|
|
Post by J-Roar on Sept 4, 2024 16:19:51 GMT
It is wrong that the year Leicester got relegated wasn't counted because they submitted the accounts after they were no longer members of the league. It really shouldn't be a big deal for the Premier League to close that loophole in their rules. It was stupid of them to write them the way they did but it isn't Leicester City's fault the rules are crap - why should they be docked points for someone else's incompetence? If anyone found themselves in an equivalent situation with respect to a contract they would do the same. Not that I like it or am some secret fan of Leicester, but took the time to actually read up on this last week and you're right imho - It's the PL's own damned fault for leaky wording. Actually think they intentionally do some of this (tin foil hat on) because with the lawyers they can afford, it would leave only sheer incompetence, laziness and stupidity as the driving force behind it. With the number of yo-yo clubs, you'd think they would have sealed this up a long time ago. Man City will take them to the cleaners. They probably end up with a points addition. |
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Sept 4, 2024 16:43:35 GMT
The transfer window as it stands needs binning,but you can't go back to the old days when you could buy a players anytime during the season.
Just have 1 window,starting 1 week after the season comes to an end,& one week before the season starts,that gives clubs around 12 weeks to try & sort their squads out before the season starts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glory Hunter on Sept 5, 2024 12:11:55 GMT
This has become a nothing thread. The title should be changed to “Leicester in no trouble whatsoever” then it will then fade into the background.
|
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Sept 5, 2024 13:01:40 GMT
It is wrong that the year Leicester got relegated wasn't counted because they submitted the accounts after they were no longer members of the league. It really shouldn't be a big deal for the Premier League to close that loophole in their rules. It was stupid of them to write them the way they did but it isn't Leicester City's fault the rules are crap - why should they be docked points for someone else's incompetence? If anyone found themselves in an equivalent situation with respect to a contract they would do the same. Not that I like it or am some secret fan of Leicester, but took the time to actually read up on this last week and you're right imho - It's the PL's own damned fault for leaky wording. Actually think they intentionally do some of this (tin foil hat on) because with the lawyers they can afford, it would leave only sheer incompetence, laziness and stupidity as the driving force behind it. With the number of yo-yo clubs, you'd think they would have sealed this up a long time ago. I agree that it is the fault of the Premier but isn't it usually true that you don't spot a loophole until someone finds it and uses it. I have a friend who is a Derby fan who argues that a club have done nothing wrong in breaking the rules until they are found out which seems a very warped sense of what is right and wrong. Leicester knew that they had broken the rules but found a way of avoiding the punishment which seems to belong to the same school of thought. They admit that they broke PAS rules but didn't submit their accounts until the Premier couldn't punish them by pushing their submission of accounts back by three months. Equally I guess that they would say that the EFL could not punish them because despite being a member of the EFL when they submitted the accounts they had not been a member when they broke them. That sounds like having your cake and eating it to me. I hope that at some time in the very near future they get a massive punishment. What is the point of agreeing to rules and then finding a way of breaking them? |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 5, 2024 14:21:03 GMT
Not that I like it or am some secret fan of Leicester, but took the time to actually read up on this last week and you're right imho - It's the PL's own damned fault for leaky wording. Actually think they intentionally do some of this (tin foil hat on) because with the lawyers they can afford, it would leave only sheer incompetence, laziness and stupidity as the driving force behind it. With the number of yo-yo clubs, you'd think they would have sealed this up a long time ago. I agree that it is the fault of the Premier but isn't it usually true that you don't spot a loophole until someone finds it and uses it. I have a friend who is a Derby fan who argues that a club have done nothing wrong in breaking the rules until they are