Leicester WIN PSR Appeal

[Mr Popodopolous]

This is truly farcical.

The Written Reasons should be good, the jurisdiction question an issue again on first glance.

https://www.premierleague.com/news/4106719

[Dredd]

So does this mean that a team can go nuts spending on the prem, as long as they get relegated they can't be charged because the season ends before the accountancy period?

[Markthehorn]

Suspect certain others teams  be a question or two 

[Northern Red]

Can the PL not just reissue the charges now they're back in the league?

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Dredd said:

So does this mean that a team can go nuts spending on the prem, as long as they get relegated they can't be charged because the season ends before the accountancy period?

The Rules have changed again since, the EFL Rules. I'll post some snippets from this first.

The 31st December thing also now applies, the issue is that th is came in August 2023, but Leicester moved Leagues, transfer Golden Share June 2023.

They also moved their Accounting Period from end of May to end of June. To try and comply for one, ie selling Maddison but it seemed to move the dial on jurisdiction.

[Mr Popodopolous]

£24.4m over the Upper Loss Limit seemingly.

The EFL did not lift the Embargo that went on in March due to concerns in respect of their Rules. Leicester won one element which was that the EFL couldn't enforce a deduction for the PL but the EFL won the other bit.

There was also talk that they may have failed on the way up too but this, well who knows now.

It seemed to come down by £4.9m the overspend over 3 years to 2023.

[Unan]

1. Profitability and Sustainability Rules: These rules are meant to ensure that clubs don't spend beyond their means over a rolling three-year period, with a maximum allowable loss of £105 million during that time.

2. Leicester City's Case: Leicester City allegedly breached these rules during the 2022/23 season. However, by the time the financial results were fully assessed (which includes the period up until June 30, 2023), Leicester had already been relegated to the Championship.

3. Jurisdiction Issue: Leicester City successfully argued that because they were no longer a Premier League club when the financial year ended, the Premier League had no jurisdiction to penalize them for breaches related to that period.

Potential Implications:

This decision could indeed create a loophole where a club might spend aggressively while in the Premier League, knowing that if they were relegated, the Premier League might not be able to enforce sanctions related to the financial year in which they were relegated.

However, Some Important Caveats:

• Relegation is not a guaranteed or desirable strategy: Clubs don't typically aim to be relegated, as it has significant financial and sporting consequences. The loss of revenue from being in the Premier League can far outweigh the benefits of avoiding a PSR breach penalty.

• Rule Changes and Appeals: The Premier League has expressed its dissatisfaction with the appeal decision and might seek to close this loophole through rule changes or further legal action. The League may implement stricter enforcement or rules that apply regardless of whether a club is relegated during the assessment period.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Unan said:

1. Profitability and Sustainability Rules: These rules are meant to ensure that clubs don't spend beyond their means over a rolling three-year period, with a maximum allowable loss of £105 million during that time.

2. Leicester City's Case: Leicester City allegedly breached these rules during the 2022/23 season. However, by the time the financial results were fully assessed (which includes the period up until June 30, 2023), Leicester had already been relegated to the Championship.

3. Jurisdiction Issue: Leicester City successfully argued that because they were no longer a Premier League club when the financial year ended, the Premier League had no jurisdiction to penalize them for breaches related to that period.

Potential Implications:

This decision could indeed create a loophole where a club might spend aggressively while in the Premier League, knowing that if they were relegated, the Premier League might not be able to enforce sanctions related to the financial year in which they were relegated.

However, Some Important Caveats:

• Relegation is not a guaranteed or desirable strategy: Clubs don't typically aim to be relegated, as it has significant financial and sporting consequences. The loss of revenue from being in the Premier League can far outweigh the benefits of avoiding a PSR breach penalty.

• Rule Changes and Appeals: The Premier League has expressed its dissatisfaction with the appeal decision and might seek to close this loophole through rule changes or further legal action. The League may implement stricter enforcement or rules that apply regardless of whether a club is relegated during the assessment period.

Erm the Rules are Written in a way that now covered a range of eventualities tbh.

[Mr Popodopolous]

[Mr Popodopolous]

There are some particular new elements this season such as...

A) The 31st December deadline irrespective of divisional status the prior year.

B) The idea and definition of Forecast Annual Accounts.

C) Likelihood of breach and need to prevent it in

i) ARP

ii) ARP+1

iii) ARP+2

D) Seems that yes they can indeed refer for a Forecast Breach on March 1st.

I also saw something somewhere about a 30th June deadlne.

