Premier League has charged LCFC with an alleged breach of PSR

[cruzFOX]

I’m really dreading this points deduction.

just get it over with so we can move forwards. Have a feeling we will drop into the bottom 3 or close to it. Jeez

[lcfcfoz]

I would love it if we get zero again, loop hole

[CosbehFox]

2 hours ago, Lad1966 said:

I can see it for the 24/25 season, but not the 25/26 season - we taken loads of our wage bill, sold and got money for 4 /5 players. Bilal money won’t come in until next year, as well Vardy’s wages, and finally, we not spent a single penny in the 25/26 season! 

Loan fees still cost. How our summer played out should tell us this period is close as well as the club wanted so many out of the door before doing any business. 

 

Remember the allowance loss limit reduces with 2 Championship seasons + 1 PL. Throw in a smaller parachute payment, small TV revenues, small match day income. 

 

It's exactly why the club won't sack Marti any time soon. 

Edited 27 November 2025 by CosbehFox

[davieG]

I'm not a fan of sponsors on shirts but i've noticed other teams in the EFL seem to have quite a few we don't utilise you'd have thought we would and could get few more £s in that way

 

The EFL follows general FA and FIFA regulations regarding the physical appearance of advertising on kits, focusing on the size and location of logos: 

• Front of Shirt: One single sponsor logo is allowed, not exceeding 250 square centimetres.
• Sleeves: One single area on each sleeve, not exceeding 100 square centimetres, is permitted.
• Back of Shirt: One single area, not exceeding 100 square centimetres, is permitted.
• Shorts/Socks: Advertising is also permitted on shorts (max 50 sq cm) and socks (max 50 sq cm).

[fazzyfox]

1 hour ago, AKCJ said:

Any update on this? Thought we were supposed to get the deduction this week.

The swines are scheduling it for December 25th, even putting a big ribbon around the notification documents 

[Stadt]

20 minutes ago, davieG said:

I'm not a fan of sponsors on shirts but i've noticed other teams in the EFL seem to have quite a few we don't utilise you'd have thought we would and could get few more £s in that way

 

The EFL follows general FA and FIFA regulations regarding the physical appearance of advertising on kits, focusing on the size and location of logos: 

• Front of Shirt: One single sponsor logo is allowed, not exceeding 250 square centimetres.
• Sleeves: One single area on each sleeve, not exceeding 100 square centimetres, is permitted.
• Back of Shirt: One single area, not exceeding 100 square centimetres, is permitted.
• Shorts/Socks: Advertising is also permitted on shorts (max 50 sq cm) and socks (max 50 sq cm).

We only wanted extremely dodgy sponsors and essentially forced out the Chief Exec. If you take that to one of a few logical conclusions it stinks of underhand deals.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

36 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

Loan fees still cost. How our summer played out should tell us this period is close as well as the club wanted so many out of the door before doing any business. 

 

Remember the allowance loss limit reduces with 2 Championship seasons + 1 PL. Throw in a smaller parachute payment, small TV revenues, small match day income. 

 

It's exactly why the club won't sack Marti any time soon. 

The Macquarie loans are fine though because everyone does it. Standard business practise, nothing to worry about. 

[Pita]

2 hours ago, lcfcfoz said:

I would love it if we get zero again, loop hole

Can’t see it happening but it would be nice 

[Lad1966]

21 minutes ago, Pita said:

Can’t see it happening but it would be nice 

6pts deduction would be a win for us, any more I would be worried. TBH I would be worried even if get a 6 point deduction

[Pliskin]

1 minute ago, Lad1966 said:

6pts deduction would be a win for us, any more I would be worried. TBH I would be worried even if get a 6 point deduction

If we were playing well I wouldn’t even be bothered about a 9 point deduction. This league is so arse over tit, if we were playing well I think we would probably overcome that fairly comfortably. But, the caveat is we’re playing like a bag of shit. 

[Terraloon]

2 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

The Macquarie loans are fine though because everyone does it. Standard business practise, nothing to worry about. 

Far from standard business practice but the loans being talked about are player loans in fact  some player loans cost millions 

[Ric Flair]

4 hours ago, Terraloon said:

It is, Add to that certainly many of the basic costs won’t reduce. Things like utilities, like insurance, like business rates will remain pretty static and whilst debt interest to McQuire will probably drop that will be more to do with there will in all likelihood be a significant reduction in transfer income going forward .

 Whilst talking about income dropping broadcasting revenue will be reducing significantly as will commercial and sponsorship .

I have found it very difficult to get a true handle on the 24/25 numbers but it’s going to be very tight. But the 25/26 numbers which will be as you say £61m reducing will create even greater challenges as will the £ 39 million in 26/27.question will be whether PL can push down any punishment when the rule didn’t exist when alleged offence occurred. 

