Leicester win appeal against decision over PSR charge

[Satriales 994]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ckg54xkqnzlo

[Satriales 994]

At least it means they can fight against the binners properly.

[cambridgeshire canary 7,799]

Live scenes at Portaloo Road

 

Edited September 3 by cambridgeshire canary

[Bigbrenn 88]

It seems the rules were badly drawn up in the first place.

At this rate, Citeh will be awarded points not docked any!

[Ulfotto 800]

To be honest I have no idea why Newcastle seem to be playing by the rules. Spend big and take the points deduction 

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

40 minutes ago, Ulfotto said:

To be honest I have no idea why Newcastle seem to be playing by the rules. Spend big and take the points deduction 

They may be waiting to see what happens to Man City. I haven’t studied this but I believe City are in part arguing that some of the PSR rules are a form of restraint of trade and so invalid. If they win on that mega-point then it would blow a big hole in the rules.

[Sooty57 414]

As it stands, until the rules are re-written, it is perfectly possible to buy your way out of the Championship without any penalty being applied by the PL. Obviously this loophole will be closed, meaning the £500m we were planning to spend in the January window probably won't now happen 😢

Leicester have p***ed off the powers that be, so it might be interesting for the conspiracy theorists to keep an eye on how many VAR decisions go against them for the remainder of the season.

[MrBunce 282]

Leicester and Nick De Marco KC have pulled the EPL's pants down there. What an absolute shocker. 

Doesn't bode well for the Man City case does it?

[Ulfotto 800]

Man City haven’t actually over spend in recent years anyway the case is all about there non football revenue due to the fact they “sponsor” themselves with deals which are ridiculous over inflated. They consistently earn 100 million more than Man Utd and Liverpool which is ridiculous given the profiles of the clubs.

[essex canary 623]

8 hours ago, MrBunce said:

Leicester and Nick De Marco KC have pulled the EPL's pants down there. What an absolute shocker. 

Doesn't bode well for the Man City case does it?

Leicester appear to have won on the grounds of the fragmentation of the rules between the Premier League and Championship alongside poor drafting of the rules.

At least the former won't apply to Manchester City in recent seasons. Could still be plenty of scope on the latter for which the Football Industry only has itself to blame because its Corporate Governance standard is pants.

[Capt. Pants 5,013]

So it was Leicester who extended their accounting period to take it beyond season end? That was either incredibly clever, or very lucky.

It's more likely the latter as the club wouldn't have had a reasonable expectation of relegation that season.

That points deduction is already looking the difference between relegation or survival.

The ManCity case will take years as their lawyers will challenge every point. I doubt the EPL could afford the fight!

 

 

[BigFish 2,283]

Looks a pretty fair decision and massive over reach by the EPL. Leicester were relegated, so it can't really be argued that they gained an advantage and were charged when they were outside the jurisdiction of the PSR rules.

[Capt. Pants 5,013]

Strange though but even if they 'flouted' the rules they've still a 50 year old Vardy up front.

Doesn't feel a particularly well run club.

[GMF 1,010]

10 hours ago, MrBunce said:

Leicester and Nick De Marco KC have pulled the EPL's pants down there. What an absolute shocker. 

Doesn't bode well for the Man City case does it?

This is the second “pants pulled down” moment, LCFC having previously won against the EFL earlier this year. Again, this was as a consequence of poorly drafted rules, which, until recently, had been untested at a tribunal.

[Carrow89 186]

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/leicester-premier-league-decision-financial-rules-legal-b2606737.html

[BigFish 2,283]

36 minutes ago, Carrow89 said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/leicester-premier-league-decision-financial-rules-legal-b2606737.html

Well that is a spectacularly poor piece of journalism

[cornish sam 1,040]

12 hours ago, Sooty57 said:

As it stands, until the rules are re-written, it is perfectly possible to buy your way out of the Championship without any penalty being applied by the PL. Obviously this loophole will be closed, meaning the £500m we were planning to spend in the January window probably won't now happen 😢

Leicester have p***ed off the powers that be, so it might be interesting for the conspiracy theorists to keep an eye on how many VAR decisions go against them for the remainder of the season.

We already knew that though after QPR, Brighton, Bournemouth, etc. the EFL do have the ability to refuse readmittance of the club when they get relegated, but, of they went that way it would likely hasten the closing off of the premier league...

