JohnMitten
Registered
We have been put out of our misery and lost the appeal against the 6 point deduction according to BBC Sport.
Appeal lost
- Thread starter JohnMitten
- Start date
SK24U
Roofer
Easy Daz, easy son
sixthswan
Non-Member
Thought it was the PL that were responsible for our sanction?
We also need to remember that this appeal was partially a victory, because the PL wanted more points deducted.
Some thoughts on the verdict from the Commission...
Sep 2024 - the PL informed LCFC that it anticipated bringing a PSR complaint against the club, for the period ending FY24.
Feb 2025 - the PL begin drafting amendments to the existing PL rules - including a new rule W.52.10.
Mar 2025 - LCFC ask the PL when the new rule would take effect and would it only be applied to future assessment periods.
The club also asked the PL whether it had considered legal issues around retrospectivity.
13 Mar 2025 - the PL reply "the PL does not intend for the proposed amendments to apply in respect of PSR assessment periods that have already finished" and that the "PL does not intend the proposed amendments to have retrospective effect."
18 Mar 2025 - LCFC seek clarity "It is our understanding that the proposed amendments are not intended to have any retrospective effect, that they would not apply to any PSR assessment periods ending with Accounting Reference Periods that have already finished, and that they would only apply prospectively. Please can you confirm if this is correct?"
20 Mar 2025 - the PL reply "Confirmed."
LCFC ask the PL the make this clear at the next shareholders meeting, either in a Resolution related to the rule amendments, in accompanying guidance, or otherwise. The PL say, "Yes, we are happy to do this. We would not usually include guidance for something like this but we would be happy to make this clear in the meeting and then ensure that it is subsequently reflected in the Minutes."
27 Mar 2025 - shareholder meeting slides in a presentation state "Proposed changes are entirely prospective – no impact on financial years already concluded." The meeting minutes also noted this.
Chapter 11 of the Commission ruling states, "We set out below the provisions of W.52 of the PL Rules 2024/25 adopted on 27 March 2025 which it is common ground are the rules which are applicable to these appeals and which set out the powers available to a Commission following a finding that a complaint has been proved." So at the actual meeting where the PL are providing assurances that the new rules will NOT be retrospective, the Rule W.52.10 was adopted. It is as clear as day, that LCFC would expect that to be binding, regardless of the wording of the specific rule...
BUT the Rule W.52.10 when published did not mention anything about time limits, nor specifically retrospectivity.
The Commission ruled that even though the PL promised no retrospectivity in all the representations prior to the adoption of the new rules, that this didn't matter. So LCFC could not rely on those "promises". The Commission saw these representations as negotiations, rather than promises. Also the promises made by the PL were about amendments, rather than the new Rule W.52.10.
Seems that the famous de Marco failed us this time. On the balance of interpretive and equitable principles, the Commission should not apply W.52.10 retrospectively against LCFC; the Panel should uphold LCFC’s entitlement to rely on the PL’s clear prospective assurance and grant appropriate declaratory or injunctive relief. To ignore the assurances made to LCFC and allow retrospectivity, means that there is absolutely no time limit to Rule W.52.10.
We also need to remember that this appeal was partially a victory, because the PL wanted more points deducted.
Some thoughts on the verdict from the Commission...
Sep 2024 - the PL informed LCFC that it anticipated bringing a PSR complaint against the club, for the period ending FY24.
Feb 2025 - the PL begin drafting amendments to the existing PL rules - including a new rule W.52.10.
Mar 2025 - LCFC ask the PL when the new rule would take effect and would it only be applied to future assessment periods.
The club also asked the PL whether it had considered legal issues around retrospectivity.
13 Mar 2025 - the PL reply "the PL does not intend for the proposed amendments to apply in respect of PSR assessment periods that have already finished" and that the "PL does not intend the proposed amendments to have retrospective effect."
18 Mar 2025 - LCFC seek clarity "It is our understanding that the proposed amendments are not intended to have any retrospective effect, that they would not apply to any PSR assessment periods ending with Accounting Reference Periods that have already finished, and that they would only apply prospectively. Please can you confirm if this is correct?"
20 Mar 2025 - the PL reply "Confirmed."
LCFC ask the PL the make this clear at the next shareholders meeting, either in a Resolution related to the rule amendments, in accompanying guidance, or otherwise. The PL say, "Yes, we are happy to do this. We would not usually include guidance for something like this but we would be happy to make this clear in the meeting and then ensure that it is subsequently reflected in the Minutes."
27 Mar 2025 - shareholder meeting slides in a presentation state "Proposed changes are entirely prospective – no impact on financial years already concluded." The meeting minutes also noted this.
