidence there is of what they specifically did.  

Breaking their own rules multiple times is pretty extraordinary and exclusive to us. They’ve also changed their rules in order to continue their pursuit. Man Utd have lost £85m more than us in the same period and have been given allowances not privy to anyone else. They’re also £1bn in debt. The PL even stated in the September 24 case this:

 

On 20/05/2025 at 13:59, urban.spaceman said:

49. The PL submits that the PSRs for a particular season involving accounting process and must continue to apply, however, long it takes for the accounting process to be concluded. It further submits that a breach of the PSR‘s in a given season has a detrimental effect on other clubs in the competition in that season, that effective enforcement of the PSR is important, and that it would not accord with the purpose of the PSR’s if they were construed in such a way that’s a breach became “untethered from the season in which the adverse effect on competition was felt all the PSR failed to affect over spending incurred in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid relegation”

Given the clear cause and effect of the Man City case on US, it’s pretty rich of them to want to conclude our case before that one. Especially when we’ve already suffered the consequences of trying to comply with their rules in the first place.

[Les-TA-Jon]

8 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Breaking their own rules multiple times is pretty extraordinary and exclusive to us.

Well they had 1 interpretation of the rules and we had another. We successfully argued the loophole in our favour. The PL 'breaking their own rules' is one possible way of framing that. Another is that they simply thought their rules worked in one way, but we proved (on a technicality) that they didn't. 

Quote

They’ve also changed their rules in order to continue their pursuit.

Well, they didn't get us the first time and they've quite rightly closed the loophole. They're pursuing us again, because we've breached PSR again. 

 

Quote

Man Utd have lost £85m more than us in the same period

Well, we know that PSR isn't based on total losses, it's based on allowable losses including add-backs. So quoting [insert club name]'s total losses is irrelevant until we know the total PSR calculation. 

 

Quote

and have been given allowances not privy to anyone else.

Totally agree that all clubs should be made to publish PSR calculations publicly

 

Quote

They’re also £1bn in debt.

Again, we know that debt isn't part of PSR...

[Les-TA-Jon]

@urban.spaceman just for clarity on my position

• Current status quo is clearly in favour of the 'big clubs' - it's a cartel
• Current PSR rules are not fit for purpose, use an outdated allowance figure and ultimately don't at all achieve what they are ostensibly about - i.e protecting clubs from irresponsible owners
• Current PSR rules, because they're based on revenue and loss, massively favour the current big clubs and hugely restrict the ability of small to medium sized clubs from ever progressing
• Man City's case has dragged on for far too long and directly affecting our chances (2 seasons at least when we would have done better if they had been appropriately punished)
• We have consistently voted in support of the current PSR rules
• Other clubs such as Fulham, Palace, Brentford, Brighton, Bournemouth, Villa etc have all been able to avoid breaches whilst being reasonably competitive
• The above grievances are valid, but I don't see them as directly applicable or fully relevant to our specific PSR cases over the last 2-3 seasons
• LCFC have had 3 seasons at least to cut our cloth accordingly but have had a very scattergun and unfocused strategy in terms of how to address our current situation

[Terraloon]

5 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

Won't the fact that we won our appeal initially be regarded by the Commission as evidence that our case was at least arguable? In other words, our appeal wasn't a frivolous one designed to delay proceedings, but rather a reasonable one that stood a chance of success (and indeed was initially successful)? It's a minor point perhaps, but could influence the level of deduction by a point or two. 

Looking at the written reasons of both Everton’s charges and the Notts Forest case mitigation isn’t just given on the nod the expectation is that sending in say accounts and other supporting documentation and indeed engaging with the PL aren’t grounds in themselves for sanctions to be mitigated it goes far deeper. 
 

Maybe winning an appeal will help but bear in mind  the charges are for 23/24 whereas the appeal was about 22/23. The charges around failure to submit the 23/24  accounts by 31/12/24 and failure to supply information and assistance to the PL to me doesn’t suggest that LCFC assist even to a basic level let alone over and above

The failure to submit  and engage charges are key because and are there to send a message about non cooperation. The non filing date is a matter of fact and whilst the failure to engage  may well to a degree be subjective any panel looking at claims re migration and aggravating factors won’t be able to ignore these claims.
 

