Premier League has charged LCFC with an alleged breach of PSR

[ClaphamFox]

42 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

A couple of seasons ago there was outrage that Everton were able to get the first of their FFP charges delayed allowing the ultimate points deduction they received to be delayed .

The PL objected to Everton application to delay the process but the panel ruled in Everton’s favour.

The PL then bought in to being an accelerated process which provides an incredibly tight timeline from in effect a charge by mid January to all stages including any appeal to be heard in time for any sanction to take effect before the seasons end. If you look the written reasons in Everton’s second charge there were still outstanding matters in relation to that charge that weren’t resolved till months after the season ended.

 

The question of compensation payable by Everton  in respect of their delayed PL IC is still ongoing , well at least in respect of Burnley that is. The PL Arbitration hearing ended in late 25 with a ruling due any time now. 
 

The PL haven’t charged LC ( well not for the FFP one) under their rulebook it’s under the EFL rulebook and as far as I am aware there isn’t any accelerated process in their rule book.

 

My memory is cloudy with regard to the PL rule book changes and at the moment I can’t remember a rule change in April 25 . The Arbitration Tribunal didn’t publish their ruling re jurisdiction till May 25 .

This is the April 2025 rule change:   

https://www.sportspro.com/news/premier-league-psr-financial-rules-handbook-leicester-city-championship-april-2025/

 

“With the Premier League smarting from losing the legal case to Leicester, the top flight has updated its handbook, which was published on 11th April and now states that clubs who are relegated to the Championship remain bound by PSR rules. It also states that the Premier League’s board can enforce sanctions imposed by the English Football League (EFL) on clubs who are then promoted to the top tier.

 

The new rules state: ‘If a club is relegated from the [Premier] League, that club shall, notwithstanding relegation, remain bound by rules … as if it were still a [Premier League] club, until such time as it has complied with all of its obligations relating to its last season as a club.’

The rules add: ‘If any club is found to have been in breach of any EFL regulation … the board shall have the power to impose any penalty on that club.’

Edited 1 February by ClaphamFox

[UniFox21]

2 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

This is the April 2025 rule change:   

https://www.sportspro.com/news/premier-league-psr-financial-rules-handbook-leicester-city-championship-april-2025/

 

“With the Premier League smarting from losing the legal case to Leicester, the top flight has updated its handbook, which was published on 11th April and now states that clubs who are relegated to the Championship remain bound by PSR rules.

It also states that the Premier League’s board can enforce sanctions imposed by the English Football League (EFL) on clubs who are then promoted to the top tier.

 

The new rules state: ‘If a club is relegated from the [Premier] League, that club shall, notwithstanding relegation, remain bound by rules … as if it were still a [Premier League] club, until such time as it has complied with all of its obligations relating to its last season as a club.’

The rules add: ‘If any club is found to have been in breach of any EFL regulation … the board shall have the power to impose any penalty on that club.’

I'd be intrigued to know if that rule is able to be used from the 25/26 season or for the season 26/27.

[foxile5]

3 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

This is the April 2025 rule change:   

https://www.sportspro.com/news/premier-league-psr-financial-rules-handbook-leicester-city-championship-april-2025/

 

“With the Premier League smarting from losing the legal case to Leicester, the top flight has updated its handbook, which was published on 11th April and now states that clubs who are relegated to the Championship remain bound by PSR rules.

It also states that the Premier League’s board can enforce sanctions imposed by the English Football League (EFL) on clubs who are then promoted to the top tier.

 

The new rules state: ‘If a club is relegated from the [Premier] League, that club shall, notwithstanding relegation, remain bound by rules … as if it were still a [Premier League] club, until such time as it has complied with all of its obligations relating to its last season as a club.’

The rules add: ‘If any club is found to have been in breach of any EFL regulation … the board shall have the power to impose any penalty on that club.’

Much swifter in fighting us, losing, and amending their own rules than they have been in addressing Man City's issues. 

[ClaphamFox]

1 minute ago, UniFox21 said:

I'd be intrigued to know if that rule is able to be used from the 25/26 season or for the season 26/27.