[Mr Popodopolous]

This bit I'm unsure on!

Does it mean...by Promoted or Relegated into the League does it mean..

A) National League and League 2

B) PL and Championship

C) Both!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Also

[redkev]

Mr pop fair play to you with all that stuff but you really need to get a life

just joking if that’s your thing fine , we all have our own go to vices , mine is usually food , then the next day run swim walk gym rinse and repeat

[Mr Popodopolous]

27 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This bit I'm unsure on!

Does it mean...by Promoted or Relegated into the League does it mean..

A) National League and League 2

B) PL and Championship

C) Both!

I somehow missed this bit, this squares that circle for P&S and failure to do so is an Automatic Embargo.

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, redkev said:

Mr pop fair play to you with all that stuff but you really need to get a life

just joking if that’s your thing fine , we all have our own go to vices , mine is usually food , then the next day run swim walk gym rinse and repeat

In all fairness it's useful to know these, we were approaching danger levels in 2022-23 and I reckon we wouldn't have got away with it had we run aground.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Other minor bit,

The Period ending 2023-24, ie 2021-22 to 2023-24 still being assessed.

[Hxj]

My first reading is that LCFC's defence is simple.

We left the EPL on 14 June, but our accounts were to 30 June.  Therefore you cannot prove that whilst we were members of the EPL we broke the spending limit.

Whilst maddening the statement is entirely true based upon the facts.

The matter would be resolved if all clubs were forced to a 31 May accounting date.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Hxj said:

My first reading is that LCFC's defence is simple.

We left the EPL on 14 June, but our accounts were to 30 June.  Therefore you cannot prove that whilst we were members of the EPL we broke the spending limit.

Whilst maddening the statement is entirely true based upon the facts.

The matter would be resolved if all clubs were forced to a 31 May accounting date.

They were in the Football League by 15th June and breached it while a Championship Club?

One difference I noticed is that the Football League is more real time and they passed it on to the PL, the 22nd March Embargo in accordance with Football League Rules must have helped.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Intriguingly they're still favourites for Relegation. Rest somewhere that one Bookmaker had suspended their Relegation odds.

Ideal world they'd be dropkicked to League 2 minimum.

Edited September 3 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Is there any scope at all for the League(s) to turn the tables with a Nuclear Option pertaining to the Transfer of the Golden Share if or when Leicester are Relegated?

[Super]

Hugely embarrassing for the PL. Man City will take them apart as well i expect.

[Markthehorn]

10 minutes ago, Super said:

Hugely embarrassing for the PL. Man City will take them apart as well i expect.

Yes you can bet they will  find any loophole going as happened with UEFA.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Markthehorn said:

Yes you can bet they will  find any loophole going as happened with UEFA.

UEFA was to an extent their own fault, UEFA have an internal Statute of Limitations or perhaps it is Swiss Law Idk, anyway 5 years and some Man City offences were time-barred.

That may or may not be applicable in the UK but concealment etc can negate a theoretical 6 year time-bar.

[Midred]

At which point did they change their accounting period? Surely a minimum of 12 months notice?

[LondonBristolian]

Farcical though this undoubtedly is, I can't see clubs rushing to get relegated so that they can dodge PSR...

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, LondonBristolian said:

Farcical though this undoubtedly is, I can't see clubs rushing to get relegated so that they can dodge PSR...

The EFL Rules negate this to some extent as they've changed post the Leicester scenario.

Checkpoints on the 30th June, 31st December and March 1st all help!

[Hxj]

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They were in the Football League by 15th June and breached it while a Championship Club?

I haven't check the regulations in detail.  I suspect that this case will cause a re-write of the relevant bits of both EFL and EPL regulations, plus some other additional counter-measures.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Hxj said:

I haven't check the regulations in detail.  I suspect that this case will cause a re-write of the relevant bits of both EFL and EPL regulations, plus some other additional counter-measures.

They can't be neither an EPL Club nor an EFL/Championship Club simultaneously surely??

[Hxj]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They can't be neither an EPL Club nor an EFL/Championship Club simultaneously surely??

Agreed.

That said it depends on what the regulations actually say, and how that is interpreted by the relevant panels.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Hxj said:

Agreed.

That said it depends on what the regulations actually say, and how that is interpreted by the relevant panels.

 

The EFL Rules seem more robust in some ways. I read that case that last night and it was worth noting that one of the grievances by Leicester was that they were under Embargo for the Forecast Breach to 2024.

They wanted it lifted there and then, but the EFL did not lift it until they became a PL Club.

