filbertway Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 59 minutes ago, Product of 84 said: Could it be the case that if we are relegated through a PSR points deduction, lets say the doomsday 27 points mentioned earlier, that we would then automatically fail the following year as well as our outgoings would continue to be much more than our incomings without players contracts being terminated which cannot happen without payoffs etc. You are also failing to get a fee for the player as well. PSR is a joke. It seems a sudden relegation and you are in a real mess with no hope to comply. It simply needs to go away. The issue we have as a club is our situation is unique until say a West Ham or Everton are relegated and they too can't comply. I go back to the reasoning for PSR which was to prevent clubs from going bust. It seems with our loans etc that PSR could actually make us go bust! If only we had spent big in January, completely broke the rules, sacked Rogers, survived, took the points deduction the following season and survived the following season too (Forest and Everton). If only... Not really. You have a budget for different scenarios and your wage structure should reflect those potential scenarios. It's not moron proof though, so yes, if you're managed without any foresight then yes, a drop income that isn't planned for will hurt you as a club. That's very much the fault of the people dishing out contracts though.
Popular Post KansasFox Posted 29 January Popular Post Posted 29 January If they allow the retroactive application of the closed loophole, what about Chelsea? Will they go after them for their hotel sales retroactively? I don’t think so! 6
when_you're_smiling Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 16 minutes ago, filbertway said: Not really. You have a budget for different scenarios and your wage structure should reflect those potential scenarios. It's not moron proof though, so yes, if you're managed without any foresight then yes, a drop income that isn't planned for will hurt you as a club. That's very much the fault of the people dishing out contracts though. You are right about the contracts to a degree in terms of us, but what about if you’re in Europe? Do you just sack Europe off and stick to the mid-table Prem budget because you can never guarantee European football and the income from that? 2
filbertway Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 1 minute ago, when_you're_smiling said: You are right about the contracts to a degree in terms of us, but what about if you’re in Europe? Do you just sack Europe off and stick to the mid-table Prem budget because you can never guarantee European football and the income from that? Kieran Maguire mentioned in his interview that a lot of clubs pay quite a low basic salary, and then I guess they're topped up at the end of the season based on hitting specific targets. Layman example but, say all players are on 20k basic If you finish in champions league you'll get a bonus that takes you up to equivalent of 90k a week. Finish in Europa, 70k a week. Mid table, 50k a week Relegation.... if it's a european team then you don't deserve any top up Whereas based on the money we spent on wages in our relegation season, I think we just went straight out with massive basics. 4
Mickyblueeyes Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 17 minutes ago, filbertway said: Kieran Maguire mentioned in his interview that a lot of clubs pay quite a low basic salary, and then I guess they're topped up at the end of the season based on hitting specific targets. Layman example but, say all players are on 20k basic If you finish in champions league you'll get a bonus that takes you up to equivalent of 90k a week. Finish in Europa, 70k a week. Mid table, 50k a week Relegation.... if it's a european team then you don't deserve any top up Whereas based on the money we spent on wages in our relegation season, I think we just went straight out with massive basics. You see here is where I am going to give Rudkin and Top some slack. And I hate the bastards. if the “industry norm” is to behave in this manner and we are missing the mark significantly, it’s on the finance director. They lead on financial structuring. Albeit, if Top is overruling the FD, the problem comes back to the little man. We shouldn’t be so behind the times. 1
ClaphamFox Posted 29 January Posted 29 January (edited) 32 minutes ago, Joe90 said: When is the sentencing due? About a month ago. Edited 29 January by ClaphamFox 1
when_you're_smiling Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 16 minutes ago, filbertway said: Kieran Maguire mentioned in his interview that a lot of clubs pay quite a low basic salary, and then I guess they're topped up at the end of the season based on hitting specific targets. Layman example but, say all players are on 20k basic If you finish in champions league you'll get a bonus that takes you up to equivalent of 90k a week. Finish in Europa, 70k a week. Mid table, 50k a week Relegation.... if it's a european team then you don't deserve any top up Whereas based on the money we spent on wages in our relegation season, I think we just went straight out with massive basics. Yeah, you’re right. But also the more in demand/better players are going to go towards more guaranteed money. 1
filbertway Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 1 minute ago, when_you're_smiling said: Yeah, you’re right. But also the more in demand/better players are going to go towards more guaranteed money. Yeah I wouldn't disagree on that. At the end of the day, it's a business and there are hierarchies in all walks of life, you have to operate within your means and we didn't do that. Premier league clubs are in a fortunate spot where aside from visas/work permits. 99% of footballers in the world would love to play for them in the Premier League. Investing in recruitment and expanding your knowledge across the globe is a relatively small investment in comparison to signing players. Any club worth their salt should have a wide network of scouts/data they can tap into and unearth these players. I find it hard to offer the club much slack in this area. I think they've operated in an incredibly lazy fashion, relying on a small network and offering insane wages. We're now seeing the result of that. 1
Buzzard Posted 29 January Posted 29 January (edited) Longer it goes on, the higher the chance we've pulled off another Houdini? Surely? Edit - given us too much credit here. (rather the authorities have realised their rules aren't up to scratch) Edited 29 January by Buzzard
Tommy G Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 2 hours ago, purpleronnie said: Profit on what they purchased the club for. I'm sure overall they'll be worse off. That's how I took 'decent' others might take it as meaning something else. It will be measured on return - money paid for club + money pumped into club - sale price. It will be a massive cash deficit.
