urban.spaceman Posted 29 January Posted 29 January (edited) 1 hour ago, Clever Fox said: It was the last time we played a blinder. Beating the Premier League which they're still smarting from. I remain of the opinion that when all this is over we should sue the Premier League for a billion quid. Edited 29 January by urban.spaceman 2 2
Clever Fox Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 3 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said: I remain of the opinion that when all this is over we should sue the Premier League for a billion quid. I hope we do, Someone has to bring proper due dilligence back to the Game. What's happened to the Regulator that was supposed to be in place by now. ? My guess is the Government has been bought off.
The Doctor Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 7 hours ago, 87fox said: I'm unclear on League 1 PSR – I don't think the same rules apply. Birmingham spent £15m on Stansfield alone when they were down there. league one psr rules are salary/turnover ratio based. Which we're also ****ed on
Ric Flair Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 2 hours 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. My memory is a little hazy, so the PL tried to appeal the arbitration panel despite there having to be grounds to prove they acted unethically/unlawfully in overturning the IC decision? I thought that was only mooted that they might.
Ric Flair Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 15 minutes ago, The Doctor said: league one psr rules are salary/turnover ratio based. Which we're also ****ed on I think in League One, owners can pump investment in.
VLC86 Posted 29 January Posted 29 January Has The Second Tier podcast been mentioned on here? Im taken aback by how non Leicester fans have nailed it.
Popular Post urban.spaceman Posted 29 January Popular Post Posted 29 January 6 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: I think in League One, owners can pump investment in. Top next season: 9
fox_favourite Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 4 minutes ago, VLC86 said: Has The Second Tier podcast been mentioned on here? Im taken aback by how non Leicester fans have nailed it. Just listened to a 15 minutes video on us from them. Not their biggest fan, but they were spot on with their points they made. It's like they read Foxestalk
VLC86 Posted 29 January Posted 29 January Just now, fox_favourite said: Just listened to a 15 minutes video on us from them. Not their biggest fan, but they were spot on with their points they made. It's like they read Foxestalk I don’t think I’ve ever listened to them but they hit the nail on the head there. Interview was a disaster Could easily end up in League 1 Rudkin has ruined us and been promoted Worst ran club in the 92 (bar Sheff Weds)
The Doctor Posted 29 January Posted 29 January 27 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: I think in League One, owners can pump investment in. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c36e4068113o to a degree but it's been tightened up this year
Ric Flair Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 10 hours ago, The Doctor said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c36e4068113o to a degree but it's been tightened up this year Wow didn't realise that. We really could be in horrendous trouble if we drop. Not sure I agree with the limit to spend generated from player sales.
Terraloon Posted 30 January Posted 30 January (edited) 11 hours ago, Ric Flair said: My memory is a little hazy, so the PL tried to appeal the arbitration panel despite there having to be grounds to prove they acted unethically/unlawfully in overturning the IC decision? I thought that was only mooted that they might. As I pointed out they took the club to Arbitration on two issues. The first surrounded the appeal commissions ruling that overturned the IC ruling that the PL did have jurisdiction for 22/23. The PLs claim was that the appeal board had reached a ruling the was “ perverse” They, (PL) didn’t win that argument and whist there would the have been technically 28 days as defined in the Arbitration Act 96? to take the matter to law they inevitably would have failed in any challenge. I never read that they ever would challenge although as I said there is a route The second issue is where we are now. This surrounded jurisdiction for 23/24 and the Arbitration ruling was quite simple that even though LC were an EFL club the PL did have jurisdiction. The same would have applied re the 28 day window in that LC had that time to appeal but unless I missed it I don’t think there was any appeal by the club. https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/4314762 Edited 30 January by Terraloon 1
Rubbersoul Posted 30 January Posted 30 January Sometimes I’m glad I’m not bright enough to understand all this 1 3
