All you need is cash

There’s nothing yet to suggest everyone will get the same points deductions. I don’t know how many rules Everton had broken and by how much.

We’ll know more if and when Forest are charged and the same if and when Everton are charged again.

Weren’t Forest meant to know by now? I thought it was due to be announced last week?
 
DagenhamFox said:
There’s nothing yet to suggest everyone will get the same points deductions. I don’t know how many rules Everton had broken and by how much.

We’ll know more if and when Forest are charged and the same if and when Everton are charged again.

Weren’t Forest meant to know by now? I thought it was due to be announced last week?
Click to expand...
Forest lose 3 points every feckin week and it’s marvellous… 😊
 
Points deductions are completely the wrong way to handle this type of thing. They hit the fans, the players (less sympathy), and maybe most important make the competition a farce. I agree with the concept of financial fair play but punishment needs to ‘hurt’ the people who break the rules. Lifetime bans for the directors who sign off payments outside the rules, and severe sanctions for agents that profit from transactions outside the rules (‘I didn’t know’ should be no defence .. ‘knowing’ should be a condition of doing business as an agent).
 
Wearthefoxhat said:
Because it’s 2 charges, Everton have another to face and 2x6=🤔
Click to expand...
It's been reported in a few places that we won't face a 'double whammy' of two points deductions next year even if we are in breach for both the 2020-2023 and 2021-2024 periods, but rather one points deduction from the PL and a fine from the EFL. The reason being that EFL rules mean we can't get two points deductions in the same season. I don't know if this is true, but it has been claimed in a few places.
 
Brusselsfox said:
Points deductions are completely the wrong way to handle this type of thing. They hit the fans, the players (less sympathy), and maybe most important make the competition a farce. I agree with the concept of financial fair play but punishment needs to ‘hurt’ the people who break the rules. Lifetime bans for the directors who sign off payments outside the rules, and severe sanctions for agents that profit from transactions outside the rules (‘I didn’t know’ should be no defence .. ‘knowing’ should be a condition of doing business as an agent).
Click to expand...
Nothing about the rules as they currently stand has anything to do with 'fair play'.
 
ClaphamFox said:
Nothing about the rules as they currently stand has anything to do with 'fair play'.
Click to expand...

Understand .. the current rules are about ‘sustainability’, not really fair play. But my other comments still apply. It should be the directors and agents that are sanctioned when the rules are broken.
 
ClaphamFox said:
Nothing about the rules as they currently stand has anything to do with 'fair play'.
Click to expand...
Brusselsfox said:
Understand .. the current rules are about ‘sustainability’, not really fair play. But my other comments still apply. It should be the directors and agents that are sanctioned when the rules are broken.
Click to expand...
Yes they are about sustainability though I am not sure that was the point that ClaphamFox was trying to make but I disagree that they don't also have a fair play component. If they didn't there wouldn't be an upper threshold, they would just say if you go above £xm loss prove you can fund it (which they do anyway) but leave it at that.

Leaving aside that they obviously favour the established richest anyway, the problem is, as soon as there is a transgression they are inherently unfair on the clubs that didn't break the rules because, whilst breaking them is as much a sporting transgression as a purely financial one (i.e. teams gain a competitive advantage by breaking them), if the authorities determine the appropriate sanction is also a sporting one (i.e. a points deduction) the sporting punishments happen in a different year to when the transgressions occur. That cannot be right.

As for the rest. Let's suppose that last season we had managed to keep within the rules but Everton hadn't, why the fuck would I care if Moshiri was being penalised when there was every chance that without them breaking the rules we wouldn't have been relegated? I'd have wanted them punished last season (which was impossible). And considering the supposed reason for the rules, what would it do for the sustainability of Everton if you ban the directors (i.e. owners) for an overspend? What does "signing off on making a payment outside the rules" even mean in the context of P&S rules & a football season? When we signed Souttar a full 5-6 months before the end of the accounting period were we making a payment outside the rules?

I have always understood why the rules are there given some of the struggles clubs have had but personally I hate them, they are a blunt tool. In terms of favouring the biggest clubs I suspect they will be nothing compared to the impact of Short Term Cost Control rules that the authorities in this country will almost certainly bring in to align with UEFA's new rules.

Edited to add: "...favour the established richest anyway"
 
Last edited:
I just think that personal sanctions against people who are making (& encouraging) crazy financial gambles are much more likely to be a deterrent for the individuals concerned rather than points loss. And the whole purpose should be to deter .. even invoking sanctions is a total failure of the system. Beyond that it seems to me that mixing ‘financial’ mismanagement and ‘sporting’ sanctions in the current way helps no one and makes the competition a farce. Why 6 points? Why not 3 or 20 or 50? It’s totally arbitrary. Also the season matters much less if you are penalising individuals. I still think that some kind of rules to prevent stupid financial management are needed .. but I think we can all agree that the current system is not fit for purpose.
 
I'm halfway thru the latest Big Strong Leicester Boys podcast and there is a football finance expert on. Well worth a listen if you're interested in the finer details of all this.

I need to listen again, at a slower speed, as there was so much info I was struggling to grasp it.
 
Brusselsfox said:
I just think that personal sanctions against people who are making (& encouraging) crazy financial gambles are much more likely to be a deterrent for the individuals concerned rather than points loss.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear we are talking specifically about PSR rules now and not the sort of financial mismanagement that would be bordering on the illegal (i.e. the sort of thing that would see someone failing a fit and proper person test). If so, it would probably depend on the individual but what sort of sanctions could those be given that generally we are talking about club owners? And what sort of "crazy financial gamble" are we talking about here? Is it a crazy financial gamble for a club to spend £10m more than it should according to a competition rule if a) the owners are happy to finance it appropriately and b) it may be the difference between PL football & relegation or Champions League football or not (and if in succeeding you don't break the rule anyway)? That such gambles must seem like the sensible option is an inevitable result of a football industry where the difference between success and failure is measured not in trophies but in turnover.

