Premier League has charged LCFC with an alleged breach of PSR

[AjcW]

2 hours ago, hackneyfox said:

Where is Babylon?

Busy neither communicating with Ruud nor planning our transfer strategy for next season. 

[ClaphamFox]

46 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

 

The article also confirms De Marco back for us. 

Return of De Marc! (There it is)

Return of De Marc! (Come on)

Return of De Marc! (Oh my God)

You know that he’ll be back!

 

We lied to them…

Edited 23 May 2025 by ClaphamFox

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

 

The article also confirms De Marco back for us. 

Can’t read the article as I don’t have an account but here’s TwatGPT’s summary (almost none of other bots I posted it in could read it):

 

Yes, I can provide an overview of the article titled “Linklaters on call in new fight between Premier League and Leicester City” from The Lawyer, published on May 23, 2025.

 

Overview:

 

The article discusses the ongoing legal dispute between Leicester City Football Club and the Premier League concerning alleged breaches of the league’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR). The Premier League has enlisted the services of the law firm Linklaters to represent them in this matter.

 

Background:

 

Leicester City has been charged with exceeding the allowable financial losses set by the PSR during the 2023–24 season. The club argues that the Premier League lacks jurisdiction over these charges since the alleged breaches occurred while they were competing in the Championship, under the governance of the English Football League (EFL).

 

Legal Proceedings:

 

The Premier League maintains that it retains jurisdiction over the matter due to the timing of the financial reporting and the club’s subsequent promotion. An independent commission has been appointed to assess the validity of the charges and determine any potential sanctions.

 

Implications:

 

This case highlights the complexities of financial regulations in English football, especially concerning jurisdictional authority when clubs move between leagues. The outcome could set a precedent for how financial breaches are handled in similar situations in the future.

Edited 23 May 2025 by urban.spaceman

[ClaphamFox]

11 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Can’t read the article as I don’t have an account but here’s TwatGPT’s summary (almost none of other bots I posted it in could read it):

 

Yes, I can provide an overview of the article titled “Linklaters on call in new fight between Premier League and Leicester City” from The Lawyer, published on May 23, 2025.

 

Overview:

 

The article discusses the ongoing legal dispute between Leicester City Football Club and the Premier League concerning alleged breaches of the league’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR). The Premier League has enlisted the services of the law firm Linklaters to represent them in this matter.

 

Background:

 

Leicester City has been charged with exceeding the allowable financial losses set by the PSR during the 2023–24 season. The club argues that the Premier League lacks jurisdiction over these charges since the alleged breaches occurred while they were competing in the Championship, under the governance of the English Football League (EFL).

 

Legal Proceedings:

 

The Premier League maintains that it retains jurisdiction over the matter due to the timing of the financial reporting and the club’s subsequent promotion. An independent commission has been appointed to assess the validity of the charges and determine any potential sanctions.

 

Implications:

 

This case highlights the complexities of financial regulations in English football, especially concerning jurisdictional authority when clubs move between leagues. The outcome could set a precedent for how financial breaches are handled in similar situations in the future.

Why do I get the feeling that we’ve got some legal arguments up our sleeve that will make this one just as complicated as our previous dealings with the PL and EFL?

Edited 23 May 2025 by ClaphamFox

[stu]

22 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Can’t read the article as I don’t have an account but here’s TwatGPT’s summary (almost none of other bots I posted it in could read it):

 

Yes, I can provide an overview of the article titled “Linklaters on call in new fight between Premier League and Leicester City” from The Lawyer, published on May 23, 2025.

 

Overview:

 

The article discusses the ongoing legal dispute between Leicester City Football Club and the Premier League concerning alleged breaches of the league’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR). The Premier League has enlisted the services of the law firm Linklaters to represent them in this matter.

 

Background:

 

Leicester City has been charged with exceeding the allowable financial losses set by the PSR during the 2023–24 season. The club argues that the Premier League lacks jurisdiction over these charges since the alleged breaches occurred while they were competing in the Championship, under the governance of the English Football League (EFL).

 

Legal Proceedings:

 

The Premier League maintains that it retains jurisdiction over the matter due to the timing of the financial reporting and the club’s subsequent promotion. An independent commission has been appointed to assess the validity of the charges and determine any potential sanctions.

