Leeds open legal proceedings

[kenny]

3 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Why would we settle?

 

 

Let it run through the courts and if we lose we should go in two footed at about knee height on Chelsea and Man City.

Settlement will be less than the legal fees.

 

If it costs £500k to fight, then we will be paying Leeds £450k.

[Finnegan]

11 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

https://www.footballinsider247.com/leeds-united/leeds-united-to-settle-legal-battle-with-leicester-city-stefan-borson

 

Leeds United could settle for a "small amount" after opening legal proceedings against Leicester City for their financial breaches.

 

That is according to former Manchester City financial adviser Stefan Borson, who exclusively told Football Insider that Leeds will struggle to make a strong case against the now-League One side.

 

Following Burnley's case against Everton, one which the Toffees have appealed against, the Whites want payment from their rivals after the 2023-24 campaign.

 

During the campaign, Leicester broke financial rules, which Leeds claim helped them to succeed in the Championship promotion battle, while Daniel Farke's side fell into the play-offs.

 

With the hearing not taking place until next summer, fans will be left waiting anxiously for a conclusion, and it may not be one that they're hoping for.

 

A precedent is likely already to have been set by other legal battles in the Premier League once Leeds' rolls around. The Whites may just have to settle.

 

Speaking exclusively to Football Insider, Borson is pessimistic that Leeds will be able to claim much compensation from their legal battle, but suggested that it would be successful.

 

"I suspect that when you do the maths on it, Leicester will settle it and Leeds will accept a relatively small amount to settle it," he said.

 

"Now I might be wrong. They might go for it; there might be something we don't know about how it fits together.

 

"It just seems to me that they can't be sure in any way, even if Everton lose the appeal. So all of that stuff is kind of a good authority for how to look at this case, even in that scenario.

 

"I find it hard to believe that Leeds could have a strong level of confidence that they can get a hearing to to agree with them that Leicester would have got seven or more points fewer. That feels like a lot."

 

 

[AKCJ]

8 minutes ago, kenny said:

Settlement will be less than the legal fees.

 

If it costs £500k to fight, then we will be paying Leeds £450k.

It's more about the fact that if Leeds win then our case against Man City and Chelsea is strengthened massively.

[LCFCJohn]

On 19/07/2026 at 19:39, 190726 said:

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.

Yeah….but there’s not really a solid argument to say anything we have done has remotely given us a sporting advantage is there? 

[orangecity23]

Southampton finished 3 points behind Leeds. We beat Southampton twice. If the argument isn't about points deductions, and that we were so strengthened by our overspending, then wouldn't it follow that without it we may well have lost to Southampton at least once without it. So Leeds would still have finished third.

 

Edit: We lost both fixtures against Leeds anyway, so overspending or not, Leeds would not have got any more points off us than they already had. 

Edited 8 hours ago by orangecity23

[Manwell Pablo]

Great. 
 

They’ll more than likely win by the way and it won’t be cheap. 
 

We are so ****ed. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Manwell Pablo

[Manwell Pablo]

13 minutes ago, orangecity23 said:

Southampton finished 3 points behind Leeds. We beat Southampton twice. If the argument isn't about points deductions, and that we were so strengthened by our overspending, then wouldn't it follow that without it we may well have lost to Southampton at least once without it. So Leeds would still have finished third.

 

Edit: We lost both fixtures against Leeds anyway, so overspending or not, Leeds would not have got any more points off us than they already had. 

Won’t be considered in evidence. No offence but you’ve clearly got no idea how this process is going to work and who beat who when will be totally irrelevant. 
 

Dunno why I’m wasting my breath saying this as there will no doubt about 10 pages more of people saying things like this but I thought I’d give it a go. 

[AKCJ]

2 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

Won’t be considered in evidence. No offence but you’ve clearly got no idea how this process is going to work and who beat who when will be totally irrelevant. 
 

Dunno why I’m wasting my breath saying this as there will no doubt about 10 pages more of people saying things like this but I thought I’d give it a go. 

[Manwell Pablo]

43 minutes ago, kenny said:

Settlement will be less than the legal fees.

 

If it costs £500k to fight, then we will be paying Leeds £450k.

Think you might be vastly underestimating the amount of money potentially involved here, you’re looking at 8 figures not six. 

[Manwell Pablo]

I think in the broader picture of the game this kind of thing should have been stamped out a long time ago as it’s farcical. 
 

Can’t have teams taking each other to court every time someone who was broken a rule finishes higher than them.

 

just look at this conversation, if we lose to Leeds our case against Man City and Chelsea gets stronger, it’s just a joke. 

[kenny]

18 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

Think you might be vastly underestimating the amount of money potentially involved here, you’re looking at 8 figures not six. 

Then it will be worth fighting in court.

[Manwell Pablo]

14 minutes ago, kenny said:

Then it will be worth fighting in court.

And what if we lose Kenny which I believe we will, do you think many League One clubs with our overheads can afford to be shelling out 20-30 million pounds 

 

The only thing I can think that would make them settle for small amounts would be the prospect of us going into administration and therefore not having to pay them much at all or the fact they take pitty on us and settle for a small amount just to show their fan base they took some action. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Manwell Pablo

[kenny]

1 minute ago, Manwell Pablo said:

And what if we lose Kenny which I believe we will, do you think many League One clubs with our overheads can afford to be shelling out 20-30 million pounds 

If we lose then we are no worse off than settling out of court plus legal fees.

