Leicester City For Sale (Ongoing Thread)

[davieG]

I wish I had a 12 year old son/daughter

[Lambert09]

20 hours ago, Pliskin said:

This will be off now. I bet they will want to hang around for a legal battle with city. 

 

20 hours ago, st albans fox said:

I think the pressure to sell is more pressing than that 

they can’t hang around 

suspect they would add conditions to the sale which means any compensation received would be payable to them (as a percentage - othwewise no incentive for the new owners to pursue anything) 

would be more complicated than that but it’s workable 

 

It adds a huge layer of complexity but could be a great thing. If you buy the club for 200m but there’s clearly potential to sue for 400M based on the missed champions league.  It could be a free football club  for someone if it plays out correctly 

Edited yesterday at 15:34 by Lambert09

[inckley fox]

7 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

 

It adds a huge layer of complexity but could be a great thing. If you buy the club for 200m but there’s clearly potential to sue for 400M based on the missed champions league.  It could be a free football club  for someone if it plays out correctly 

From what I've read of the legal experts, they really don't think we're in line for a massive claim. We may try, but it's going to be damn hard to prove that Man City were only above us in 2020, 2021 and thereafter because of their cheating. At least to the extent that damages in the 20m+ category are deemed payable. The more I read, the harder it looks.

[slymunn]

2 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

From what I've read of the legal experts, they really don't think we're in line for a massive claim. We may try, but it's going to be damn hard to prove that Man City were only above us in 2020, 2021 and thereafter because of their cheating. At least to the extent that damages in the 20m+ category are deemed payable. The more I read, the harder it looks.

Burnley got 40 million from Everton for a one season breach.

[Fish]

Everyone to sue each other with the tables decided in the courts three years after seasons finish. Firkin joke , the whole thing needs a reset. This whole thing has made a mockery of fair competition .

[st albans fox]

22 minutes ago, slymunn said:

Burnley got 40 million from Everton for a one season breach.

Because it was easy to prove that if Everton had suffered the points deduction in the season that they committed the offence (ie. When they should have ), Burnley would have stayed up 

 

Man City weren’t charged until  2023 

their last offence was 2018 

 

any case we have is very flimsy 

[urban.spaceman]

35 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Because it was easy to prove that if Everton had suffered the points deduction in the season that they committed the offence (ie. When they should have ), Burnley would have stayed up 

 

Man City weren’t charged until  2023 

their last offence was 2018 

 

any case we have is very flimsy 

35 of the charges are for non-cooperation between 2018 and 2023. 

 

The Premier League's attempt to dock us 20 points for one inadvertent breach included many for non cooperation. 

[inckley fox]

1 hour ago, slymunn said:

Burnley got 40 million from Everton for a one season breach.

You're right, but they didn't have to deal with one key issue: it was a breach which affected them in the same season, rather than a 'downstream' historical advantage due to past infractions. To you and me it seems obvious that Man City gained massively, but the law won't be so sympathetic. We might claim for a billion, and we might get some compensation if we're lucky, but you're talking small fry.

[slymunn]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

Because it was easy to prove that if Everton had suffered the points deduction in the season that they committed the offence (ie. When they should have ), Burnley would have stayed up 

 

Man City weren’t charged until  2023 

their last offence was 2018 

 

any case we have is very flimsy 

35 of the charges are for not cooperating the charges, running from 2018 to 2023.. so they could have being charged and punished on either year we finished 5th.

[st albans fox]

36 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

35 of the charges are for non-cooperation between 2018 and 2023. 

 

The Premier League's attempt to dock us 20 points for one inadvertent breach included many for non cooperation. 

 

11 minutes ago, slymunn said:

35 of the charges are for not cooperating the charges, running from 2018 to 2023.. so they could have being charged and punished on either year we finished 5th.

So we could make the argument that had they co operated fully, they could have been charged in 2019 and sanctioned that same season.  And even if not 2019/20 then 2020/21.   But even if you got buy in on that justification,  where does that stop.  Does the club finishing 5th in 21/22 and 22/23 also make the same claim based on them co operating in that particular season ? 

 

I reckon we wouldn’t get a positive outcome in any case but I can see how we’d frame a claim. 

 

[sylofox]

2 hours ago, inckley fox said:

From what I've read of the legal experts, they really don't think we're in line for a massive claim. We may try, but it's going to be damn hard to prove that Man City were only above us in 2020, 2021 and thereafter because of their cheating. At least to the extent that damages in the 20m+ category are deemed payable. The more I read, the harder it looks.

