Premier League has charged LCFC with an alleged breach of PSR

[Terraloon]

15 minutes ago, Hitesh said:

So if this holds true, then the punishment is more likely to be down to late filing and failure to provide a plan? Surely isn't worth 12 points? 

Possibly although if you look at past IC that have dealt with PSR excesses the starting point is £105 million being a significant allowance so anything north of that number will ,if confirmed, would be a “ guilty” as to how many points who knows although I very much doubt that ther3 would be any mitigation in terms of reduction but certainly the PL will be pointing to failure to submit information etc so their case will be that 5here are aggravating factors.

As I posted a week or so ago it’s the 24/25 numbers that will now come under scrutiny and by my reading there is a real possibility that there will be some sort of action namely an embargo on signings simply because under the EFL rules the allowances for 23/24, 24/25 and 25/6 will only be £61 million and without a significant transfer fee in what remains of 24/25 my guess is that £61 million for years 23/24 &24/25 will be exceeded or be very close to that number. So almost certainly the club will have to produce a business plan to show how it will achieve break even and with reducing TV income that is going to be incredibly difficult 

[Mr Popodopolous]

29 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Possibly although if you look at past IC that have dealt with PSR excesses the starting point is £105 million being a significant allowance so anything north of that number will ,if confirmed, would be a “ guilty” as to how many points who knows although I very much doubt that ther3 would be any mitigation in terms of reduction but certainly the PL will be pointing to failure to submit information etc so their case will be that 5here are aggravating factors.

As I posted a week or so ago it’s the 24/25 numbers that will now come under scrutiny and by my reading there is a real possibility that there will be some sort of action namely an embargo on signings simply because under the EFL rules the allowances for 23/24, 24/25 and 25/6 will only be £61 million and without a significant transfer fee in what remains of 24/25 my guess is that £61 million for years 23/24 &24/25 will be exceeded or be very close to that number. So almost certainly the club will have to produce a business plan to show how it will achieve break even and with reducing TV income that is going to be incredibly difficult 

Surely there is a £83m Upper Limit for the Period ending 2023-24? No?

 

I should also add that the Business Plan would be pertaining to hitting PSR not breaking even as such.

 

Lastly I'd also suggest that it can depend. E.g. the EFL have a Points Tariff, any overspend exceeding £15m is a 12 Point Deduction as a starting point. The PL seem less hardline with it. There is a sliding scale or was..

 

*£15m+ over Limits ie Limits + £15m + more=12 Points

£12.5m-£15m=9 Points

£10m-12.499m=8 Points

£8m-£9.99m=7 Points

£6m-7.999m=6 Points

£4m-5.999m=5 Points

£2m-3.999m=4 Points

£1-1.999m=3 Points

 

I now understand your point a little better. Yes breakeven but it also depends..Upper Limits are capped after an EFL Breach. So that £19m minus Add-backs and then the huge 2022-23 Loss is capped at £35m under EFL Rules.

Edited 20 May 2025 by Mr Popodopolous

[Gamble92]

1 hour ago, dmayne7 said:

The net spend is so low as well compared to every other PL team. On top of that, no big name free transfers where they get the massive wage instead, and apart from Tielemans, not a single player where you would feel that our hand is forced in terms of overspending.

 

So that tells you how shocking the wage structure is (likely Rudkin but we can't know for sure) and moreso, how utterly abysmal our commercial/income generating teams are. What an easy gig they had to get massive marketing deals in place and did absolutely nothing (Definitely not Rudkin). So people really need to move on from Rudkin being the sole issue when the reality is, he is at most a big part but still not the biggest part. Board all need replacing but really, new owners.

You make a great point about marketing. I don't think we quite realise what an opportunity was there commercially after the Premier League win. But everything about the club was focused on the brand of King Power/Thailand. There was no attempt to maximise the potential. 

 

The main issue was still the wage budget though as you say. Rudkins negotiating can be seen a mile off by everyone in the game. Coady getting 70k and many other examples have absolutely crippled us. It wouldn't be so bad if there was any attempt at fixing that in last few years but he's doubled down if anything. 

[DJW1]

I know nothing about business, but the concept of LCFC being a subsidiary business of King Power seems a bit strange.

