Premier League has charged LCFC with an alleged breach of PSR

[Gamble92]

4 hours ago, 1969 said:

That’s the same Simon Jordan who admitted deliberately breaking the rules by altering the time shown on a fax so that he could register a player signed after the transfer window closed. He just spouts click bait nonsense. 

Bet John Rudkin dropped his mug like the end of Usual Suspects when he heard you can edit the time and date on a fax

[Lambert09]

4 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

The PL may be desperate to pin something on us, but fortunately for us it won’t be the PL that decides on the outcome of our case.

I feel like the efl hate us even more. 

[ClaphamFox]

1 minute ago, Lambert09 said:

I feel like the efl hate us even more. 

They probably do, but they won’t have any influence on what happens next week. If we breach again, though, they might finally get their chance to take a swing at us….

[gurru991]

9 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

They probably do, but they won’t have any influence on what happens next week. If we breach again, though, they might finally get their chance to take a swing at us….

If we breach again then we deserve everything they throw at us.

[Les-TA-Jon]

14 hours ago, Pliskin said:

It depends on what type of manager you have and their ability to manage their staff. 
 

Enzo was able to turn the heads of players who wanted away. It’s how you appeal to their desires, if they can contribute, but want away, you can sell it as an opportunity for them to play themselves to another club. 
 

It’s down to your management style, no matter how demotivated you are, the right coach can turn you around….. 

 

As I’ve said, it’s my opinion that Marti is trying to get the team to play to his philosophy, and not on a way that suits the profile of the players. 
 

Nothing will change, we won’t get any better, and the performances on the pitch rest solely on Marti’s head. The slow laborious buildup, the lack of desire to get the ball to the wide players and isolate their fullbacks…. The lack of chances created despite having two of the best wide players in the league. There’s a lot wrong with this team yes, but there’s also a lot of this team that have gotten out of this league fairly easily before. 
 

Marti isn’t the right fit… he will eventually be sacked in my opinion, perhaps not until we’ve failed to go up, or until it looks like we’re on the verge of going down. But he will be sacked. 
 

He should have gone after the Norwich game, that was a red herring and the decision not to remove him sooner will come back to bite us. 

For clarity - I don't think Marti is doing a good job here - just like Cooper and RVN he's said all the right things initially and then not been able to back them up. There's no particular pattern of play or recognisable philosophy and we've dropped a ton of points. 

 

The thing is though, if Marti is 'so obviously the wrong fit' why do we think the same people who appointed him are going to magically identify and appoint a replacement who is better? 

 

I used to be fairly supportive of managerial changes, once players/fans/results had passed the point of no return (I don't think we're at this point with Marti...yet) but the Cooper and RVN debacle last season has changed my perspective on things: 

 

Sacking Cooper was the right call in a vacuum, but the decision didn't occur in a vacuum did it? It's as much about who the replacement is? RVN being terrible demonstrated that sacking Cooper was a bad decision if RVN was the replacement. 

Edited 20 November 2025 by Les-TA-Jon

[ClaphamFox]

29 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

For clarity - I don't think Marti is doing a good job here - just like Cooper and RVN he's said all the right things initially and then been able to back them up. There's no particular pattern of play or recognisable philosophy and we've dropped a ton of points. 

 

The thing is though, if Marti is 'so obviously the wrong fit' why do we think the same people who appointed him are going to magically identify and appoint a replacement who is better? 

 

I used to be fairly supportive of managerial changes, once players/fans/results had passed the point of no return (I don't think we're at this point with Marti...yet) but the Cooper and RVN debacle last season has changed my perspective on things: 

 

Sacking Cooper was the right call in a vacuum, but the decision didn't occur in a vacuum did it? It's as much about who the replacement is? RVN being terrible demonstrated that sacking Cooper was a bad decision if RVN was the replacement. 

In an nutshell. Our owners have no track record of thinking far outside the box when it comes to managerial candidates, so the chances of us doing a Brighton and plucking a talented up-and-coming coach from overseas are pretty slim. This would leave the usual suspects of currently out-of-work managers with experience of the Championship who have recently been sacked and are keen to get back into work—ie O'Neil, Martin, Carrick, Robins, etc. We may as well stick with Marti.