[Midred]

Bit like the government tax laws, are the loop holes built in or are the company lawyers smarter than the hmrc lawyers?

[Henry]

FFP/PSR or whatever, in its current form, is ruining football and is just pushing the top teams further away.

The fact Villa and Newcastle can’t push on and challenge for the league is madness.

[38MC]

3 hours ago, Midred said:

Bit like the government tax laws, are the loop holes built in or are the company lawyers smarter than the hmrc lawyers?

Smarter lawyers in the private sector simply, and govt lawyers being stretched too thin to rush out legislation which does not deal with every permutation. 

Probably worth mentioning that HMRC and other Govt departments in a court case will often also hire private sector, very skilled barristers and KC's, so the problem really sit with the quality of legislation and regulations. 

Edited September 4 by 38MC

[Midred]

1 hour ago, 38MC said:

Smarter lawyers in the private sector simply, and govt lawyers being stretched too thin to rush out legislation which does not deal with every permutation. 

Probably worth mentioning that HMRC and other Govt departments in a court case will often also hire private sector, very skilled barristers and KC's, so the problem really sit with the quality of legislation and regulations. 

Wonder if it's the same between the efl, pl and club lawyers?

[View from the Dolman]

EFL Statement : Leicester City

Quote

The EFL notes the decision of the independent Appeal Board in respect of Leicester City’s appeal regarding the Premier League’s jurisdiction over the Club’s alleged breach of its Profitability and Sustainability Rules.

We are currently reviewing the decision in full and will reserve any further substantive comment until any possible appeal process initiated by the Premier League has concluded, and or any action is taken by the EFL.

We share the frustrations of the Premier League.  It cannot be right that Clubs potentially escape the scrutiny of the agreed rules and sanctions due to movement across the divisions.

Cost control rules have been agreed by the member clubs of the Premier League and EFL, and it is incumbent on the Leagues to apply the rules as intended to uphold the integrity of competitions, with Clubs required to act in utmost good faith towards one another for the benefit of all Clubs and their supporters. 

https://www.efl.com/news/2024/september/04/efl-statement--leicester-city/

Edited September 4 by View from the Dolman

[chinapig]

They're not out of the woods yet:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/sep/04/leicester-could-face-new-psr-charge-premier-league-accounts

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 hours ago, Henry said:

FFP/PSR or whatever, in its current form, is ruining football and is just pushing the top teams further away.

The fact Villa and Newcastle can’t push on and challenge for the league is madness.

Nah Villa are tossers. I remember them at this level, got very lucky and arrogant with it.

Hope they somehow screw themselves, moaning entitled that they are.

Edited September 4 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 hours ago, Midred said:

Bit like the government tax laws, are the loop holes built in or are the company lawyers smarter than the hmrc lawyers?

It's more that the PL version of the Regs are the issue.

They're poorly drafted, they're lax. Leicester whinged about an Embargo in March by the EFL saying it was premature and restrictive, the subtext bring that the EFL should lift it as it was only a Forecast Breach.

Did the EFL lift it? They did not. Do you know why, because it was in accordance with their Rules as drafted.

Edited September 4 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting legal analysis on a Birmingham forum of all places?

??

"Legally, wrong"- Ultra Vires, Perverse? What is the technical term here if this is right.

Some Birmingham fans thinking they can take advantage clearly haven't read up on EFL P&S Regs 2.2-2.4.

[downendcity]

23 hours ago, Hxj said:

My first reading is that LCFC's defence is simple.

We left the EPL on 14 June, but our accounts were to 30 June.  Therefore you cannot prove that whilst we were members of the EPL we broke the spending limit.

Whilst maddening the statement is entirely true based upon the facts.

The matter would be resolved if all clubs were forced to a 31 May accounting date.

Absolutely, but am I right in thinking that any such change has to be voted by the member clubs? If so, the surely clubs with a different accounting year end and don't want to change, just vote against it  - would turkeys vote for Christmas?

As I think has already been mentioned, you can bet Man City's legal team are sharpening their pencils over this embarrassment for the PL and you can see how their  charges will most likely quickly evaporate. 

Football's regulators need to get ahead of the game instead of appearing to be constantly chasing their tales, with clubs' financial and accounting advisers seemingly in a different class.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Absolutely, but am I right in thinking that any such change has to be voted by the member clubs? If so, the surely clubs with a different accounting year end and don't want to change, just vote against it  - would turkeys vote for Christmas?

