Mr Popodopolous Posted March 24 Report Share Posted March 24 Just now, Hxj said: 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. It did state a predicted breach in 'T' which is the period ending this year We had this debate in January, February and maybe before as to whether a predicted breach could be acted upon in real time. Journalists like Nixon who say it is non-Submission l would say are wrong basically. The Embargo IMO based on the Rules is either: *A Forecast Overspend *A Forecast Overspend to be corrected by sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted March 24 Report Share Posted March 24 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 24 Report Share Posted March 24 2 minutes ago, Hxj said: 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. Either they have bona fide put in a straight up 3 year overspend then or the EFL have overreached. Feels a bit unprecedented either way and especially since they started making Embargoes public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted March 24 Report Share Posted March 24 7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: or the EFL have overreached Probably got over-excited about catching a 'big fish'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 24 Report Share Posted March 24 2 minutes ago, Hxj said: Probably got over-excited about catching a 'big fish'. I'm not sure, you could be right but the Rules are the Rules as a former manager once said. Perfectly fine to Embargo if they are shown to be over but rectifying by end of June as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted March 24 Report Share Posted March 24 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 24 Report Share Posted March 24 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Hxj said: I can't find that rule. I'll try and find it. Apologies for the slightly wonky lines. 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. Edited March 24 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted March 24 Report Share Posted March 24 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 24 Report Share Posted March 24 2 minutes ago, Hxj said: The trouble is that the rules don't actually say that. It appears to be an EFL view on what the rules mean. Yes I couldn't find that particular Rule either but the EFL seem determined to enforce their Rules (as they see them) so it doesn't feel impossible that the League/CFRU will look to refer this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted March 24 Report Share Posted March 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 24 Report Share Posted March 24 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Hxj said: Well that worked well against LCFC the first time! That was clearly an error/dare I say unfair Prosecution the first time round, this seems a greyer area. I look forward to it anyway, as it should be a fascinating Test Case. I do hope the CFRU refer them from a Governance debate angle. Edited March 24 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 (edited) Leicester are asking for an FA Rule K hearing to determine which league has jurisdiction over which issue and so which points can be deducted from which season by either competition organiser. Top banter. Edited March 26 by ExiledAjax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 I'm not convinced Rule K holds full precedence here, some EFL Arbitration stipulations state other things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 (edited) I assume in the first instance it could be deemed a Board Dispute as the Embargo was presumably an automatic or Board decision. FA Rule K..covered by this exclusion potentially. Edited March 26 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: I'm not convinced Rule K holds full precedence here, some EFL Arbitration stipulations state other things. Well de Marco clearly reckons it's at least useful as a delaying tactic. Which may absolutely be the intention here of course. Try and kick any EFL deduction into the "it's waiting for you if/when you're next relegated" long grass, and try and get any possible PL deduction either a) applied as late into next season as possible or b) applied in the EFL. I suspect b) is a very, very, very long shot, but the rest...a delay for the FA to sort out a Rule K might just be enough to achieve those aims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said: Well de Marco clearly reckons it's at least useful as a delaying tactic. Which may absolutely be the intention here of course. Try and kick any EFL deduction into the "it's waiting for you if/when you're next relegated" long grass, and try and get any possible PL deduction either a) applied as late into next season as possible or b) applied in the EFL. I suspect b) is a very, very, very long shot, but the rest...a delay for the FA to sort out a Rule K might just be enough to achieve those aims. I get the idea, definitely a delaying tactic but I wonder if the EFL/CFRU may counter by referring to the CFRP as Rule 2.10.3 does stipulate following on from 2.10.1. P&S stuff seems to be a Reserved matter for the CFRP. They may fit the criteria as an Independent external body as they ruled against the EFL in the last case? Not just rubber stampers basically. It's uncharted territory basically. Edited March 26 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 (edited) 6.5 and 8.3.8-8.3.10 feel like they could reduce stalling potential. Perhaps they could decide in a consolidated manner on both their own jurisdiction and the entire of the case. It could be seen as carte Blanche to some degree. Edited March 26 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: I get the idea, definitely a delaying tactic but I wonder of the EFL/CFRU may counter by referring to the CFRP as Rule 2.10.3 does stipulate following on from 2.10.1. P&S stuff seems to be a Reserved matter for the CFRP. They may fit the criteria as an Independent external body as they ruled against the EFL in the last case. It's uncharted territory basically. If I'm Leicester/de Marco all I really care about now is avoiding a points deduction this season. Next season is next season, a points deduction in the PL would hurt but we see from Everton and Forest that it's not a certain death/relegation sentence. Frankly any team relegated from the PL with PPs should be able