found out which seems a very warped sense of what is right and wrong. Leicester knew that they had broken the rules but found a way of avoiding the punishment which seems to belong to the same school of thought. They admit that they broke PAS rules but didn't submit their accounts until the Premier couldn't punish them by pushing their submission of accounts back by three months. Equally I guess that they would say that the EFL could not punish them because despite being a member of the EFL when they submitted the accounts they had not been a member when they broke them. That sounds like having your cake and eating it to me. I hope that at some time in the very near future they get a massive punishment. What is the point of agreeing to rules and then finding a way of breaking them? The thing is they didn't break them. I'm not saying what Leicester did wasn't ethically dubious but the fact is what they did was within the rules. The problem is the rules as they are written aren't fit for purpose. That isn't Leicester's fault and in the circumstances every club, including Stoke, would have done the same. As to Derby - they did break the rules and were rightly punished. I agree your Derby friend has a perverse sense of right and wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Sept 5, 2024 19:24:43 GMT
I agree that it is the fault of the Premier but isn't it usually true that you don't spot a loophole until someone finds it and uses it. I have a friend who is a Derby fan who argues that a club have done nothing wrong in breaking the rules until they are found out which seems a very warped sense of what is right and wrong. Leicester knew that they had broken the rules but found a way of avoiding the punishment which seems to belong to the same school of thought. They admit that they broke PAS rules but didn't submit their accounts until the Premier couldn't punish them by pushing their submission of accounts back by three months. Equally I guess that they would say that the EFL could not punish them because despite being a member of the EFL when they submitted the accounts they had not been a member when they broke them. That sounds like having your cake and eating it to me. I hope that at some time in the very near future they get a massive punishment. What is the point of agreeing to rules and then finding a way of breaking them? The thing is they didn't break them. I'm not saying what Leicester did wasn't ethically dubious but the fact is what they did was within the rules. The problem is the rules as they are written aren't fit for purpose. That isn't Leicester's fault and in the circumstances every club, including Stoke, would have done the same. As to Derby - they did break the rules and were rightly punished. I agree your Derby friend has a perverse sense of right and wrong. They spent more money than they should and knew they were which is breaking the rules. They chose to move the date they submitted their accounts which didn't break the rules but got them out of their punishment. They did it before when they got promoted and got away with it, just as Derby would have had they won the play off final. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 5, 2024 22:44:07 GMT
The thing is they didn't break them. I'm not saying what Leicester did wasn't ethically dubious but the fact is what they did was within the rules. The problem is the rules as they are written aren't fit for purpose. That isn't Leicester's fault and in the circumstances every club, including Stoke, would have done the same. As to Derby - they did break the rules and were rightly punished. I agree your Derby friend has a perverse sense of right and wrong. They spent more money than they should and knew they were which is breaking the rules. They chose to move the date they submitted their accounts which didn't break the rules but got them out of their punishment. They did it before when they got promoted and got away with it, just as Derby would have had they won the play off final. The point about contracts and rules is that it all boils down to the wording. In terms of the wording of the Premier League rules Leicester DID NOT break them. And several years ago they did not break them as they were at the time because going into administration wasn't against the rules - the rules have since been changed. In terms of Derby yes if the got promoted they would no longer be in the EFL so the EFL could not sanction them. However whenever they got relegated they would have been sanctioned by the EFL. In that sense it was the same as Leicester - the Premier League could only sanction them when they got promoted. The Premier League and the EFL are separate organisations with separate rules. The problem of sanctioning clubs on relegation and promotion is just a feature of how the things are setup. There is a fundamental difference between actually breaking the rules as they are written and doing something ethically dubious. You can only get sanctioned for breaking the rules as they are written - that's how contracts and rules are designed to work. They are not ethical codes. |