 

Implications:

 

This case highlights the complexities of financial regulations in English football, especially concerning jurisdictional authority when clubs move between leagues. The outcome could set a precedent for how financial breaches are handled in similar situations in the future.

I thought we’d already accepted that the PL had jurisdiction over 23/24? It was in our statement that was the case and we were in conversation with them about it.

 

If they really are arguing, what is the point? As the EFL would love to be the ones to suggest the punishment to the panel and then enforce the decision.

 

It’s like arguing with the school bullies which one gets to kick us in the nuts… and then they both do it anyway.

 

 

Edited 23 May 2025 by stu

[ClaphamFox]

8 minutes ago, stu said:

I thought we’d already accepted that the PL had jurisdiction over 23/24? It was in our statement that was the case and we were in conversation with them about it.

 

If they really are arguing, what is the point? As the EFL would love to be the ones to suggest the punishment to the panel and then enforce the decision.

 

It’s like arguing with the school bullies which one gets to kick us in the nuts… and then they both do it anyway.

 

 

We’re not necessarily arguing about the jurisdiction. 

[kenny]

23 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Why do I get the feeling that we’ve got some legal arguments up our sleeve that will make this one just as complicated as our previous dealings with the PL and EFL?

We will have had a list, this far argument 1 worked over jurisdiction. We will have a load of others I'm sure.

[Clever Fox]

5 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Yeah thought as much. What is strange is that the PL did not announce back in January that we'd failed to provide them on time to them. I find this all extremely suspicious. 

 

4 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

I can see 2 reasons why the PL didn't charge us back in Jan. 

• They were awaiting the result of the recently concluded appeal - because one half of that appeal was to confirm whether or not the PL had jurisdiction over LCFC. They wouldn't want to embarrass themselves again
• We submitted accounts late

Probably a bit of both? 

Yes, I'd say it was legal advice. It wouldn't look right as if we claimed they didn't have jurisdiction over us, But then supplied the Accounts complying with their rules. 

[stu]

24 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

We’re not necessarily arguing about the jurisdiction. 

 

33 minutes ago, stu said:

The club argues that the Premier League lacks jurisdiction over these charges since the alleged breaches occurred while they were competing in the Championship, under the governance of the English Football League (EFL).

What am I missing? (From the ChatGPT quote above)

Edited 23 May 2025 by stu

[Kierzz]

36 minutes ago, stu said:

I thought we’d already accepted that the PL had jurisdiction over 23/24? It was in our statement that was the case and we were in conversation with them about it.

 

If they really are arguing, what is the point? As the EFL would love to be the ones to suggest the punishment to the panel and then enforce the decision.

 

It’s like arguing with the school bullies which one gets to kick us in the nuts… and then they both do it anyway.

 

 

I presume we are trying to limit the penalties of breaching the PSR rules by reducing the potential points deduction / possible transfer embargo

[ClaphamFox]

19 minutes ago, stu said:

 

What am I missing?

I don’t entirely trust the Chat GPT summary.

[ClaphamFox]

The Lawyer article in full. It doesn’t reveal much, but as I suspected we’re not challenging the PL’s arbitration over 23/24. 

 

The Premier League has instructed magic circle firm Linklaters to bring new charges against football club Leicester City for breaches of financial fair play rules.

Linklaters’ co-head of international arbitration Ben Carroll will pursue the club for alleged breaches of the English Football League’s (EFL) Profitability and Sustainability (P&S Rules) in 2023/24.

The League has also charged the club with failing to provide its annual accounts to the Premier League by the end of last year, and failing to give “full, complete and prompt assistance” to the League in response to its inquiries.

The Lawyer understands that Blackstone Chambers barristers Nick De Marco KC and David Lowe will defend Leicester City.

Stuart Baird, a partner at sports boutique Centrefield, has previously been instructed on the matter, but declined to comment on whether he is instructed on the new case.

The news caps off what has been a tough year for the 2016 Premier League champions. After being relegated to the Championship in 2023, the club fought their way back up to the Premier League last year, but its poor performance this season will see it relegated for the second time in three seasons.

 

The charges came as the Premier League confirmed it had secretly launched an arbitration in October last year, seeking to overturn the decision of an appeal tribunal in August 2024.

 

In that same arbitration, it also sought to establish jurisdiction to investigate and charge the club over potential breaches of the P&S Rules for 2023/24, despite the fact that the club was in the Championship in that season.

