6 point deduction - confirmed

[Parker Pen]

2 hours ago, Claudio Fannieri said:

https://smry.ai/proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fsport%2Ffootball%2Farticle-15532515%2FLeicester-City-points-deduction.html
 

brilliant article by Tom Collomose 

I think Rudkin is scared of strong characters and as quoted in the article we appointed Ciifuentes

when Wilder had said that he would come in and shake things up!  I can imagine a rage fuelled Wilder kicking down his door.  Also Not being in contact with another strong willed character Mareaca as well is damning.
It’s shit because these six points would’ve been manageable had they appointed someone like Wilder in the summer as I feel the points deduction would be moving us out of the play offs rather than placing us in the precarious position we are now in.

[gerblod]

18 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

The other day I posted advising people to  look away from City & Chelsea . They aren’t relevant to the situation leading up to the 6 point deduction people need to direct their anger to where it should be directed and that is the owner .

 

I know that LC will have spent a fortune on the legal team and I suppose they did all they could in trying to muddy the waters  at the IC however the hand they were dealt was a loser but  if what is said around submitting the accounts for instance I do worry about the advice that has been given or maybe given but either not understood or ignored.

 

It’s clear to me from some of the comments in the written reasons that the IC were far from happy with how the club’s arguments which  in effect turned full circle  and that would have done little to nothing to convince or get  the IC on board.

 

Ok six points, a number I was suggesting, is worse than no points and yes it makes a second relegation more likely but don’t get fooled . A club just relegated from the PL with millions still flowing by way of parachute payments is dealt a far better hand when it comes to fighting a further relegation and to be honest a six point’s deduction really shouldn’t be that damaging if LC  was anything close to a well run club.

 

Let that sink in for one moment.

 

In terms of squad costs the club should be over the hill and far away when it comes to facing  relegation. Falling  further was something I dismissed but looking at form alone I genuinely believe that it’s now more likely than not the club will be plying its trade in EFL 1 come season 26/27.
 

This saga, and that’s what it is, hasn’t come about because of a club claiming  ambition it’s down to incompetence and that for me shows no likelihood in ending any time soon. There’s an owner who clearly ignored advice from in-house financial “ experts”.

 

I am not surprised at when  the numbers were laid bare but what do they say about when you are in a hole ? Had the club come out yesterday and taken it on the chin then maybe I personally would be able to view things a little bit softer but when the club almost snubs its nose then sorry I can’t view it ant other way than the club , no Top, got what he deserved the fans don’t deserve it and whilst I am always mindful of the the adage “ Be careful what you wish for” at this time I genuinely wonder if anything could be worse.

 

 

Well stated!

 

Just a niggle for me though - we're 'City' on here and in our support area  - any other 'city' should be named as their full title - in this case, Manchester City. 

[RonnieTodger]

What was the point in paying Nick De Marco a fortune to kick the can down the road?

 

It would have made sense if we actually made an attempt to stay up last season. 

[AKCJ]

Just now, RonnieTodger said:

What was the point in paying Nick De Marco a fortune to kick the can down the road?

 

It would have made sense if we actually made an attempt to stay up last season. 

Not only that but to eventually get a points deduction anyway in a manner that puts us in genuine danger.

 

We should have accepted that we were doomed last season and made sure we got the bullet when we were already dead.

 

It's all just persistent with the fact that Aiyawatt and Rudkin are completely winging it and they do not understand the situation.

[Twitcher]

4 hours ago, LCFCJohn said:

Oh like we were fine in 22/23 with the players we had? 

When I say fine, it's all relative. I don't mean fine in that we'll soon be challenging the traditional top six in the Premier League, like some dillusioned fans believe we should. I mean fine in that we won't go down. I genuinely believe we'll be good enough to stay up. Yes we're a **** show, but, good enough to stay up.

 

As for the board, I don't know what they're bleating about. Don't break the ******* rules! Circumstances, what circumstances? The only circumstances are bringing in second rate players and paying them too much money. As a club, we've already got lucky in the past when we went into Admin. avoiding a points loss. Take the punishment, move on, and look in the mirror if you want this club to be sorted out!

Edited 6 February by Twitcher

[Mickyblueeyes]

42 minutes ago, gerblod said:

You appear to be privy to information most of us don't have. Don't criticise supporters who have no idea of what's gone on behind the scenes. It's one player, apparently, not the whole team and the lads still need backing - that's what supporters are supposed to do. Direct your frustrations at the culpable. Let's have the ***** named and shamed. He should be suspended and sold off. 