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Sept 6, 2024 10:02:24 GMT
They spent more money than they should and knew they were which is breaking the rules. They chose to move the date they submitted their accounts which didn't break the rules but got them out of their punishment. They did it before when they got promoted and got away with it, just as Derby would have had they won the play off final. The point about contracts and rules is that it all boils down to the wording. In terms of the wording of the Premier League rules Leicester DID NOT break them. And several years ago they did not break them as they were at the time because going into administration wasn't against the rules - the rules have since been changed. In terms of Derby yes if the got promoted they would no longer be in the EFL so the EFL could not sanction them. However whenever they got relegated they would have been sanctioned by the EFL. In that sense it was the same as Leicester - the Premier League could only sanction them when they got promoted. The Premier League and the EFL are separate organisations with separate rules. The problem of sanctioning clubs on relegation and promotion is just a feature of how the things are setup. There is a fundamental difference between actually breaking the rules as they are written and doing something ethically dubious. You can only get sanctioned for breaking the rules as they are written - that's how contracts and rules are designed to work. They are not ethical codes. I understand what you are saying but we are not talking about legality I am talking about the fact that football clubs agreed to the terms of a competition they entered. The rules are there to make it fair. If you sign up to a competition neither Leicester, Manchester City nor any other club should then start to look for ways to get round the rules. It is called integrity I suppose but whatever it is Leicester have not once but twice found ways to get round rules which when they agreed to them they accepted as being fair. What is that but cheating? When Leicester got promoted last time by the way, you are right, the Premier would not accept the punishment the EFL wanted to give them because as you say they are different competitions. The EFL then accepted a comparatively small fine from Leicester which led to most promoted teams ( notably Aston Villa, Leeds, Newcastle, QPR and nearly all other clubs promoted since I am told by an accountant friend) breaking the EFL rules and then paying them financial compensation which is dwarfed by the amount of money they are making as a Premier team. Perhaps it is justice that having refused to support the EFL the Premier are now finding the tables reversed. The more concerning thing is that Manchester City think this ruling now means they will get out of all the charges against them because they will appeal to a court outside of the Premier league. In my opionon if you belong to a club and agree to abide by the rules you should either accept them or leave the club because you don't. Try to change them in consultation with other members of the club if you want to but not try to cheat your way round the ones you don't like. |
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Sept 7, 2024 23:17:24 GMT
Looks like Simon Jordan agrees with me. Leicester have knowingly broken the rules and had brilliant lawyers to get them off scot free. Just because they won their appeal doesn't mean they were innocent. Unlike the other, he says 91 clubs, but I think that number should be lower, they chose to find a way of breaking the rules and it reflects as badly on them as it does on the Premier League. The thing is, they and Manchester City etc can afford the best lawyers, unlike the poorer clubs. He also points out that you can never make a set of water tight rules because as soon as you make them clubs like Leicester will get their lawyers to look for ways round them. I think the way you have to look at it is that Leicester didn't break the rules and then try to find a way of getting out of the charge. They actively look for loopholes and then break the rules by using them and have now got away with it twice. That is cheating on your fellow football clubs, not the Premier League and is despicable, not something to be lauded and blamed on the Premier League and EFL.