Terraloon Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 3 hours ago, ClaphamFox said: The PL clearly believes it has the jurisdiction to charge us for 2021-24, even though we were a Championship cub in 23-24, via a retrospective application of the 'loophole closure' that occurred last April. I suspect our lawyers have strongly contested this based on the fact that, under English law, it is not normal practice to introduce new regulations and apply them retrospectively. I have no legal knowledge so cannot say which side will win the argument, but I wonder if this dispute over the retrospective application of the rules is one of the reasons why we haven't heard anything yet. And if the IC finds in favour of the PL, it wouldn't surprise me if we exhaust every avenue for appeal, possibly even taking it beyond the Premier League Appeal Board and into the law courts. This could drag on for a long time... Sadly I don’t think you are right when you say that there was a “retrospective action”. What happened was the arbitration panel gave their interpretation of the rule book and therefore the rules already in place. As we know the initial IC ruled in the PLs favour that the PL did indeed have jurisdiction for 22/23 , the club appealed and won that appeal , the PL then argued at arbitration that the appeal ruling was a perverse interpretation of the rules which the panel didn’t agree with but that same panel ruled that the PL did have jurisdiction for 23/24. My view on the outcome of Arbitration is that had either of the two parties (PL&LCFC) not agreed with the outcome they had 28 days to appeal the ruling. I am pretty sure that there wasn’t any appeal . 1
ClaphamFox Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 3 minutes ago, Terraloon said: Sadly I don’t think you are right when you say that there was a “retrospective action”. What happened was the arbitration panel gave their interpretation of the rule book and therefore the rules already in place. As we know the initial IC ruled in the PLs favour that the PL did indeed have jurisdiction for 22/23 , the club appealed and won that appeal , the PL then argued at arbitration that the appeal ruling was a perverse interpretation of the rules which the panel didn’t agree with but that same panel ruled that the PL did have jurisdiction for 23/24. My view on the outcome of Arbitration is that had either of the two parties (PL&LCFC) not agreed with the outcome they had 28 days to appeal the ruling. I am pretty sure that there wasn’t any appeal . You may well be right, and the lack of appeal from the club does seem significant. However, Kieran Maguire was on a podcast last week saying that he’d been told by ‘his secret lawyer friends’ that the legality of the PL’s arbitration in this case is still open to dispute. Now I know that football finance experts’ opinions are ten-a-penny and should be treated with caution, but I also know that Kieran Maguire is good friends with Nick De Marco and may well have spoken to him about it. And if Nick De Marco is saying privately that the the PL’s jurisdiction has still not been established, it would raise the possibility that we’re still contesting it. 2
Fox-LMA Posted 29 January Posted 29 January (edited) 16 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said: You may well be right, and the lack of appeal from the club does seem significant. However, Kieran Maguire was on a podcast last week saying that he’d been told by ‘his secret lawyer friends’ that the legality of the PL’s arbitration in this case is still open to dispute. Now I know that football finance experts’ opinions are ten-a-penny and should be treated with caution, but I also know that Kieran Maguire is good friends with Nick De Marco and may well have spoken to him about it. And if Nick De Marco is saying privately that the the PL’s jurisdiction has still not been established, it would raise the possibility that we’re still contesting it. I would highly doubt that a practicing Silk - especially one of De Marco's calibre - would be talking to a jumped up journalist about one of his ongoing cases. In fact it may be illegal. Edited 29 January by Fox-LMA
K789 Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 8 minutes ago, Fox-LMA said: I would highly doubt that a practicing Silk - especially one of De Marco's calibre - would be talking to a jumped up journalist about one of his ongoing cases. In fact it may be illegal. They are close friends
Derby Blue Posted 29 January Posted 29 January The worst scenario is we get hit next season. Whatever the punishment, we need it this season so we can start next season with a clean slate. 3
urban.spaceman Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 1 hour ago, Terraloon said: Sadly I don’t think you are right when you say that there was a “retrospective action”. What happened was the arbitration panel gave their interpretation of the rule book and therefore the rules already in place. As we know the initial IC ruled in the PLs favour that the PL did indeed have jurisdiction for 22/23 , the club appealed and won that appeal , the PL then argued at arbitration that the appeal ruling was a perverse interpretation of the rules which the panel didn’t agree with but that same panel ruled that the PL did have jurisdiction for 23/24. My view on the outcome of Arbitration is that had either of the two parties (PL&LCFC) not agreed with the outcome they had 28 days to appeal the ruling. I am pretty sure that there wasn’t any appeal . 44 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said: You may well be right, and the lack of appeal from the club does seem significant. However, Kieran Maguire was on a podcast last week saying that he’d been told by ‘his secret lawyer friends’ that the legality of the PL’s arbitration in this case is still open to dispute. Now I know that football finance experts’ opinions are ten-a-penny and should be treated with caution, but I also know that Kieran Maguire is good friends with Nick De Marco and may well have spoken to him about it. And if Nick De Marco is saying privately that the the PL’s jurisdiction has still not been established, it would raise the possibility that we’re still contesting it. I think the club likely felt that they'd already won that case and escaped that punishment, so there was no point in challenging yet another ruling that had no effect on us. No need to waste the resources while the Premier League tied themselves in knots. It also might have been beneficial to us going forward as they continue to prove the absurdity of the Premier League's rules and behaviour. 2