Chapter 11 of the Commission ruling states, "We set out below the provisions of W.52 of the PL Rules 2024/25 adopted on 27 March 2025 which it is common ground are the rules which are applicable to these appeals and which set out the powers available to a Commission following a finding that a complaint has been proved." So at the actual meeting where the PL are providing assurances that the new rules will NOT be retrospective, the Rule W.52.10 was adopted. It is as clear as day, that LCFC would expect that to be binding, regardless of the wording of the specific rule...
BUT the Rule W.52.10 when published did not mention anything about time limits, nor specifically retrospectivity.
The Commission ruled that even though the PL promised no retrospectivity in all the representations prior to the adoption of the new rules, that this didn't matter. So LCFC could not rely on those "promises". The Commission saw these representations as negotiations, rather than promises. Also the promises made by the PL were about amendments, rather than the new Rule W.52.10.
Seems that the famous de Marco failed us this time. On the balance of interpretive and equitable principles, the Commission should not apply W.52.10 retrospectively against LCFC; the Panel should uphold LCFC’s entitlement to rely on the PL’s clear prospective assurance and grant appropriate declaratory or injunctive relief. To ignore the assurances made to LCFC and allow retrospectivity, means that there is absolutely no time limit to Rule W.52.10.
So they have had our hearing,came to a conclusion,docked us 6 points,arranged an appeal hearing
(why did we appeal?) listened to our appeal and upheld their original decision but still haven't resolved the Man City 115 charges !
A glowing example of corruption based around the greedy Six cartel!
(why did we appeal?) listened to our appeal and upheld their original decision but still haven't resolved the Man City 115 charges !
A glowing example of corruption based around the greedy Six cartel!
Last edited:
sixthswan
Non-Member
I think we appealed, because the PL has assured us there would be no retrospective application of the new rules. They created a new liability, after past acts. I'd have been disappointed had we not appealed.
Man City won a past appeal, because their clear breach and actual law break was time-barred, according to the CAS. It actually wasn't (and isn't under the then PL rules) and the Panel was rigged with two Man City sympathisers. We lost a ton of Champions League money as a result...
Time is either on your side, or not...
Man City won a past appeal, because their clear breach and actual law break was time-barred, according to the CAS. It actually wasn't (and isn't under the then PL rules) and the Panel was rigged with two Man City sympathisers. We lost a ton of Champions League money as a result...
Time is either on your side, or not...
Breadfan
Round the Bend
Incidentally I think that the PL had also appealed for a harsher sentence and that was also turned down, so we probably had to do something to counter their request for a bigger points deduction. Either way that the PL can dock us points in the Championship just feels wrong.
sixthswan
Non-Member
Can't remember if the PL put in an appeal for the additional points deduction, before we appealed the six points.
Either way, I suspect our appeal blocked the PL succeeding with theirs.
It is plainly wrong that the PL can push for points deductions in the Championship. It's like Leicestershire Police fining you, for speeding in Devon. Not only doing that, but changing the rule before any offence was committed and the retrospectively fining you as if the new rules existed at the time. After promising this wouldn't happen...but it's OK because they didn't actually say that in the new rules, even though they approved the new rules with you on the day they promised not to retrospectively fine you.
Either way, I suspect our appeal blocked the PL succeeding with theirs.
It is plainly wrong that the PL can push for points deductions in the Championship. It's like Leicestershire Police fining you, for speeding in Devon. Not only doing that, but changing the rule before any offence was committed and the retrospectively fining you as if the new rules existed at the time. After promising this wouldn't happen...but it's OK because they didn't actually say that in the new rules, even though they approved the new rules with you on the day they promised not to retrospectively fine you.
buz_not_buzz
Occasional Poster
If I remember the original commission correctly strictly speaking they cannot, I think the deduction was (as Sixthswan alludes to when saying "push for points deductions") a recommendation by the independent commission for the EFL to consider (they could in fact have determined that it wasn't appropriate or possible for whatever reason in which case we would have been fined £9.6m).
buz_not_buzz
Occasional Poster
Indeed. One cannot imagine the EFL spent very long deliberating over it (and if it did it would probably have only been to consider if they could have done something to hit us with more). Considering their collusion over the 2022/23 case, ultimately a bit of window dressing.
sixthswan
Non-Member
I'm honestly struggling to see why LCFC lost this appeal. I think the decision was incorrect.
The club and the other clubs were assured on the day (and before) that rule W.52.10 was adopted, that there would be no retrospective application of the rules (this wasn't explicit about amended or new rules)...
They literally created a new rule, just so they could punish us for an event prior to the rule amendments - because their original rules were not fit for purpose.
This is fucking ridiculous...
The club and the other clubs were assured on the day (and before) that rule W.52.10 was adopted, that there would be no retrospective application of the rules (this wasn't explicit about amended or new rules)...
They literally created a new rule, just so they could punish us for an event prior to the rule amendments - because their original rules were not fit for purpose.
This is fucking ridiculous...