Privy to information ? It’s in the article 

[davieG]

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/2167418/11-things-learned-Premier-League-Leicester-points-deduction

 

11 things learned from Premier League's 100-page Leicester report as Foxes docked points
Leicester City have been handed a six-point deduction for breaching EFL rules and have dropped down to 20th place in the Championship table as a result.

Share Article

Bookmark
2
Comments
By Charlie Malam
18:29, Thu, Feb 5, 2026 Updated: 18:33, Thu, Feb 5, 2026
Leicester City v ACF Fiorentina - Pre-Season Friendly

Leicester City have been handed a six-point deduction (Image: Getty)
Leicester City have been handed a six-point deduction for the current Championship season, which drops them near the relegation zone, and the Premier League have released a 100-page commission report which details the complex legal battle between the Premier League (PL) and Leicester City FC (LCFC). The Foxes were found to have breached the EFL's profit and sustainability rules for the 2023/24 season and an independent commission recommended the six-point sanction, which was implemented by the EFL board today. Express Sport looks at seven takeaways from the Premier League's report...

1. £9.6million substitute
The report stated that if the EFL was "unwilling or unable" to enforce the recommended six-point deduction, the Commission would impose a £9.6million financial penalty as a substitute sanction. This figure was calculated to serve as a punishment and to vindicate other clubs that complied with the rules.

But the financial aspects discussed in the report are tied to the Rules B.18 and W.1 breaches (disclosure) rather than being a direct "buy-out" for the points deduction, which the EFL has now ratified and applied immediately. So Leicester do not need to pay the fine as a result.

2. Breaches of disclosure obligations
Beyond the financial overspend, the Commission found LCFC in breach of disclosure rules (Rules B.18, W.1, and W.16).

Refusal to provide accounts: The club refused to provide its FY24 Annual Accounts when requested by the PL.

Jurisdictional defence: LCFC argued the PL had no power to request these accounts, but the Commission rejected this, noting that clubs remain bound by rules during investigations even after changing leagues.

3. The "37-month" dispute
A major technical argument centred on whether LCFC’s losses should be assessed over 36 or 37 months.

Accounting extension: Because LCFC changed its financial year-end in 2023, its audited accounts for the three-year period actually covered 37 months.

The difference: The PL alleged the overspend was £42.1 million over 37 months, compared to £23.6 million if only 36 months were counted.

Decision: The Commission ruled that the rules require assessment based on the actual "Annual Accounts," meaning the 37-month period stood.

4. Leicester’s competition law challenge
LCFC attempted to have the case thrown out by arguing the PL’s rules breached the Competition Act 1998.

Ground 1: They argued that applying EFL sanctioning guidelines to a club now in the PL was "unfair and disproportionate".

Ground 2: They challenged the "Variable Upper Loss Threshold," which sets different loss limits (£83m vs £105m) based on time spent in the Championship.

Outcome: The Commission rejected both grounds, ruling the measures were necessary to prevent clubs from "gambling" on promotion through overspending.

5. Mitigating and aggravating factors
The final six-point sanction was reached after weighing several factors:

Positive trend (Mitigation): LCFC received a one-point reduction because their losses were trending downwards, showing an intent to eventually comply.

Lack of "exceptional co-operation": The Commission denied further mitigation, noting that LCFC's legal tactics had "disrupted and delayed" the investigation.

Sporting Advantage: The PL argued that by overspending, LCFC avoided having to sell star players at "undervalues," which helped them stay competitive in the Championship.

6. Legal "U-turns"
The report highlights that LCFC’s legal position shifted significantly during the hearing. Initially, the club argued for a delayed points deduction (to be served only if they returned to the PL), but by the end of the trial, they argued the Commission had no power to impose any sporting sanction at all, pushing for a fine instead.

7. The "unprecedented" sanction
Leicester City expressed "profound disappointment" in their official statement, specifically calling out the Premier League for seeking what the club described as an "unprecedented" and "disproportionate" sanction.

The club argued that the league’s pursuit of a six-point deduction (on top of the threat of a massive fine) ignored the unique circumstances of their transition between divisions and represented an attempt by the Premier League to exert "overreaching authority" beyond its jurisdiction.