I would think you have a better case against the prem. Small clubs get done the following season. They broke the rules for what 9 straight years. Nothing was done. This whole pile of shite is the fault of the prem.

[Clever Fox]

35 minutes ago, sylofox said:

I would think you have a better case against the prem. Small clubs get done the following season. They broke the rules for what 9 straight years. Nothing was done. This whole pile of shite is the fault of the prem.

We should be looking at suing the Premier league also for their level of incompetance.

 

They brought it all on themselves by having laws and rules which didn't stand up to legal scrutiny.

[lcfc81]

Would it really be that hard to prove (a genuine question). 

Surely a view of their performance before they cheated and their perfomance after would show the disparity? 

Also no other club the size if man city originally achieved such domanance after large investment? (Arguably chelsea but they were prior to this, and liverpool but they started from a much higher base). 

They could probably take the average pace of revenue growth for similar clubs to provide a benchmark? 

[inckley fox]

2 hours ago, sylofox said:

I would think you have a better case against the prem. Small clubs get done the following season. They broke the rules for what 9 straight years. Nothing was done. This whole pile of shite is the fault of the prem.

Again, I agree totally. My first reaction was exactly the same as yours. But from what I've seen it'll be practically impossible to sue the EPL. They pressed the charges, but they didn't come to the verdict and won't decide the punishment.

 

We're left to pursue Man City, and we didn't retain our interest in the case post-2024 (meaning we can't claim for League Cup semi final losses or lower league placings pre-2018) so ours would be a very, very tricky case in comparison to some of the others. We could win, but the legal fees would be immense, and the winnings modest by comparison.

 

Put simply, it's not enough to halt a potential sale of LCFC in its tracks, nor cause KP to suddenly believe that they're on to a winner if they hold off. Unless, I should add, they're even more deluded than I thought they were (which, to paraphrase The Day Today, is very deluded indeed).

[MPH]

2 hours ago, Clever Fox said:

We should be looking at suing the Premier league also for their level of incompetance.

 

They brought it all on themselves by having laws and rules which didn't stand up to legal scrutiny.

Except of course the laws have been scrutinized  and Man City have been found guilty? 
 

the laws were in place and man city broke them.

 

FA are incompetent in many areas, but I’m not sure how they shoulder the blame for man city’s rule breaking?

[sylofox]

41 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

Again, I agree totally. My first reaction was exactly the same as yours. But from what I've seen it'll be practically impossible to sue the EPL. They pressed the charges, but they didn't come to the verdict and won't decide the punishment.

 

We're left to pursue Man City, and we didn't retain our interest in the case post-2024 (meaning we can't claim for League Cup semi final losses or lower league placings pre-2018) so ours would be a very, very tricky case in comparison to some of the others. We could win, but the legal fees would be immense, and the winnings modest by comparison.

 

Put simply, it's not enough to halt a potential sale of LCFC in its tracks, nor cause KP to suddenly believe that they're on to a winner if they hold off. Unless, I should add, they're even more deluded than I thought they were (which, to paraphrase The Day Today, is very deluded indeed).

We should all be claiming from the prem.everton and forest done the following season. Us on a technically 2yrars after. City have 9yrs of crimes. It's at least incompetence.

 

The prem is a total joke. Sooner the government step in the better.

[Sly]

Nothing more will be heard on this for a while I would imagine.

 

If anything, we have been available for some time and this was an attempt at free advertising to generate more interest in us.

 

Our best and maybe only hope at this point is someone buys us when we finally enter administration. 

[Sly]

To be honest, I can see this being settled another way. 
 

A hypothetical scenario.

 

Turki Alalsheik purchases us.

 

He is mates with Sheik Mansoon of Manchester City. Charges simply disappear ……. We don’t even persue them.
 

Alternatively the Abu Dubai Investment group buys us outright. We  become a feeder team / development club for Manchester City and just stay in the Championship or League 1, ghosting along. Less EFL ownership rules if we never compete against each other. 

Without investment, we become a great place to train and blood younger players.

 

Not as far-fetched as it sounds, it would open a massive can of worms on multi club ownership. However it is doable, as long as the club is operating independently and trading between each other is at perceived market value etc. 

[fox_favourite]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

To be honest, I can see this being settled another way. 
 

A hypothetical scenario.

 

Turki Alalsheik purchases us.

 

He is mates with Sheik Mansoon of Manchester City. Charges simply disappear ……. We don’t even persue them.
 

Alternatively the Abu Dubai Investment group buys us outright. We  become a feeder team / development club for Manchester City and just stay in the Championship or League 1, ghosting along. Less EFL ownership rules if we never compete against each other. 