Edited 20 November 2025 by ClaphamFox

[Lad1966]

6 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

In a nutshell. Our owners have no track record of thinking far outside the box when it comes to managerial candidates, so the chances of us doing a Brighton and plucking a talented up-and-coming coach from overseas are pretty slim. This would leave the usual suspects of currently out-of-work managers with experience of the Championship who have recently been sacked and are keen to get back into work—ie O'Neil, Martin, Carrick, Robins, etc. We may as well stick with Marti.

 The “New  Technical  Director” should be advising the board of the direction of travel, which will inform the type of manager we need. Not saying that will happen, but if Top is serious about the club, this how it should work.

[sporter113]

Could we trigger Jordan James' option this week to get ahead of a potential transfer ban?

 

Other than that, perversely I actually like the idea of a transfer ban. Loads of players out of contract at the end of the season, and we'd be forced to replace them with academy players.
 

The likes of Braybrooke, Alves, Evans, Page, Aluko, etc will all have to be brought into the fold, alongside some others potentially.

[ClaphamFox]

10 minutes ago, sporter113 said:

Could we trigger Jordan James' option this week to get ahead of a potential transfer ban?

 

Other than that, perversely I actually like the idea of a transfer ban. Loads of players out of contract at the end of the season, and we'd be forced to replace them with academy players.
 

The likes of Braybrooke, Alves, Evans, Page, Aluko, etc will all have to be brought into the fold, alongside some others potentially.

No club has ever been given a transfer ban following a PSR charge from the PL. We could potentially get a ban if we refused to submit our financial forecasts for this year to the EFL and they decided to impose a business plan on us, but as far as I'm aware there have been no rumours to that effect. Championship clubs are supposed to submit their forecasts to the EFL in September/October, so it's likely we would have heard by now if the EFL had the grounds to take action against us.

Edited 20 November 2025 by ClaphamFox

[fazzyfox]

"Your Honour, in our defence, exhibits a to c are the extended contract given to Vestergaard, the transfer package for Skipp and the loan fee details for Edouard" 

"Oh, I see, you're going for the old pleading insanity ploy!"

[TheGoldenGod]

PL clubs voting to abolish PSR in its current guise...as practically everyone with a brain could have and DID predict would happen year ago. Farce and we're getting punished for it now. I'm probably in the minority but I have just as much disdain for the powers that be that come with these rules as I do for our club that broke them. Utter joke!

Edited 21 November 2025 by TheGoldenGod

[Jazzy_Jeff]

2 hours ago, TheGoldenGod said:

PL clubs voting to abolish PSR in its current guise...as practically everyone with a brain could have and DID predict would happen year ago. Farce and we're getting punished for it now. I'm probably in the minority but I have just as much disdain for the powers that be that come with these rules as I do for our club that broke them. Utter joke!

Hopefully this is a good thing for us - proves it’s not fit for purpose.

[TheGoldenGod]

1 hour ago, Jazzy_Jeff said:

Hopefully this is a good thing for us - proves it’s not fit for purpose.

You'd hope so but dont think that'll wash when we're being charged with rules we broke when they existed for everyone. Just pisses me off because its an admittance that the rules are nonsense...just far too late for us!

[davieG]

 

 

Premier League clubs to be banned from selling assets to themselves

 

Image source,Getty Images Image caption,

Chelsea sold two hotels next to Stamford Bridge to a sister company for £76.5m in April 2024

By

Dale Johnson

Football issues correspondent

• Published
  21 November 2025, 12:43 GMT
• 559 Comments

Updated 1 hour ago

Premier League clubs will no longer be able to sell assets like hotels and women's teams to themselves from next season to get round new financial rules.

It comes after clubs narrowly voted through a new system of Financial Fair Play (FFP) based on squad costs on Friday.

The clubs met in London to vote on three possible methods of replacing Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR).

Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) got 14 votes in favour and six against, which is the minimum number that is required to exact a rule change.

Overall squad costs from the 2026-27 campaign will have to be limited to 85% of a club's revenue, although teams competing in Europe will have to adhere to Uefa's maximum of 70%.

Squad costs comprise player and manager wages, transfer fees and agents' fees.

Most notably it will end the loophole of selling capital assets, like hotels and women's teams.

Last year Chelsea sold two hotels to a sister company to keep them compliant with PSR.

In July, Everton sold their women's team to the parent company, while reports claim Aston Villa have agreed to do the same.

The assessment will only be based on a club's total earnings from football operations.

Rules around sustainability, which set out a club's financial spending plans over the medium and long term, were passed unanimously.

