Premier League has charged LCFC with an alleged breach of PSR

[MPH]

I know the cost of Seagrave didn’t have to be included in PSR calculations, but i can’t help but wonder how much it costs to run each year…

 

its  massive.. 75 hectares.. 21 full pitches all the accommodations, gyms, pool, … and all the staff… the operating costs alone must be so much more than belvoir drive..

 

 

that’s got to be impacting us, surely? It’s got to be millions each year 

[Sky Blues]

4 hours ago, ThurmastonFox said:

This really needs sorting or dismissing. It has gone beyond putting the integrity of the league at risk. There really should be a cut off for investigation and punishment. If it looks like a club has breached announce a punishment, subject to appeal. Then at least it is in the open. 

Have you considered they might be waiting to see if a points deduction would mean you're relegated or not? If not then start next season with a points deduction? Might also be waiting to see if you make the playoffs for the same reason. 

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

Winks, Coady, Edouard, Begovic

Winks and coady - contracts in the championship was around 60k winks and 50k coady.  Went up last year.  Dropped back again this year for winks. 

edouard - premier league loan - have to pay premier league wages. Suspicion that we didn’t pay much of a loan fee - palace just wanted him off their books. If you spend nothing when you’re promoted then that calls the league into question .  We spent in summer 2024. Not much but we spent. Couldn’t not - have to attempt to compete.

 

Begovic - free agent probs earning 20k/week.

[Ric Flair]

44 minutes ago, Sky Blues said:

Have you considered they might be waiting to see if a points deduction would mean you're relegated or not? If not then start next season with a points deduction? Might also be waiting to see if you make the playoffs for the same reason. 

They can't do that, the verdict will be decided by the IC. The EFL cannot delay handing it down unless it's suspended and only active by a set of circumstances. 

[Lambert09]

Tbf it’s probably good we’re a bit awful. Because let’s say we’d turned things around like Ipswich, it would have been a real kick in the nads if they hit us with a big point deduction. At least from mid table, we’re likely safe and yet still had no real reason to believe we could go up (without some big changes) 
 

[LCFCJohn]

On 17/01/2026 at 10:07, st albans fox said:

I think we won’t hear anything until after the window is shut 

 

On 17/01/2026 at 10:30, kenny said:

The EFL will want to make sure our window is as unproductive as ever before announcing no charges this season.

 

On 17/01/2026 at 10:39, st albans fox said:

I think the club know the outcome. It will be withheld from publication under agreement of both parties 

You could definitely see how both parties would agree to this. No doubt Aiyawatt doesn’t want to spend anything so it probably suits him to have the fans think the lack of activity is down to this issue. If it was announced we were clear, it’d out pressure and expectation on him to improve the squad which he won’t want to do.

[Claudio Fannieri]

I am not sure the KPFC brigade will ever truly recognise the absolute carnage Rudkin and Aiyawatt have presided over and the financial meltdown that has followed. 
 

PSR gives people the opportunity to spin all sorts of crap to suit their narrative - 

 

1) Losing £105m over3 years is fine because we are PSR complaint so owners/DoF must be doing a good job 

 

2) As in our case some ignore that we lost £201.6m over 3 years instead spinning that we only breached by a much smaller margin because of ‘permissible losses’

 

As a club over 3 years we have on average been losing nearly £1.3m per week at what point do people wake up smell the coffee and realise this is not sustainable in any walk of life and sooner rather than later you run out of cash and become insolvent. Well guess what, if we haven’t already run out of cash we are bloody well close to it and I reckon by the end of the season we will have of be on the verge of defaulting on payment of wages or HMRC.

 

I cannot believe how incredibly naive some are to see those numbers and not be a) anger as to the level of incompetence in our boardroom, demanding change and b) concern that our beloved club is quite possibly at risk of entering administration and the threat of our very existence within the next 12 months is a very real possibility. 

Edited 19 January by Claudio Fannieri

[LCFCJohn]

25 minutes ago, Claudio Fannieri said:

I am not sure the KPFC brigade will ever truly recognise the absolute carnage Rudkin and Aiyawatt have presided over and the financial meltdown that has followed. 
 

PSR gives people the opportunity to spin all sorts of crap to suit their narrative - 

 

1) Losing £105m over3 years is fine because we are PSR complaint so owners/DoF must be doing a good job 

 

2) As in our case some ignore that we lost £201.6m over 3 years instead spinning that we only breached by a much smaller margin because of ‘permissible losses’

 

As a club over 3 years we have on average been losing nearly £1.3m per week at what point do people wake up smell the coffee and realise this is not sustainable in any walk of life and sooner rather than later you run out of cash and become insolvent. Well guess what, if we haven’t already run out of cash we are bloody well close to it and I reckon by the end of the season we will have of be on the verge of defaulting on payment of wages or HMRC.