 

 

What is find odd is the lack of player sales in June but no money available in January or to sack RvN. Either we breach 24/25 by a significant amount that was not achievable to come within and its better to raise player sales in 25/26 to try and prevent a breach for this year or there were funds available last year? It makes me somewhat nervous.

[1972 Fox]

1 hour ago, Terraloon said:

Far from standard business practice but the loans being talked about are player loans in fact  some player loans cost millions 

Whoosh!

[Terraloon]

22 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

What is find odd is the lack of player sales in June but no money available in January or to sack RvN. Either we breach 24/25 by a significant amount that was not achievable to come within and its better to raise player sales in 25/26 to try and prevent a breach for this year or there were funds available last year? It makes me somewhat nervous.

Are you really trying to find  logic in what’s going on?
 

As I pointed out I am struggling to get a handle on the 24/25 numbers. I have to say I think they will be very close but I really am struggling to estimate the 24/25 wages . I can’t think that any breach would be significant but I do see why you think the opposite.

 

The Everton and Forest charges were under an accelerated procedure and the ICs findings were published in less than a month, not sure the current IC will be quite that quick unless the club are admitting the charges, which wouldn’t surprise me, 

 

[Terraloon]

18 minutes ago, 1972 Fox said:

Whoosh!

Your right it was a whoosh and in my defence I am struggling to distinguish humour/ sarcasm from a failure of some to grasp just how much of a cluster f this all is!

[Gamble92]

5 hours ago, lcfcfoz said:

I would love it if we get zero again, loop hole

Simon Jordan will burst 

[Chrysalis]

18 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

Pretty sure the ‘not cooperating’ charge relates to documents not being submitted/not being submitted on time. 
 

it doesn’t relate to getting out of past charges due to loopholes

As I understand it we basically stuck two fingers up when asked for accounting information, we had no legal obligation to do it, but I think thats the sort of thing they consider as cooperation.

[Trav Le Bleu]

9 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

What is find odd is the lack of player sales in June but no money available in January or to sack RvN. Either we breach 24/25 by a significant amount that was not achievable to come within and its better to raise player sales in 25/26 to try and prevent a breach for this year or there were funds available last year? It makes me somewhat nervous.

If you had been another club, would you have bought any of our players?

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

If you had been another club, would you have bought any of our players?

Yes as you'd possibly get them cheaper than a month later.

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

15 hours ago, cruzFOX said:

I’m really dreading this points deduction.

just get it over with so we can move forwards. Have a feeling we will drop into the bottom 3 or close to it. Jeez

Perhaps going down again will force the reset we need. Tempted to say I’d take relegation if it led to everyone I despise leaving - from Top to bottom.

[ClaphamFox]

7 minutes ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

Perhaps going down again will force the reset we need. Tempted to say I’d take relegation if it led to everyone I despise leaving - from Top to bottom.

It wouldn’t though. You’d have all those people still at the club but with League One football.

[Ric Flair]

33 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

It wouldn’t though. You’d have all those people still at the club but with League One football.

League Two then

[Terraloon]

People need to draw breath when they float the idea that relegation would somehow solve underlying issues and lead to a brighter future. Relegation ( the doom loop may well occur even in the championship) will be an utter disaster.

 

The simple fact is the infrastructure alone wouldn’t be supported from EFL 1 or EFL 2 income.

 

This season , to a degree, the impact of relegation from the PL has been cushioned by the club being in receipt of parachute payments but cutting wages means that save the odd exception you pay less you get players with lower ability the likelihood is that very little transfer income will be achieved before 30/6 and before anyone points to Bilal after factoring in sums of his initial fee that remains to be amortised and costs associated there will be a small accounting profit but certainly not a great sum.

 

Remember  LCFC have got a decent return on players over the last few years very very few players sold by EF1 /2 clubs generate much in the way of transfer fees and sadly  their decent academy players are picked off by the big boys

 

LCFC is structure wise a PL club. The training ground is world class but it comes at significant cost and those costs simply wouldn’t be affordable in the lower leagues. 

 

Edited 28 November 2025 by Terraloon

[VLC86]

17 hours ago, CosbehFox said:

Loan fees still cost. How our summer played out should tell us this period is close as well as the club wanted so many out of the door before doing any business. 

 

Remember the allowance loss limit reduces with 2 Championship seasons + 1 PL. Throw in a smaller parachute payment, small TV revenues, small match day income. 

 

It's exactly why the club won't sack Marti any time soon. 

Yep, either we get very lucky by buying good players for cheap or we end January even weaker (on paper) than we currently are.

[ClaphamFox]

49 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

League Two then

Keep going