Premier League has charged LCFC with an alleged breach of PSR

[iancognito]

26 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Not defending the club particularly, but surely the reason we got a poor manager was because we had the deduction looming over us? Same for player signings.

 

Had the charges been sorted during close of season, as they should be for anyone (doing it mid-season is just ridiculous), then I think we'd have been able to recruit a better standard than we did.

 

So, maybe we did break the rules. Sort it out then!

 

Not sure the club would have wanted it deciding early, gives Nick and the other lawyers longer to find a new loophole or mitigation and tbh I don't believe the club go out to find a 'poor' manager. He just happens to be as random as every other managerial appointment since Sousa.

 

5 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

Clearly messing, everyone knows it’s flat!

And 2015/16 was filmed in a warehouse in Arizona. Vardy nailed that volley in one take apparently.

[87fox]

1 hour ago, Stadt said:

We just missed out on the £80m allowable loss threshold by a mere £120,000,000.

 

This isn't true, we haven't exceeded it by £120m. That figure is before allowable losses have been deducted.

After addbacks / allowable losses, we're likely to be in the region of exceeding the £83m allowable loss for the 3 years ending 2024 by somewhere around £20m to £30m.

We still deserve everything/anything coming our way, but it's important not to spread misinformation (even unintentionally, as I'm sure yours was).

Edited 19 November 2025 by 87fox

[Bourbon Fox]

14 hours ago, jayfox26 said:

Any club that spends £20m on Skipp should be given an immediate points deduction

 

I mean you kind of get that what with having him on the pitch...

 

Like Daka. Absolute points deduction of a player.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

1 hour ago, Stadt said:

“But but but Man City”

 

Don’t give a shit about them, most of those charges are from 10 years ago when the rules have changed so much since. We just missed out on the £80m allowable loss threshold by a mere £120,000,000. 
 

We deserve to have the book thrown at us.

 

Unlucky, it could have gone either way. Don't blame the owner he's trying his best.

[87fox]

5 hours ago, 87fox said:

This isn't true, we haven't exceeded it by £120m. That figure is before allowable losses have been deducted.

After addbacks / allowable losses, we're likely to be in the region of exceeding the £83m allowable loss for the 3 years ending 2024 by somewhere around £20m to £30m.

We still deserve everything/anything coming our way, but it's important not to spread misinformation (even unintentionally, as I'm sure yours was).

The top of page 3 in this document confirms from one of the previous hearings that we exceeded the 3 years ending 2023 by £19.5m after allowable losses had been deducted.

The calculation for the 3 years ending 2024 sees FY2021's £33.1m loss come off, and FY2024's £19.4m loss replace it (+£13.7m). Our allowance for that period is reduced by £22m because of being in the EFL (notwithstanding the potential argument at next week's hearing for the interpretation of "T" in the rules).

Some of the addbacks will change, but our breach for the 3 years ending 2024 should be in the region of £28m.

Now, if De Marco is going down the "T" argument route, and is successful, we'd be looking at a loss in the region of £6m.

Edited 19 November 2025 by 87fox

[Foxin_Mad]

14 hours ago, Chelmofox said:

I know you are pi55ed off, but thats just a stupid comment. Many clubs have spent too much on certain players, and Skipp (although nowhere near good enough) is on a long amortised deal. Heck, he's 'only' cost a bit more than certain players who have barely played for us (looking at you Souttar). We could still break even if we manage to offload him (we somehow got > £11mil for Kasey!!).

 

Unless you are advocating points deductions and transfer embargos for any club what gets a signing wrong?

Souttar is a good Championship defender, probably better than anything we have currently. Its not his fault that successive managers have preferred to put soft tippy tappy tarts at centre back rather than someone who can head and boot it out. He was actually very good at Sheffield United before getting a bad injury, which may have cost Sheffield United promotion, up until his injury they had conceded very few goals. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, iancognito said:

 

Not sure the club would have wanted it deciding early, gives Nick and the other lawyers longer to find a new loophole or mitigation and tbh I don't believe the club go out to find a 'poor' manager. He just happens to be as random as every other managerial appointment since Sousa.

 

And 2015/16 was filmed in a warehouse in Arizona. Vardy nailed that volley in one take apparently.

No, I'm saying that because of that hanging over us, the better managers weren't interested and we had to pick the low hanging fruit.

[ClaphamFox]

1 hour ago, 87fox said:

The top of page 3 in this document confirms from one of the previous hearings that we exceeded the 3 years ending 2023 by £19.5m after allowable losses had been deducted.