They’re trying to apply it retrospectively to us for 2021-24,

[UniFox21]

Just now, ClaphamFox said:

They’re trying to apply it retrospectively to us for 2021-24,

Sure we've seen it enough, but that feels wrong.

 

Yes we've broken rules and we probably deserve a punishment, but apply the rules fairly. I don't see how any independent committee worth their stuff would be able to sign off on changing how rules have been applied on historic issues.

[Terraloon]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

This is the April 2025 rule change:   

https://www.sportspro.com/news/premier-league-psr-financial-rules-handbook-leicester-city-championship-april-2025/

 

“With the Premier League smarting from losing the legal case to Leicester, the top flight has updated its handbook, which was published on 11th April and now states that clubs who are relegated to the Championship remain bound by PSR rules. It also states that the Premier League’s board can enforce sanctions imposed by the English Football League (EFL) on clubs who are then promoted to the top tier.

 

The new rules state: ‘If a club is relegated from the [Premier] League, that club shall, notwithstanding relegation, remain bound by rules … as if it were still a [Premier League] club, until such time as it has complied with all of its obligations relating to its last season as a club.’

The rules add: ‘If any club is found to have been in breach of any EFL regulation … the board shall have the power to impose any penalty on that club.’

The way I read that rule change  I don’t see  it impacts  the FFP charge. 
 

That  charge is under EFL regulations/rules this rule is purely about closing down the opportunity for an IC to rule as the appeal panel did. It’s worth noting that a rule akin to this has been in place certainly in the EFL rulebook for many  a year.

 

This rule is all about clubs not being able to claim that they were a Club with a capital C or club with a small c. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Terraloon]

2 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

They’re trying to apply it retrospectively to us for 2021-24,

Sorry don’t think that’s right. 
 

The charge as I said earlier aren’t in accord with that rule change or indeed the PL rules

[markko]

This is a farce. It is now February. We are under a transfer embargo in almost every respect. No player will want to come here with this hanging over us. We cannot do any more to prove we have learned our lesson. We have been asset stripped of almost everything worth having and it is still not enough. Let's relegate Leicester and give them no time to recover when we finally hit them. Meanwhile the big fish in the premier league just keep spending. It is not only unfair, it stinks.

[Arkie Bennett]

I'm surprised they aren't coming at us for 2015/16 to strip us of the league championship.

Edited 1 February by Arkie Bennett

[markko]

5 minutes ago, Arkie Bennett said:

I'm surprised they aren't coming at us for 2015/16 to strip us of the league championship.

That is probably coming,.although we spent next to nothing. 

[VLC86]

10 minutes ago, markko said:

This is a farce. It is now February. We are under a transfer embargo in almost every respect. No player will want to come here with this hanging over us. We cannot do any more to prove we have learned our lesson. We have been asset stripped of almost everything worth having and it is still not enough. Let's relegate Leicester and give them no time to recover when we finally hit them. Meanwhile the big fish in the premier league just keep spending. It is not only unfair, it stinks.

Nothing screams learning your lesson quite like when we signed Winks and Coady by paying them about £150k a week at this level, or signing Skipp for £25m.

 

It amazes me how people plead like we are being treated unfairly. We’ve got the biggest wage bill in the league and are shit, because we signed shit and we don’t have a clear pathway to clearing the money we owe elsewhere. That is not the league or authorities, that’s us.

[Spudulike]

15 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Sorry don’t think that’s right. 
 

The charge as I said earlier aren’t in accord with that rule change or indeed the PL rules

Isn't it all about who is the enforcer? So neither authority had the right to administer any charge in our case before the April 2025 rule change?

[ClaphamFox]

43 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Sorry don’t think that’s right. 
 

The charge as I said earlier aren’t in accord with that rule change or indeed the PL rules

Until last year the PL wasn’t able to take action against a club once it had been relegated. Then last April they changed the rules so that this can now happen. They then used this rule change to charge us for the period 2021-24. Is that not a retrospective application of a rule change? 