Let´s say LCFC makes a profit of 10 M excluding sponsorship, but add on 10 M in KP sponsorship to make a profit of 20 M, which finally goes back to KP. So that 10 M is just going round and round, to and from KP. To my mind it might as well be 50 pence or 50 M

[Gamble92]

43 minutes ago, Hitesh said:

So if this holds true, then the punishment is more likely to be down to late filing and failure to provide a plan? Surely isn't worth 12 points? 

More to the point why we being charged with two completely avoidable charges like failing to provide a plan and not giving the accounts in time? How can they be that incompetent?

[Iwebema]

3 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

More to the point why we being charged with two completely avoidable charges like failing to provide a plan and not giving the accounts in time? How can they be that incompetent?

@ClaphamFox has a good theory, by delaying they couldn't charge us this season. So you'd have to assume the plan was, we knew we would breach, stay up this year and take the hit next year but with Premier league allowances and the relegation season off the books we would be in a strong position. It's just monumentally backfired and they will use it as additional collateral in trying to get more sanctions against us.

 

Of course you can never rule out pure incompetence when it comes to the people in charge. But given our history with PSR it would be a whole new level of incompetence

[Gamble92]

5 minutes ago, Iwebema said:

@ClaphamFox has a good theory, by delaying they couldn't charge us this season. So you'd have to assume the plan was, we knew we would breach, stay up this year and take the hit next year but with Premier league allowances and the relegation season off the books we would be in a strong position. It's just monumentally backfired and they will use it as additional collateral in trying to get more sanctions against us.

 

Of course you can never rule out pure incompetence when it comes to the people in charge. But given our history with PSR it would be a whole new level of incompetence

Why is it they become criminal masterminds when it comes to wiggling out of the absolute shit they've put themselves in but no one comes up with anything proactive?

 

They've operated like the mafia for years. The sponsorships, the dodgy deals, Tops coats. It's disgusting. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Pliskin said:

We’ve undoubtedly mate mistakes yes, and the board needs to be held accountable. The problem I have with this, is it’s a relentless pursuit of us, it seems to be all attention on us, and little on others. Even Man City appears to be getting away with it, and probably will……

 

And then they change the rules to suit them and come after us again? It just seems desperate, of I’m interpreting this right and that is what they’ve done, it’s not a very good measure of their rules and regulations is it? Normally that’s now how charging one of breaches works? Doesn’t work first time so let’s have another go? Just seems farcical. We may well have breached, but the ships sailed…..

The EFL are relentless with this stuff tbh.

 

*They pursued Derby not only for their Period going back to 2017-18 but looked again going as far back as 2014-15 to reassess the Relevant Period ending in 2016-17 and all subsequent ones to 2021. This was in Spring 2021 onwards.

*They had multiple Hearings with Derby during the Covid Lockdown season.

*They challenged Audited Accounts for both Derby and Sheffield Wednesday in a PSR Context. They won too. These begun in 2019-20 though.

*Talking of which they kept up their Cases v Derby and Reading irrespective of Covid-19.

*They didn't drop a Soft Embargo v Reading in 2020 or FFP charges 2021 just after Covid.

*They appealed a case about a Business Plan v Birmingham despite The nation having entered Lockdown and won in respect of the right to get a Business Plan binding.

 

Covid and in the case of Derby Administration post Covid didn't really halt their pursuit of Clubs who had overspent.

Edited 20 May 2025 by Mr Popodopolous

[UniFox21]

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Surely there is a £83m Upper Limit for the Period ending 2023-24? No?

 

I should also add that the Business Plan would be pertaining to hitting PSR not breaking even as such.

 

Lastly I'd also suggest that it can depend. E.g. the EFL have a Points Tariff, any overspend exceeding £15m is a 12 Point Deduction as a starting point. The PL seem less hardline with it. There is a sliding scale or was..

 

*£15m+ over Limits ie Limits + £15m + more=12 Points

£12.5m-£15m=9 Points

£10m-12.499m=8 Points

£8m-£9.99m=7 Points

£6m-7.999m=6 Points

£4m-5.999m=5 Points

£2m-3.999m=4 Points

£1-1.999m=3 Points

The point deductions you've listed there are genuinely criminal. A club can go into administration, and lose 10 points. 

 

Is losing £15m over the limit worse than that? 

[Sly]

The entire system is a joke. 

[Gamble92]

3 minutes ago, Sly said:

The entire system is a joke. 