[Ulfotto 800]

This was not widely reported and it shows the rules can seemingly be broken at will

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/19/chelseas-765m-hotel-deals-raise-questions-over-psr-compliance

[GMF 1,010]

4 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

We already knew that though after QPR, Brighton, Bournemouth, etc. the EFL do have the ability to refuse readmittance of the club when they get relegated, but, of they went that way it would likely hasten the closing off of the premier league...

That’s the essence of the problem, though. They are dammed if you do and dammed if they don’t.

The PL is receiving stick for the inadequacies of its rules, which are approved by the clubs themselves, but this is the first time that they’ve really been subjected to close scrutiny by lawyers and KC’s. It’s really not surprising that they have been found wanting.

[Carrow89 186]

8 minutes ago, GMF said:

That’s the essence of the problem, though. They are dammed if you do and dammed if they don’t.

The PL is receiving stick for the inadequacies of its rules, which are approved by the clubs themselves, but this is the first time that they’ve really been subjected to close scrutiny by lawyers and KC’s. It’s really not surprising that they have been found wanting.

Perhaps it might have been an idea to use lawyers of the same quality to draft up the rules. It is not like the PL is skint. The onus is on them to do as such, not the clubs.

[GMF 1,010]

10 minutes ago, Carrow89 said:

Perhaps it might have been an idea to use lawyers of the same quality to draft up the rules. It is not like the PL is skint. The onus is on them to do as such, not the clubs.

I’m not saying that the PL is blameless here, however, it would be impossible to draft for every eventuality, but I’m sure they would have taken advice.

Nevertheless, the PL still has to get approval from its shareholders, namely the clubs themselves.

Self regulation equals self interest, hence why they were never likely to get rules that were 

[essex canary 623]

2 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

So it was Leicester who extended their accounting period to take it beyond season end? That was either incredibly clever, or very lucky.

 

 

 

Apparently for player trading purposes so 'clever' seems to be the answer at least in a manner of speaking.

Then again the football industry isn't 'clever' in this context. The latest trend for players to go out on loan from their host club when having no intention of playing for them again being a case in point.

[essex canary 623]

3 minutes ago, GMF said:

I’m not saying that the PL is blameless here, however, it would be impossible to draft for every eventuality, but I’m sure they would have taken advice.

Nevertheless, the PL still has to get approval from its shareholders, namely the clubs themselves.

Self regulation equals self interest, hence why they were never likely to get rules that were 

That is why the football industry needs the Government's intervention.

[BigFish 2,283]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

That is why the football industry needs the Government's intervention.

Does it really though, it would seem the EPL is doing pretty nicely as it is?

The EPL administrators dropped a brick on this one, not in failing to prosecute Leicester, but in attempting it in the first place. Much of the commentary fails to understand the real purpose of PSR. This is to 1) Keep the TV money flowing; 2) Ensure that money goes disproportionally to the biggest clubs; 3) Prevent any pesky billionaires/petro-states/etc using their financial muscle to create disruptive alternative big clubs. As such, it seems to be working pretty much as intended.

Other models exist, but I suspect all threaten #1 at the very least.

[essex canary 623]

20 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Does it really though, it would seem the EPL is doing pretty nicely as it is?

The EPL administrators dropped a brick on this one, not in failing to prosecute Leicester, but in attempting it in the first place. Much of the commentary fails to understand the real purpose of PSR. This is to 1) Keep the TV money flowing; 2) Ensure that money goes disproportionally to the biggest clubs; 3) Prevent any pesky billionaires/petro-states/etc using their financial muscle to create disruptive alternative big clubs. As such, it seems to be working pretty much as intended.

Other models exist, but I suspect all threaten #1 at the very least.

Clubs like Leicester and for that matter NCFC need to be under the same organisational umbrella from year to year. The structure in Germany and Spain allows for this. Premier League 2 would do likewise. There would still be a PL/EFL boundary and an EFL/NL boundary but these would be much easier to manage.

Ensuring that money flows disproportionately to the bigger clubs should not be an objective. Equally though when the likes of NCFC receive disproportionate income from foreign TV contracts when temporarily PL members they should then be obliged to create their own parachute receipts by means of income deferral.