Terraloon Posted 29 January Posted 29 January Just now, urban.spaceman said: I think the club likely felt that they'd already won that case and escaped that punishment, so there was no point in challenging yet another ruling that had no effect on us. No need to waste the resources while the Premier League tied themselves in knots. It also might have been beneficial to us going forward as they continue to prove the absurdity of the Premier League's rules and behaviour. The PL took two matters to Arbitration. The first was to challenge the appeal boards ruling that the PL dint have jurisdiction for 22/23. On this the club won but not because the arbitration panel didn’t believe the PL didn’t have jurisdiction but arbitration panel couldn’t / didn’t overturn the appeal because the panel felt that the appeal panel reached their decision using a valid process The second matter put to the arbitration panel was did the PL have jurisdiction for 23/24 and on that the panel ruled they did. 1
Ric Flair Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 46 minutes ago, Derby Blue said: The worst scenario is we get hit next season. Whatever the punishment, we need it this season so we can start next season with a clean slate. It should have been last season had we not delayed submitting our accounts?. For it to drag on two more seasons where we've been the absolute pits in both would sum us up.
Product of 84 Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 5 hours ago, filbertway said: Not really. You have a budget for different scenarios and your wage structure should reflect those potential scenarios. It's not moron proof though, so yes, if you're managed without any foresight then yes, a drop income that isn't planned for will hurt you as a club. That's very much the fault of the people dishing out contracts though. I don't disagree at all. Some of the players and their contracts have been continuously ridiculous. However, I'm dismayed to see what the rules are doing to competition. For instance, Wolves have totally given up and are now selling up ready to comply in the Championship. It's January! However, they might be lucky in some respects as their decision is done. There race run. However, what should Forest and West Ham do? Spend, don't spend, or sell up? You could argue if they don't sell and are relegated they won't be able to comply in the Championship.
ClaphamFox Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 12 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: It should have been last season had we not delayed submitting our accounts?. For it to drag on two more seasons where we've been the absolute pits in both would sum us up. I’m pretty sure that we didn’t submit our accounts for 23/24 on time because jurisdiction over that period was still being disputed. Whether that was a wise move is debatable, but it was a deliberate choice by the club. 1
Clever Fox Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 55 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said: I think the club likely felt that they'd already won that case and escaped that punishment, so there was no point in challenging yet another ruling that had no effect on us. No need to waste the resources while the Premier League tied themselves in knots. It also might have been beneficial to us going forward as they continue to prove the absurdity of the Premier League's rules and behaviour. It was the last time we played a blinder. Beating the Premier League which they're still smarting from. 1
Ric Flair Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 7 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said: I’m pretty sure that we didn’t submit our accounts for 23/24 on time because jurisdiction over that period was still being disputed. Whether that was a wise move is debatable, but it was a deliberate choice by the club. Yeah it's probably expected that the club would do that but it is typical of the outcome being worse for us than had we not tried to be clever.
Wymsey Posted 29 January Posted 29 January Take it that it's an independent football panel deciding on this, plus Man City's?
urban.spaceman Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 2 minutes ago, Terraloon said: The PL took two matters to Arbitration. The first was to challenge the appeal boards ruling that the PL dint have jurisdiction for 22/23. On this the club won but not because the arbitration panel didn’t believe the PL didn’t have jurisdiction but arbitration panel couldn’t / didn’t overturn the appeal because the panel felt that the appeal panel reached their decision using a valid process The second matter put to the arbitration panel was did the PL have jurisdiction for 23/24 and on that the panel ruled they did. Thanks for clarifying. Amazing how we've ended up in a situation where the Premier League were claiming that Leicester City gained an unfair sporting advantage in a season in which we were relegated, then failed to prosecute us because we successfully proved their own rules stated explicitly we were no longer under their jurisdiction while also getting them to admit their own rules were essentially written by an intern on crack; and now as a consequence they've been allowed to prosecute us for a season in which we didn't play a single game in their league. If we win that case we should definitely demand a points bonus. In both leagues.
Recommended Posts