But anchoring, which would have placed a top limit on spending based on the money earned by the bottom club, failed to get the necessary support. Twelve voted against it, with seven in favour and one abstaining.

"The new SCR rules are intended to promote opportunity for all clubs to aspire to greater success and bring the league's financial system close to Uefa's existing SCR rules," a Premier League statement read.

"The other key features of the league's new system include transparent in-season monitoring and sanctions, protection against sporting underperformance, an ability to spend ahead of revenues, strengthened ability to invest off the pitch, and a reduction in complexity by focusing on football costs."

What is Squad Cost Ratio and how will it affect clubs?

PSR was about a club's balance sheet of all revenues over a three-year period, while SCR is just about team costs on a seasonal basis.

The new rules will operate a dual system, with clubs in European competition having to adhere to Uefa's SCR limit of 70% - so a club could be sanctioned by Uefa but be compliant in the Premier League.

The higher limit is intended to protect the Premier League's competitive balance, given the increased income that will be received by those clubs competing in Europe.

Chelsea and Aston Villa were both given heavy fines by Uefa for breaches in the 2024-25 campaign, and that is when the limit in Europe was 80%.

The Premier League has added some wriggle room, too, with a multi-year rolling allowance of 30% that permits clubs to spend beyond the limit. It allows clubs to invest ahead of revenue and variance or sporting underperformance.

An assessment is made each March, and the allowance is crucial to determine possible sporting sanctions applied in the same season.

The 85% marker is known as the Green Threshold. Spend above that and you get a financial penalty, although this will be far less punitive than Uefa.

The Red Threshold is 85% plus the allowance. Go beyond that, and it is a fixed six-point deduction which increases by one point for every £6.5m spent over the Red Threshold.

Think of it this way - every club will start next season on 85% + 30% allowance, so effectively 115%.

Any clubs that spend above 85% will face a fine, but they would need to be in excess of 115% lose points.

But those percentages will change for 2027-28.

If a club spends 105% on their squad next season, it means they have used 20% of their allowance, and for 2027-28 their maximum spend before potential sporting sanction is 95%.

If a club spend less that 85%, they can increase the allowance again to the maximum of 30%.

Which clubs will be affected?

Several clubs, in healthy financial positions, were happy with PSR and wanted to keep the status quo.

SCR will not worry the biggest clubs with the best commercial operations.

But linking the wage bill to income is not attractive to clubs with less financial resources.

That is why Bournemouth, Brentford, Brighton, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds voted against.

Bournemouth's ground holds just over 11,000 but they need to pay Premier League wages so could be one of the losers, and it is a similar situation for Fulham.

Savvy transfer business will be crucial for these clubs, as Bournemouth would be in no trouble this season because of their transfer business last summer.

But 85%, with the additional 30% buffer, gives every club some headroom, and time to adapt.

Aston Villa and Newcastle were among the clubs annoyed with the restrictions PSR imposed on their ability to spend on the squad. But they cannot get too excited about the move to SCR, as they have to operate to 70% as a club in Uefa competition.

Why was anchoring voted down?

With only seven votes in favour it was not close to being a viable option - but the top clubs were split over it.

Manchester City and Manchester United feared they could eventually breach the anchoring limit as their revenues grow, but Arsenal and Liverpool voted in favour of it.

Top-to-bottom anchoring (TBA) limits the total spending to five times the TV payments received from the Premier League by its bottom club.

This season it is expected that the team that finishes 20th will earn about £120m, which would create an upper anchoring limit of £600m.

But once the SCR rules are applied no club's spending limit would reach £600m.

It was intended to stop the spending of the top clubs increasingly outstripping everyone else as their revenues grow.

But some feared the cap could eventually impact their ability to compete for players with the likes of Real Madrid.

The Professional Footballers' Association (PFA), meanwhile, had previously warned that clubs would spend less on player salaries, effectively creating a wage cap which could face legal action.

There were also fears that a reduction in future broadcasting deals would effectively result in a lower cap.

Why were sustainability rules passed so easily?

This was a simple one for the Premier League clubs, because they are already going to have to produce financial projections over the short, medium and long-term.

That will be a requirement of the Independent Football Regulator (IFR), which will begin its work later this season.

Clubs will have to give projections about their financial planning and their ability to fund the running of the club.

The focus is on monitoring and the imposition of measures that return a club to compliance for any breach.

So, that would be something like a spending restriction or debt rebalancing.