|
|
|
|
Post by senojbor on Sept 7, 2024 23:57:51 GMT
Don't look back in anger
|
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 8, 2024 6:02:40 GMT
Looks like Simon Jordan agrees with me. Leicester have knowingly broken the rules and had brilliant lawyers to get them off scot free. Just because they won their appeal doesn't mean they were innocent. Unlike the other, he says 91 clubs but I think that number should be lower, they chose to find a way of breaking the rules and it reflects as badly on them as it does on the Premier League. The thing is, they and Manchester City etc can afford the best lawyers, unlike the poorer clubs. He also points out that you can never make a set of water tight rules because as soon as you make them clubs like Leicester will get their lawyers to look for ways round them. I think the way you have to look at it is that Leicester didn't break the rules and then try to find a way of getting out of the charge. They actively look for loopholes and have now got away with it twice. That is cheating on your fellow football clubs, not the Premier League and is despicable, not something to be lauded and blamed on the Premier League and EFL. They did not break the rules and they didn't need brilliant lawyers to make their case. They won their appeal precisely because they did not break the rules - they abided by the rules they had signed up to. The rules were intended to do one thing but were written in a way that said something else. The appeal judges could do nothing other than let Leicester off because it would make a mockery of all rules and contracts if they hadn't - it would mean you could sign up to something, abide by the wording of what you had signed up to and then get done because the person who wrote the rules/contract says they didn't mean what they said they meant. It would be completely pointless signing up to anything because the words could be re-interpreted at a whim. Rules and contracts are defined by the words used. They have to be otherwise they don't serve their purpose. The appeal judges had absolutely no option but to find in favour of Leicester because they did not break the rules as they were written. |
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Sept 8, 2024 9:39:27 GMT
Looks like Simon Jordan agrees with me. Leicester have knowingly broken the rules and had brilliant lawyers to get them off scot free. Just because they won their appeal doesn't mean they were innocent. Unlike the other, he says 91 clubs but I think that number should be lower, they chose to find a way of breaking the rules and it reflects as badly on them as it does on the Premier League. The thing is, they and Manchester City etc can afford the best lawyers, unlike the poorer clubs. He also points out that you can never make a set of water tight rules because as soon as you make them clubs like Leicester will get their lawyers to look for ways round them. I think the way you have to look at it is that Leicester didn't break the rules and then try to find a way of getting out of the charge. They actively look for loopholes and have now got away with it twice. That is cheating on your fellow football clubs, not the Premier League and is despicable, not something to be lauded and blamed on the Premier League and EFL. They did not break the rules and they didn't need brilliant lawyers to make their case. They won their appeal precisely because they did not break the rules - they abided by the rules they had signed up to. The rules were intended to do one thing but were written in a way that said something else. The appeal judges could do nothing other than let Leicester off because it would make a mockery of all rules and contracts if they hadn't - it would mean you could sign up to something, abide by the wording of what you had signed up to and then get done because the person who wrote the rules/contract says they didn't mean what they said they meant. It would be completely pointless signing up to anything because the words could be re-interpreted at a whim. Rules and contracts are defined by the words used. They have to be otherwise they don't serve their purpose. The appeal judges had absolutely no option but to find in favour of Leicester because they did not break the rules as they were written. Technically they didn't break the rules but morally they did. The worst thing was that they cheated on other clubs in both the Premier and EFL. The EFL clubs have to submit their accounts by March 30th so that punishments can be handed out in the same season. That is when Leicester have in the past submitted theirs. However the Premier leaves it till June. Leicester's lawyers spotted that the date when the Premier need their accounts to be submitted was about a week after teams have to resign from the Premier. It was also about a week before they would join the EFL and so they were not under the governance of either body if they submitted their accounts in that week and so therefore no punishment would stand up in a court of law. They did not break the law but they did break the rules of the competition they signed up to by overspending. But by submitting their accounts when they did not belong to either league they won their appeal because technically they were under no jurisdiction. If they didn't know they were breaking the rules and would receive a punishment why did they suddenly move the date they had always submitted their accounts? Why did they choose to submit them after the date they left. They broke the rules they signed up to but didn't provide the accounts before they had resigned from the competition and therefore could not be punished. They didn't need brilliant lawyers at the appeal but they did find the loophole for them before March 30th and advised them to move the date of submission. As Jordan says what should be a sporting competition is being decided not on sporting prowess but by the best accounting and legal teams. Leicester should be starting this season with a 10 /20 point deduction because they circumvented P&S rules. Most teams choose not to do this and stick by the rules or, as in Everton, Forest and Sheffield Utd's case take their punishment. For the second time in probably ten years Leicester have found a loophole to avoid punishment. The previous loophole has been closed because they found it and the same thing will happen this time. Do you not think their lawyers are already looking for a new way to get around the rules? Do you not think that is immoral and against the spirit of a sporting competition? Is it not on a parallel to taking drugs for a sporting advantage and trying to find a way of hiding it. The Premier do not come out of this smelling of roses but Leicester have cheated not on them but on all the football clubs that they compete with. People seem to be applauding Leicester for having beaten the Premier League but I think there should be very grave concerns for the way Leicester and Manchester City are manipulating the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 8, 2024 10:26:13 GMT
Those in glass houses and all that.