Terraloon Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 9 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: Wow didn't realise that. We really could be in horrendous trouble if we drop. Not sure I agree with the limit to spend generated from player sales. I have paid limited to attention to the financial controls at leagues 1&2 but as you say the consequence would be devastating. A club of Leicesters size should be able to generate more income but the costs to service the infrastructure alone would likely be more than some clubs pay in wages. 1
Spudulike Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 58 minutes ago, Terraloon said: As I pointed out they took the club to Arbitration on two issues. The first surrounded the appeal commissions ruling that overturned the IC ruling that the PL did have jurisdiction for 22/23. The PLs claim was that the appeal board had reached a ruling the was “ perverse” They, (PL) didn’t win that argument and whist there would the have been technically 28 days as defined in the Arbitration Act 96? to take the matter to law they inevitably would have failed in any challenge. I never read that they ever would challenge although as I said there is a route The second issue is where we are now. This surrounded jurisdiction for 23/24 and the Arbitration ruling was quite simple that even though LC were an EFL club the PL did have jurisdiction. The same would have applied re the 28 day window in that LC had that time to appeal but unless I missed it I don’t think there was any appeal by the club. https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/4314762 So, in simple terms: 24/25 was ok. 25/26 probably ok? So it's only the Enzo season, 23/24, that we might be on the hook for?
Ric Flair Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 1 minute ago, Spudulike said: So, in simple terms: 24/25 was ok. 25/26 probably ok? So it's only the Enzo season, 23/24, that we might be on the hook for? That is not known yet, certainly not 25/26 but you'd imagine if we couldn't evidence how we will comply this season then the EFL would have put us under a transfer embargo and strict business plan. In the EFL it doesn't matter if you end up complying by 30th June by frantically selling players, if there's not evidence of how you'll comply then they'll act. As the 23/24 charges are still unresolved, we'll not have any bro8ght from 24/25 if we did breach. This was the case last season when the PL announced no club had breached 23/24 but as soon as it was resolved that the 22/23 charges couldn't be applied then they announced the 23/24 breach. It's murky, I think we will be struggling for many years to come.
Spudulike Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: That is not known yet, certainly not 25/26 but you'd imagine if we couldn't evidence how we will comply this season then the EFL would have put us under a transfer embargo and strict business plan. In the EFL it doesn't matter if you end up complying by 30th June by frantically selling players, if there's not evidence of how you'll comply then they'll act. As the 23/24 charges are still unresolved, we'll not have any bro8ght from 24/25 if we did breach. This was the case last season when the PL announced no club had breached 23/24 but as soon as it was resolved that the 22/23 charges couldn't be applied then they announced the 23/24 breach. It's murky, I think we will be struggling for many years to come. So they announced that we didn't breach in 23/24 but then did breach in 23/24 when they rewrote the PSR rules? 1
Ric Flair Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 6 minutes ago, Spudulike said: So they announced that we didn't breach in 23/24 but then did breach in 23/24 when they rewrote the PSR rules? They carefully selected their words at the time they said that no club was being charged for the 23/24 year. 2
Terraloon Posted 30 January Posted 30 January (edited) 10 minutes ago, Spudulike said: So they announced that we didn't breach in 23/24 but then did breach in 23/24 when they rewrote the PSR rules? As I far as I recall there was never an announcement re 23/24 for clubs not in PL membership.After the Arbitration award and then almost immediately the PL charged LC under the EFL rules in accord with the Arbitration outcome. As for 24/25 there hasn’t been any announcement yet. As I have said before I think it’s 50-50. Re 25/26 still to early to gain a true handle but my guess is that it’s 75-25 there will be a charge. Edited 30 January by Terraloon
VLC86 Posted 30 January Posted 30 January Just on this season, another clue that we think we will be ok is loaning BEK so that we can use that for next season. But imagine if we’ve still ****ed it 😂 1
