JetsetJimbo
Well-known member
- Jun 13, 2011
- 1,095
I like this idea, but I think it should be applied once for each charge they're found guilty of. So they could start each season on -70 points for the next 115 years.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Leicester City charged with alleged PSR breach
- Thread starter Mancgull
- Start date
I like this idea, but I think it should be applied once for each charge they're found guilty of. So they could start each season on -70 points for the next 115 years.
I don't know how the PL can fix this loophole without redefining what it is completely.
The main crux of the issue is that Leicester ceased to be a Premier League "Club" on 13/06/23 and the breach didn't officially occur until 30/06/23 (the end of the 3-year-accounting-period). The whole point of the Premier League is that it is run and owned by the 20 member clubs who make decisions as a collective. So unless the PL redefines itself as an organisation that incorporates teams who aren't competing in the Premier League then I'm not sure what they can do to stop this from happening.
Moving the date in which the accounting period ends if you get relegated is problematic because Leicester, rightly, had until 30 June to make up the £24.5m overspend by selling players, as do other teams. I would presume that Newcastle, Everton, Villa and Forest all did that this season and will likely all squeeze through PSR regulations without punishment because of this.
Moving the date of the share transfer between promoted and relegated clubs could work but the nature of the AGM (the share swap date), where the new clubs take their seats and all 20 clubs discuss and vote on changes for the forthcoming season is very important. This year's AGM approved the trial of Squad Cost Rules (SCR) and Top to Bottom Anchoring Rules (TBA) to run alongside the PSR rules for this season (with the implication being that if the trial is a success it will replace PSR). This obviously needed to be implemented for the new yearly accounting period on 1 August for it to be trialled correctly. As it will affect the promoted clubs and not the relegated clubs for 24/25, the share transfer needed to have happened ahead of 30 June to allow them to vote on it.
Personally, it's a real shame that the appeal board have decided to let Leicester get away with what is essentially fiddling the system. The plus side is that the only way that it seems you can fiddle the system is to get relegated at great cost and risk. Fulham's year in the Championship in 21/22 decreased their income by 40%, Leicester's will be similar and I'm sure they would've taken, like Everton and Forest, a 6 point deduction and Premier League survival if offered the choice.
The main crux of the issue is that Leicester ceased to be a Premier League "Club" on 13/06/23 and the breach didn't officially occur until 30/06/23 (the end of the 3-year-accounting-period). The whole point of the Premier League is that it is run and owned by the 20 member clubs who make decisions as a collective. So unless the PL redefines itself as an organisation that incorporates teams who aren't competing in the Premier League then I'm not sure what they can do to stop this from happening.
Moving the date in which the accounting period ends if you get relegated is problematic because Leicester, rightly, had until 30 June to make up the £24.5m overspend by selling players, as do other teams. I would presume that Newcastle, Everton, Villa and Forest all did that this season and will likely all squeeze through PSR regulations without punishment because of this.
Moving the date of the share transfer between promoted and relegated clubs could work but the nature of the AGM (the share swap date), where the new clubs take their seats and all 20 clubs discuss and vote on changes for the forthcoming season is very important. This year's AGM approved the trial of Squad Cost Rules (SCR) and Top to Bottom Anchoring Rules (TBA) to run alongside the PSR rules for this season (with the implication being that if the trial is a success it will replace PSR). This obviously needed to be implemented for the new yearly accounting period on 1 August for it to be trialled correctly. As it will affect the promoted clubs and not the relegated clubs for 24/25, the share transfer needed to have happened ahead of 30 June to allow them to vote on it.
Personally, it's a real shame that the appeal board have decided to let Leicester get away with what is essentially fiddling the system. The plus side is that the only way that it seems you can fiddle the system is to get relegated at great cost and risk. Fulham's year in the Championship in 21/22 decreased their income by 40%, Leicester's will be similar and I'm sure they would've taken, like Everton and Forest, a 6 point deduction and Premier League survival if offered the choice.
RandyWanger
Je suis rôti de boeuf
How embarassing for the EPL
schmunk
Centrist Dad
He gets the train from Haywards Heath, because we have the best trains, the bigliest trains. Magnificent trains, many people are saying...
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 8,252
Is it not just a case of inserting words to the effect of ...
"for the purposes of defining what a PL club is, we will regard them as a PL club if they have played in the PL during the season of the accounting period"
14 clubs vote that wording through. Loophole closed?
I'm no lawyer but I think because of the way in which "Club" is used to define a member/shareholder of the Premier League that phrase would essentially leave a loophole where relegated teams have voting rights after they have been relegated (which could cause all sorts of problems). Also it would really complicate the separation between the EFL and the PL. The PL and EFL are standalone entities and "Clubs" cannot hold membership to both the PL and EFL concurrently. This is the crux of the issue of the wording.
You either change the relationship between the EFL and the PL (so that they become one membership collective - not going to happen), or you change the date of which "Clubs" transfer their membership but as I said before, that's a logistical nightmare that probably only hurts the promoted side (in this case Luton).
What may be the answer is that the EFL and PL PSR rules align completely, with pre-defined punishments based on the level of breach, and there is a pre-defined agreement between the two bodies that this is measured across divisions and that the organisations have the responsibility to administer punishment to the member. We are absolutely nowhere near that happening.