 

The appeal tribunal last year ruled that the Premier League did not have jurisdiction to bring disciplinary proceedings against Leicester over its 2022/23 financial losses, because it had been relegated to the Championship and was no longer subject to the Premier League’s rules at the relevant time.

 

The Lawyer revealed in October that the Premier League was considering challenging the appeal decision to an arbitration panel. The League had responded to the decision saying that it “created a situation where any club exceeding the [Profitability and Sustainability Rules] threshold could avoid accountability in these specific circumstances. This is clearly not the intention of the rules.” Initially, the club had challenged the new panel’s jurisdiction to hear the case, but was unsuccessful.

In what was essentially a dispute about the rules of contractual interpretation, the two sides appeared before a panel of some of the leading contract jurists of the day: former Supreme Court justices Lord Mance of 7KBW and Lord Neuberger of One Essex Court, and Fountain Court’s Michael Crane KC.

Instructing Linklaters and One Essex Court’s Connall Patton KC to bring the challenge, the League convinced the panel that the appeal tribunal’s decision was wrong. However, Leicester City’s lead counsel, Blackstone Chambers Tim Otty KC, instructed by Centrefield, successfully argued the decision should not be overturned because it did not meet the high threshold of being a “perverse interpretation of the law.”

 

The panel did further rule that the League does have jurisdiction to investigate and charge Leicester City over the following 2023/24 season.

Edited 23 May 2025 by ClaphamFox

[urban.spaceman]

ChatGPT gave me a “Friday Night Brain Relax” version:

 

So, the Premier League — basically the big boss of English football — is suing Leicester City (yeah, the team that pulled off that miracle in 2016) because they think Leicester broke money rules.

 

They’ve called in the legal Avengers: Linklaters, one of the UK’s fanciest law firms. Think of them like wizard-lawyers. One of their big-name lawyers, Ben Carroll, is now going after Leicester for spending more money than they were supposed to in the 2023/24 season. These are called the “Profit and Sustainability Rules,” but really it’s just the football version of “don’t go broke trying to flex.”

 

But wait, it gets juicier.

 

The Premier League also says Leicester didn’t hand in their homework (aka financial accounts) on time, and when the league asked for explanations, Leicester allegedly acted shady — like dodging calls and not helping out. So the league’s all like, “You ghosted us and spent too much. We’re telling Mom.”

 

Leicester has their own legal squad too — including a guy named Nick De Marco KC, who’s like the Messi of football law. These guys are ready to defend the club like it’s the Champions League final of courtrooms.

 

Now, here’s where it turns into football Inception:

 

Leicester got relegated in 2023 to the Championship (the lower league).

Then they got promoted back up.

But now they’re doing badly again and are getting relegated again.

 

 

So the Premier League tried to punish them for overspending while they were in the Championship, but that caused drama because — plot twist — they weren’t under Premier League rules during that time. An earlier court-type group said, “Sorry, Premier League, you can’t punish them for what happened in a league you don’t run.”

 

The Premier League didn’t like that, so they secretly launched another legal case in October to try and overturn that ruling. Basically: “Nope, we are in charge, even if they were in the Championship. We’re not letting them get away with this.”

 

They argued in front of some serious legal royalty: two ex-Supreme Court judges and another top lawyer. Big courtroom vibes. The League managed to convince the panel that it does have the right to investigate Leicester — but they didn’t convince them to undo the earlier decision completely. Leicester’s lawyers were like, “This isn’t wrong enough to throw out,” and the panel was like, “Fair.”

 

 

 

TL;DR (the snackable version):

Leicester might have spent too much money when they were in the lower league. The Premier League thinks they should still get punished now that they’re back, even though the rules are fuzzy about that. So now a bunch of top-tier lawyers are fighting it out in courtroom football — and everyone’s watching to see who scores.

 

Pass the Doritos.

[PAULCFC]

Can we just accept the incoming and get back to making our club not a joke! We all know we've mangled the rules and won't get away with it this time......not the PL or EFL fault,but our board.

1

[stu]

Is this normal in these proceedings that law firms are hired?

What ultimately is the purpose if so?

 

At a very high level guess, I’d assume one side representing the premier league presents the evidence why the we should be charged and the other side representing us basically have to decide to challenge or admit it.

