Leicester charged by PL for spending breach

WeePat said:
Someone explain this to me.
Click to expand...
I think basically when clubs get promoted and relegated they transfer shares between each other aka you become part of the EFL and they become part of the PL. Doing so before the PSR deadline essentially absolves you of being part of the PL rules on them because you're now part of the EFL.

Leicester did on the 13th June when they were relegated so found themselves in this loophole zone of being in the EFL and now not part of the PL PSR rules.
 
decorativeed said:
It is a farce. They were a member of the PL for all but a matter of weeks at the end of the time period in question - the three years up to the end of the 2022-23 season. All Leicester did was extend their accounting period to June 30th 2023, by which point they'd already finished 18th in the league and transferred their shares in the PL to the promoted clubs from the Championship. That simple move avoided the possibility of a deduction.

The PL should easily have spotted this loophole and closed it, while Leicester have got away with it on a technicality.
Click to expand...
we changed the accounting date months before the end of the season
 
BootsyCollins said:
Conspiracy theorist in me thinks they are doing this to be able to do the same to City.
Click to expand...
the PL didn't do this, its just PSR was never meant to be about fair play it was about protecting the position of the rich 6, otherwise the rules would have been written properly to begin with
 
Rooney in Paris said:
You think this is a fair decision?
Click to expand...
fairness? how is it fair for 6 clubs to get a far greater share of TV revenue, at their own insistence then restrict what other clubs can spend based on income? They want fair play immediately reverse that so the foreign TV money is split equally again.

Aston Villa finished in the top 4 and all the talk about them this summer was about who they would have to sell for PSR, this is not about fair play.

PSR is a load of shite, if they want real financial fair play everyone would have to stick to the same spending limits. If they were serious about PSR they would have drafted the rules correctly, the EFL managed to, they have a line saying something like "just for the removal of doubt if you get promoted to the premier league we consider you and EFL side until all you legal requirements are met" precisely to prevent this sort of issue
 
Jimmy Skitz said:
the PL didn't do this, its just PSR was never meant to be about fair play it was about protecting the position of the rich 6, otherwise the rules would have been written properly to begin with
Click to expand...
Jimmy Skitz said:
fairness? how is it fair for 6 clubs to get a far greater share of TV revenue, at their own insistence then restrict what other clubs can spend based on income? They want fair play immediately reverse that so the foreign TV money is split equally again.

Aston Villa finished in the top 4 and all the talk about them this summer was about who they would have to sell for PSR, this is not about fair play.

PSR is a load of shite, if they want real financial fair play everyone would have to stick to the same spending limits. If they were serious about PSR they would have drafted the rules correctly, the EFL managed to, they have a line saying something like "just for the removal of doubt if you get promoted to the premier league we consider you and EFL side until all you legal requirements are met" precisely to prevent this sort of issue
Click to expand...
Ah ok, you're one of those then! Carry on.
 
SilentWitness said:
I think basically when clubs get promoted and relegated they transfer shares between each other. Doing so before the PSR deadline essentially absolves you of being part of the PL rules on them because you're now part of the EFL.
Click to expand...

I’m not speaking to Leicester’s guilt or innocence, I don’t know the facts of their case, but it seems weird that something like that should absolve any club from the consequences of rules breaking, if rules were broken.
 
WeePat said:
I’m not speaking to Leicester’s guilt or innocence, I don’t know the facts of their case, but it seems weird that something like that should absolve any club from the consequences of rules breaking, if rules were broken.
Click to expand...
it boils down this, we were removed from the league before the accounting period ended, therefore were not a PL club and not subject to the rules.

Its a ridiculous situation of the PL's own doing as they drafted the rules so badly
 
Assuming the owner(s) can afford it, what is now to stop teams in relegation trouble chucking a load of money at new signings in the January window?

Even a 10 point deduction in a future season wouldn't be a death knell for a half decent side, and if they go down, they're immune from punishment anyway. In fact, a 10 point deduction (instead of four) wouldn't have even been enough to relegate Forest last season.

Jimmy Skitz said:
fairness? how is it fair for 6 clubs to get a far greater share of TV revenue, at their own insistence then restrict what other clubs can spend based on income? They want fair play immediately reverse that so the foreign TV money is split equally again.

Aston Villa finished in the top 4 and all the talk about them this summer was about who they would have to sell for PSR, this is not about fair play.

PSR is a load of shite, if they want real financial fair play everyone would have to stick to the same spending limits. If they were serious about PSR they would have drafted the rules correctly, the EFL managed to, they have a line saying something like "just for the removal of doubt if you get promoted to the premier league we consider you and EFL side until all you legal requirements are met" precisely to prevent this sort of issue
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how the TV money works.

Most of it is shared equally, and then the majority of the remainder is awarded on merit, based on final league position.

The only "unfair" variable is the facility fee, paid based on the number of times a team was broadcast. The variation in this in the 2022/23 season (which is the most up to date I can find) was £13.4 million between the top and bottom clubs, which really isn't a "far greater" share at all.

You're either talking out of your arse, or arguing that things shouldn't be merit based.
 