 

If Leeds case is so watertight, their out of court settlement won't be much different to what they claim in court.

 

It clearly isn't watertight it's too nuanced.

[Manwell Pablo]

16 minutes ago, kenny said:

If we lose then we are no worse off than settling out of court plus legal fees.

 

If Leeds case is so watertight, their out of court settlement won't be much different to what they claim in court.

 

It clearly isn't watertight it's too nuanced.

 

The precedent has been set in cases like this though. 

[LCFCJohn]

1 hour ago, Manwell Pablo said:

Won’t be considered in evidence. No offence but you’ve clearly got no idea how this process is going to work and who beat who when will be totally irrelevant. 
 

Dunno why I’m wasting my breath saying this as there will no doubt about 10 pages more of people saying things like this but I thought I’d give it a go. 

I’d say the post you quoted evidences well what a load of hypothetical nonsense it all is and what a frivolous claim it is by Leeds. As in no, our results against Southampton won’t be considered because it won’t get that far.

[kenny]

9 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

The precedent has been set in cases like this though. 

Every case is wildly different. Ours is unique in every sense.

[kenny]

31 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

And what if we lose Kenny which I believe we will, do you think many League One clubs with our overheads can afford to be shelling out 20-30 million pounds 

 

The only thing I can think that would make them settle for small amounts would be the prospect of us going into administration and therefore not having to pay them much at all or the fact they take pitty on us and settle for a small amount just to show their fan base they took some action. 

If they are going to court, then its cash they want, pity and sentiment won't make a spot of difference.

 

If it counts as a football debt, then it would need to be satisfied in accordance with the league requirements.

[Manwell Pablo]

14 minutes ago, LCFCJohn said:

I’d say the post you quoted evidences well what a load of hypothetical nonsense it all is and what a frivolous claim it is by Leeds. As in no, our results against Southampton won’t be considered because it won’t get that far.

 

I'm glad you're that confident but they have weighed this up. 

[LCFCJohn]

2 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

I'm glad you're that confident but they have weighed this up. 

Hey look, I’m normally pretty negative with my outlook on stuff like this. And obviously I don’t have a load of knowledge beyond what is really on this forum so I may well be absolutely wrong on this.

 

It just seems that there are no grounds to make a solid case that we ‘stopped’ them going up. Again, no more so than we could say Forest and Everton’s breaches that they were punished for the season after we went down were the reason we went down in the first place. I guess the difference is we had our own issues that season whereas Leeds can argue they kept their own finances in line. 
 

The authorities should be very concerned here. As others have said, the precedent this could cause. 

[HankMarvin]

47 minutes ago, kenny said:

If we lose then we are no worse off than settling out of court plus legal fees.

 

If Leeds case is so watertight, their out of court settlement won't be much different to what they claim in court.

 

It clearly isn't watertight it's too nuanced.

So they could offer the amnount it costs to defend the case, which would be millions.

As opposed to that dragging on and having to pay more on top depending on how the land lies with other case.

[boosmanana]

Leeds wouldn't be pursuing this as aggressively if they weren't certain of winning. They've also got one of the best sports lawyers in the country on their board who previously worked very high up at the FA. It could be very painful.

[Manwell Pablo]

20 minutes ago, LCFCJohn said:

Hey look, I’m normally pretty negative with my outlook on stuff like this. And obviously I don’t have a load of knowledge beyond what is really on this forum so I may well be absolutely wrong on this.

 

It just seems that there are no grounds to make a solid case that we ‘stopped’ them going up. Again, no more so than we could say Forest and Everton’s breaches that they were punished for the season after we went down were the reason we went down in the first place. I guess the difference is we had our own issues that season whereas Leeds can argue they kept their own finances in line. 
 

The authorities should be very concerned here. As others have said, the precedent this could cause. 

 

They should. I've said it myself it''s a farce, we have rules and punishments in football clubs going at each other on top of it is stupid and it should have been stamped out a long time ago.

 

Think of the argument more of our existence as a fradulant club is what stopped them going up more than we beat them southampton did this etc etc and it starts to look a lot more of a solid case.

 

We could well have been 10th if we didn't break the rules, they'd have still beaten us twice, and gone up in second. 

 

Our absloute collapse as a football club having to work within the rules as well is a compelling bit of evidence for that.

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Manwell Pablo

[kenny]

29 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

So they could offer the amnount it costs to defend the case, which would be millions.

As opposed to that dragging on and having to pay more on top depending on how the land lies with other case.

Good point. We could offer £100m and hope it goes away?

 

We could also hope that no other clubs that may or may not be effected wouldn't fancy a free £100m.

[jonny_wright]

Frivolous attempt to extort money from us, we finished seven points ahead - even with a harsh deduction of six points, they still wouldn’t have come ahead of us…. We should fine them for bringing the game to distribute.

[HankMarvin]

18 minutes ago, kenny said:

Good point. We could offer £100m and hope it goes away?

 

We could also hope that no other clubs that may or may not be effected wouldn't fancy a free £100m.

Right