The calculation for the 3 years ending 2024 see FY2021's £33.1m loss come off, and FY2024's £19.4m loss replace it (+£13.7m). Our allowance for that period is reduced by £22m because of being in the EFL (notwithstanding the potential argument at next week's season for the interpretation of "T" in the rules).

Some of the addbacks will change, but our breach for the 3 years ending 2024 should be in the region of £28m.

Now, if De Marco is going down the "T" argument route, and is successful, we'd be looking at a loss in the region of £6m.

So much will come down to how well we argue the case for mitigation. Everton's breach was £19.5m and they were given a 10-point deduction, reduced on appeal to six points. Forest's was £34.5m and they were given just a four-point deduction. The breach figure itself only provides a very rough guide to the punishment—the lawyers have a major influence on the outcome. 

[urban.spaceman]

4 hours ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

I think the clubs biggest defence is that they didn’t go out to cheat (like some clearly have done) but they’re just really incompetent and got signing after signing spectacularly wrong. We actually tried to adhere and fit within the rules (the windows where we didn’t buy and really needed to) and prior incompetency meant we’ve effectively punished ourselves. Have we benefited from pushing the boundaries or breaking the PSR rules? If the answer is no, how can it be morally right to punish us further for just being really really inept?

Martin Samuel’s article back in August is a really important read

 

 

The Leicester City bit:

 

One look at spiralling Leicester exposes ugly truth behind the PSR lie

 

Aston Villa will return to the swampy middle and Newcastle United are struggling to become the force they should be, but it is probably the fate of Leicester City that is making fans finally see the truth about Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR).

 

Leicester went into this weekend labouring in the bottom half of the Championship. Rules have been introduced so that they could now be deducted points for past financial infringements while down there. Who knows where this ends? Maybe League One, if the spiral cannot be addressed. Leicester made mistakes and have been punished for them; and punished for them; and punished for them. They are a shadow of the club that gave many of us our biggest thrill watching football.

 

Take away the successes of your own team, and what is the greatest achievement you have witnessed in football? For many it would be Leicester winning the Premier League in 2015-16.

 

It wasn’t supposed to happen. “Champions of England, you’ll never sing that,” taunted the supporters of a handful of clubs, and we believed them. We would never see the league won again, unless it was in the colours of an elite participant. And along came Leicester.

 

For one brief, brilliant season, anything truly was possible. Every supporter of a club outside the privileged band remembers how that made them feel. So to see them relegated for the second time since, to see them pursued and penalised for their mistakes, for daring to have ambition, exposes the truth behind the PSR lie.

 

Leicester City players and manager celebrating Premier League victory.

Leicester are a shadow of the title-winning 2015-16 team

 

LAURENCE GRIFFITHS/GETTY IMAGE

 

It is not about debt. It was never about debt. Newcastle, majority-owned by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, would not have debt. This is about investment, ambition, competition. PSR is a barrier to entry, a basic tenet of competition law. Barriers to entry protect incumbent firms and restrict competition in a market.

 

In football’s case it is an incumbent elite, and they have a lot of fans and influencers out there to make their protectionist case, hiding behind dark warnings of bankruptcy or a threat of monopolisation — when the monopolies already exist. But these barriers to entry are working too well, and now people are beginning to see what happens to any club that dares to rise and make a challenge. Villa’s squad has been denuded, before them Wolverhampton Wanderers. Newcastle’s ambition is thwarted at every turn. But Leicester are the ones. Watching that club taken down so dramatically, so soon after delivering the greatest Premier League season, people start to see through the rules.

 

It is no surprise the elite are the biggest supporters of PSR, the ones putting constant pressure on Richard Masters and the Premier League. There are serious gains to be made. And not just preserving places at the top. Take Tottenham Hotspur. Daniel Levy is among the most prominent advocates of PSR. His club are, if not exactly up for sale, certainly open to suggestions. There was talk of interest from Qatar, as always, and it is believed somewhere between £2 billion and £3 billion is the magic number. That, however, is predicated on Tottenham being a top-six presence, and regular Champions League participants. Over the past decade, if we include this season, Tottenham have played in the Champions League in six of ten campaigns.

 

Yet what if Newcastle were unfettered? Could Tottenham make a claim to regular Champions League football in the coming years if Newcastle joined Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea and Manchester City in financially outmuscling them? Would Villa, Nottingham Forest and others now outside the elite become bolder spenders, given the chance? Newcastle, without restraint, might make Tottenham an upper mid-table proposition for buyers rather than one of the elite. And that might wipe as much as £1 billion off what the Enic Group is believed to want for Tottenham.