4 hours ago, Bluetintedspecs said:

I'm no financial expert but this stinks to me of the Premier League trying to save face over their own ineptitude over the, now amended , rules. 

No clubs with PSR charges to answer in January  yet now 🤔🤷‍♂️.

I personally don't think this will result in a heavy points deduction due to 22/23 loophole year being aclosed matter. Hopefully a bit of posturing , the EPL puffing out their chest saying we got away with it and your cards are marked if you do it again etc etc 

 

 

The 22/23 “ loophole “ isn’t anything other than the club can’t be charged by the PL for 19/29+20/21 averaged + 21/22 and 22/23 the horrendous 21/22+22/23 numbers will form part of the charges dropping off the two Covid years and replacing them with 23/24.

 

If you think the EFL and PL aren’t going to try and send a message here then sorry I think you are miss reading what’s going on here . As for the IC who ultimately decide on any sanction they won’t be able to look at the 22/23 debate all they will do is focus on the numbers for the 3 years in question and decide based on the facts of this case and factor in aggravating and mitigating factors. 

3 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

I've just listened to Kieran Maguire's latest podcast. In it, he reiterates his belief that the PL cannot impose a points deduction on us next season. He reckons that the recent agreement between the PL and the EFL only allows for jurisdiction to be passed from one to the other if a club is promoted or relegated, but does not extend to allowing punishments to be imposed between the PL and EFL. In other words, according to Maguire, while the PL can gain jurisdiction over a club that breached in the Championship, it can only impose a sanction on that club while it is in the PL - ie, the points deduction cannot be passed back down.

 

This runs contrary to what the majority of the media has been reporting, but Maguire seems pretty certain about it. He reckons the PL is going after us now in an attempt to impose a points deduction on us this season and move us down 1-2 places, reducing our prize money and increasing that paid to Ipswich and/or Southampton.

The point here and as I said yesterday don’t be at all surprised if the EFL take over jurisdiction once LCFC becomes one of their clubs.

 

Maguire is right that any Premier League  IC acting probably can’t pass down a points deduction  but an EFL IC taking over the case and who are dealing with charges  under their  rules almost certainly can impose a points deduction.

[Bluetintedspecs]

29 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

The 22/23 “ loophole “ isn’t anything other than the club can’t be charged by the PL for 19/29+20/21 averaged + 21/22 and 22/23 the horrendous 21/22+22/23 numbers will form part of the charges dropping off the two Covid years and replacing them with 23/24.

 

If you think the EFL and PL aren’t going to try and send a message here then sorry I think you are miss reading what’s going on here . As for the IC who ultimately decide on any sanction they won’t be able to look at the 22/23 debate all they will do is focus on the numbers for the 3 years in question and decide based on the facts of this case and factor in aggravating and mitigating

I stated "I'm no financial expert" I was putting things out there regarding events, whilst being very open to input from people that are more clued up than me 👍

As you appear to be that person , my misreading led to me believing there was a time period from when those accounts  23/24 were submitted to notification of any charges ie Jan 25? I misguidedly thought that they could not revisit after a certain period,  like double jeapordy re a trial decision?🤷‍♂️ Please could you explain to me what the rules are? Many thanks 

Edited 22 May 2025 by Bluetintedspecs

[Clever Fox]

2 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

The Man City thing is irrelevant, because that's not PSR per se and is such a large and unique case. 

 

The points deduction looming over us took longer because of our legal challenge. Not sure what evidence there is that the PL deliberately delayed processes to harm our chances? 

How can you say Man city is irrelevant. How long does it take the PL to come to a conclusion on 115 breaches. It's been nearly two years. Each case should be concluded within the closed season.

 

Our legal challenge just exposed a glaring schoolboy legal error in the Premier league rules. They should be congratulating us for doing them a favour.

Edited 22 May 2025 by Clever Fox
Typo

[Terraloon]

4 hours ago, Number 6 said:

I think this does logically make sense. Allowing transfer of jurisdiction and the then expedited process would mean any 23/24 punishments would be handed out THIS season. That seems fairer than clubs dropping in and out of leagues and potentially being hit by the punishment many years later.

