Financial Fair Play (FFP)

[bearwood red]

I do get that if they (Leicester) ceased to be a member of the PL in mid June 2023, the PL cannot bring charges for breach of PSR for the 3 years to 30 June 2023 because LCFC were no longer under PL jurisdiction. What I don’t understand is why the EFL did not/could not bring charges for that period. You can’t be in some regulatory void where you don’t come under either league’s jurisdiction.

 

[vertigored]

I do get that if they (Leicester) ceased to be a member of the PL in mid June 2023, the PL cannot bring charges for breach of PSR for the 3 years to 30 June 2023 because LCFC were no longer under PL jurisdiction. What I don’t understand is why the EFL did not/could not bring charges for that period. You can’t be in some regulatory void where you don’t come under either league’s jurisdiction.

They did though, they got a stern talking to and told not to maybe buy so many players and possibly try selling a couple.

That’ll learn em

 

[Redofheaven2]

I don't think people seem to understand, and I freely admit maybe I don't fully either, but this doesn't seem like the same arguement. When we were charged we were under the jurisdiction of the Premier League because we were in the Premier League. The rules regarding PSR were clear over the numbers we had to abide by.

Leicester, however, had fallen into a different jurisdiction as they were in the Championship when the charges came in which is under the jurisdicition of the EFL. That is the argument they made. We followed the rules of the EFL for that season when we would have been charged and gotten the book thrown at us. They added that because the time limitation is over, well f*** you we are scott free. It is the very definition of a loophole that the Premier League has backed themselves into because they broke away. It's the same that happened with QPR, albeit the other way around. They got promoted to the Premier League with a string of legal issues against them, but because they were now under a different governing body they could not be touched. It was only when they were relegated again could the book and the entire library be thrown at them.

I guess the closest I can compare is US state laws. If you commit a state crime in one state and move to another state before you are found the second state cannot charge you even though they are both in the US. (Note, you can be arrested and extradited to the original state of course so it is not a perfect analogy.)

All this has done is shown that the way the football league is set up in this country, and the divergence of rules from league to league, is not fit for purpose. Or, I should say, it has hammered that point in even further than we already knew. The whole thing is a mess and needs cleaning up with better co-ordination and co-operation between the leagues from the top to the bottom.

Ok but I’m sure last season the won on the argument that they were not under football league jurisdictions.

 

[Irish Wolf]

To paraphrase Woody Allen in 'Bananas'.

"I object, your honor! PSR is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham."

 

[Cortez the Killer]

100% this, it was clear there was an agenda of sorts to make an example of Nottingham Forest. Which is even the more evident with journo's saying how great it is that Ipswich have come up and spent so much money. Yet we were ridiculed for it (some of the signings rightly so, but others we needed the numbers).

My interpretation is that they acknowledge that it's the way to go. It worked for us, it might work for Ipswich. And this makes a mockery of FFP at its core.

Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk

 

[SouthManchesterTree]

This seems to prove an independent regulator is needed.

The PL can’t even appoint lawyers that can write rules clearly.

 

[Est.1865]

What if Leicester escape relegation and it sends us down.

We’d likely deserve to be relegated in those circumstance. Why would you want to hide behind that as an excuse, especially in year 3.

 

[MansfieldRed]

Ok but I’m sure last season the won on the argument that they were not under football league jurisdictions.

Okay, from what I understand, and again I could be wrong, I look at it this way. Using my US state law as an example.

You break a state law in, say, Texas that is not a state crime in California for example. You leave Texas and go to Califronia, then the state of Texas cannot press charges against you as they do not have the jurisdiction to do so. Instead the law enforcement have to wait for you to return to Texas, but by the time they've been able to do that the statute of limitations has passed and they cannot charge you at all for that crime.

From all I understand (again, could be wrong) this is what has happened. Leicester breached, but by the time the EPL could charge them they were under the jursidiction of the EFL, a separate governing body that don't have the power to enact EPL punishments. Leicester got promoted, but the time range to charge them had run out so they cannot be charged for that time period they breached. They would have gotten a points deduction during the 23/24 season same as us and Everton, but they've skirted around it because they were in the Championship.

So in essence they did break the rules, but because of poorly thought out and and even worse worded terms they have found a loophole to avoid being charged for their breach during that time period.