Terraloon Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 20 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: That is not known yet, certainly not 25/26 but you'd imagine if we couldn't evidence how we will comply this season then the EFL would have put us under a transfer embargo and strict business plan. In the EFL it doesn't matter if you end up complying by 30th June by frantically selling players, if there's not evidence of how you'll comply then they'll act. As the 23/24 charges are still unresolved, we'll not have any bro8ght from 24/25 if we did breach. This was the case last season when the PL announced no club had breached 23/24 but as soon as it was resolved that the 22/23 charges couldn't be applied then they announced the 23/24 breach. It's murky, I think we will be struggling for many years to come. It is indeed murky. But at the time of the 23/24 announcement the arbitration hearing hand concluded but this was what LC said at the time of the PL announcement re 23/24 charges A Leicester statement said: "Issues as to the jurisdiction of the Premier League over Leicester City Football Club in relation to PSR compliance are currently the subject of confidential arbitration proceedings. "Accordingly, neither the League nor the club will make any further comment at this stage about any aspect of the club's compliance or otherwise with any of the PSR or related rules, save to say that no complaint has been brought against Leicester by the League for any breach of the PSRs for the period ending season 2023-24." 1
Spudulike Posted 30 January Posted 30 January So, as far as the club is (was) concerned, there was no complaint (and therefore no breach) for 23/24. If that's the case, why could this be now under secrutiny other than due to a retrospective rule change?
ClaphamFox Posted 30 January Posted 30 January (edited) 22 minutes ago, Spudulike said: So, as far as the club is (was) concerned, there was no complaint (and therefore no breach) for 23/24. If that's the case, why could this be now under secrutiny other than due to a retrospective rule change? The statement above is from January last year, when the arbitration proceedings were ongoing. The PL charged us for 23/24 in May when the arbitration panel concluded that the PL did have jurisdiction for that period. In a statement in response to the charges in May, the club accepted the PL had jurisdiction for 23/24. However, accepting the PL's jurisdiction for that period is not quite the same as accepting the retrospective application of the rule change. Could we be arguing that although the PL has jurisdiction for 2023/24, it should not be allowed to charge us under EFL rules for this period because the rule change that allows this was not introduced until April 2025? This would be consistent with what Kieran Maguire has been heavily hinting at. Whether it's this or something else, I think it's safe to say that our case is turning out to be more complicated than previous cases. Last weekend various media outlets were suggesting that the announcement was imminent and the club was expecting to be docked 9-10 points. Yet it's now Friday and we've heard nothing, so clearly the source for this rumour was jumping the gun—or making it up. It wouldn't surprise me if we still haven't heard by this time next week either. Edited 30 January by ClaphamFox 4
Spudulike Posted 30 January Posted 30 January So on the face of it does seem like the dispute is all about timing. The change about who can enforce the rules did happen after 23/24. The Premier League must be on a sticky wicket. From ChatGPT... What This Change Was — and Wasn’t ❌ It was not a change that retroactively altered PSR or P&S loss limits for 2023/24. ✔️ It was a change that allowed the Premier League to enforce those rules after the fact by: Clarifying jurisdiction in its own rulebook, and Accepting jurisdiction passed from the EFL when Leicester were promoted. So the rule change was about who can enforce the rules and under what conditions — not about changing the underlying financial rules. 1
Spudulike Posted 30 January Posted 30 January Some more from ChatGPT... Bottom Line ❌ The Premier League cannot retroactively apply PSR or P&S rule changes from the 2024/25 season to alter how Leicester’s 2023/24 conduct is judged. ✔️ What does apply is: the EFL P&S rules that were in force during 2023/24, and a jurisdiction transfer mechanism (introduced for 2024/25) that gives the Premier League authority to enforce those rules now. So the Premier League can enforce the rule change from now (24/25 onwards) but didn't have jurisdiction in 23/24. So it appears that although the club may have been in breach under the EFL P&S rules in 23/24, the rule book didn't clarify which body was able to enforce them at that time. Not surprising this is taking so long as it has potential for appeals. 1
Recommended Posts