 

The spanner in the works this time is the delay. If it weren't for the timescales I'd have thought a deduction which has us finish the season 19th would help all parties draw a line under it.

The PLs expedited process was put in place in an attempt to ensure that any PSR charges were filed within 14 days of the 31/12 date . That date is set because it’s the final date by which clubs have to submit their accounts. Bear in mind LCFC have been charged for not submitting their 23/24  accounts by that date.

In the PL rules around charging clubs by that backstop date ,a date that was deliberately set to enable ICs to deal with the case and should there be an appeal there is provision to vary that date if circumstances require a delay.

See appendix 1 page 545 

 

https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2025/04/11/12d05df7-ce74-43ac-9766-1f3c3594da74/TM1603-PL_Handbook-and-Collateral-2024-25_11.04.25_DIGITAL.pdf

 

 I would imagine that the PL made application here and almost certainly were granted permission to delay the laying of charges meaning the imposition of any sanction in 24/25 isn’t a factor here

[Terraloon]

2 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

How can you say Man city is irrelevant. How long does it take the PL to come to a conclusion on 115 breaches. It's been nearly too years. Each case should be concluded within the closed season.

 

Our legal challenge just exposed a glaring schoolboy legal error in the Premier league rules. They should be congratulating us for doing them a favour.

What you are overlooking here is that the final legal ruling on the rules wasn’t in accord with LCFCs view . Indeed the legal error lays with the appeal IC ruling in the clubs favour. The only reason that the club weren’t charged for 22/23 by the PL isn’t because the Premier Leagues rules didn’t cover its because there really weren’t grounds for the arbitration to conclude that process wasn’t followed by the appeal panel

As for City the PL the investigation did indeed take far too long but City did everything they can to delay matters indeed even challenging the PLs right at the High Court to put a matter to arbitration ( which they , City, lost) None of the City charges fall under the expediaited process.

[ClaphamFox]

36 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Looking at the written reasons of both Everton’s charges and the Notts Forest case mitigation isn’t just given on the nod the expectation is that sending in say accounts and other supporting documentation and indeed engaging with the PL aren’t grounds in themselves for sanctions to be mitigated it goes far deeper. 
 

Maybe winning an appeal will help but bear in mind  the charges are for 23/24 whereas the appeal was about 22/23. The charges around failure to submit the 23/24  accounts by 31/12/24 and failure to supply information and assistance to the PL to me doesn’t suggest that LCFC assist even to a basic level let alone over and above

The failure to submit  and engage charges are key because and are there to send a message about non cooperation. The non filing date is a matter of fact and whilst the failure to engage  may well to a degree be subjective any panel looking at claims re migration and aggravating factors won’t be able to ignore these claims.
 

The 22/23 “ loophole “ isn’t anything other than the club can’t be charged by the PL for 19/29+20/21 averaged + 21/22 and 22/23 the horrendous 21/22+22/23 numbers will form part of the charges dropping off the two Covid years and replacing them with 23/24.

 

If you think the EFL and PL aren’t going to try and send a message here then sorry I think you are miss reading what’s going on here . As for the IC who ultimately decide on any sanction they won’t be able to look at the 22/23 debate all they will do is focus on the numbers for the 3 years in question and decide based on the facts of this case and factor in aggravating and mitigating factors. 

The point here and as I said yesterday don’t be at all surprised if the EFL take over jurisdiction once LCFC becomes one of their clubs.

 

Maguire is right that any Premier League  IC acting probably can’t pass down a points deduction  but an EFL IC taking over the case and who are dealing with charges  under their  rules almost certainly can impose a points deduction.

My impression was that Maguire believes that if a club breaches in the Championship and then gets promoted, jurisdiction can be transferred to a PL IC but any subsequent sanction cannot follow that club back to the Championship if it gets relegated immediately. He didn't seem to think the PL could just transfer jurisdiction back to the EFL to administer the punishment. He may well be wrong - he certainly seems to be a bit of an outlier in his interpretation. But that is what he seems to believe - and he seems pretty sure of it, too. 

[Corky]

Hopefully it will be concluded soon. We deserve a punishment and not cooperating is a very poor look.

 

Would also be nice if we started to get our house in order and comply because, as well as being embarrassing from the club, this topic is so tedious.