I think it’s very wise to keep quiet on these situations 🤣
|
|
|
|
Post by thornestein on Sept 10, 2024 19:13:59 GMT
i’ve just read about Chelsea selling the two hotels attached to their ground to another company they own to help cover PSR, anyone know anymore on this ?
|
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Sept 11, 2024 12:54:11 GMT
They did not break the rules and they didn't need brilliant lawyers to make their case. They won their appeal precisely because they did not break the rules - they abided by the rules they had signed up to. The rules were intended to do one thing but were written in a way that said something else. The appeal judges could do nothing other than let Leicester off because it would make a mockery of all rules and contracts if they hadn't - it would mean you could sign up to something, abide by the wording of what you had signed up to and then get done because the person who wrote the rules/contract says they didn't mean what they said they meant. It would be completely pointless signing up to anything because the words could be re-interpreted at a whim. Rules and contracts are defined by the words used. They have to be otherwise they don't serve their purpose. The appeal judges had absolutely no option but to find in favour of Leicester because they did not break the rules as they were written. Technically they didn't break the rules but morally they did. The worst thing was that they cheated on other clubs in both the Premier and EFL. The EFL clubs have to submit their accounts by March 30th so that punishments can be handed out in the same season. That is when Leicester have in the past submitted theirs. However the Premier leaves it till June. Leicester's lawyers spotted that the date when the Premier need their accounts to be submitted was about a week after teams have to resign from the Premier. It was also about a week before they would join the EFL and so they were not under the governance of either body if they submitted their accounts in that week and so therefore no punishment would stand up in a court of law. They did not break the law but they did break the rules of the competition they signed up to by overspending. But by submitting their accounts when they did not belong to either league they won their appeal because technically they were under no jurisdiction. If they didn't know they were breaking the rules and would receive a punishment why did they suddenly move the date they had always submitted their accounts? Why did they choose to submit them after the date they left. They broke the rules they signed up to but didn't provide the accounts before they had resigned from the competition and therefore could not be punished. They didn't need brilliant lawyers at the appeal but they did find the loophole for them before March 30th and advised them to move the date of submission. As Jordan says what should be a sporting competition is being decided not on sporting prowess but by the best accounting and legal teams. Leicester should be starting this season with a 10 /20 point deduction because they circumvented P&S rules. Most teams choose not to do this and stick by the rules or, as in Everton, Forest and Sheffield Utd's case take their punishment. For the second time in probably ten years Leicester have found a loophole to avoid punishment. The previous loophole has been closed because they found it and the same thing will happen this time. Do you not think their lawyers are already looking for a new way to get around the rules? Do you not think that is immoral and against the spirit of a sporting competition? Is it not on a parallel to taking drugs for a sporting advantage and trying to find a way of hiding it. The Premier do not come out of this smelling of roses but Leicester have cheated not on them but on all the football clubs that they compete with. People seem to be applauding Leicester for having beaten the Premier League but I think there should be very grave concerns for the way Leicester and Manchester City are manipulating the rules. We are finally on the same page. I agree what Leicester did was not the morally correct thing to do but the fact remains they did not actually break the rules as they were written so the judges in the appeal were absolutely correct in upholding the appeal. The fundamental point is that Leicester signed up to a set of rules and when they signed up they agreed to the rules as they were written at that time they signed them and they did not break them. The judges had no choice but to uphold the appeal because otherwise any organisation who has written a set of rules can simply say they wrote them wrongly, rewrite them and then do people for not abiding by a set of rules they didn't sign up to. Every club, including ours, would have done the same in their position and yes it isn't exactly moral. The real issue is the morons who wrote the rules - they clearly aren't fit for purpose. |
|