to take a -6, even a -10 in the EFL (the ceiling is basically -12 as that's what you get for insolvency - see the Forest award for that analysis), and still have an excellent chance of a playoff or even top 2 finish. So what they really need to avoid is a deduction this season that pushes them into the playoffs. So delay, frustrate, delay again. Stick in all the Rule K applications you can. It doesn't really matter if you win or not, you just have to ask the question and force someone to spend time answering it. Edited March 26 by ExiledAjax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 (edited) 8 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said: If I'm Leicester/de Marco all I really care about now is avoiding a points deduction this season. Next season is next season, a points deduction in the PL would hurt but we see from Everton and Forest that it's not a certain death/relegation sentence. Frankly any team relegated from the PL with PPs should be able to take a -6, even a -10, and still have an excellent chance of a playoff or even top 2 finish. So what they really need to avoid is a deduction this season that pushes them into the playoffs. So delay, frustrate, delay again. Stick in all the Rule K applications you can. It doesn't really matter if you win or not, you just have to ask the question and force someone to spend time answering it. I completely get it, but I am questioning whether the CFRU might look to refer to the CFRP based on the Agreement to Arbitrate and do so right now based on the wide ranging CFRP powers and the Agreement to Arbitrate that binds the League and Clubs. I also appreciate Rule K is an Arbitration but I query whether it holds sway here. Technically they can still sell by 30th June too but again this is uncharted waters. Edited March 26 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Simon Jordan. Interesting. Leicester are not really practicing what they preach here. They talk of transparency but are leaving it to approaching the last possible day to put Accounts into the public domain. (That is also an EFL Embargo offence for all, it's automatic if they go past end of March). They talk of understanding the Process yet are trying to fend off a Hearing. It's obvious why they are doing it but they appear to be full of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 26 Report Share Posted March 26 Would there be any scope for the EFL and PL or Panel to basically refuse to ratify Leicester promotion? Refuse to transfer Golden Share between the divisions. In order that they cannot gain the benefit of a potential breach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 (edited) Occasionally browse Foxes Talk and this poster is reaching a tad. Essentially saying that e.g. poor Transfers and bad wage decisions is a mistake, which shouldn't lead to clubs getting docked points as errors are part of the game. Best mental gymnastics on the FFP issue I've seen in a while! Edited March 27 by Mr Popodopolous 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/leicester-city-transfer-sales-efl-9149611 Wonder what the Break Even Point (Impairment permitting) is..and the 30th June ticking clock. Iversen- £0 Justin- £1m maybe Nelson- £0 Faes- £9m Souttar- £10.90m Kristansen- £8.72m Dewsbury-Hall- £0 Soumare- £6.8m Daka- £9.2m Wonder how big their deficit might be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 27 Report Share Posted March 27 (edited) Vestegaard, Thomas (Loaned out), Ndidi, Praet, Albrighton, Iheanacho, Vardy all out of contract. No sale potential there. Doyle, Fatawu, Yunus- all loanees. No sale potential there. No Fixed Asset escape route. Would it be intriguing to see how it plays out if they missed Promotion and fell under full EFL jurisdiction? Edited March 27 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted March 28 Report Share Posted March 28 FFP doesn't work, I'd like to see a chart of clubs going to into administration before ffp ans compare it to those after I'd also like to see a chart showing that before the transfer window was introduced and after Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 28 Report Share Posted March 28 (edited) 5 hours ago, Monkeh said: FFP doesn't work, I'd like to see a chart of clubs going to into administration before ffp ans compare it to those after I'd also like to see a chart showing that before the transfer window was introduced and after A list albeit not a graph/chart. Unsure if it is exhaustive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football) Both the year and the League they were in. FFP arose in full a decade or so ago. Whether it works is a wider debate but I do hope the Football League seek to charge forward and refer this year. In respect of solvency etc, some sort of naturally generated Cash Breakeven rule or Escrow probably the best. Have to be careful with balancing the 2 given what e.g. Man City, Newcastle, PSG could hypothetically throw at it. Edited March 28 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 28 Report Share Posted March 28 Some clubs have been serial offenders looking at that. Bradford and Portsmouth 3 times. Bury likewise. Aldershot, Derby, Darlington, Port Vale, Luton, Crystal Palace, Rotherham twice apiece. First points deduction for it seemed to have been 2004. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 28 Report Share Posted March 28 (edited) Those who know more, did we not go into Administration? 1982..reason I ask is that some of these who went in seem not to have had the hardship and lingering legacy that we did. What was different? Edited March 28 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyderInACan Posted March 28 Report Share Posted March 28 On 22/03/2024 at 06:47, Monkeh said: Leicester will get a 4 point deduction next season, But they'll be sure to get a 3 point addition tomorrow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 31 Report Share Posted March 31 (edited) I won't slate but is this journalism or PR? Bit of both? They (some of the fans) possibly don't fully grasp the difference between Real Time and Future Monitoring although the first EFL action was premature, but a Professional journalist..does this blur the lines a bit between Reporting and supportive opinion? (Rob Tanner, The Athletic). Edited March 31 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.