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

Well they had 1 interpretation of the rules and we had another.

Our argument was “this is how the rules are written and we have acted accordingly”

 

Their argument was “that IS how the rules are written but our intention was for them to be interpreted a different way and Leicester should have acted on our intention and not how they are in black and white”

 

1 hour ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

We successfully argued the loophole in our favour.

It wasn’t even a loophole. It was just “the rules”. 

 

1 hour ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

 

The PL 'breaking their own rules' is one possible way of framing that. Another is that they simply thought their rules worked in one way, but we proved (on a technicality) that they didn't. 

The breaking of their own rules is the repeated acting outside of their jurisdiction and trying to palm off the investigation to another league which they knew couldn’t do. Doing it once is careless. Doing it 4-5 times over several years is a different story. 

 

1 hour ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

Well, they didn't get us the first time and they've quite rightly closed the loophole. They're pursuing us again, because we've breached PSR again. 

And we’ll continue to ‘breach PSR’ because the rules are so poorly written and implemented, that we’d already broken them by the time they came into effect. It’s like changing the speed limit from 80 to 40, giving you 10 yards notice and then fining you by taking away your wheels for being over the speed limit and not slamming your breaks on fast enough, while rewarding the 6 hooky Bugattis still doing 150mph and texting while driving with ‘NOS’ and forcing us to sell everything under the bonnet and the boot to the same 6 twats…. And the cop that pulled you over is Dot Cotton off Line of Duty.

 

1 hour ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

 

Well, we know that PSR isn't based on total losses, it's based on allowable losses including add-backs. So quoting [insert club name]'s total losses is irrelevant until we know the total PSR calculation. 

 

Totally agree that all clubs should be made to publish PSR calculations publicly

 

Again, we know that debt isn't part of PSR...

They still lost far more than us over the same period and were given allowances that no other club were privy to. Not only are these rules grossly anti-competitive, they’re implemented in such an absurdly lopsided way that they’re still pushing for harsh punishments of a club that was relegated 2 years ago because of these rules, while giving the Bugatti twats free reign to do whatever they want and not just limited to this competition. 

 

2 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

@urban.spaceman just for clarity on my position

• Current status quo is clearly in favour of the 'big clubs' - it's a cartel
• Current PSR rules are not fit for purpose, use an outdated allowance figure and ultimately don't at all achieve what they are ostensibly about - i.e protecting clubs from irresponsible owners
• Current PSR rules, because they're based on revenue and loss, massively favour the current big clubs and hugely restrict the ability of small to medium sized clubs from ever progressing
• Man City's case has dragged on for far too long and directly affecting our chances (2 seasons at least when we would have done better if they had been appropriately punished)

Agree with everything above. 

 

2 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

• We have consistently voted in support of the current PSR rules

As far as I can find out, we haven’t. FFP came in the season before we were promoted in 13/14. 

 

2 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

• Other clubs such as Fulham, Palace, Brentford, Brighton, Bournemouth, Villa etc have all been able to avoid breaches whilst being reasonably competitive

I posted in here the other day on that point:
  

On 20/05/2025 at 14:39, urban.spaceman said:

Sorry but comparing us to <<those>> other clubs with PSR is a mistake; at the times the rules were changed to be so restrictive, we were the ONLY club who had been challenging the Top 6 and had spent - within the rules - to qualify for the Champions League. THAT is why they’ve hit us the hardest. It’s absurd to compare us to newly promoted Fulham or a Southampton who had been circling the bottom half of the league for a decade. 

 

The Premier League and EFL’s mismanagement of football finances has gone on for a quarter of a century now. They’ve proven themselves incapable of holding anyone accountable, have repeatedly admitted their own rules were poor, and have repeatedly broken their own rules. They’ve broken the game beyond repair. 

The very nature of PSR IMO means you can ONLY view our situation in the context of what was happening in the league at the time. 