8. The "double jeopardy" argument
 Leicester’s legal team argued that they were being punished twice for the same financial period—once by the EFL (who previously placed them under a registration embargo) and now by the Premier League. The Commission rejected this, ruling that an EFL embargo is a "compliance tool" while a points deduction is a "punishment," meaning they are legally distinct.

9. The "fair play" definition
A significant portion of the 100 pages is dedicated to defining what "fair play" actually means in a financial context. The Premier League argued that Leicester’s overspend wasn't just a numbers error, but a "deliberate choice" to maintain a squad they could not afford, thereby gaining a sporting advantage over clubs that stayed within their means.

The 100-page report also goes into exhaustive detail about the "March 2025 Arbitration Tribunal," which was the turning point that allowed the Premier League to investigate a club that was technically in the Championship at the time of the breach.

10. Implications for future cases
The report sets a legal precedent for "relegated/promoted" clubs. It confirms that the Premier League retains the power to punish a club for a breach that occurred while they were a member, even if that club is now in a different league (the EFL) by the time the verdict is reached.

11. Executive testimony
The report references testimony from Leicester’s senior leadership. It highlights that the club felt "trapped" by high player wages and long-term contracts signed during their years of success (including their European campaigns), arguing that the "cliff-edge" of relegation made it impossible to balance the books quickly enough to meet the 37-month deadline.

 

[ceebeefox]

15 hours ago, Zear0 said:

Lot of time for Winter, genuinely does his research. 

He lives in Rutland, talks to a lot of City fans.

[kenny]

12 minutes ago, davieG said:

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/2167418/11-things-learned-Premier-League-Leicester-points-deduction

 

11 things learned from Premier League's 100-page Leicester report as Foxes docked points
Leicester City have been handed a six-point deduction for breaching EFL rules and have dropped down to 20th place in the Championship table as a result.

Share Article

Bookmark
2
Comments
By Charlie Malam
18:29, Thu, Feb 5, 2026 Updated: 18:33, Thu, Feb 5, 2026
Leicester City v ACF Fiorentina - Pre-Season Friendly

Leicester City have been handed a six-point deduction (Image: Getty)
Leicester City have been handed a six-point deduction for the current Championship season, which drops them near the relegation zone, and the Premier League have released a 100-page commission report which details the complex legal battle between the Premier League (PL) and Leicester City FC (LCFC). The Foxes were found to have breached the EFL's profit and sustainability rules for the 2023/24 season and an independent commission recommended the six-point sanction, which was implemented by the EFL board today. Express Sport looks at seven takeaways from the Premier League's report...

1. £9.6million substitute
The report stated that if the EFL was "unwilling or unable" to enforce the recommended six-point deduction, the Commission would impose a £9.6million financial penalty as a substitute sanction. This figure was calculated to serve as a punishment and to vindicate other clubs that complied with the rules.

But the financial aspects discussed in the report are tied to the Rules B.18 and W.1 breaches (disclosure) rather than being a direct "buy-out" for the points deduction, which the EFL has now ratified and applied immediately. So Leicester do not need to pay the fine as a result.

2. Breaches of disclosure obligations
Beyond the financial overspend, the Commission found LCFC in breach of disclosure rules (Rules B.18, W.1, and W.16).

Refusal to provide accounts: The club refused to provide its FY24 Annual Accounts when requested by the PL.

Jurisdictional defence: LCFC argued the PL had no power to request these accounts, but the Commission rejected this, noting that clubs remain bound by rules during investigations even after changing leagues.

3. The "37-month" dispute
A major technical argument centred on whether LCFC’s losses should be assessed over 36 or 37 months.

Accounting extension: Because LCFC changed its financial year-end in 2023, its audited accounts for the three-year period actually covered 37 months.

The difference: The PL alleged the overspend was £42.1 million over 37 months, compared to £23.6 million if only 36 months were counted.

Decision: The Commission ruled that the rules require assessment based on the actual "Annual Accounts," meaning the 37-month period stood.

4. Leicester’s competition law challenge
LCFC attempted to have the case thrown out by arguing the PL’s rules breached the Competition Act 1998.

Ground 1: They argued that applying EFL sanctioning guidelines to a club now in the PL was "unfair and disproportionate".

Ground 2: They challenged the "Variable Upper Loss Threshold," which sets different loss limits (£83m vs £105m) based on time spent in the Championship.

Outcome: The Commission rejected both grounds, ruling the measures were necessary to prevent clubs from "gambling" on promotion through overspending.