It is, but you look at the charge sheet for us and no one can focus on that this time. The club were quite clever last time around with the language in their statement, wanting to create a siege mentality. 

 

If anyone falls into the trap of making this about the EFL and not about our owners then they'll just keep getting away with it. 

[Dr The Singh]

The lawyers are loving this

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

7 minutes ago, Sly said:

The entire system is a joke. 

So are we

[DezFox]

Is this seriously looking best case scenario 12 points? I mean I don’t really care, deserve everything we get. But 12 seems a lot? 

[iancognito]

18 minutes ago, Sly said:

The entire system is a joke. 

Yes it is.

 

But it hasn't affected Bournemouth,  Brentford, Fulham, Brighton or Palace like it has us. The reason is that their owners and DoFs are competent professionals with strategy and business plans. They don't piss their tested business models up the wall trying to be a better owner than Daddy.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

1 hour ago, Jazzy_Jeff said:

PSR is rotten. Only exists to keep the premier leagues favourites happy.

Two of which are currently 17th and 16th in the league. Doing a great job!

[OnlyOneCity]

4 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Leaves a bitter taste in the mouth after Sunday's publicity stunt.

 

Club continues to treat everyone as mugs.

What publicity stunt?

[Phild]

10 hours ago, filbertway said:

ChatGPT have me covered as well thanks

 

Their 'important money papers' 😆 classic. 

[pmcla26]

9 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Two of which are currently 17th and 16th in the league. Doing a great job!

Which just proves why it’s such a flawed system. You compete against yourself rather than your rivals, which means that a team that finishes two places above ourselves will be allowed to spend £200m or so this summer to try to get back to where they want to be whilst we’ll be fighting court battles. 
 

Makes 0 sense. 

[Lad1966]

9 minutes ago, iancognito said:

Yes it is.

 

But it hasn't affected Bournemouth,  Brentford, Fulham, Brighton or Palace like it has us. The reason is that their owners and DoFs are competent professionals with strategy and business plans. They don't piss their tested business models up the wall trying to be a better owner than Daddy.

I would say our strategy was working well, I.e. selling one asset season, but as soon we stop doing, because we wanted to break into top 4, that’s what’s caused our downfall (and Covid), which align with the 21/22 and 22/23 PSR figures  

[Bert]

17 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Two of which are currently 17th and 16th in the league. Doing a great job!

Regardless of league position they’ve still spent a hell of a lot more and almost certainly have a higher wage bill than ourselves. 

[Eskay]

1 hour ago, Gamble92 said:

You make a great point about marketing. I don't think we quite realise what an opportunity was there commercially after the Premier League win. But everything about the club was focused on the brand of King Power/Thailand. There was no attempt to maximise the potential. 

 

The main issue was still the wage budget though as you say. Rudkins negotiating can be seen a mile off by everyone in the game. Coady getting 70k and many other examples have absolutely crippled us. It wouldn't be so bad if there was any attempt at fixing that in last few years but he's doubled down if anything. 

Most organisations would have spotted the marketing opportunity. They would have wanted a balance of commercial deals that were not KP related to de-risk the reliance on the deals that essentially help balance the books. 

When we won the league we would have tried to change the business and modernise. 

 

Unfortunately the staff we have (inclusive of Rudkin) have been in their post since we played at Filbert street. 

We aren't serious people. 

[blue army 1988]

Why can't we do what Chelsea did and sell the ground, training ground and women's team to King Power?

[LCFCCKEANO]

Guess the aim is now get into the backend of the playoffs. Look at the ‘big 3’ this year in the championship, we should be able to put together a squad at least similar to Sheffield United, they ended up a good 24(26 without the deduction) inside the playoffs. Not worried to the extreme by the deduction more by a potential embargo and forced sales

[iancognito]

6 minutes ago, Lad1966 said:

I would say our strategy was working well, I.e. selling one asset season, but as soon we stop doing, because we wanted to break into top 4, that’s what’s caused our downfall (and Covid), which align with the 21/22 and 22/23 PSR figures  

WAS

 

They broke the strategy pushing for Top 4. The gamble led to three seasons of record losses, players given away on frees and our current PSR hangover. It's a cycle we can never now break without selling our academy players. It killed 10 years of building.

 

Note none of the clubs I mentioned giving up on their strategies. None are broke and all have been challenging for Euro places.