6 point deduction - confirmed

[ClaphamFox]

4 hours ago, RumbleFox said:

Glad we lost the appeal tbf. 

From what I can gather our appeal was an attempt to offset the PL’s appeal to increase the deduction. So I suspect the club is quietly satisfied with today’s outcome. 

[DJW1]

5 hours ago, inckley fox said:

Has the PL's appeal (to deduct more points) also been rejected, or only ours?

Their appeal has been rejected also

[Wsl]

5 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

From what I can gather our appeal was an attempt to offset the PL’s appeal to increase the deduction. So I suspect the club is quietly satisfied with today’s outcome. 

The PL only cross appealed for one point or some sanction to be applied to the failure to submit accounts, and did not appeal the 6 point deduction on the main grounds. That’s clear from the decision. Looks like we appealed because Top and Ruskin realised it would likely take us down. They pretty much announced that intention as soon as the decision was given months ago. So the PL threw in a cross appeal given there was going to be a hearing anyway. In other words, we started it as a last throw of the dice to avoid relegation. And lost. I don’t know the timing of the appeal notices, but I’d be willing to bet we didn’t appeal to off set anything; it was a desperate attempt to get the whole six point deduction removed, and I don’t believe the club are quietly satisfied at all. They lost on all three grounds of appeal.

[PAULCFC]

5 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

Not expecting one for 24/25.

With the club at the moment.......Not expecting one and what actually happens are two different things!

[1972 Fox]

5 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

Not expecting one for 24/25.

TBF, your recent track record in making these types of statements/predictions is not good.

 

I think I'll wait for a more informed source to reassure me on future breaches or punishments.

 

Edited 8 April by 1972 Fox

[ClaphamFox]

5 minutes ago, PAULCFC said:

With the club at the moment.......Not expecting one and what actually happens are two different things!

We would have heard by now if we were going to be charged for 24/25.

[PAULCFC]

1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said:

We would have heard by now if we were going to be charged for 24/25.

Didn't know that.Thank's for the reply!

[ClaphamFox]

2 minutes ago, 1972 Fox said:

TBF, your recent track record in making these types of statements/predictions is not good.

 

I think I'll wait for a more informed source to reassure me on future breaches or punishments.

 

I predicted that we’d get a maximum 6-7 point deduction when others were predicting 12+. I don’t think I was too far out there…

[1972 Fox]

5 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I predicted that we’d get a maximum 6-7 point deduction when others were predicting 12+. I don’t think I was too far out there…

Fair enough, but I was actually referring to last week when you questioned someone when they said we were about to announce a £70m loss.

 

The level of incompetence of our hierarchy appears to have no ceiling, so best not to be too confident that there won't be more sanctions going forward after we relegate!

[Terraloon]

8 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

We would have heard by now if we were going to be charged for 24/25.

Not sure that’s right. Sorry.

 

There was absolutely no way that there would have been a charge whilst the appeal was still live. 
 

I somehow doubt that the EFL , because that’s who would complete the investigation but under the PL rules, would issue anything before the seasons end nor can I see any way in which the club could be compliant .

 

Was it you that mentioned Borson changing his opinion? I have looked for a comment from him re his change of mind are you able to provide a link ?
 

 

[ClaphamFox]

6 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Not sure that’s right. Sorry.

 

There was absolutely no way that there would have been a charge whilst the appeal was still live. 
 

I somehow doubt that the EFL , because that’s who would complete the investigation but under the PL rules, would issue anything before the seasons end nor can I see any way in which the club could be compliant .

 

Was it you that mentioned Borson changing his opinion? I have looked for a comment from him re his change of mind are you able to provide a link ?
 

 

 

[Terraloon]

26 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I mentioned the 36 /37 month issue as being an issue some weeks ago but the original IC made specific reference to it not necessarily being the approach going forward indeed it was only because the PL had in effect made a concession however even if the EFL apply the same “ allowance” which is not guaranteed it’s certainly not in the £20 m ball park that would be needed.

 

[stevostadium]

15 hours ago, Terraloon said:

The PLs appeal was to make a point and send the message to member clubs. 
 

LC either were very badly advised or simply didn’t grasp the consequences of 1) kicking the can down the road 2) being belligerent 

 

This hasn’t ended yet. 

I believe it has ended.

The PL  were the first to appeal to the 6 points deduction. LCFC then went in with a counter appeal.

I am told by someone at the club that the matter is now closed.

[ClaphamFox]

38 minutes ago, stevostadium said:

I believe it has ended.

The PL  were the first to appeal to the 6 points deduction. LCFC then went in with a counter appeal.

I am told by someone at the club that the matter is now closed.

If the PL’s appeal indeed came first (which I also have been told is the case), then it was a no-brainer for us to launch our own appeal. What did we have to lose? We’ll never know whether it had any influence (the appeal board may well have rejected  the PL’s appeal irrespective) but it clearly didn’t do any harm.