 

I cannot believe how incredibly naive some are to see those numbers and not be a) anger as to the level of incompetence in our boardroom, demanding change and b) concern that our beloved club is quite possibly at risk of entering administration and the threat of our very existence within the next 12 months is a very real possibility. 

Bang on. Any other sector you’d be talking liquidation at those levels let alone not actually being critical of those who have presided over it as many of our fans are.

 

I actually wish they’d scrap PSR. Not because it’d mean we would compete again but it would remove the excuse. This has been self inflicted and if we had free reign spend, a) it’d expose Aiyawatt not wanting to and b) it’d be frittered on crap anyway and we’d be in the same position league and position wise. 
 

I (and many others likely) would have understood if mistakes had been made and rectified. But they have double down. They think the way to fix it is just not to buy anyone in certain windows whilst wasting shit loads in others (Ayew and Skipp for example). And that’s as someone who likes Skipp but obviously paid far far too much.

 

Also, the Thomas contract on a wage wise. In what way is that a better way of getting back on track that scouting and signing a young left back from the lower leagues/abroad on low wages? False economy. They just think it is a better option as no transfer fee but they clearly think it is just transfer fees and don’t even seemingly understand that wages are what is killing us!

[ClaphamFox]

1 hour ago, LCFCJohn said:

 

 

You could definitely see how both parties would agree to this. No doubt Aiyawatt doesn’t want to spend anything so it probably suits him to have the fans think the lack of activity is down to this issue. If it was announced we were clear, it’d out pressure and expectation on him to improve the squad which he won’t want to do.

We were charged by the PL and our case was reviewed by an independent panel. Neither the EFL nor ourselves will have much say in when the announcement is made. The most likely reasons for the delay are: 1) our case is not being fast-tracked because we’re not currently in the PL; 2) we likely haven’t admitted the charges but have strongly contested them, making our case more complicated than some previous ones; and 3) because ours will be the first ‘cross-jurisdiction’ case (ie, we were charged by the PL under EFL rules) and will therefore set a precedent for future cases, the panel will need to make its judgement as detailed and legally watertight as possible, which is adding time to the proceas.

Edited 19 January by ClaphamFox

[Muzzy_no7]

I cannot understand why it’s not already happened when the period for which it relates to at the latest is 21-24?

[Globalfox]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

We were charged by the PL and our case was reviewed by an independent panel. Neither the EFL nor ourselves will have much say in when the announcement is made. The most likely reasons for the delay are: 1) our case is not being fast-tracked because we’re not currently in the PL; 2) we likely haven’t admitted the charges but have strongly contested them, making our case more complicated than some previous ones; and 3) because ours will be the first ‘cross-jurisdiction’ case (ie, we were charged by the PL under EFL rules) and will therefore set a precedent for future cases, the panel will need to make its judgement as detailed and legally watertight as possible, which is adding time to the proceas.

Your point 1 does not apply since the case has been heard and is under review. Your point 2 is spot on yes we have not admitted guilt and once again are contesting badly constructed rules and language. Point 3 lies alongside point 2 and the dat at which these can be applied is critical. In law retrospective application is frowned upon so yes the commission will be trading very carefully to avoid a longer legal challenge. I think fans don’t understand the size of the workload facing the commissions. We are one of numerous cases led by the monster that is Man City look at the time that has been going on and it is clear that evidence and rule review is not clear. Timing linked to other events is nonsense the commission will rule when it does. Neither party has much say in that.

[lcfcfoz]

I think we'll find out early this week

[trooky]

2 hours ago, Claudio Fannieri said:

I am not sure the KPFC brigade will ever truly recognise the absolute carnage Rudkin and Aiyawatt have presided over and the financial meltdown that has followed. 
 

PSR gives people the opportunity to spin all sorts of crap to suit their narrative - 

 

1) Losing £105m over3 years is fine because we are PSR complaint so owners/DoF must be doing a good job 

 

2) As in our case some ignore that we lost £201.6m over 3 years instead spinning that we only breached by a much smaller margin because of ‘permissible losses’

 

As a club over 3 years we have on average been losing nearly £1.3m per week at what point do people wake up smell the coffee and realise this is not sustainable in any walk of life and sooner rather than later you run out of cash and become insolvent. Well guess what, if we haven’t already run out of cash we are bloody well close to it and I reckon by the end of the season we will have of be on the verge of defaulting on payment of wages or HMRC.