[ian__marshall]

1 hour ago, Terraloon said:

Sorry don’t think that’s right. 
 

The charge as I said earlier aren’t in accord with that rule change or indeed the PL rules

Have we actually been found to be in breach of 23/24 by either league though? I thought this was the point argued by Demarco, that due to the way the rules were written and the transfer of our PL shares transferring too early it meant we were outside of the jurisdiction of both leagues, I.e. Outside of the PL jurisdiction for 22/23, but not in the EFL long enough to apply their rules. My understanding of the amendment in April was that it was a bilateral agreement between the leagues that therefore opened the door to the PL to pursue the 22/23 breach. 

 

I might be talking absolute nonsense, and from what I've read from your posts you are infinitely more clued up on this topic than I am, but this is just my recollection from April when this rule change applied. Again I might be wrong, but I vaguely recall that this rule change is what allowed the case to be reviewed by the IC as up until that point the PL were all out of options. Would explain why the following month the case was then referred to the IC.

 

Happy to be proven wrong, just this was my interpretation of events. 

[Terraloon]

21 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Until last year the PL wasn’t able to take action against a club once it had been relegated. Then last April they changed the rules so that this can now happen. They then used this rule change to charge us for the period 2021-24. Is that not a retrospective application of a rule change? 

They really haven’t.

 

The Arbitration Panel which sat before the rule change said this

 

E.77 of the Rules of the PL for the 2024/25 Season states as follows:

“Where a Promoted Club or any Official or Director of that Promoted Club, at the

point at which it becomes a member of the League pursuant to Rule B.4, is the

subject of an investigation by the EFL for alleged breaches of any aligned

provisions within the EFL Regulations, responsibility for that investigation will pass

to the Board. In such a case:

2 See by analogy paragraphs 100 and 101 below.

24E.77.1. the Board’s powers of inquiry set out at Rule W.1 will apply in full in respect

of the investigation (with the reference to ‘these Rules’ in Rule W.1 deemed to

include the relevant aligned EFL Regulations); and

E.77.2. the Board’s disciplinary powers set out in Section W (Disciplinary) of these

Rules will apply in full in respect of the matter (with the reference to ‘these Rules’

in Rule W.3 and W.7, deemed to include the relevant aligned EFL Regulations).”

92. Thus, the PL acquires transfer jurisdiction under E.77 only when a Promoted Club at the

time at which it is admitted to membership of the PL is the subject of an investigation by

the EFL for an alleged breach of any aligned provisions within the EFL Regulations. It is not

disputed that the P&S Rules are aligned to the PSR, the issue is whether LCFC, on the date

on which it once again became a member of the PL (on or about 5 June 2024), was under

investigation by the EFL for an alleged breach of its P&S Rules.

 

[Foxdiamond]

1 hour ago, markko said:

This is a farce. It is now February. We are under a transfer embargo in almost every respect. No player will want to come here with this hanging over us. We cannot do any more to prove we have learned our lesson. We have been asset stripped of almost everything worth having and it is still not enough. Let's relegate Leicester and give them no time to recover when we finally hit them. Meanwhile the big fish in the premier league just keep spending. It is not only unfair, it stinks.

It is ludicrous that this has not been settled 

[markko]

2 hours ago, VLC86 said:

Nothing screams learning your lesson quite like when we signed Winks and Coady by paying them about £150k a week at this level, or signing Skipp for £25m.

 

It amazes me how people plead like we are being treated unfairly. We’ve got the biggest wage bill in the league and are shit, because we signed shit and we don’t have a clear pathway to clearing the money we owe elsewhere. That is not the league or authorities, that’s us.

We signed them some time ago. Skipp I will give you as he was last summer. It is crazy we let KDH go and paid almost as much for Skipp. We have not really signed anyone for 3 windows now.