[jammie82uk]

10 hours ago, 1972 Fox said:

Fair enough, but I was actually referring to last week when you questioned someone when they said we were about to announce a £70m loss.

 

The level of incompetence of our hierarchy appears to have no ceiling, so best not to be too confident that there won't be more sanctions going forward after we relegate!

Why shouldn’t it be questioned? I questioned it too and it wasn’t because of anything the club said so for me It wasn’t hard to think that it wouldn’t be as high as £70 million, we lost £19 million the season before and the independent commission said a mitigation measure was “a positive financial trend”  

[Wsl]

16 minutes ago, stevostadium said:

I believe it has ended.

The PL  were the first to appeal to the 6 points deduction. LCFC then went in with a counter appeal.

I am told by someone at the club that the matter is now closed.

I don't know where this is coming from - this idea that that the PL appealed so we had to appeal in turn and that the PL appealed against the substantive points deduction. I can't find any evidence of who was first to appeal. Both appeals appear to have been submitted on the last day to appeal. We don't get to see the Notices of Appeal either. 

But more importantly, it's just plain wrong to say the PL appealed the 6 points deduction. That's demonstrably untrue. It is crystal clear from the decision itself that the PL never appealed that. 

 

So if the source for saying that the PL appealed first is also saying that the PL appealed the 6 points deduction, then they're clearly wrong on the nature of the appeal so I doubt their accuracy as to who went first.

 

I'd bet a reasonable sum of money that we appealed first because we were desperate (as unlikely as it was, a successful appeal by us was the best hope of staying up). Then the PL thought if you're going to do that and they'll have to be a hearing then we may as well throw in an appeal on the basis you got no specific sanction applied for the breach of failing to submit accounts and argue that we should get one more point. So that's what they did. An appeal on that one narrow point for one additional point. The odds I'd get would be lousy though.

 

Linklaters are advising the PL and I'd be astonished if they'd advised that they'd be successful in getting one more point added on - there's a band of discretion that means you don't win those arguments on appeal, and the PL did not. We also means you don't launch an appeal on that basis. But you do throw it in if the other side have already appealed so you're all going to be up in front of the Appeal Board anyway.

 

It doesn't matter now anyway; we've run out of road now, and no neatly constructed arguments will make a blind bit of difference. It's back to the on the pitch performances. It's just telling that the "leadership" of the club have so little faith and confidence in that when push comes to shove that they instructed de Marco KC to switch to a plea for a fine rather than points, and took the appeal as far as they could. 

[Terraloon]

1 hour ago, stevostadium said:

I believe it has ended.

The PL  were the first to appeal to the 6 points deduction. LCFC then went in with a counter appeal.

I am told by someone at the club that the matter is now closed.

When I say it’s not ended I am not exclusively talking about the 23/24 year. The impact of the overspends will continue to work against LC to the point that having to somehow only be allowed at most a £39 m overspend ability over 3 years will massively damage unless either there is a switch to SCR or pro back to the PL is achieved.

[AKCJ]

14 hours ago, jammie82uk said:

Ai have issued an denial 😂

 

“That text is very likely to have been written by a human, or at least heavily edited by a professional communications team, rather than being generated purely by AI “from scratch.”

Style and structure
•    The passage reads like a careful, board-approved club statement: measured, repetitive in key phrases (“independent Commission… independent Appeal Board”), and deliberately bland in tone.
•    AI-generated text often shows slightly more fluid transitions and more varied phrasing, whereas this is tightly controlled and formulaic, which is typical of in-house PR/legal drafting.”

"Deliberately bland in tone" perfectly sums up Leicester City's communications department.

[Terraloon]

11 minutes ago, Wsl said:

I don't know where this is coming from - this idea that that the PL appealed so we had to appeal in turn and that the PL appealed against the substantive points deduction. I can't find any evidence of who was first to appeal. Both appeals appear to have been submitted on the last day to appeal. We don't get to see the Notices of Appeal either. 

But more importantly, it's just plain wrong to say the PL appealed the 6 points deduction. That's demonstrably untrue. It is crystal clear from the decision itself that the PL never appealed that. 

 

So if the source for saying that the PL appealed first is also saying that the PL appealed the 6 points deduction, then they're clearly wrong on the nature of the appeal so I doubt their accuracy as to who went first.

 

I'd bet a reasonable sum of money that we appealed first because we were desperate (as unlikely as it was, a successful appeal by us was the best hope of staying up). Then the PL thought if you're going to do that and they'll have to be a hearing then we may as well throw in an appeal on the basis you got no specific sanction applied for the breach of failing to submit accounts and argue that we should get one more point. So that's what they did. An appeal on that one narrow point for one additional point. The odds I'd get would be lousy though.