As I think has already been mentioned, you can bet Man City's legal team are sharpening their pencils over this embarrassment for the PL and you can see how their  charges will most likely quickly evaporate. 

Football's regulators need to get ahead of the game instead of appearing to be constantly chasing their tales, with clubs' financial and accounting advisers seemingly in a different class.

 

Football League mostly are on a fairly even keel. Since 2021..

*Fixed Assets loophole shut

*Breach, Forecast Breach, compliance based on Projected Sales- all an auto Embargo in March.

*The Forecast Annual Accounts rule that came in this summer.

*The checkpoints on 30th June, 31st December and 1st March for existing plus new (at either end) Championship clubs alike.

The PL however seems wildly on the hoof. They don't have the reset of prior individual years over the individual Upper Loss Limit, as well as no Fixed Asset Profit adjustment out.

Edited September 4 by Mr Popodopolous

[38MC]

4 hours ago, Midred said:

Wonder if it's the same between the efl, pl and club lawyers?

Probably, but it’s less forgivable for these guys to get it wrong (but still quite forgivable). 

Govt legislation usually needs to move at a certain pace whereas these are rules governing financial compliance in a membership association. The Premier League & EFL could have spent as long as they needed to consider what behaviours they were trying to punish and how to make that enforceable, and then put it into words  

But even still it’s far easier to find a loophole when you’re looking for one that could apply in your specific circumstances than it is to predict every eventuality. 

[Red from afar]

On 03/09/2024 at 20:36, Mr Popodopolous said:

Also

Does 87.3 here not state that the league should have been responsible for the financial breach, even it was made in the PL and this is the technicality that Leicester won their appeal on? The fact that it was the PL that pressed the charges when the responsiblityshould have passed to the FL?

Edited September 4 by Red from afar
Wording

[Mr Popodopolous]

What is to stop the EFL therefore bringing Charges to 2023 given that Leicester were officially a Championship Club on June 30th 2023.

Would have to make sure they made Charges at the right time though.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Red from afar said:

Does 87.3 here not state that the league should have been responsible for the financial breach, even it was made in the PL and this is the technicality that Leicester won their appeal on? The fact that it was the PL that pressed the charges when the responsiblityshould have passed to the FL?

About to read it again and have a look.

As far as I can see, the issue is the Disciplinary or Dispute needed to have commended or begun at the time of League/Divisional movement.

See Sheffield United- they got a 2 Point Deduction as an Agreed Decision but the Disciplinary Process or Dispute begun in 2022-23. This wasn't passed onto the PL.

A key difference is that the LCFC Process to 2023-24 begun in the EFL itself, see the Embargo in March.

Had the PL had a nice Real Time System, perhaps a Dispute would've begun in March it April 2023 and followed them down, passed over.

PL Charged Leicester when they were an EFL Club! Could they have held fire and Charged them for the 3 PL years once the Golden Share Transferred back? ie Mid June 2023 or so.

The Forecast/Projected Accounts in the EFL act at minimum as an early warning system, whereas in the PL??

Edited September 4 by Mr Popodopolous

[Red from afar]

And I can't see the lawyers paying anything back for that oversight either.

[Mr Popodopolous]

The grand irony is that it was the PL who devised these Rules to align to UEFA then got arsey when the EFL had different Rules.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/mar/14/financial-fair-play-rules-unsustainable-richard-scudamore-premier-league

They devised them, yet the EFL iteration is much more sophisticated.

[ExiledAjax]

11 hours ago, Midred said:

Wonder if it's the same between the efl, pl and club lawyers?

All have very good and very expensive lawyers. PL use Linklaters, if you want to know how much they cost then give them a call. Leicester had Centrefield (a leading specialist sports law firm) and then Nick de Marco as their barrister. He is probably the best sports barrister in the country - bit of a nause - but a damn good lawyer. It's not a case of anyone bombing someone else with lawyers.

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting legal analysis on a Birmingham forum of all places?

??

"Legally, wrong"- Ultra Vires, Perverse? What is the technical term here if this is right.

Some Birmingham fans thinking they can take advantage clearly haven't read up on EFL P&S Regs 2.2-2.4.

Would love to know @bluearmyfaction's legal credentials. If he knows better than all the guys and girls that worked on this case and he doesn't earn £500k a year then he needs to get applying for jobs. 

I'm sceptical is what I'm saying.

6 hours ago, Red from afar said:

And I can't see the lawyers paying anything back for that oversight either.

Why would they?

I might finally get a minute to read the decision today.