[Danizen]

Would we have been even more fvcked under SCR because of our obscene wage bill?

[adejo92]

Glad all this points deduction rubbish is happening this season when I couldn't care less about the club.

 

Another game tomorrow i'll be cutting my losses on.

[Ashley]

2 minutes ago, Danizen said:

Would we have been even more fvcked under SCR because of our obscene wage bill?

Yep

[LCFCJohn]

1 hour ago, Jazzy_Jeff said:

Hopefully this is a good thing for us - proves it’s not fit for purpose.

Nope, look at the clubs who opposed this. The ones that are actually well run. That is very telling.

 

That is why Bournemouth, Brentford, Brighton, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds voted against

[trooky]

On 20/11/2025 at 00:30, gurru991 said:

If we breach again then we deserve everything they throw at us.

No we don't, we may have broken the rules and found a loophole, but it's not right the PL can change their rules on jurisdiction and re-apply them to historical accounts. 

 

They decided not to close the loopholes Chelsea found selling hotels, training grounds, women's teams to themselves, to comply.

 

Yet they decide to close our loophole, that's corrupt, vindictive and applying rules to suit your own agenda.

 

The purpose of a governing body, is to ensure fairness and regulate but not influencing outcomes. 

 

 

Edited 21 November 2025 by trooky

[Guppys Love Child]

On 20/11/2025 at 00:30, gurru991 said:

If we breach again then we deserve everything they throw at us.

We deserve what we are potentially going to get for breaching the last time..

 

In a perverse sort of way I think we need this deduction, we got away with it on a technically last time and the culprits were able to deflect attention away from their own incompetence and weren't held accountable for their balls ups.

 

We get a deduction and there's no hiding for them.

 

Someone has to be held accountable. Someone has to acknowledge it. 

 

I hope the media goes to town and embarrasses the Nepo Baby and Teflon Jon.   

 

A nice chant of " we got a deduction coz the board  fvcked up"  is just what Top and his circus clowns deserve.

 

[gurru991]

46 minutes ago, trooky said:

No we don't, we may have broken the rules and found a loophole, but it's not right the PL can change their rules on jurisdiction and re-apply them to historical accounts. 

 

They decided not to close the loopholes Chelsea found selling hotels, training grounds, women's teams to themselves, to comply.

 

Yet they decide to close our loophole, that's corrupt, vindictive and applying rules to suit your own agenda.

 

The purpose of a governing body, is to ensure fairness and regulate but not influencing outcomes. 

 

 

Regardless of being charged I expect the club to be capable of balancing their books & managing their finances. LCFC's bookkeeping does not fill me with confidence !!!

[BKLFox]

LCFC will not be the last to fall foul of over spending & the rules will see those top 6-7 pull away even further now.

 

[Gamble92]

1 hour ago, BKLFox said:

LCFC will not be the last to fall foul of over spending & the rules will see those top 6-7 pull away even further now.

 

This was always heading this way after the super league shit. They won't stop until the top 6 is completely cut off from the rest again. Sky and the rest love it too. They hate having to talk about Bournemouth. They don't want to have to sit and learn who players are for clubs like us and them.

 

You only had to listen to the "Vardy plays with space in behind, when they don't have that they struggle" line being churned out years after the title win to know there's no effort in learning how any team play outside the "elite" sides. They all used to play for them teams. They all want to watch just those teams. It's going to kill the game in the end though.

[Chrysalis]

5 hours ago, Danizen said:

Would we have been even more fvcked under SCR because of our obscene wage bill?

Yes as wages are sustained expenditure.

[Chrysalis]

2 hours ago, Gamble92 said:

This was always heading this way after the super league shit. They won't stop until the top 6 is completely cut off from the rest again. Sky and the rest love it too. They hate having to talk about Bournemouth. They don't want to have to sit and learn who players are for clubs like us and them.

 

You only had to listen to the "Vardy plays with space in behind, when they don't have that they struggle" line being churned out years after the title win to know there's no effort in learning how any team play outside the "elite" sides. They all used to play for them teams. They all want to watch just those teams. It's going to kill the game in the end though.

Its gone further now, you have the mid tier teams, wanting to cement an advantage to newly promoted sides, and those who have made some bad decisions (under FFP type systems bad decisions you forced to live with now, instead of spending your way out of it).

 

Clubs who havent got a clue, will just keep failing of course, we just keep spending right up to the limit and giving out over lucrative contracts.