 

2 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

• The above grievances are valid, but I don't see them as directly applicable or fully relevant to our specific PSR cases over the last 2-3 seasons
• LCFC have had 3 seasons at least to cut our cloth accordingly but have had a very scattergun and unfocused strategy in terms of how to address our current situation

Going back to my speeding limit analogy - we’re still trying to get to 40mph. Only we have very few parts of the car left to sell for any value so now we’re just skidding with metal on the tarmac and sparks flying everywhere and most likely we’re about to end up in the ditch wrapped around a tree. We can’t just ‘slow down’ - the situation is fluid and impossible to rectify now we’re in it. YES, the club are culpable for transfer and wages disasters that they’re still ****ing doing. But the implementation of these rules has been a direct cause of the absolute horror show over the last 3 seasons. Everything the club had built is still being systematically torn apart by a league hellbent on destroying it regardless of their own rules, fair competition or sporting merit. 

[les-tah]

4 hours ago, CloudFox said:

I can't remember who mentioned it earlier in this thread, but they really should have a "pay to play" type rule with bonds and the like, instead of this anti-competitive system.

 

Heck, maybe even allow some sort of scaling of a bond where if you want to spend more, you have to increase the size of your bond with the league to do so. Any excess could be filtered down to grassroots football too.

 

I'm probably talking nonsense, but it would be one hell of a lot better than what currently exists.

This is the way forward if it was about protecting clubs from going into administration etc which its supposed to be but we all know its all about protecting the big clubs from lower clubs competing.

 

Without getting into the detail if you want to spend £100 Million a year on transfers and wages and fees you got to pay the equivalent bond to future proof them years - sounds simple.

[Jattdogg]

Am i the only one thinking.......I'm just going to wait for the football authorities to say what our punishment (if any) will be. Lol 

[Foxin_Mad]

23 minutes ago, les-tah said:

This is the way forward if it was about protecting clubs from going into administration etc which it’s supposed to be but we all know it’s all about protecting the big clubs from lower clubs competing.

 

This is the real issue. The club is a complete shitshow, that said PSR is the most stupidly designed piece of shit ever created.

 

Its already clearly expanding the gap between the Championship and Premier League, A championship team can only lose 15 million in the year it’s promoted and Premier League team can lose double. I’m not really sure over the 3 year period you can invest sufficient money to ever stay up. Then teams nearest the bottom 3 are United and Spurs they are never ever going to be relegate. Unless someone does a Leicester I don’t see who falls given each team gets stronger each year, Conversley the teams in the Prem in 20/23 will probably stay there and are very competitive with each other the likes of Bournemouth, Brighton, Brentford, Palace are really decent well run outfits. We will NEVER be at that level under this ownership. 

Edited 22 May 2025 by Foxin_Mad

[davieG]

https://eflanalysis.com/news/the-next-leicester-city-manager-is-set-to-be-handed-a-major-transfer-boost-despite-psr-setback/

 

Leicester won’t need a ‘fire sale’ after PSR issues

EFL Analysis expert Graeme Bailey has revealed that despite the off-field issues, Leicester won’t need to be forced into a fire sale and could therefore hold on to talents like Ben Nelson, who is wanted by Chelsea.

Bailey said: “I’m told that PSR-wise, they probably won’t have to sell.

“The parachute payments help. I don’t think they’ll have to sell massively. And everyone in that Leicester squad has a contract that sees their wages reduced [after relegation], so that helps, too. They’re hoping there’s a bounce factor in that they can go straight back up.

“Their plan is to go straight back. So, I don’t necessarily think it’ll be like a fire sale or anything.”

[Ric Flair]

3 hours ago, Terraloon said:

Looking at the written reasons of both Everton’s charges and the Notts Forest case mitigation isn’t just given on the nod the expectation is that sending in say accounts and other supporting documentation and indeed engaging with the PL aren’t grounds in themselves for sanctions to be mitigated it goes far deeper. 
 

Maybe winning an appeal will help but bear in mind  the charges are for 23/24 whereas the appeal was about 22/23. The charges around failure to submit the 23/24  accounts by 31/12/24 and failure to supply information and assistance to the PL to me doesn’t suggest that LCFC assist even to a basic level let alone over and above

The failure to submit  and engage charges are key because and are there to send a message about non cooperation. The non filing date is a matter of fact and whilst the failure to engage  may well to a degree be subjective any panel looking at claims re migration and aggravating factors won’t be able to ignore these claims.
 