 

Linklaters are advising the PL and I'd be astonished if they'd advised that they'd be successful in getting one more point added on - there's a band of discretion that means you don't win those arguments on appeal, and the PL did not. We also means you don't launch an appeal on that basis. But you do throw it in if the other side have already appealed so you're all going to be up in front of the Appeal Board anyway.

 

It doesn't matter now anyway; we've run out of road now, and no neatly constructed arguments will make a blind bit of difference. It's back to the on the pitch performances. It's just telling that the "leadership" of the club have so little faith and confidence in that when push comes to shove that they instructed de Marco KC to switch to a plea for a fine rather than points, and took the appeal as far as they could. 

Good summary. 
 

The PL was I believe pretty clear that the non submission of the accounts was an aggravating factor and should as a minimum have nullified the  mitigating factor .

I do wonder if both the IC and at the appeal there should have been a financial penalty for what was an absolute ridiculous stand LC took on non submission of accowhich would always have to be submitted to either the PL or indeed the EFL. What was to be gained from a LC perspective?

[Wsl]

13 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Good summary. 
 

The PL was I believe pretty clear that the non submission of the accounts was an aggravating factor and should as a minimum have nullified the  mitigating factor .

I do wonder if both the IC and at the appeal there should have been a financial penalty for what was an absolute ridiculous stand LC took on non submission of accowhich would always have to be submitted to either the PL or indeed the EFL. What was to be gained from a LC perspective?

We were lucky; ordinarily you'd expect a sanction (even if small) for each breach. And it was a miracle we didn't get hit with a points uplift for aggravation. And the Appeal Board agree with you that it was a ridiculous stand -
Mr Segan submitted that this was a serious breach of the disclosure obligation. We agree. As the Commission put it, it involved LCFC’s “repeated refusal to provide information reasonably sought by the PL [which was] capable of prejudicing the effective and timely operation of the disciplinary process”, a process which concerned “a serious breach by [the Club] of the P&S Rules” which warranted “an immediate points deduction in the current season”. When refusing to disclose the Accounts, LCFC must have known that disclosure would confirm the P&S Rules breach; such a refusal to disclose Accounts is egregious misconduct by a Club; and the Club advanced no positive reason for the refusal “other than its deference to its [undisclosed] legal advice” .

 

But the PL also argued that the failure to disclose the accounts was part and parcel of the same conduct that led to the PSR breaches, which left an open door for the Appeal Board to say, yup, and as such the Commission were entitled to treat the non-disclosure breach as aggravating the P&S Rule breaches, rather than imposing a separate sanction for it. It also meant that if the 6 points gave credit for an improving financial situation, also included and rolled up into it the serious failure to produce accounts to the PL and didn't add anything for non-cooperation, our appeal never stood a chance.

 

As many on this forum have noted, on that basis, we were lucky it was just 6.

[jammie82uk]

1 hour ago, Wsl said:

As many on this forum have noted, on that basis, we were lucky it was just 6.

I don’t think we was lucky, I think 6 points was exactly right considering what had been agreed on previously with Everton & Nottingham Forest 

[ClaphamFox]

37 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

I don’t think we was lucky, I think 6 points was exactly right considering what had been agreed on previously with Everton & Nottingham Forest 

The “lucky vs expected” debate comes down to how people judged the two extra charges. Certain sections of the media seemed convinced they’d significantly increase the points deduction; others thought they’d have little to no impact at all.

 

The latter group were ultimately proved correct. But, as @Terraloon points out, above, that wasn’t necessarily a foregone conclusion.

[Lambert09]

Just read an article about our failed challenge, it kept mentioning an alternative punishment of 9.6m which we also challenged as too high.

 

Can someone clear this up, could we have taken the fine? Please tell me we didn’t actually chose the points over 10m that would go down as one of the dumbest moves we’ve ever made. But if it’s not an option why did we even challenge it? 

[ClaphamFox]

3 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

Just read an article about our failed challenge, it kept mentioning an alternative punishment of 9.6m which we also challenged as too high.

 

Can someone clear this up, could we have taken the fine? Please tell me we didn’t actually chose the points over 10m that would go down as one of the dumbest moves we’ve ever made. But if it’s not an option why did we even challenge it? 

I’m pretty sure the choice wasn’t ours, but the EFL’s.

[Terraloon]

7 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

Just read an article about our failed challenge, it kept mentioning an alternative punishment of 9.6m which we also challenged as too high.

 

Can someone clear this up, could we have taken the fine? Please tell me we didn’t actually chose the points over 10m that would go down as one of the dumbest moves we’ve ever made. But if it’s not an option why did we even challenge it? 

The IC went through a series of calculations which resulted in the conclusion that if the EFL refused to/ didn’t impose the points deduction that a sum of £1.6 million should be paid as alternative to each point. So 6x £1.6 = £9.6m