For a third time, I could be mistaken. Qutie easily in fact. It is just how it comes across to me.

 

[Bing Crosby's Head]

In other news, the Premier League have approved Chelsea's hotel sales that kept them within PSR. Nothing dodgy there at all

 

[coops89]

In other news, the Premier League have approved Chelsea's hotel sales that kept them within PSR. Nothing dodgy there at all

I’m becoming more and more disillusioned with football. Loophole after loophole. Not a good look for the Premier League this.

 

[Notcher]

Okay, from what I understand, and again I could be wrong, I look at it this way. Using my US state law as an example.

You break a state law in, say, Texas that is not a state crime in California for example. You leave Texas and go to Califronia, then the state of Texas cannot press charges against you as they do not have the jurisdiction to do so. Instead the law enforcement have to wait for you to return to Texas, but by the time they've been able to do that the statute of limitations has passed and they cannot charge you at all for that crime.

From all I understand (again, could be wrong) this is what has happened. Leicester breached, but by the time the EPL could charge them they were under the jursidiction of the EFL, a separate governing body that don't have the power to enact EPL punishments. Leicester got promoted, but the time range to charge them had run out so they cannot be charged for that time period they breached. They would have gotten a points deduction during the 23/24 season same as us and Everton, but they've skirted around it because they were in the Championship.

So in essence they did break the rules, but because of poorly thought out and and even worse worded terms they have found a loophole to avoid being charged for their breach during that time period.

For a third time, I could be mistaken. Qutie easily in fact. It is just how it comes across to me.

It's not in question whether they breached, they definitely did, the barristers have just got them off on a written technicality. I heard Simon Jordon earlier describing it as them disappearing into a Bermuda Triangle which perfectly sums it up.

 

[Notcher]

I’m becoming more and more disillusioned with football. Loophole after loophole. Not a good look for the Premier League this.

This type of thing is exactly what will end the Premier League. They need to get a grip of it and quickly.

 

[Strummer]

It's not in question whether they breached, they definitely did, the barristers have just got them off on a written technicality. I heard Simon Jordon earlier describing it as them disappearing into a Bermuda Triangle which perfectly sums it up.

Leicester must have hired Robert Massingbird, to get themselves acquitted so cleanly?

I expect an imminent apology from the Premier League, followed by them offering 250m quid to Leicester in compo, as well as a bonus ten points each season for the next three years.

 

[MansfieldRed]

It's not in question whether they breached, they definitely did, the barristers have just got them off on a written technicality. I heard Simon Jordon earlier describing it as them disappearing into a Bermuda Triangle which perfectly sums it up.

It was more about uncertainty on my explanation on the arguement Leicester made and succeeded with. I was certain of the breach.

 

[Chappers85]

Leicester must have hired Robert Massingbird, to get themselves acquitted so cleanly?

I expect an imminent apology from the Premier League, followed by them offering 250m quid to Leicester in compo, as well as a bonus ten points each season for the next three years.

Blackadder:
I remember Massingbird's most famous case: the Case of the Bloody Knife. A man was found next to a murdered body. He had the knife in his hand. 13 witnesses had seen him stab the victim. And when the police arrived, he said "I'm glad I killed the bastard." Massingbird not only got him off; he got him knighted in the New Year's Honours List. And the relatives of the victim had to pay to wash the blood out of his jacket!​

Perkins:
I hear he's a dab hand at the prosecution as well, sir.​

Blackadder:
Yes, well, look at Oscar Wilde.​

Perkins:
Ol' butch Oscar.​

Blackadder:
Yep! Big, bearded, bonking, butch Oscar. The terror of the ladies. 114 illegitimate children, world heavyweight boxing champion and author of the best-selling pamphlet "Why I Like To Do It With Girls." And Massingbird had him sent down for being a whoopsie.​

 

[coops89]

This type of thing is exactly what will end the Premier League. They need to get a grip of it and quickly.

Absolutely, we are the most watched league in the world and everything that goes off is under the microscope. Premier League needs some fresh faces at the top.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

This type of thing is exactly what will end the Premier League. They need to get a grip of it and quickly.

 

[Master Yates]

Q



I don't want to accuse @YouReds43 of ageism Richard, but if the cap fits.....