Brusselsfox said:
And the whole purpose should be to deter .. even invoking sanctions is a total failure of the system.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but what are you saying, "don't break the rules or else... we won't do anything"?

Brusselsfox said:
Beyond that it seems to me that mixing ‘financial’ mismanagement and ‘sporting’ sanctions in the current way helps no one and makes the competition a farce.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does make it a farce but you are missing that 'financial' mismanagement = 'sporting' advantage and in that respect a 'sporting' sanction is appropriate. I am just arguing that timing constraints mean that such sanctions cannot be applied appropriately (i.e. making it a farce as you say).

Brusselsfox said:
Why 6 points? Why not 3 or 20 or 50? It’s totally arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is arbitrary and probably deliberately so. The authorities can pretty much decide on specific sanctions (sporting, financial or both) in each individual case (and I am not sure how transparent they are). This is where how much you can afford to pay your lawyers probably comes in.
 
Clutching at straws, but the Micky Mousers should owe us around £5,000,000 for Nyoni and we must have spent a couple of million in preparations for the East stand extension, buying land etc. Also the LCWFC must cost a lot of money to run, we should be given great credit for giving the womens team a PL training ground and main stadium to play on. Not Kingstonian or Barnet or Southport.
 
Adumass said:
I'm halfway thru the latest Big Strong Leicester Boys podcast and there is a football finance expert on. Well worth a listen if you're interested in the finer details of all this.

I need to listen again, at a slower speed, as there was so much info I was struggling to grasp it.
Click to expand...
Cheers for the head's up, will try and listen to that later.
 
SemperEadem said:
At least we can have a bit more pride in what the fans are still.
Remember seeing grown blokes giving it the I am not worthy to Aiyawatt in Eindhoven, was speechless.
Click to expand...
That was remarkable. Working class people licking the arse of billionaires is always an awful sight.
Club has been run terribly for quite some time right now and the cultist mentality of a good chunk of our fanbase only makes things worse because incompetence isn’t remotely held to account.
 
AlgarFox said:
I still cringe at seeing him holding on to that trophy as though it was all his doing. We have missed his father's business acumen, have we not?
Click to expand...
Ffs if it was him or his father what does it really matter?
Vichai had a dream…champions of England, you made us sing that.
Same family, same money. He didnt have to stick around.
 
AlgarFox said:
I still cringe at seeing him holding on to that trophy as though it was all his doing. We have missed his father's business acumen, have we not?
Click to expand...
I’ve never seen what the problem was with the scenario, to me he was just showing to us all how much he loved us and what it meant to him rather than look what I’ve done it’s all because of me, tho I have been known to be slightly incorrect on a rare occasion 👀
 
‘Loved us’. .. come on. Vichai bought Leicester because Top wanted a plaything and Mandaric wanted to sell. If circumstances had been different he could easily have bought West Brom or Sheffield Wednesday or any one of another dozen clubs. Clearly Top was emotionally invested in ‘the project’ and delighted that his plaything had come up trumps. I’m sure he enjoyed the atmosphere and I’m sure he was fine that others were also happy, but ‘loved’? If and when Top decides to sell I bet he won’t come back to Leicester very often.
Also let’s be careful with this ‘Vichai benevolent genius’ story. For me the credit for what we achieved should be almost exclusively for the football staff, especially the players, but also Ranieri, Shakespeare and to an extent Pearson. I’m sure Vichai did contribute to creating a more professional set-up, but by far his biggest contribution was his money, and despite what he put in he still died a rich man.
 
Brusselsfox said:
‘Loved us’. .. come on. Vichai bought Leicester because Top wanted a plaything and Mandaric wanted to sell. If circumstances had been different he could easily have bought West Brom or Sheffield Wednesday or any one of another dozen clubs. Clearly Top was emotionally invested in ‘the project’ and delighted that his plaything had come up trumps. I’m sure he enjoyed the atmosphere and I’m sure he was fine that others were also happy, but ‘loved’? If and when Top decides to sell I bet he won’t come back to Leicester very often.
Also let’s be careful with this ‘Vichai benevolent genius’ story. For me the credit for what we achieved should be almost exclusively for the football staff, especially the players, but also Ranieri, Shakespeare and to an extent Pearson. I’m sure Vichai did contribute to creating a more professional set-up, but by far his biggest contribution was his money, and despite what he put in he still died a rich man.
Click to expand...
Could not agree more.
 
AlgarFox said:
I still cringe at seeing him holding on to that trophy as though it was all his doing. We have missed his father's business acumen, have we not?
Click to expand...
I felt uncomfortable with this. It was the first time I’d seen owners of a club stand front and square taking the plaudits along with their families and various other hangers on.
I am grateful for their financial contribution, but wanted to see the players on that lap of honour.
 
Uttoxfox said:
I felt uncomfortable with this. It was the first time I’d seen owners of a club stand front and square taking the plaudits along with their families and various other hangers on.
I am grateful for their financial contribution, but wanted to see the players on that lap of honour.
Click to expand...
Audible chants that day from older boys in SK1 saying ‘give the trophy to the lads’.
 
I think Vichais bought LCFC as a business proposition and he ran it as such. The honours were for the fans and players but he was always on top of the money. He was ruthless when necessary and very aware of business PR. Football is a business and a club needs a good businessman in a leadership position. I also think Top is a nice guy who enjoys the success along with the fans and staff - but a businessman? Really?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top