 

If so, who actually makes the decision and is all this before any independent panel decides the actual punishment, or is this all the same thing?

 

I appreciate no one may actually know the answers to these.

 

What a spectacular waste of money for everyone as well.

[Lambert09]

Am I right in thinking we’ve got the charge for not submitting in time because we thought we were efl, but because of our court win… that’s not the case? Thus we should have submitted to the prem? 
 

Or are we just that incompetent and failed a rule we knew about 

[ClaphamFox]

Just now, Lambert09 said:

Am I right in thinking we’ve got the charge for not submitting in time because we thought we were efl, but because of our court win… that’s not the case? Thus we should have submitted to the prem? 
 

Or are we just that incompetent and failed a rule we knew about 

Yes, I suppose we will argue that because we won that appeal and the arbitration process was still ongoing, it hadn’t been established that 2023/24 fell within the PL’s jurisdiction and we therefore had a valid reason not to submit our accounts. Whether that will wash or not is another matter. 

[Pliskin]

I think we should open a can of whoop ass on the premier league…. And that’s the bottom line. 

[kenny]

49 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Yes, I suppose we will argue that because we won that appeal and the arbitration process was still ongoing, it hadn’t been established that 2023/24 fell within the PL’s jurisdiction and we therefore had a valid reason not to submit our accounts. Whether that will wash or not is another matter. 

Our premise appears to be we will follow the rules once a working set of rules is established. Unfortunately for the EFL and PL the rules are useless and wide open to this sort of action.

[Foxin_Mad]

To be fair the Premier League and EFL seem to be about as competent as the absolute halfwits running our club. The fact the rules are so poor is utterly astounding.

 

 

[HighPeakFox]

Purely for reasons of mental well-being, I highly recommend not spending a single second thinking about any of this.

[Chrysalis]

Its interesting fans of teams such as Leeds and Forest that have been found guilty and had previous point deductions are calling us cheaters when we havent been found guilty of anything, currently there is a witch hunt, but no proven breach of rules.

The EPL recently changed the rules all just for us, we that special now.  EFL and EPL are desperate to make something stick.

Meanwhile Chelsea can keep selling stuff to themselves, no issues with that, and Man City nothing is happening.

Also the determination to do something about something like a 19 million overspend, when a super league breakaway was just swept under the carpet, shows how messed up the game has got.

Edited 24 May 2025 by Chrysalis

[Chrysalis]

On 22/05/2025 at 20:20, Bilo said:

I personally don't think we get anything like 12 when the penalty for going into administration is 10. The independent commission would likely throw it out as disproportionate as they have before. The Premier League/EFL will ask for 12 and be ready to be knocked down. I suspect 6.

I expect their plan is to do multiple charges amounting to small amounts for each one, but an overall larger deduction when added together, are they going to all this trouble for a 4-6 point deduction?

[Chrysalis]

On 21/05/2025 at 23:45, Foxin_Mad said:

We just need to stop playing the victim cards now. No amount of claimed ‘ambition’ from the morons at the club can account for spending Money we don’t have on Eduoard, Skipp and BDCR. 
 

There comes a point when you just need to say we ****ed up. 

A lot of us have been saying for a while, the people running the club dont know what they doing, but we do have to be found proven to be guilty to actually be guilty, its wrong for people to call us cheaters when nothing has been decided yet.

Some of us pointed this out multiple years ago when we pointed we were trying to run right up to the spending limits with the large wage bill, there is two ways to run a football club, you either take the **** and stick two fingers up at PSR, treat any punishment as a cost of doing business, or keep a decent safety margin on your spending, so dont get caught out by things like not finishing in the exact targeted league position, dont get caught not being able to sack a manager, or not spend in January, that sort of thing, we clearly have been ran extremely badly.  I expect every year, they do some maths, and try to get us to spend to high 90s % of limit, which gives us no breathing space and we run into problems.

Edited 24 May 2025 by Chrysalis

[Grebfromgrebland]

10 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

Purely for reasons of mental well-being, I highly recommend not spending a single second thinking about any of this.

I actually find it quite interesting and  much more interesting than the actual football has been this season. 

 

Once you scratch beneath the surface it's quite dull and might hinge on a dictionary definition of a word but fascinating none the less.