[BigFish 2,283]

20 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Clubs like Leicester and for that matter NCFC need to be under the same organisational umbrella from year to year. The structure in Germany and Spain allows for this. Premier League 2 would do likewise. There would still be a PL/EFL boundary and an EFL/NL boundary but these would be much easier to manage.

Ensuring that money flows disproportionately to the bigger clubs should not be an objective. Equally though when the likes of NCFC receive disproportionate income from foreign TV contracts when temporarily PL members they should then be obliged to create their own parachute receipts by means of income deferral.

When debating such things you need to recognise where things are, rather than where you want them to be. The EPL was created to remove Elite football from the locus of control of the FA, or anyone else for that matter. It is essentially a compromise between the bigger clubs and the rest in which the bigger clubs pool their media rights 20 ways rather than keeping them themselves. Same goes in Spain and Germany. All have models that reward the bigger clubs more significantly than the smaller ones. The idea that when we get back into the EPL we should defer some of that income, when in all likelihood we would struggle to compete anyway is fanciful.

[essex canary 623]

The EFL's viewpoint as attached.

[Nexus_Canary 1,206]

Good, it would have been a criminal offence if the Binner's stayed up because of other teams financial incompetence. 

[cornish sam 1,040]

9 hours ago, essex canary said:

Clubs like Leicester and for that matter NCFC need to be under the same organisational umbrella from year to year. The structure in Germany and Spain allows for this. Premier League 2 would do likewise. There would still be a PL/EFL boundary and an EFL/NL boundary but these would be much easier to manage.

Ensuring that money flows disproportionately to the bigger clubs should not be an objective. Equally though when the likes of NCFC receive disproportionate income from foreign TV contracts when temporarily PL members they should then be obliged to create their own parachute receipts by means of income deferral.

But premier league 2 would just move the line down a rung in the league ladder, it wouldn't solve anything unless they closed the door on promotion/relegation to pl2...

[foxchrys 22]

14 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

Strange though but even if they 'flouted' the rules they've still a 50 year old Vardy up front.

Doesn't feel a particularly well run club.

We still cut our spending significantly.  In our relegation season we were the only club in all of Europe to not sign a player up until the last couple of days of the window, and we only then brought in Faes after a big money sale of Fofana ,so we basically embargoed ourselves until that happened.

The main reason Rodgers survived for so long in the same season was PSR concerns, without them he probably would have gone during the WC.

It seems we have also complied for the EFL season, we sold Barnes, a bunch of contracts expired, a bunch of high wage players were out on loan, and then after the season ended we sold our player of the yeah KDH, and got 10million compensation for having Enzo poached.  Compared to Ipswich e.g. we have spent a lot less post promotion.  We even loaned out Cannon whilst we have a Striker crisis, basically we only have two strikers in our first team squad, a almost 40 Vardy, and 33 year old Ayew signed from palace.

You are right we not been run well right now, with many blaming the director of football, he isnt very good at getting rid of squad players, of which many have/had a high salary, so we relied on big money first team sales, and eventually if you keep selling your best players it comes back to haunt you.

Now perhaps for the controversial part of my post, I do support financial regulation in football, I think it is important there is some kind of protection to mitigate risks of clubs becoming insolvent, however I dont support the current rules, not only are they unsporting (applying different spending limits to different clubs), but also as is we are seeing right now the rules are poorly written with flaws all over the place.  The prime reason I think is the rules are created by the clubs themselves, and most clubs have their own self interest.  This has led to a set of spending limits tied to revenue/income and no penalties at all for debt.  For me I would set a spending limit that takes into account all clubs in the competition so for the EPL it would mean the likes of Liverpool and Manchester United getting huge spending limit reductions, and clubs like Norwich would be able to compete better as the budget wouldnt be miles of the spending limits.  But of course we will never see these rules, as all the clubs just think of themselves, and not just the big 6 either, the established EPL clubs benefit from it as they have a higher spending limit than promoted clubs, and likewise parachute clubs in the championship benefit from it.

Given we managed to find a flaw in the rules to win our case, it wouldnt surprise me now if Manchester City's mountain of lawyers get the club out of it clean, and I await the complete uproar that will follow, I do think we need a football regulator.

Someone already has found another flaw in the PSR rules, it looks like we will get the full 105m spending limit for this year's review, as the reduction only applies to EFL seasons "before" the promotion season.

https://x.com/slbsn/status/1831454631387664541

Edited September 4 by foxchrys