6 point deduction - confirmed

[Corky]

6 hours ago, Jazzy_Jeff said:

This might have come at a good time for us. Surely an independent adjudicator would say that you can’t dock points from a team for doing what we’ve done but give a) Chelsea a slap on the wrist for much worse and b) nothing for Man City yet 

We have been punished based on the PSR mechanisms. Chelsea's issue, while worse, has no bearing on our case.

[wurmer]

12 hours ago, ozleicester said:

The game is fvcked

Bit like everything to be honest.

[Wortho]

21 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

For once, this is really good piece. 

 

The section on Chelsea having the same mitigating circumstances applied 3 times to reduces 3 different punishments is hilarious.

 

How it's been deemed that £50m worth of secret payments to players/agents etc etc isn't for competitive gain, and the fact it has been hidden for over 7 years is also laughable. "The acts of former owners" being a term used to reduce punishment as well. 

 

Laughing stock.

Great post!!

[Vestan Pance]

14 hours ago, Corky said:

We have been punished based on the PSR mechanisms. Chelsea's issue, while worse, has no bearing on our case.

Technically yes, but considering they finished fourth the two seasons we missed out on Champions League I'd say there is a bearing. Despite the incompetence of KPFC, reaching the CL on either occasion would have made a huge difference to us.

No doubt they'll be lawyers from several clubs looking at the possibilities.

[davieG]

Nick De Marco KC, who represented Leicester and Forest in their legal cases, did not comment directly on the Chelsea sanction but said it was vital a consistent approach was adopted by the football authorities.
‌He wrote on X: "When it is argued, in various football disputes, that points deductions must be imposed even for inadvertent breaches, in order to vindicate compliant clubs, one has to wonder whether that reflects a genuine commitment to consistent strict enforcement in all cases, or is simply a position adopted for the purposes of a particular case.
"Consistency is very important in sport – the lack of it can undermine public confidence in the integrity of the whole game.
"I do not comment on any one individual case, I just hope that those involved in the decision-making processes can see the merit in treating each case according to its particular circumstances rather than being inflexible in some, but very flexible in others.
‌
"That, I am sure, would help restore the confidence in sports arbitration we all wish for."

 

-----------

 

Simon Leaf, a partner at Three Points Law and the co-author of the chapter on financial regulation in the 'Football and the Law' textbook, told the Press Association on Tuesday that the agreement Chelsea reached was "the deal of the decade".
‌
The agreement referenced the fact that the payments – which in part were to agents to facilitate transfer deals – would not have caused a breach of the league's profitability and sustainability rules (PSR).
However, Leaf said it was "difficult to dispute" that Chelsea had gained a sporting advantage through making these payments, which helped seal deals for star names such as Eden Hazard, Willian and Ramires, and said it was a "sleight of hand" to only consider the payments from a PSR perspective.
Clubs have privately expressed surprise at the decision when contacted by PA, and Mail Sport has reported that senior executives from a number of Premier League clubs have contacted the league's chief executive Richard Masters demanding an explanation for the Chelsea decision.

Clubs are due to gather for one of their regular shareholders' meetings in central London on Thursday, and it remains to be seen whether any executives will raise the issue there.

[woznotwos]

Is anyone else just sick of the whole thing. I'm seriously about done with football. They are taking the soul from it.  

[snoopy87]

What's the story with the appeals from both sides? It's all gone very quiet.

 

Part of me thinks the numptys in charge are hopeful this will be rescinded and that's what keeps us up.

[Bert]

2 minutes ago, snoopy87 said:

What's the story with the appeals from both sides? It's all gone very quiet.

 

Part of me thinks the numptys in charge are hopeful this will be rescinded and that's what keeps us up.

Oh they’re hopeful of course, they wouldn’t have appealed it otherwise. 

[snoopy87]

6 minutes ago, Bert said:

Oh they’re hopeful of course, they wouldn’t have appealed it otherwise. 

Yeah I know. Worded that wrong really. More they're not bothered with the on pitch because this will be fine to keep us up.

 

Do we even know who struck first? Did we or did the Premier League appeal first?

[Wsl]

My guess is that we appealed first - because it was fairly clear then when the judgment was first handed down that our on pitch performances would not be good enough - and the PL cross-appealed. The PL are not re-opening the whole thing; they have limited their appeal to the point that no sanction was given for the late submission of accounts, and I think submitting that it should be an additional one point. Largely to make the point that there should be some sanction if there is a breach, but I don't think they'd have bothered to do that on its own as it doesn't bind anyone in any way (although you could argue it creates a precedent; that's the highest it goes). But once we appealed so they'd have to be a hearing in any event, it's no surprise that they decided that they may as well cross-appeal but keep the point to a narrow short argument. 