The 22/23 “ loophole “ isn’t anything other than the club can’t be charged by the PL for 19/29+20/21 averaged + 21/22 and 22/23 the horrendous 21/22+22/23 numbers will form part of the charges dropping off the two Covid years and replacing them with 23/24.

 

If you think the EFL and PL aren’t going to try and send a message here then sorry I think you are miss reading what’s going on here . As for the IC who ultimately decide on any sanction they won’t be able to look at the 22/23 debate all they will do is focus on the numbers for the 3 years in question and decide based on the facts of this case and factor in aggravating and mitigating factors. 

The point here and as I said yesterday don’t be at all surprised if the EFL take over jurisdiction once LCFC becomes one of their clubs.

 

Maguire is right that any Premier League  IC acting probably can’t pass down a points deduction  but an EFL IC taking over the case and who are dealing with charges  under their  rules almost certainly can impose a points deduction.

Is there any evidence the EFL are able to do that? DiMarco will be rubbing his hands together.

[trooky]

The board have gone to such lengths to avoid a points deduction this season and stay in the Premier league.

 

Its a shame someone didnt send the memo to the first team because they've failed miserably and let the side down....

 

This whole episode has just been a total waste of time, effort and no doubt money that we don't have. 🤔

Edited 22 May 2025 by trooky

[Foxin_Mad]

1 minute ago, trooky said:

The board have gone to such lengths to avoid a points deduction this season and stay in the Premier league.

 

 🤔

Only small thing the board forgot was to buy some players good enough to keep us in the Premier League. If nothing else make your defence tight, ours was so porous it’s untrue. Wout Faes is not a real defender!

 

37 minutes ago, davieG said:

https://eflanalysis.com/news/the-next-leicester-city-manager-is-set-to-be-handed-a-major-transfer-boost-despite-psr-setback/

 

Leicester won’t need a ‘fire sale’ after PSR issues

EFL Analysis expert Graeme Bailey has revealed that despite the off-field issues, Leicester won’t need to be forced into a fire sale and could therefore hold on to talents like Ben Nelson, who is wanted by Chelsea.

Bailey said: “I’m told that PSR-wise, they probably won’t have to sell.

“The parachute payments help. I don’t think they’ll have to sell massively. And everyone in that Leicester squad has a contract that sees their wages reduced [after relegation], so that helps, too. They’re hoping there’s a bounce factor in that they can go straight back up.

“Their plan is to go straight back. So, I don’t necessarily think it’ll be like a fire sale or anything.”

That's a shame as I was rather hoping to get rid of most of the shit feckers! The thought of watching them ambling around in the championship fills me with dread! That said be nice to keep the youngsters and Bills if possible, hopefully his love and admiration of Vardy keeps him here! 

[cityfanlee23]

Can the punishment from the EFL be them forcing us to sell: Faes, Coady, Winks, Kristiansen, Soumare, Ndidi, Skipp, Ayew, Ricardo, Daka and BDCR even at a loss?

Corr, that would be a bad punishment... That will really show us EFL I promise it would..

[FoxinNotts]

I’d like us the ship out…..

 

Ward

Iversen

Vesstergaard

Faes

Kristiansen

Hamza

Soumaré

BDCR

Vardy

obvs Edouard and Bouanotte to go

 

that should do us for PSR if we got any kind of fee for those sold

 

Id keep the rest

 

[Craig]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

https://eflanalysis.com/news/the-next-leicester-city-manager-is-set-to-be-handed-a-major-transfer-boost-despite-psr-setback/

 

Leicester won’t need a ‘fire sale’ after PSR issues

EFL Analysis expert Graeme Bailey has revealed that despite the off-field issues, Leicester won’t need to be forced into a fire sale and could therefore hold on to talents like Ben Nelson, who is wanted by Chelsea.

Bailey said: “I’m told that PSR-wise, they probably won’t have to sell.

“The parachute payments help. I don’t think they’ll have to sell massively. And everyone in that Leicester squad has a contract that sees their wages reduced [after relegation], so that helps, too. They’re hoping there’s a bounce factor in that they can go straight back up.

“Their plan is to go straight back. So, I don’t necessarily think it’ll be like a fire sale or anything.”

That's a shame