WeePat said:
I’m not speaking to Leicester’s guilt or innocence, I don’t know the facts of their case, but it seems weird that something like that should absolve any club from the consequences of rules breaking, if rules were broken.
Click to expand...
It's just a monumental feck up by the PL to have not seen this loophole basically.
 
Alex99 said:
Assuming the owner(s) can afford it, what is now to stop teams in relegation trouble chucking a load of money at new signings in the January window?

Even a 10 point deduction in a future season wouldn't be a death knell for a half decent side, and if they go down, they're immune from punishment anyway. In fact, a 10 point deduction (instead of four) wouldn't have even been enough to relegate Forest last season.



I don't think you understand how the TV money works.

Most of it is shared equally, and then the majority of the remainder is awarded on merit, based on final league position.

The only "unfair" variable is the facility fee, paid based on the number of times a team was broadcast. The variation in this in the 2022/23 season (which is the most up to date I can find) was £13.4 million between the top and bottom clubs, which really isn't a "far greater" share at all.

You're either talking out of your arse, or arguing that things shouldn't be merit based.
Click to expand...
domestically that's the case yes but the foreign money was done differently and the rich 6 get a greater share than the rest of the foreign money, it wasa change made around the time of the Super League fiasco
 
Rooney in Paris said:
You think this is a fair decision?
Click to expand...
It's not about being a fair decision, it's about being a correct decision !!. The EPL wrote the rules and apparently did a poor job of it & the lawyers (god bless them) exposed the flaws.
That's how the lawyers works .... they act according to what is actually written in the law, rather than according to the general principles of it.
Had we overspent ? We sure had but we found a loophole. !!!
Fair is a matter of opinion but correct is black & white.
 
jeff gurr said:
It's not about being a fair decision, it's about being a correct decision !!. The EPL wrote the rules and apparently did a poor job of it & the lawyers (god bless them) exposed the flaws.
That's how the lawyers works .... they act according to what is actually written in the law, rather than according to the general principles of it.
Had we overspent ? We sure had but we found a loophole. !!!
Fair is a matter of opinion but correct is black & white.
Click to expand...
also apparently the EPL were trying to use the ambiguity of the rules to win the case.
 
Jimmy Skitz said:
domestically that's the case yes but the foreign money was done differently and the rich 6 get a greater share than the rest of the foreign money, it wasa change made around the time of the Super League fiasco
Click to expand...

No, foreign tv money is split largely equally, then the rest on merit.

Villa will have received the 4th highest amount of foreign tv revenue from last season, as they finished 4th.

As suspected, you're talking out of your arse.
 
Jimmy Skitz said:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...big-six-win-battle-overseas-television-rights

no I'm not
Click to expand...

Yes you are. Read more than the headline.

From 2019-20, the first season of TV deals being concluded now, the current level of revenue from international TV rights sales, £3.3bn, will still be shared equally between all 20 clubs. Any increase on that level, which Scudamore is understood to be confident of securing, will then be distributed according to where a team finish in the league.
Click to expand...
 
Jimmy Skitz said:
it boils down this, we were removed from the league before the accounting period ended, therefore were not a PL club and not subject to the rules.

Its a ridiculous situation of the PL's own doing as they drafted the rules so badly
Click to expand...
You're technically correct, which is why they won the case.

In terms of the rules, they argued that while they had over spent in regard to PSR, they were only Premier League members for 35 months out of the 36 months the rules cover. As such, they found a loophole.
 
decorativeed said:
You're technically correct, which is why they won the case.

In terms of the rules, they argued that while they had over spent in regard to PSR, they were only Premier League members for 35 months out of the 36 months the rules cover. As such, they found a loophole.
Click to expand...
yep, at least its been exposed for the sham it is
 
WeePat said:
I’m not speaking to Leicester’s guilt or innocence, I don’t know the facts of their case, but it seems weird that something like that should absolve any club from the consequences of rules breaking, if rules were broken.
Click to expand...

I’ve seen you in another thread defending Chelsea getting away with selling the hotel to meet PSR rules. Bit hypocritical to state Leicester can’t use loopholes and should be punished for breaking rules? It’s all Chelsea have done since Boehly took over.
 
Josep Dowling said:
I’ve seen you in another thread defending Chelsea getting away with selling the hotel to meet PSR rules. Bit hypocritical to state Leicester can’t use loopholes and should be punished for breaking rules? It’s all Chelsea have done since Boehly took over.
Click to expand...

There’s no chance you can find a single post of me defending Chelsea getting away with the hotel sales.

And here I’m not even saying Leicester shouldn’t exploit a loophole. I’m quite clearly saying the PL are stupid for finding themselves in this situation. So you’re wrong about both what I said in Chelsea’s case, and wrong about what I said in Leicester’s case. Anything else you wanna be wrong about?
 
The Premier League have egg on their faces, being outplayed by a few Leicester lawyers.

Lets hope they gather their senses and take it out on City's 5000 super duper lawyers instead.
 
Jimmy Skitz said:
yep, at least its been exposed for the sham it is
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what 'sham' has been exposed other than Leicester's regard for the rules and competition. The Premier League being shit at enforcing rules isn't new.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.