5. Mitigating and aggravating factors
The final six-point sanction was reached after weighing several factors:

Positive trend (Mitigation): LCFC received a one-point reduction because their losses were trending downwards, showing an intent to eventually comply.

Lack of "exceptional co-operation": The Commission denied further mitigation, noting that LCFC's legal tactics had "disrupted and delayed" the investigation.

Sporting Advantage: The PL argued that by overspending, LCFC avoided having to sell star players at "undervalues," which helped them stay competitive in the Championship.

6. Legal "U-turns"
The report highlights that LCFC’s legal position shifted significantly during the hearing. Initially, the club argued for a delayed points deduction (to be served only if they returned to the PL), but by the end of the trial, they argued the Commission had no power to impose any sporting sanction at all, pushing for a fine instead.

7. The "unprecedented" sanction
Leicester City expressed "profound disappointment" in their official statement, specifically calling out the Premier League for seeking what the club described as an "unprecedented" and "disproportionate" sanction.

The club argued that the league’s pursuit of a six-point deduction (on top of the threat of a massive fine) ignored the unique circumstances of their transition between divisions and represented an attempt by the Premier League to exert "overreaching authority" beyond its jurisdiction.

8. The "double jeopardy" argument
 Leicester’s legal team argued that they were being punished twice for the same financial period—once by the EFL (who previously placed them under a registration embargo) and now by the Premier League. The Commission rejected this, ruling that an EFL embargo is a "compliance tool" while a points deduction is a "punishment," meaning they are legally distinct.

9. The "fair play" definition
A significant portion of the 100 pages is dedicated to defining what "fair play" actually means in a financial context. The Premier League argued that Leicester’s overspend wasn't just a numbers error, but a "deliberate choice" to maintain a squad they could not afford, thereby gaining a sporting advantage over clubs that stayed within their means.

The 100-page report also goes into exhaustive detail about the "March 2025 Arbitration Tribunal," which was the turning point that allowed the Premier League to investigate a club that was technically in the Championship at the time of the breach.

10. Implications for future cases
The report sets a legal precedent for "relegated/promoted" clubs. It confirms that the Premier League retains the power to punish a club for a breach that occurred while they were a member, even if that club is now in a different league (the EFL) by the time the verdict is reached.

11. Executive testimony
The report references testimony from Leicester’s senior leadership. It highlights that the club felt "trapped" by high player wages and long-term contracts signed during their years of success (including their European campaigns), arguing that the "cliff-edge" of relegation made it impossible to balance the books quickly enough to meet the 37-month deadline.

 

Sporting Advantage: The PL argued that by overspending, LCFC avoided having to sell star players at "undervalues," which helped them stay competitive in the Championship.

 

It feels like selling player assets at below market rate is part of the plan of PSR.

 

The PL need to ditch the S.

[LCFCJohn]

40 minutes ago, Twitcher said:

When I say fine, it's all relative. I don't mean fine in that we'll soon be challenging the traditional top six in the Premier League, like some dillusioned fans believe we should. I mean fine in that we won't go down. I genuinely believe we'll be good enough to stay up. Yes we're a **** show, but, good enough to stay up.

 

As for the board, I don't know what they're bleating about. Don't break the ******* rules! Circumstances, what circumstances? The only circumstances are bringing in second rate players and paying them too much money. As a club, we've already got lucky in the past when we went into Admin. avoiding a points loss. Take the punishment, move on, and look in the mirror if you want this club to be sorted out!

Yeah I realised you meant about going down. But my point was, doesn’t that sound much like the way people were talking in 22/23? Many of the underlying data shows us to be a bottom 3 performing side even before the deduction. We are bang in trouble and I reckon if we stay up, it is more down to others (West Brom or Blackburn) being even worse.

 

Second section yeah I agree with every word.

[CosbehFox]

33 minutes ago, ceebeefox said:

He lives in Rutland, talks to a lot of City fans.

My respect for Winter grew when I heard in an interview that he attempts to reach out to various fan groups pre-game or charity drives, so he can have a chat with people about their club and get a proper feel for the fans feelings rather than reliant on others. 

[Spudulike]

It's going to be interesting what the effect will be on this seasons relegated clubs, Wolves, West Ham? Notts F , in respect of Point 11 over the 37 months. One or two of the established clubs is likely to go down with unsellable players on massive long-term contracts.