 

All the more reason for the wealthy establishment to support PSR. Not as a barrier to debt, but a barrier to entry. And at last people are realising. Once again, we should be grateful to Leicester.

 

And from July (I think)

 

Leicester victims of PSR quadruple jeopardy

Leicester City would like to make a managerial change; that much seems obvious. Ruud van Nistelrooy won four league matches in his tenure, two of which came after relegation, against teams that, like Leicester, were already down. They cannot move, however, because of Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR). Leicester already fear a vindictive 12-point deduction in the Championship next season, and paying off Van Nistelrooy would make their financial predicament worse. Any player who may be considered an asset, such as goalkeeper Mads Hermansen, will have to be sold, weakening them further. Russell Martin, considered a managerial target, has now taken the job at Rangers, and there is a worry that two other candidates, Danny Röhl, of Sheffield Wednesday, and Sean Dyche, may be lost to them too.

 

Bournemouth v Leicester City, Premier League - 25 May 2025

Leicester may be stuck with Van Nistelrooy next season as they look to navigate PSR rules

GRAHAM HUNT/PROSPORTS/SHUTTERSTOCK

Leicester erred with Van Nistelrooy, and that’s what PSR does — it cements mistakes in place, with no second chances. So Leicester will be relegated, suffer a points deduction in the league below and conduct a fire sale of what little talent the club do possess, while being stuck with a manager who has shown little aptitude for the job. No one is arguing the club have not been run poorly, but PSR ensures they get no opportunity to change course. This isn’t double jeopardy, it’s quadruple jeopardy. It is almost as if the Premier League won’t rest until it kills a club, just to show it can.

 

I maintain the position I’ve had since 2023. The club handled it terribly and repeatedly made mistakes. The Premier League and EFL are corrupt, their financial rules are anticompetitive and are designed to entrap and repeatedly punish any club who tries to compete. The club is absolutely right to fight this in the courtroom and the longer they have to do that, the more it reinforces my argument about these leagues being corrupt and anticompetitive. 

[Les-TA-Jon]

40 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

I maintain the position I’ve had since 2023. The club handled it terribly and repeatedly made mistakes. The Premier League and EFL are corrupt, their financial rules are anticompetitive and are designed to entrap and repeatedly punish any club who tries to compete. The club is absolutely right to fight this in the courtroom and the longer they have to do that, the more it reinforces my argument about these leagues being corrupt and anticompetitive. 

I agree. 

 

Although I think we really have to question why clubs like Brighton, Brentford, Bournemouth, Villa and Newcastle have been able to survive the shift into the 'PSR era' whilst staying reasonably competitive, compared to our (self-inflicted?) death spiral? Note that when PSR really started to bite, we were also there in a position of relative strength - i.e two Top 6 finishes

 

Even the clubs that breached and got charged for it - Everton and Forest - have something to show for it - PL status secured at least and potential or realised top half finishes 

 

We managed to breach 2-4 times, get relegated twice and still end up with an imbalanced squad of overpaid average players

Edited 19 November 2025 by Les-TA-Jon

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

I agree. 

 

Although I think we really have to question why clubs like Brighton, Brentford, Bournemouth, Villa and Newcastle have been able to survive the shift into the 'PSR era' whilst staying reasonably competitive, compared to our (self-inflicted?) death spiral? Note that when PSR really started to bite, we were also there in a position of relative strength - i.e two Top 6 finishes

I think it's because we were ahead of those teams, in as much as we did it first, so they got to see our mistakes and this coupled with the fact that we utterly failed to adapt our 'sell 1 asset a season' approach when that market evaporated or slowed. We should have accepted some lower valuations and restricted signings to more value markets like South America or Eastern Europe.

[LCFCJohn]

22 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

I think it's because we were ahead of those teams, in as much as we did it first, so they got to see our mistakes and this coupled with the fact that we utterly failed to adapt our 'sell 1 asset a season' approach when that market evaporated or slowed. We should have accepted some lower valuations and restricted signings to more value markets like South America or Eastern Europe.

I’m not sure if you were including the region within Eastern Europe but Scandinavia!

 

I know VK and that. But also Hermansen was very good for us. Also Vestergaard bad, Schmeichel good etc.

 

But if asked who the best strikers currently are (form aside) or over the last year, I bet Isak (Sweden), Gyokeres (Sweden) and Haaland (Norway) are the top 3 for many. Yes Kane, Mbappe as well.

 

Despite a bit of joy from Denmark, we are terrible at using these markets.