 

I cannot believe how incredibly naive some are to see those numbers and not be a) anger as to the level of incompetence in our boardroom, demanding change and b) concern that our beloved club is quite possibly at risk of entering administration and the threat of our very existence within the next 12 months is a very real possibility. 

The running of the club since the PSR penalty has been shambolic and even worse than the period that lead to the first breach.

 

1. The arrogance to take on the PL and win on a technicality knowing your fail or submit your accounts late for the next PSR period is insane.

2. Continue to pay high wages on mediocrity. 

3. Last season in the PL were were -43.8m euro on net transfers of money we don't have. 

4. Shocking managerial appointments and wasted more money on severance pay. 

 

The board have continued to act in a reckless manor and put the long term future of the club at risk, without learning from mistakes of the past or making any structural changes in the organization. 

[Finnegan]

16 hours ago, MPH said:

I know the cost of Seagrave didn’t have to be included in PSR calculations, but i can’t help but wonder how much it costs to run each year…

 

its  massive.. 75 hectares.. 21 full pitches all the accommodations, gyms, pool, … and all the staff… the operating costs alone must be so much more than belvoir drive..

 

 

that’s got to be impacting us, surely? It’s got to be millions each year 

 

Compared to our wage bill it's nothing. 

 

We've lost about half a billion in failed transfers and God knows what on over inflated wages, particularly for players that then sit on the bench or aren't even in the match day squad. 

 

You don't really have to look much beyond that to see why we are where we are. 

 

 

[ClaphamFox]

9 minutes ago, lcfcfoz said:

I think we'll find out early this week

Why?

[lcfcfoz]

Has to be soon for the fairness of the game

[Terraloon]

49 minutes ago, Globalfox said:

Your point 1 does not apply since the case has been heard and is under review. Your point 2 is spot on yes we have not admitted guilt and once again are contesting badly constructed rules and language. Point 3 lies alongside point 2 and the dat at which these can be applied is critical. In law retrospective application is frowned upon so yes the commission will be trading very carefully to avoid a longer legal challenge. I think fans don’t understand the size of the workload facing the commissions. We are one of numerous cases led by the monster that is Man City look at the time that has been going on and it is clear that evidence and rule review is not clear. Timing linked to other events is nonsense the commission will rule when it does. Neither party has much say in that.

Of course it’s subjective as to if there’s a delay but under the PL accelerated process there are  timelines/ expectations. For instance the requirements are that even any appeal is to be dealt with meaning from charge to settlement of appeal is to be dealt with in circa 20 weeks. We are now closer to 35 weeks since charges laid.
 

 

The question of jurisdiction re 23/24 has been settled at binding arbitration . I don’t believe that the IC are in a position to revisit that ruling so save the question re non submission on time of accounts not sure that that the ability of the PL to brings charges will stand up to any challenge. 
 

The limitation act is of course factored in PL disciplinary matters but the fact that the case is  in train mitigates any concerns re timing. Not sure how there is any way other way  in which this type of case can be dealt namely retrospectively but even if this matter went to appeal and or possibly arbitration it almost certainly will be settled in another 35 weeks  after the IC announcement ( guesstimate) this matter will not / cannot go further 

 

Once an IC is set up they very much become independent Counsel will of course be discussing matters with the PLs in house teams but just like the city case the PL won’t post the hearing have any involvement till the commission reports.

 

On that City commission their task is far far more complex if for no other reasons than there are 115+ charges each having to be explored both at commission and explained and ruled on in their orc publication.

 

LCFC charge will of course revolve mainly around the 23/24 numbers ( I don’t believe jurisdiction will be up for debate) then a very simple question of was they a requirement to submit accounts to the PL as per the PL rules and the third charge re failure to co operate normally would be discussed once a charge had been proven.

Edited 19 January by Terraloon

[VLC86]

25 minutes ago, lcfcfoz said:

Has to be soon for the fairness of the game

That’s a good one tbf, you got me.

[Globalfox]

56 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Of course it’s subjective as to if there’s a delay but under the PL accelerated process there are  timelines/ expectations. For instance the requirements are that even any appeal is to be dealt with meaning from charge to settlement of appeal is to be dealt with in circa 20 weeks. We are now closer to 35 weeks since charges laid.
 

 

The question of jurisdiction re 23/24 has been settled at binding arbitration . I don’t believe that the IC are in a position to revisit that ruling so save the question re non submission on time of accounts not sure that that the ability of the PL to brings charges will stand up to any challenge. 
 

