Leeds open legal proceedings

[fox_favourite]

2 minutes ago, Long Eaton Fox said:

If the 6 point deduction was applied to our championship winning season then we would be still 1 point ahead of leeds. No difference. We get promoted they finish third

Also they forget they had a very slow start, which also cost them. That wasn't our fault. 

[Long Eaton Fox]

Also we would not have got relegated last season with 6 more points.

[ShadowKing]

So who can Leicester sue to offset this loss? Everton? Forest? Manchester City? Chelsea?

[Foxmeister]

4 hours ago, st albans fox said:

At this time, neither club have been found guilty of any psr breaches. 

Isn’t there a time bar on these things ??

The limitation period only starts from when the claimant becomes aware of the breach so, were they to be found guilty, it would be 3 years from the  date of that judgment.

[ClaphamFox]

1 hour ago, Long Eaton Fox said:

If the 6 point deduction was applied to our championship winning season then we would be still 1 point ahead of leeds. No difference. We get promoted they finish third

This is what makes Leeds' case very difficult to prove. Burnley's entire case against Everton centred on material facts—ie, if Everton's six-point deduction had been imposed in 22/22, Everton would have gone down and Burnley would have stayed up. Leeds cannot make the same argument for 23/24 because we'd still have finished ahead of them even with the deduction, as you say. Leeds must therefore be planning to argue that the advantage we gained from our PSR breach was worth more than the six points imposed by an independent panel, then upheld by an appeal board. This takes it out of the realm of material facts and into one of speculation and subjective judgment. Their case is clearly much, much weaker than Burnley's.

[Foxmeister]

2 hours ago, Terraloon said:

Sorry what would be your starting point ?
 

As St Albans says at this time neither club has been found guilty of any PSR excesses. 
 

LCFC issues have been confirmed by various panels who say that LCFC exceeded the allowable sums . As I said in my earlier post the wording in Chelsea’s settlement agreement and sanctioned by a formal IC makes it clear that what you are dealing with isn’t a PSR matter but a matter of payments not made in accord with process , even then that settlement agreement makes it absolutely clear that had Chelsea not co operated indeed they themselves put forward and agreed to scenarios around those payments that weren’t able to be proved even to the level of beyond reasonable doubt.
 

 

Beyond reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof applied in criminal cases. These cases are civil matters decided on the balance of probabilities. 

[Long Eaton Fox]

So basically by appealing  and delaying the charge we've made things  worse for ourselves. No title but promotion, and the championship not league 1. Thanks board!

[Stopharage]

If they win, immediately go into administration. Offer them a penny in the pound. 
 

Just forget about all of other ramifications. We’re nothing but petty. 

[Long Eaton Fox]

4 minutes ago, Stopharage said:

If they win, immediately go into administration. Offer them a penny in the pound. 
 

Just forget about all of other ramifications. We’re nothing but petty. 

I think you get a 20 point deduction for administration.

[Terraloon]

23 minutes ago, Foxmeister said:

Beyond reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof applied in criminal cases. These cases are civil matters decided on the balance of probabilities. 

Sorry I have no idea why I put beyond reasonable doubt. 
 

On that point one thing that has intrigued me is the Man City CAS outcome. 
 

Both at UEFA and CAs they apply the burden of proof as being Comfortable Satisfaction. I wrongly had assumed that would be similar to Balance of Probability so to a degree I didn’t question the assumption being made that if there is the same evidence that a PL commission would probably reach the same conclusion if there wasn’t any more evidence.

However I have done a little more reading and Comfortable Satisfaction is believed to be a higher level of proof.

[Terraloon]

22 minutes ago, Stopharage said:

If they win, immediately go into administration. Offer them a penny in the pound. 
 

Just forget about all of other ramifications. We’re nothing but petty. 

The main ramification would be it is that owing money to Leeds would be classified as a football creditor. That in effect would have to be paid at 100p in the £

[Foxmeister]

1 hour ago, Terraloon said:

Sorry I have no idea why I put beyond reasonable doubt. 
 

On that point one thing that has intrigued me is the Man City CAS outcome. 
 

Both at UEFA and CAs they apply the burden of proof as being Comfortable Satisfaction. I wrongly had assumed that would be similar to Balance of Probability so to a degree I didn’t question the assumption being made that if there is the same evidence that a PL commission would probably reach the same conclusion if there wasn’t any more evidence.

However I have done a little more reading and Comfortable Satisfaction is believed to be a higher level of proof.

Yes, its wording would suggest that. It suggests a sort of intermediate level, maybe around the 75% mark. I doubt Leeds would be able to demonstrate they would have been promoted if we hadn’t broken the rules on that basis.

[TeamRocket]

If Leeds win this i expected King power group to go sue others! Honestly this is going to get messy really quickly. 

[Clever Fox]

I'd say the fact Leeds have left it this long will work against them.

[Claudio Fannieri]

I wouldn’t be shocked if this ends up being settled out of court and us making a fairly nominal compensation payment. Not sure Leeds have anywhere near as strong a case as Burnley did with Everton given our points deduction was less than the number of points we finished ahead. 

 

this needs shutting down quickly before it gets out of hand and every club is suing each other for each and every wrong doing. 

[Chrysalis]

Not sure how we make the payment though, KP are out of cash and it be down if the family will put it in.
I am not going to defend the financial mismanagement, but I also cant see what the point is of what Leeds are doing, they sitting pretty in the EPL, and we had a points gap exceeding our penalty.  It is as if there is some kind of resentment and they just want to dig in, and bring our woes back in to the forefront as well.