[Oldblueyes]

Our financial system seems to have a bring and buy feel about it. We buy the rubbish from clubs desperate to get rid, then sell our better players on a closing down sale price.

[moore_94]

 

[Ric Flair]

Just now, moore_94 said:

 

Yeah, I was told the club are confident it'll be a max of 6 but they think possibly 4.

[ClaphamFox]

3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Yeah, I was told the club are confident it'll be a max of 6 but they think possibly 4.

I would love it to be just four as that would unleash a wave of hysterical anguish and disbelief among rival fans who had been suckered in by the reports of 12 points etc, and there are few things in life more beautiful to behold than that. 

Edited 19 November 2025 by ClaphamFox

[Pliskin]

3 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

 

Didn’t he predict “up to 12” when we were let off last time? 

[Pliskin]

I think any amount of deduction will be pretty bad for us…. Especially whilst Marti is still here, we’re seemingly making no progress at all, so 4 points could still be extremely costly come the end of the season. 

[Bourbon Fox]

1 hour ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

I agree. 

 

Although I think we really have to question why clubs like Brighton, Brentford, Bournemouth, Villa and Newcastle have been able to survive the shift into the 'PSR era' whilst staying reasonably competitive, compared to our (self-inflicted?) death spiral? Note that when PSR really started to bite, we were also there in a position of relative strength - i.e two Top 6 finishes

 

Even the clubs that breached and got charged for it - Everton and Forest - have something to show for it - PL status secured at least and potential or realised top half finishes 

 

We managed to breach 2-4 times, get relegated twice and still end up with an imbalanced squad of overpaid average players

Not going to claim that the management of the club has been anything but terrible, but this is one of the points that Samuel makes - slip up for one season or one window, one signing, and the effects compound upon each other because you can't pay to undo your problems without further breaches.

 

It means that the margin for error of the clubs you mention is much, much smaller than those clubs at the top of the financial tree.

 

All of the clubs you mentioned are a couple of cock-ups away from big trouble; our leadership just happens to have done particularly badly, hence our current position. 

[davieG]

2 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

I think any amount of deduction will be pretty bad for us…. Especially whilst Marti is still here, we’re seemingly making no progress at all, so 4 points could still be extremely costly come the end of the season. 

I'd rather wait until January before writing Marti off even then it depends if they can shift the dross and recruit some decent replacements.

[Dahnsouff]

10 minutes ago, davieG said:

I'd rather wait until January before writing Marti off even then it depends if they can shift the dross and recruit some decent replacements.

Think it would depend who the likely replacement was. If it was someone likely to inspire (or terrorise) the squad, then pull the trigger, but if its more of the same, then wait.

 

Might we also want to wait for out football guru Technical Director is in the house anyway?

[urban.spaceman]

52 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

I agree. 

 

Although I think we really have to question why clubs like Brighton, Brentford, Bournemouth, Villa and Newcastle have been able to survive the shift into the 'PSR era' whilst staying reasonably competitive, compared to our (self-inflicted?) death spiral? Note that when PSR really started to bite, we were also there in a position of relative strength - i.e two Top 6 finishes

 

Even the clubs that breached and got charged for it - Everton and Forest - have something to show for it - PL status secured at least and potential or realised top half finishes 

 

We managed to breach 2-4 times, get relegated twice and still end up with an imbalanced squad of overpaid average players

You answered your own question! Yes, we've been uniquely harmed by PSR because of where we were when the rules were tightened. The pivotal time here is April 2021. The night we got through to the FA Cup final is the same night they announced their Super League. That season (our second 5th place finish) saw Villa, Newcastle and Brighton finish 11th, 12th and 16th. The following season, when we finished 8th, they finished 14th, 11th and 9th. We were already suffering the damage of having to self sabotage in order to comply; they were already on the rise and had leapfrogged us into the European places in 22/23 while we were getting relegated. 

 

Everton and Forest (and this is where we start descending into the quagmire the Premier League have created) were deducted points after the seasons in which they should have been given them. If they'd been given them in the correct season - 22/23, BOTH clubs would have been relegated and we would have stayed up. 

[urban.spaceman]

24 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

 

Borson knows **** all. He's just generating content for TalkSport. He's been wrong again and again and again. 

[urban.spaceman]

And again

[davieG]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

Think it would depend who the likely replacement was. If it was someone likely to inspire (or terrorise) the squad, then pull the trigger, but if its more of the same, then wait.

 

Might we also want to wait for out football guru Technical Director is in the house anyway?

Would also depend on the compensation level, do we use what cash we have for a replacement or spend it on a striker that has a recent history of scoring goals.