[Benji]

Don't fancy reading the full report but is it fair to say that if we'd just have complied with filing accounts etc rather than arguing at every stage, we'd have just received 2 points for the overspend...?

[pkonline]

Hopefully a line in the sand - it looks like we complied 24/25, and hopefully this season. Having this hangover us has been demoralising and has meant even when we wanted to invest, we haven't hopefully it should mean a little more freedom moving forward - whatever division we are in.

[filbertway]

All I can gather is that as a club we're the equivalent of those knobhead "auditors" on social media.

[hackneyfox]

1 hour ago, Twitcher said:

. D. As a club, we've already got lucky in the past when we went into Admin. avoiding a points loss. 

We didn’t avoid a points deduction, there was nothing in the rules about a points deduction for going into admin. Many clubs had gone into admin before us and similarly hadn’t been hit with a points deduction. We had the audacity to go bust and still get promoted (more than ten points ahead of the team in third).

[BenTheFox]

1 hour ago, ceebeefox said:

He lives in Rutland, talks to a lot of City fans.

*East Leicestershire 

[Foxin_Mad]

Surely the Leeds thing is kind of Irrelevant as we could argue if the Premier League were quicker Everton would have had points deducted the year we went down, and possibly Forest too. The sporting advantage comment in there is complete bullshit, we have been relegated and are on the verge of League 1, probably League 2 in another years time, the sporting advantage was non existent. 

Edited 6 February by Foxin_Mad

[Chrysalis]

Why is the club trying to drag this out instead of moving on?

[Foxin_Mad]

2 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Why is the club trying to drag this out instead of moving on?

Because they are idiots who refuse to accept any responsibility for the mess they have got us into. Who suffers the fans, watching the inept bunch of overpaid clowns pass it sideways and backwards, with the overpaid useless spineless squad assembled by Rudkin and co. 

[Chrysalis]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/2167418/11-things-learned-Premier-League-Leicester-points-deduction

 

11 things learned from Premier League's 100-page Leicester report as Foxes docked points
Leicester City have been handed a six-point deduction for breaching EFL rules and have dropped down to 20th place in the Championship table as a result.

Share Article

Bookmark
2
Comments
By Charlie Malam
18:29, Thu, Feb 5, 2026 Updated: 18:33, Thu, Feb 5, 2026
Leicester City v ACF Fiorentina - Pre-Season Friendly

Leicester City have been handed a six-point deduction (Image: Getty)
Leicester City have been handed a six-point deduction for the current Championship season, which drops them near the relegation zone, and the Premier League have released a 100-page commission report which details the complex legal battle between the Premier League (PL) and Leicester City FC (LCFC). The Foxes were found to have breached the EFL's profit and sustainability rules for the 2023/24 season and an independent commission recommended the six-point sanction, which was implemented by the EFL board today. Express Sport looks at seven takeaways from the Premier League's report...

1. £9.6million substitute
The report stated that if the EFL was "unwilling or unable" to enforce the recommended six-point deduction, the Commission would impose a £9.6million financial penalty as a substitute sanction. This figure was calculated to serve as a punishment and to vindicate other clubs that complied with the rules.

But the financial aspects discussed in the report are tied to the Rules B.18 and W.1 breaches (disclosure) rather than being a direct "buy-out" for the points deduction, which the EFL has now ratified and applied immediately. So Leicester do not need to pay the fine as a result.

2. Breaches of disclosure obligations
Beyond the financial overspend, the Commission found LCFC in breach of disclosure rules (Rules B.18, W.1, and W.16).

Refusal to provide accounts: The club refused to provide its FY24 Annual Accounts when requested by the PL.

Jurisdictional defence: LCFC argued the PL had no power to request these accounts, but the Commission rejected this, noting that clubs remain bound by rules during investigations even after changing leagues.

3. The "37-month" dispute
A major technical argument centred on whether LCFC’s losses should be assessed over 36 or 37 months.

Accounting extension: Because LCFC changed its financial year-end in 2023, its audited accounts for the three-year period actually covered 37 months.

The difference: The PL alleged the overspend was £42.1 million over 37 months, compared to £23.6 million if only 36 months were counted.

Decision: The Commission ruled that the rules require assessment based on the actual "Annual Accounts," meaning the 37-month period stood.

4. Leicester’s competition law challenge
LCFC attempted to have the case thrown out by arguing the PL’s rules breached the Competition Act 1998.

Ground 1: They argued that applying EFL sanctioning guidelines to a club now in the PL was "unfair and disproportionate".