Edited 1 February by markko

[Terraloon]

24 minutes ago, ian__marshall said:

Have we actually been found to be in breach of 23/24 by either league though? I thought this was the point argued by Demarco, that due to the way the rules were written and the transfer of our PL shares transferring too early it meant we were outside of the jurisdiction of both leagues, I.e. Outside of the PL jurisdiction for 22/23, but not in the EFL long enough to apply their rules. My understanding of the amendment in April was that it was a bilateral agreement between the leagues that therefore opened the door to the PL to pursue the 22/23 breach. 

 

I might be talking absolute nonsense, and from what I've read from your posts you are infinitely more clued up on this topic than I am, but this is just my recollection from April when this rule change applied. Again I might be wrong, but I vaguely recall that this rule change is what allowed the case to be reviewed by the IC as up until that point the PL were all out of options. Would explain why the following month the case was then referred to the IC.

 

Happy to be proven wrong, just this was my interpretation of events. 

The outcome of the 23/24 allegations hasnt yet been published.

 

Hopefully my last post helps . 
 

Even under old rules the PL and indeed EFL rules could take over an investigation. The Arbitration panel weren’t being asked the question re jurisdiction in that respect they were being asked if the actions taken by the EFL constituted the commencement of an investigation and hence the PL had jurisdiction.

The April rule change being mentioned isn’t relevant in that the PL concluded the EFL investigation as allowed and the charges are under EFL rules.

 

 

[kenny]

7 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

The outcome of the 23/24 allegations hasnt yet been published.

 

Hopefully my last post helps . 
 

Even under old rules the PL and indeed EFL rules could take over an investigation. The Arbitration panel weren’t being asked the question re jurisdiction in that respect they were being asked if the actions taken by the EFL constituted the commencement of an investigation and hence the PL had jurisdiction.

The April rule change being mentioned isn’t relevant in that the PL concluded the EFL investigation as allowed and the charges are under EFL rules.

 

 

Aren't there rules relating to how long this should take? Not being sorted before the transfer window is wrong as well the league know.

[Terraloon]

9 minutes ago, kenny said:

Aren't there rules relating to how long this should take? Not being sorted before the transfer window is wrong as well the league know.

There are under the PLs accelerated rule but even then either side could made application to extend .

 

The charges that LC are facing aren’t under the same sort of time constraints. Once a club chooses to defend the charges as opposed to admitting ( which I guess is where LC are)  then all sorts of additional time is added to the process. 

 

Leicester aren’t under any embargo so there is nothing to stop them bringing in players. After the charge in May 25 five  players were signed . Yes on loan or on frees but I would imagine the fact that no fee was paid for any other players was more to do with cash flow rather than players choosing not to come due to potential points deductions.

 

 

 

 

[kenny]

4 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

There are under the PLs accelerated rule but even then either side could made application to extend .

 

The charges that LC are facing aren’t under the same sort of time constraints. Once a club chooses to defend the charges as opposed to admitting ( which I guess is where LC are)  then all sorts of additional time is added to the process. 

 

Leicester aren’t under any embargo so there is nothing to stop them bringing in players. After the charge in May 25 five  players were signed . Yes on loan or on frees but I would imagine the fact that no fee was paid for any other players was more to do with cash flow rather than players choosing not to come due to potential points deductions.

 

 

 

 

In practical terms we can sign players, in real terms our options are completely different if it assumed a deduction is coming.

 

The threat of deductions is a punishment in itsself, particularly with the media being so sure on us getting the deduction and the fact that it will be a large one. Im sure thats the reason (alongside our incompetance) that our managerial appointments have been so unispiring.

[Terraloon]

3 minutes ago, kenny said:

In practical terms we can sign players, in real terms our options are completely different if it assumed a deduction is coming.

 

The threat of deductions is a punishment in itsself, particularly with the media being so sure on us getting the deduction and the fact that it will be a large one. Im sure thats the reason (alongside our incompetance) that our managerial appointments have been so unispiring.

Sadly you may be right but sadly this is yet another example of the consequences of the negligence displayed by the owner

[broughtonblue]

10 point deduction incoming next week

[Wymsey]

Just now, broughtonblue said:

10 point deduction incoming next week

[Trav Le Bleu]

11 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Lucy Letby's defence lawyer.