Edited September 5 by ExiledAjax

[Hxj]

2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

I'm sceptical is what I'm saying.

Quite rightly too.

The point in the Royle case is that you have to calculate future losses for compensation.  As Royle's contractual salary was £750k in the EPL and £300k in the EFL then his future losses were based upon the EFL salary not the EPL salary, as Man City had been "ineluctably" relegated.  The fact that all the legal requirements for relegation had not been completed did not alter the future losses.

For anyone interested:  Manchester City Football Club Plc v Royle [2005] EWCA Civ 195 (08 March 2005) (bailii.org). 

'Ineluctably' will be my new word next week.

[PHILINFRANCE]

12 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting legal analysis on a Birmingham forum of all places?

??

"Legally, wrong"- Ultra Vires, Perverse? What is the technical term here if this is right.

Some Birmingham fans thinking they can take advantage clearly haven't read up on EFL P&S Regs 2.2-2.4.

I find it quite interesting how a Birmingham fan, who doesn’t claim to have any formal legal background, has managed to establish that the PL’s panel, both experienced and with access to legal experts, missed this important point.

This would suggest that the PL’s panel was incompetent and failed in their duty.

Alternatively, the Birmingham fan is not quite as knowledgeable as he might like to think.

My guess is that it’s the latter .

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Would love to know @bluearmyfaction's legal credentials. If he knows better than all the guys and girls that worked on this case and he doesn't earn £500k a year then he needs to get applying for jobs. 

I'm sceptical is what I'm saying.

 

49 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I find it quite interesting how a Birmingham fan, who doesn’t claim to have any formal legal background, has managed to establish that the PL’s panel, both experienced and with access to legal experts, missed this important point.

This would suggest that the PL’s panel was incompetent and failed in their duty.

Alternatively, the Birmingham fan is not quite as knowledgeable as he might like to think.

My guess is that it’s the latter .

 

Tend to agree with you both in hindsight. I've seen the username on other platforms citing legalese in Football Cases but maybe a bar-room lawyer.

Still the PL Rules are fairly poorly drafted and behind the curve, set against the EFL ones.

[downendcity]

45 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I find it quite interesting how a Birmingham fan, who doesn’t claim to have any formal legal background, has managed to establish that the PL’s panel, both experienced and with access to legal experts, missed this important point.

This would suggest that the PL’s panel was incompetent and failed in their duty.

Alternatively, the Birmingham fan is not quite as knowledgeable as he might like to think.

My guess is that it’s the latter .

 

This is the Birmingham fan in question - he used to be a Director of the club - here seen demonstrating his legal credentials.

 

[downendcity]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

Tend to agree with you both in hindsight. I've seen the username on other platforms citing legalese in Football Cases but maybe a bar-room lawyer.

Still the PL Rules are fairly poorly drafted and behind the curve, set against the EFL ones.

Does anyone else have the impression that both EPL and EFl, when drafting their financial rules, were naive  in thinking that all clubs would adjust their financial management in order to comply  and adhere to the spirit of those rules and would not try and find ways around them in order to gain an advantage?

 

[ExiledAjax]

19 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

Tend to agree with you both in hindsight. I've seen the username on other platforms citing legalese in Football Cases but maybe a bar-room lawyer.

Still the PL Rules are fairly poorly drafted and behind the curve, set against the EFL ones.

As a stranger on a football forum who gives legal opinions I would advise you to be very wary of strangers on football fora who give legal opinions.

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Does anyone else have the impression that both EPL and EFl, when drafting their financial rules, were naive  in thinking that all clubs would adjust their financial management in order to comply  and adhere to the spirit of those rules and would not try and find ways around them in order to gain an advantage?

 

Yes. Same with UEFA too I expect.

Although the EFL have been there and done it, the whole Derby debacle set the ball rolling then Aston Villa, Sheffield Wednesday, Birmingham, Reading, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, Stoke and Blackburn Fixed Asset stuff over 3 seasons.

Broadly speaking it is becoming more and more under control at our level but that Period was wild.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Such an interesting counter factual.

Even assuming HS2 Revenue still permitted in full...let's see.

*Aston Villa would've had a £30mish hole to fill to 2019.

*Birmingham would've failed a 2nd time in 2019. By £7-8m perhaps.

*Derby, 8 figure breach to 2018? Just strip £40m out of their consolidator and work backwards in effect. Who knows afterwards.

*Reading would've failed by 2018 or 2019 at the latest. They failed twice as it was but more!

*Sheffield Wednesday would've failed both 2018 and 2019.