If 43 is a reference to his birth year, YouReds43 would in fact be 81yo this year.

A Leicester style reprieve from the charges perhaps…..?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Statto]

Okay, from what I understand, and again I could be wrong, I look at it this way. Using my US state law as an example.

You break a state law in, say, Texas that is not a state crime in California for example. You leave Texas and go to Califronia, then the state of Texas cannot press charges against you as they do not have the jurisdiction to do so. Instead the law enforcement have to wait for you to return to Texas, but by the time they've been able to do that the statute of limitations has passed and they cannot charge you at all for that crime.

From all I understand (again, could be wrong) this is what has happened. Leicester breached, but by the time the EPL could charge them they were under the jursidiction of the EFL, a separate governing body that don't have the power to enact EPL punishments. Leicester got promoted, but the time range to charge them had run out so they cannot be charged for that time period they breached. They would have gotten a points deduction during the 23/24 season same as us and Everton, but they've skirted around it because they were in the Championship.

So in essence they did break the rules, but because of poorly thought out and and even worse worded terms they have found a loophole to avoid being charged for their breach during that time period.

For a third time, I could be mistaken. Qutie easily in fact. It is just how it comes across to me.

It is a bit, in reality there should be some sort of reciprocal arrangement wiht the PL and EFL that they would be able to carry through points sanctions imposed on a club when they change memberships, and for a club which either breaches EPL rules during a season they are relegated, or for one which breaches EFL rules whilst getting promoted to the EPL, to be punished by the league for the sanctions during this period. So the EPL should be able to charge Leicester for going over EPL limits whilst they were in the EPL and for the punishment to either be translated to the EFL season or to be applied on the occasion they get promoted back.

In your example what would presumably happen is that Texas would have an extradition arrangement with California for the hearing to be mandated and the charge to either be held under Texas law in California or for them to order your return to Texas to be tried there. It wouldn't quite be the same as someone in Texas doing something which is legal in Texas but not in California and the latter getting all faffy about it. Of course the internet makes this kind of global jurisdiction a bit harder; if someone was in the UK and did something which was legal in the UK but not in the US on the internet, at what point would the US be able to do anything (such as order extradition) even if it was done to a system or person in the US?

 

[Thomas]

You break a state law in, say, Texas that is not a state crime in California for example. You leave Texas and go to Califronia, then the state of Texas cannot press charges against you as they do not have the jurisdiction to do so. Instead the law enforcement have to wait for you to return to Texas, but by the time they've been able to do that the statute of limitations has passed and they cannot charge you at all for that crime.

Unrelated to the topic at and but I f***ing hate Texas for banning abortions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Statto]

Unrelated to the topic at and but I f***ing hate Texas for banning abortions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tbf the choice to keep it in your pants is always there

 

[Thomas]

Tbf the choice to keep it in your pants is always there

True but Sex education isn’t required in Texas btw!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[uredsuns]

Tbf the choice to keep it in your pants is always there

Sadly not everyone consents to sex.

 

[Statto]

Sadly not everyone consents to sex.

In most cases though...

Somewhat academic really - I don't necessarily agree with abortion myself, but there are occasions where it's the best outcome for medical or other reasons (e.g. rape as you're implying) and indeed the right to a choice should be respected. So the right to have one should always be there.

 

[Louth Red]

Further evidence of the incompetence of the PL governance.

LCFC are morally guilty but legally not guilty.

Thee is no point wasting time and money to appeal the decision.

We have to focus on our forthcoming fixtures and achieve the points needed to secure our PL membership.

Off the pitch it’s up to NFFC and other PL clubs to close this and other loopholes.

The relationship between PL & EFL is poor - this latest PSR decision was an accident waiting to happen.

All PL clubs look to bend the PSR rules for their own benefit. Ironically the building of the LCFC stadium was a contributory factor in bringing in new financial rules (ultimately PSR).

For what it’s worth my understanding of our player dealings with NUFC in the close season was that we agreed a purchase fee of £30m, and a sale fee of £20m. Of course there is no evidence of this, but if correct it would suit both clubs for PSR purposes - and a great football decision for Forest.

We have two tough away games coming up - preparation for LFC will be tough with so many players away on international duty ( and possible injuries). Our focus must be on the games.