The limitation act is of course factored in PL disciplinary matters but the fact that the case is  in train mitigates any concerns re timing. Not sure how there is any way other way  in which this type of case can be dealt namely retrospectively but even if this matter went to appeal and or possibly arbitration it almost certainly will be settled in another 35 weeks  after the IC announcement ( guesstimate) this matter will not / cannot go further 

 

Once an IC is set up they very much become independent Counsel will of course be discussing matters with the PLs in house teams but just like the city case the PL won’t post the hearing have any involvement till the commission reports.

 

On that City commission their task is far far more complex if for no other reasons than there are 115+ charges each having to be explored both at commission and explained and ruled on in their orc publication.

 

LCFC charge will of course revolve mainly around the 23/24 numbers ( I don’t believe jurisdiction will be up for debate) then a very simple question of was they a requirement to submit accounts to the PL as per the PL rules and the third charge re failure to co operate normally would be discussed once a charge had been proven.

You are correct one of the challenges is that since charges and hearings did not meet agreed timelines can an IC even rule on this. Jurisdiction and binding arbitration is another grey area as with promotion/relegation who was part of and covered by said arbitration. If these were all black and white a ruling likely would have come down by now. All commissions are struggling with badly written rules, arguments on grammar and missing punctuation, times when items were listed, incomplete minutes of agreements the list goes on. So supporters wait long times. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

3 hours ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

I cannot understand why it’s not already happened when the period for which it relates to at the latest is 21-24?

I'm going to start delivering parcels 2 years after they were posted.

[Chrysalis]

16 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Winks and coady - contracts in the championship was around 60k winks and 50k coady.  Went up last year.  Dropped back again this year for winks. 

edouard - premier league loan - have to pay premier league wages. Suspicion that we didn’t pay much of a loan fee - palace just wanted him off their books. If you spend nothing when you’re promoted then that calls the league into question .  We spent in summer 2024. Not much but we spent. Couldn’t not - have to attempt to compete.

 

Begovic - free agent probs earning 20k/week.

60k and 50k in the Championship is mental, those levels are not ok.

[Terraloon]

4 hours ago, Globalfox said:

You are correct one of the challenges is that since charges and hearings did not meet agreed timelines can an IC even rule on this. Jurisdiction and binding arbitration is another grey area as with promotion/relegation who was part of and covered by said arbitration. If these were all black and white a ruling likely would have come down by now. All commissions are struggling with badly written rules, arguments on grammar and missing punctuation, times when items were listed, incomplete minutes of agreements the list goes on. So supporters wait long times. 

The accelerated process is a PL “ rule” and whilst it is the PL prosecuting the FFP charge  the case is under the EFL rules therefore   LCFC find themselves answerable and directed under  those EFL rules where  the accelerated process is not part of their rules.
 

The arbitration ruling is relevant and LCFC agreed to that process ( they had no option but to) and as much as we might want to feel that that question of jurisdiction I don’t think that the arbitration panel left any area of doubt in their rulings

As for guessing how long a commission will take is nearly impossible indeed simple little things like a commission members illness, holiday,,  commitment elsewhere or maybe they are looking at the claims to aggravation and mitigation after they have reached decisions regarding guilt or otherwise all could be part of the reasons.

Edited 19 January by Terraloon

[suffolk fox]

A lot of what ifs, maybes, and pure speculation in all of these posts.  Even seasoned lawyers don't actually have a clue about what or may happen.

Ride out the storm and what will be will be.  Personally am glad we are mid table this season.  It would hit people more harder if we were challenging for promotion then get hit with a points deduction.

 

Staying in this awful league is paramount this season. 

 

Get rid of a load of out of contract dross in the Summer and go  again next season. 

[funkyrobot]

20 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Winks and coady - contracts in the championship was around 60k winks and 50k coady.  Went up last year.  Dropped back again this year for winks. 

edouard - premier league loan - have to pay premier league wages. Suspicion that we didn’t pay much of a loan fee - palace just wanted him off their books. If you spend nothing when you’re promoted then that calls the league into question .  We spent in summer 2024. Not much but we spent. Couldn’t not - have to attempt to compete.

 

Begovic - free agent probs earning 20k/week.

Winks has been on approx 90k a week since he joined us in The Championship in 23/24 season.

That’s what he’s being paid now too. 

[st albans fox]

20 minutes ago, funkyrobot said:

Winks has been on approx 90k a week since he joined us in The Championship in 23/24 season.

That’s what he’s being paid now too. 

And you know that for sure ?