Ground 2: They challenged the "Variable Upper Loss Threshold," which sets different loss limits (£83m vs £105m) based on time spent in the Championship.

Outcome: The Commission rejected both grounds, ruling the measures were necessary to prevent clubs from "gambling" on promotion through overspending.

5. Mitigating and aggravating factors
The final six-point sanction was reached after weighing several factors:

Positive trend (Mitigation): LCFC received a one-point reduction because their losses were trending downwards, showing an intent to eventually comply.

Lack of "exceptional co-operation": The Commission denied further mitigation, noting that LCFC's legal tactics had "disrupted and delayed" the investigation.

Sporting Advantage: The PL argued that by overspending, LCFC avoided having to sell star players at "undervalues," which helped them stay competitive in the Championship.

6. Legal "U-turns"
The report highlights that LCFC’s legal position shifted significantly during the hearing. Initially, the club argued for a delayed points deduction (to be served only if they returned to the PL), but by the end of the trial, they argued the Commission had no power to impose any sporting sanction at all, pushing for a fine instead.

7. The "unprecedented" sanction
Leicester City expressed "profound disappointment" in their official statement, specifically calling out the Premier League for seeking what the club described as an "unprecedented" and "disproportionate" sanction.

The club argued that the league’s pursuit of a six-point deduction (on top of the threat of a massive fine) ignored the unique circumstances of their transition between divisions and represented an attempt by the Premier League to exert "overreaching authority" beyond its jurisdiction.

8. The "double jeopardy" argument
 Leicester’s legal team argued that they were being punished twice for the same financial period—once by the EFL (who previously placed them under a registration embargo) and now by the Premier League. The Commission rejected this, ruling that an EFL embargo is a "compliance tool" while a points deduction is a "punishment," meaning they are legally distinct.

9. The "fair play" definition
A significant portion of the 100 pages is dedicated to defining what "fair play" actually means in a financial context. The Premier League argued that Leicester’s overspend wasn't just a numbers error, but a "deliberate choice" to maintain a squad they could not afford, thereby gaining a sporting advantage over clubs that stayed within their means.

The 100-page report also goes into exhaustive detail about the "March 2025 Arbitration Tribunal," which was the turning point that allowed the Premier League to investigate a club that was technically in the Championship at the time of the breach.

10. Implications for future cases
The report sets a legal precedent for "relegated/promoted" clubs. It confirms that the Premier League retains the power to punish a club for a breach that occurred while they were a member, even if that club is now in a different league (the EFL) by the time the verdict is reached.

11. Executive testimony
The report references testimony from Leicester’s senior leadership. It highlights that the club felt "trapped" by high player wages and long-term contracts signed during their years of success (including their European campaigns), arguing that the "cliff-edge" of relegation made it impossible to balance the books quickly enough to meet the 37-month deadline.

 

This seems to suggest the self imposed transfer embargo in that fateful season didnt achieve much, and the bigger impact on a penalty is the lack of cooperation in investigations.  Attempted mitigation by doing this like selling KDH was only worth a 1 point mitigation? 

[Chrysalis]

Just now, Foxin_Mad said:

Because they are idiots who refuse to accept any responsibility for the mess they have got us into. Who suffers the fans, watching the inept bunch of overpaid clowns pass it sideways and backwards, with the overpaid useless spineless squad assembled by Rudkin and co. 

My thoughts also, they just refuse to accept they have done wrong.

[Sky Blues]

52 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

It's going to be interesting what the effect will be on this seasons relegated clubs, Wolves, West Ham? Notts F , in respect of Point 11 over the 37 months. One or two of the established clubs is likely to go down with unsellable players on massive long-term contracts.

They would get relegated with 3 years of Prem payments. The 100m would go a long way to sorting things out.

[Long Eaton Fox]

Well the delay in the points deduction is perfect timing for the PL. No need last season as we were down from the start. Now gives us little time to recover. No manager. Possibly league 1 next season. Their revenge would be complete.  I wonder if the 4 new signings were informed of this situation. Hopefully but if not I'm not expecting 100% from them.

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

That breeds dysfunction. It breeds situations where at least one senior player was known to stroll defiantly around the pitch during training sessions, infuriating team-mates who were giving 100 per cent.
 

seriously, this is the shit we have in our squad and people want to “back the lads”

Its Winks isn't it.  I take it all back, he is a twat.