Without investment, we become a great place to train and blood younger players.

 

Not as far-fetched as it sounds, it would open a massive can of worms on multi club ownership. However it is doable, as long as the club is operating independently and trading between each other is at perceived market value etc. 

So we become a fancy Man City U21/reserve squad 

[slymunn]

26 minutes ago, fox_favourite said:

So we become a fancy Man City U21/reserve squad 

Trafford

Frimpong

Harwood-Bellis

Adarabioyo

Pedro Porro

Lavia

Rogers

McAtee

Palmer

Gittens

Delap                           

 

I'd be happy with that, based on the last 5/10 years 😅

[Sly]

53 minutes ago, slymunn said:

Trafford

Frimpong

Harwood-Bellis

Adarabioyo

Pedro Porro

Lavia

Rogers

McAtee

Palmer

Gittens

Delap                           

 

I'd be happy with that, based on the last 5/10 years 😅

Monga, Motsi etc 

 

This is when the EFL impose a number of loans from a certain club rule etc 

[Lineker's Left Foot]

Wouldn’t happen with Man City’s owners, but am suprised that the PSG Qatari ones haven’t been ‘in the mix’ for an English club.

 

Maybe that could be a possibility instead, which would circumvent the worries of owning a club in the same country.

[Clever Fox]

14 hours ago, MPH said:

Except of course the laws have been scrutinized  and Man City have been found guilty? 
 

the laws were in place and man city broke them.

 

FA are incompetent in many areas, but I’m not sure how they shoulder the blame for man city’s rule breaking?

Yes Man City broke the laws and have been found guilty but the laws have been found not fit for purpose  by us an others as we did escape while in the Championship.

The Premiership was put together to satisfy the big Clubs because they were being out voted by the smaller clubs and leagues and wanted to go it alone.

The rules were hastily put together I'd say without the necessary due dilligence as they weren't tested.

Then after we exposed loopholes in their laws they found they needed the cooperation from the Championship and other leagues. The vey leagues they chose th breakaway from.

 

While you can't blame the FA directly for the Premier lge faiings. You can apportion blame to them for their failure as Parents of the game in the UK.

Now the cynic in me belives they stood back and allowed the Prem Lge, To create their own problems. 

At the end of the day Rules are just guidelines, Sport is mostly based on integrity with participants playing within the rules. But that needs oversight with checks and balances taking place regularly.      Something the Premier lge have clearly been lacking in since it's exception. This has lead to Chelsea Man City and others taking advantage of the sitution.

Now there is an unholy mess to try and unravel. They've allowed it all to drag on for far too long with no easy solutions. They've sullied the euphoria of the Fans if the winning clubs over the years.

They should strip them of the titles and then promote and compensate the Clubs who have suffered because of their failings. But that's just my opinion.

[justfoxes]

20 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

35 of the charges are for non-cooperation between 2018 and 2023. 

 

The Premier League's attempt to dock us 20 points for one inadvertent breach included many for non cooperation. 

The Premier league has been as corrupt as Man City for a long time hitting the smaller clubs with huge fines and deductions, they should also be held accountable for allowing the corruption to continue the Top 6 have always been treated lightly over the years cause the see them as their cash cow !

 

 

[MPH]

2 hours ago, Clever Fox said:

Yes Man City broke the laws and have been found guilty but the laws have been found not fit for purpose  by us an others as we did escape while in the Championship.

The Premiership was put together to satisfy the big Clubs because they were being out voted by the smaller clubs and leagues and wanted to go it alone.

The rules were hastily put together I'd say without the necessary due dilligence as they weren't tested.

Then after we exposed loopholes in their laws they found they needed the cooperation from the Championship and other leagues. The vey leagues they chose th breakaway from.

 

While you can't blame the FA directly for the Premier lge faiings. You can apportion blame to them for their failure as Parents of the game in the UK.

Now the cynic in me belives they stood back and allowed the Prem Lge, To create their own problems. 

At the end of the day Rules are just guidelines, Sport is mostly based on integrity with participants playing within the rules. But that needs oversight with checks and balances taking place regularly.      Something the Premier lge have clearly been lacking in since it's exception. This has lead to Chelsea Man City and others taking advantage of the sitution.

Now there is an unholy mess to try and unravel. They've allowed it all to drag on for far too long with no easy solutions. They've sullied the euphoria of the Fans if the winning clubs over the years.

They should strip them of the titles and then promote and compensate the Clubs who have suffered because of their failings. But that's just my opinion.

Rules can not stop you from breaking the law. They can only help hold you accountable if you do.