[Saxondale]

On 16/07/2026 at 21:26, Finnegan said:

 

Tbf, I've said this before but when you live here you do kinda realise where this comes from. Leeds do feel very important to the people here, the club is extremely ever present, a lot of local people are very passionate about the club, there's murals and whatever all over the place, pubs, shops, vans, people's houses, everything's got Leeds United all over it. It seems quite a big deal in Leeds to embrace their local teams as part of their local identity. In Leicester we have City fans and Tigers fans that act like they're rivals to each other which is ****ing weird, like we're all Leicester yknow. Here a lot of people support United and the Rhinos like it's one big club almost.

 

Walking or driving around most cities, Leicester, Nottingham, Derby, etc you could be forgiven for not having a clue who the local team even is. You don't see people out and about in Leicester shirts, there's no real presence for the club, you don't see loads of pubs with the colours and Leicester badges and shit everywhere.

 

That's not me saying the Leeds fans are right, btw, and that they ARE massive - outside of Leeds they obviously aren't. They're irrelevant out of Leeds. But I do understand how people born and raised here can think that they are genuinely massive because they see Leeds United everywhere they go.

 

TBF, Jimmy Saville was massive in Leeds.

[Finnegan]

16 minutes ago, Saxondale said:

TBF, Jimmy Saville was massive in Leeds.

 

Ooh, edgy. Alright Frankie Boyle. 

 

[burleighfox]

Bunch of losers, get a grip.

[190726]

On 17/07/2026 at 13:32, ClaphamFox said:

This is what makes Leeds' case very difficult to prove. Burnley's entire case against Everton centred on material facts—ie, if Everton's six-point deduction had been imposed in 22/22, Everton would have gone down and Burnley would have stayed up. Leeds cannot make the same argument for 23/24 because we'd still have finished ahead of them even with the deduction, as you say. Leeds must therefore be planning to argue that the advantage we gained from our PSR breach was worth more than the six points imposed by an independent panel, then upheld by an appeal board. This takes it out of the realm of material facts and into one of speculation and subjective judgment. Their case is clearly much, much weaker than Burnley's.

Bored Leeds fan here who happened to be browsing. 

 

Burnley’s entire case was not based on the points deduction. It was their main argument because it was the easiest to argue, but it was actually dismissed. Points deductions are not a direct equivalent to the sporting advantage gained.

 

Burnley’s secondary argument that won them the case was actually what you’re suggesting Leeds will attempt to do and is what they will use as a precedent. They   quantified the sporting advantage gained by the overspend and the probability of Everton being relegated without it.

 

two sections from the case below - full text here which has the methodology which Burnley used if you’re interested https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2026/06/10/14b0acd1-3d6a-41e0-a862-fffce1d6c2cc/BURNLEY-v-EVERTON-Compensation-Decision-with-Attachments-Redacted-.pdf

 

Burnley submits that the simplest method of quantifying the sporting advantage

is to adopt as a proxy the 6 points deduction imposed by the Appeal Board in the

PSR complaint proceedings. That directly reflects the extent of the breach. A

deduction of 6 points at the end of the 2021/22 season would have had the effect

of securing Everton’s relegation in place of Burnley, who would have remained

in the Premier League. Causation would therefore be simply established. We

recognise the attraction of the simplicity of Burnley’s submission but cannot

accept it as being appropriate. The 6 points deduction was expressed to be a

sanction for Everton’s breach of the PSR. Financial fair play decisions repeatedly

recognise that determination of the appropriate sanction for a breach is not a

quantification of the sporting advantage conferred by that breach. For example

in Sheffield Wednesday FC v The Football League Ltd (SR/196/2020) Lord Dyson

said at paragraph 103 –

A club which breaches the Upper Loss Threshold causes unfairness to other clubs competing

in the same competition who have stayed within the P&S Rules. In such circumstances a

sporting advantage is to be inferred and a sporting sanction is appropriate. A points deduction

is not designed to assess and reflect the sporting benefit from the breach, which is likely to be

impossible to quantify. Instead, it is to punish and to deter with the wider aim of upholding the

integrity of the competition and protecting the interests of the game.
 

In support of a submission advanced as an alternative to the 6 point proxy

argument Burnley instructed experts to conduct an analysis as to whether

Everton’s breach of the PSR resulted in a sporting advantage and, if so, the extent

of that advantage. The experts in question were Professor Rob Wilson, Director

of Executive Education at University Campus of Football Business, and William

Daniels of Daniels Associates, a statistician who has previously worked as both

Head Football Trader and Head American Football Trader at Spreadex, a leading

company in the Sports Spread Betting sector. Mr Daniels has also held executive

roles at both AFC Wimbledon and Forest Green Rovers. In response Everton

instructed Derek Holt of Alix Partners, an economist with 30 years’ experience as

an expert and economic advisor but with no direct experience of footballing

issues. Mr Holt was instructed to assess the impact of Everton’s breach of the

PSR and the likely impact had Everton reduced its spending by £19.5 million over

the PSR Period.

[Saxondale]

On 19/07/2026 at 17:53, Finnegan said:

 

Ooh, edgy. Alright Frankie Boyle. 

 

Alright, Mr Yorkshire. There was me thinking that mocking the city of Leeds‘ well-known affinity with Jimmy Saville was fairly standard patter.

Seeing as only U-rated Yorkshire mockery is apparently allowed, how about this:

Wensleydale is a terrible cheese, totally lacking in flavour or discernible character. And Henderson‘s Relish is OK, but ultimately a Temu Worcester Sauce.