[stevostadium]

I think whether the points deduction gets increased or decreased is immaterial, were down regardless.

 

What's the realistic chances of getting further deductions next year in league 1?

If we do then i think that could be game over i really do

[Bert]

I genuinely wouldn’t be surprised if one of their arguments is that a points deduction could seriously harm the future of the clubs existence. 

[Wsl]

8 minutes ago, Bert said:

I genuinely wouldn’t be surprised if one of their arguments is that a points deduction could seriously harm the future of the clubs existence. 

Given that regulatory sanctions are always supposed to be proportionate it would be a sensible argument to run, but it would involve Top and Rudkin not just acknowledging the dire straits the club is in, but putting forward some evidence that this is what would happen. But we promote, so I don't think they could bring themselves to present that argument. 

[OntarioFox]

59 minutes ago, Bert said:

Oh they’re hopeful of course, they wouldn’t have appealed it otherwise. 

It's acutely obvious at this point that our ownership - and their sycophants - don't live in the real world.

 

The whole grubby affair is going to come to a climax next year when we're trying to keep everything above water on League One revenue with a single parachute payment remaining and a threadbare squad. No amount of court proceedings are changing a damn thing for the trajectory we're on - in League One we would be a year from potential bankruptcy.

 

People are openly talking about administration - and even liquidation - both in the stands and the media. The horse has bolted and what little pride and honour this club has left is being dragged through the dirt behind it as it runs towards the cliff edge.

 

It's possible it happens to us even in the Championship, of course, but League One would be truly terminal. I think I read that Seagrave alone would cost as much to run for a year as we'd make in revenue in the third tier? That's before literally everything else, from player wages, to the stadium, to the day to day staff, to Belvoir Drive and the ladies team.

 

So yeah, by all means let them waste their energy fighting the points deduction in the courts to deflect from the half decade of terrible financial and football decisions that lead us here. It won't change a damn thing at this rate - we're never returning to the Premier League, which is King Power's only financial strategy, with this squad, academy and ownership. We're f**ked whether we're in the second or third tier, it's just a matter of how soon the tipping point comes.

[Bert]

3 minutes ago, Wsl said:

Given that regulatory sanctions are always supposed to be proportionate it would be a sensible argument to run, but it would involve Top and Rudkin not just acknowledging the dire straits the club is in, but putting forward some evidence that this is what would happen. But we promote, so I don't think they could bring themselves to present that argument. 

But again this boils down to a lack of accountability from the people that are the ones supposed to be made accountable. 

[lcfcfoz]

When will this be resolved?

[Sly]

2 hours ago, lcfcfoz said:

When will this be resolved?

My guess is the summer. 

[LCFCJohn]

They should absolutely not reverse or change at all for that matter, the deduction. It would make an absolute farce of the competition.

[JimJams]

Points deductions should never happen during a season but implementing them at the end of the season would be farcical and tempts calls of corruption.

[Parker Pen]

14 minutes ago, JimJams said:

Points deductions should never happen during a season but implementing them at the end of the season would be farcical and tempts calls of corruption.

I totally agree and they should be applied at the start of the next season. I feel that the looming six points weighed significantly on the playing and coaching staff during the weeks beforehand; especially our soft centred lot and also gives any team in that position a definite sporting psychological disadvantage. 
 

But if the authorities get their appeal timings wrong, Just imagine the scenario that if by some miracle we stay up on goal difference on the last day of the season and they hit us with that extra point deduction or if we get relegated by a point and then they reinstate us 2 and relegate the team that survived!

[Wsl]

5 hours ago, lcfcfoz said:

When will this be resolved?

From other press I've read I think the PL came out with a statement and said an appeal board would set up to hear it "urgently" so that it can be all resolved before May and the end of the season so there's no doubt about who's relegated. 

[Likely Fox]

Lost the appeal 😞 

[snoopy87]

https://www.lcfc.com/pages/en/media-article/leicester-city-lcfc-statement-8-april-2026?fbclid=IwdGRjcARDTwBjbGNrBENO4mV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHt4G_LKwocoQQEtvZcZBmgWoYljK_hEk2ZSLaveptRi3DDhLJIivhGZq8x20_aem_TzxoknL3cB3wJ-YA5wcX7w

 

That answers that then

[davieG]

We acknowledge that an independent Commission’s decision to recommend a six-point deduction on the Club has been upheld by an independent Appeal Board.

The decision, accepted by the Club, relates to our profit and sustainability position for the three-year period to June 2024.

[AKCJ]

Nice waste of time and money.

 

Wonder if Aiyawatt will start taking accountability.