Hxj

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

2.10.3 says that a forecast P&S overspend to this year needs the Embargo and to be referred to the CFRP

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

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

EFL in-season, I think the League might go again.

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.

5 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Already been deducted points this season

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.

59 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

The stadium, being owned by a separate company, would not be an asset of the club so would likely remain a solvent operational entity.

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.

26 minutes ago, reddogkev said:

Wow I would kill to have that model in place here

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.

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

An issue here is that Leicester potentially have submitted a non-compliant one in the period ending 2023-24 hence the Embargo for 2.10.1.

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.

7 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

On Point 2, in respect of this does that mean the CFRP cannot do anything on the strength of the P&S Calculation

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.

8 hours ago, downendcity said:

They're ****ed?

No need for the ? 

6 hours ago, Dan11 said:

What is the punishment though?

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.  

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

the EFL seem determined to enforce their Rules (as they see them)

Well that worked well against LCFC the first time!

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I can only assume it is that or the Upper Loss Threshold.

Basis of future receipts I take to mean the aforementioned but yet to materialise Transfer Profit.

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

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Perfectly fine to Embargo if they are shown to be over but rectifying by end of June as well.

I can't find that rule.

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

or the EFL have overreached

Probably got over-excited about catching a 'big fish'.

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The Embargo IMO based on the Rules is either:

*A Forecast Overspend

*A Forecast Overspend to be corrected by sales.

I agree that if LCFC predict an overspend then they are rightly subject to an embargo.  However I don't see any power for the EFL to impose an embargo on the basis that they don't agree with LCFC's figures.

The EFL could charge LCFC with an offence relating to the provision of information, if they could show that it was incorrect, but they haven't charged them.

26 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What of the EFL Embargo ?

The EFL Embargo will be based upon an a predicted breach for year 'T' (2023/24).

Again the problem is in the wording.  My reading is that there actually has to be a predicted breach in 'T' see 2.10.  This should be compared with a predicted breach in 'T+1' or 'T+2' where it is in the EFL's reasonable opinion whether there is a breach.

So for 'T' if LCFC show a predicted loss of -£38 million then there is no breach, even if this includes profits from player receipts of £50 million in June 2024.

LCFC might be charged later if they have knowingly provided incorrect information, by which time they will potentially be a member of the EPL, so potentially outside the jurisdiction of the EFL.

So my take on all this is -

1.  The EPL have charged LCFC for not submitting the accounts for 2022/23 in time - two questions arise -

1. Are the EPL entitled to them?  It appears not.  The EPL are entitled to information from 'Clubs' being members of the EPL and not 'clubs' who are not - see the definitions in the EPL handbook and for example B.18, E.3 W.1 and W.2 in the same document.  W.2 makes it clear that it is not a breach of the rules for a Club to not produce information.
2. Were they submitted on time?  LCFC can answer that.

2.  As to any EPL disputes or disciplinary action these can only be transferred to the EFL from the EPL if they were in existence as at the date of relegation, see E.72 and E.74.

16 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

1st March is irrelevant then here?

Yes that's the actual relevant date.

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I was under the impression that the bit Leicester won on was Future Financial Info, not the actual P&S submission.

I didn't want to get too semantic.  The Future Financial Information is all part of the FFP regulations, so it all depends upon how you want to carve things up.

The CFRU lost simply because they tried to sanction LCFC for the January 2024 Transfer Window, which was before the dead line that LCFC had for the submission of the relevant data, or at least that is my understanding of the  position.  Nothing in the decision precluded the CFRU from taking action after 31 March 2024.

But now, in addition, the EPL have jumped in, oh joy!

Oh this is so much fun!

So LCFC win their initial hearing v EFL on a timing issue in respect of 2023/24, the EFL have to wait until 31 March to take the FFP offence, roll on April Fools Day!

So the EPL then jump in with two offences - a breach of FFP for 2022/23 and failure to submit audited accounts - which are entirely separate to the EFL offence.

So LCFC now potentially face three different hearings:

1.  An EPL FFP failure for 2022/23

2.  A strict liability offence for failure to submit audited accounts by the deadline - either they were or were not submitted

3.  A projected EPL FFP failure for 2023/24 based on the accounts submitted.

34 minutes ago, AshtonGreat said:

He's undoubtedly an intelligent guy who understands the technicalities of football 

I work in a technical field and work with individuals who have a great understanding of the technicalities, far better than I will have, or actually want.

Would you ever put them in a managerial role to make the business a success?  Never.

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Bill is available for download if anyone else is as lame as me and needs something to read.

Not read and absorbed it all yet, but the power to 'break and enter' to obtain stuff seems just a little over the top.

It reads as a jobs charter for those leaving office after the general election. 

55 minutes ago, Selred said:

Nakhi Wells is from Bermuda for a start!

There is no such nationality as English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish for players.  Nakhi Wells, Alex Scott and Tommy Conway could under FIFA rules all play for Wales.

25 minutes ago, chinapig said:

And the Government is not impressed.

Well they need something to 'crow' about.

1 hour ago, BristolFox said:

I do suspect the club is very tight with the 23/24 PS&R calculation

It is clear from the recent EFL published decision that LCFC are predicting that they are failing 2023/24.  If they were to pass (regardless of the margin) then the CFRU would not have been in a position to report them to the CFRP as a failure to agree a business plan.  Business plans only apply to clubs which are predicting failure.

What happens next is anyone's guess.

My prediction is that LCFC will agree say a 4 point penalty with the EFL for the 2022/23 period on the grounds that it makes no difference to their return to the EPL for 2024/25.  Clearly there is a period in which Leicester's performance will be critical.

The alternative is to take two points penalties in 2024/25 if promoted.  That will probably result in relegation to the Championship for 2025/26 which will create further FFP issues.