Hxj

Not one to worry about. It's a private members' club. The members can set the rules as they like and can also set the punishments for failure as they see fit.

I thought that this was another test in addition to the percentage test? So you can spend up to 85% (or what ever limit) of your income, provided that sum is not more than 5 times the lowest income from defined (and presumably known in advance) sources.

Still they were sued by the club and the case was settled confidentially out of court. According to the BBC report at the time 'There will be a cash input into the balance sheet', which of course is a completely meaningless phrase.

And if Leicester City are not forecasting an overspend? (Regardless of the reason)

But they can't. The CFRP have already decided that Leicester City cannot be sanctioned in 2023/24 for 2023/24 FFP failure. The EFL themselves have confirmed that they cannot sanction Leicester City for a 2022/23 FFP failure as there are no EFL regulations that allow them to do so. Incredibly damaging to the reputation of the EFL and the CFRU.

That doesn't appear in the decision - the relevant part of the summary of the decision is: I also understand, though haven't read the whole decision yet, that if there was a 'reset' as in the EFL rules when you have been sanctioned Everton would not have breached and therefore not be penalised.

It doesn't work like that though. Funding is provided through Holdings. The football club is generally funded with equity investments, at July 2023 the figures were roughly £25 million loans, £190 million equity. Ashton Gate is almost entirely funded by loans, at £1 million equity and £70 million loans at the same date. So if SL stopped funding Holdings and wanted his money out the whole structure would collapse immediately. None of the companies could meet their on going financial obligations.

Trouble is - it isn't what is seems. Yes it looks good - but if you delve into the rules for members you will find that the club is tightly controlled - Zingler has been in charge for many years - in effect he uses other people's money to promote himself - at least the Lansdown's use their own. Most of the funding is provided by corporate partners not the members.

I suspect that it is more likely that the regulations do not say what the EFL/CFRU want then to say. Identical to the other failed case against LCFC.

The regulations do not give the EFL the right to change any part of the P&S Calculation for T (the current year) for matters such as estimated player sales during T. Compare the wording of 2.9, dealing with T+1 and T+2, with 2.10 dealing with the P&S Calculation for T. There is no 'reasonable opinion' in 2.10. So provided the P&S Calculation for T submitted by LCFC shows compliance with the loss limit, and is calculated in line with the regulations then that has to be accepted.

No need for the ? It appears that LCFC may escape any punishment for 2022/23, until 2024/25. As I said previously pointed out the relevant regulations have a hole in them. The EPL cannot transfer a case to the EFL unless the subject was subject to a disciplinary case before relegation - which LCFC were not. The EFl can only sanction if their 2023/24 FFP calculations actually show a breach for 2023/24.

The scariest part of the LCFC accounts from my perspective is the complete lack of any write-down of the intangible assets on relegation. That results in a probable £50 million amortisation charge in 2023/24.

Well that worked well against LCFC the first time!

The trouble is that the rules don't actually say that. It appears to be an EFL view on what the rules mean.

I can't find that rule.