Blackburn and Stoke need more analysis by me, as to how Periods overlap etc. Blackburn sale was only a few million so maybe narrowly within anyway.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I get the feeling that the EFL will come back for another go one way or another at some point. 

[downendcity]

29 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

As a stranger on a football forum who gives legal opinions I would advise you to be very wary of strangers on football fora who give legal opinions.

Have you had questionable legal opinions on a football forum?

Has your club failed to gain promotion because other clubs have cheated financial rules?

Have you had an accident of birth that wasn't your fault, as a result of which you've spent years  of suffering and pain supporting your club?

Footballlawyers4U.co.uk are here to help, so contact us now on a no win, no fee basis - it's a shame football ticket prices don't work in the same way!

[Mr Popodopolous]

This bit is interesting from the EFL v LCFC case that came in April.

Is EFL v LCFC a Closed matter.

"Arbitration should proceed, if not expedited without due delay".

Is this to a further EFL type Hearing or what? Pertaining to what?

[Hxj]

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

Does anyone else have the impression that both EPL and EFl, when drafting their financial rules, were naive  in thinking that all clubs would adjust their financial management in order to comply  and adhere to the spirit of those rules and would not try and find ways around them in order to gain an advantage?

Firstly it is important to remember that both the EPL and the EFL are objects of their member's creation.

Secondly, as I have said before, the real problem arose when the maximum loss in a 'distress' position became a 'target'.

Finally I think that the EFL is doing a great job in catching up on the regulations, the EPL is somewhat behind partly because of the move towards the UEFA system.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Report by Percy Wednesday suggests that the Football League are weighing up taking action.

https://archive.is/2024.09.04-194305/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/09/04/efl-leicester-avoid-points-deduction/

Edited September 6 by Mr Popodopolous

[Sir Geoff]

On 04/09/2024 at 21:44, downendcity said:

Absolutely, but am I right in thinking that any such change has to be voted by the member clubs? If so, the surely clubs with a different accounting year end and don't want to change, just vote against it  - would turkeys vote for Christmas?

As I think has already been mentioned, you can bet Man City's legal team are sharpening their pencils over this embarrassment for the PL and you can see how their  charges will most likely quickly evaporate. 

Football's regulators need to get ahead of the game instead of appearing to be constantly chasing their tales, with clubs' financial and accounting advisers seemingly in a different class.

 

Re your para 2. You bet they are. I think I heard it right on Price of Football but PL legal fees expected to top £100 million next year due to the case against City. Imagine if they lose and have to pay City's costs as well. I can well see a situation where this is either sorted out of the court room or evidence against City is watered down.

Bearing in mind its the other 18 clubs that will be technically paying those legal costs.

[Mr Popodopolous]

One more general observation.

I noticed in a number of LCFC Statements throughout the process the expression "the right bodies at the right times".

The first was the mid April Statement, the 2nd was part of their Statement announcing their 2023 Accounts, the 3rd was their application for Injunctive Relief.

Who are the correct bodies and at what time is correct..

Surely by process of elimination, the right body could be the EFL for the Period ie the CFRP anyway for the Period ending 2023 and the PL or PL IDC if there is a fail to 2024.

Edited September 8 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

You might have an idea on this one @Hxj

The PL cannot charge Leicester as they were not a PL club by June 30th 2023 or July 1st 2023 or March 5th 2024 Idk when the alleged overspend of £15-20m occured.

Can the Football League, either now or if Leicester return to their jurisdiction have a go? Logic and common sense surely dictates that they were in one League or the other at time of alleged overspend?

[oldstandrobin]

Bloody Hell. When I was a young scalper in the East End, waiting for Gibbo to come down and 1.2 3. off the crossbar the talk was of nothing else than these rules. How things have changed.

[SecretSam]

On 03/09/2024 at 19:39, Mr Popodopolous said:

This is truly farcical.

The Written Reasons should be good, the jurisdiction question an issue again on first glance.

https://www.premierleague.com/news/4106719

I listened to the Athletic pod daily on this, really interesting - sounds like they found a loophole and got away with it. Very much a case of the spirit of the law and the letter of the law not being aligned.

[Mr Popodopolous]

19 hours ago, SecretSam said:

I listened to the Athletic pod daily on this, really interesting - sounds like they found a loophole and got away with it. Very much a case of the spirit of the law and the letter of the law not being aligned.

Basically yeah...

Although not the end of the story as the EFL will reportedly look to charge them for the period ending 2022-23, when they become a Championship Club again.