Leicester City dodge PSR points deduction despite excess losses

Leicester wriggled out of a PSR breach on a technicality.

I put the above together without checking all the details, so please correct anything I may have got wrong here. The Athletic article is really poor and does not properly explain any of this; I got most of it from the comments.

If I have time, I'll pull up the independent commission's appeal findings because it was interesting in this case that the first independent commission rejected The Foxes defence.

This is what the Premier League said in their statement after the appeal:

The appeal has been upheld by an independent Appeal Board on the grounds that the club's accounting period which ended on 30 June 2023, came after the point the club had ceased to be a member of the Premier League. The Appeal Board's decision effectively means that, despite the club being a member of the Premier League for Seasons 2019-20 to 2022-23, the Premier League cannot take action against the club for exceeding the relevant PSR threshold in respect of the associated accounting periods [because the club had been relegated].

The statement goes on to say:

The Premier League is very disappointed with the Appeal Board's decision, and the limited reasons provided for it. The League remains of the view that the original Commission took the right approach in interpreting the rules in a practical and workable way that gives effect to their intended purpose. In overturning the original Commission's findings, the Premier League considers the Appeal Board's decision fails to take into account the purpose of the rules, all relevant parts of the PSRs and the need for effective enforcement of alleged breaches to ensure fairness among all clubs.

This is an unbelievable decision considering how Everton and to a lesser extent Nottingham Forest were dealt with. Both clubs could have been relegated for a lesser overspend. Leicester have also had a major sporting advantage as they won the FA Cup in year 1, but they have played the Premier League off against the EFL (despite overspending in both leagues) and were then deliberately obstructive to both.

Other Premier League clubs will be furious, especially the likes of Newcastle Utd and Aston Villa who have seriously wealthy owners but haven't been allowed to spend because of PSR.

Of course the big winners of this decision are Man City who will now argue that the rules are not fit for purpose and the 115 charges should therefore be dropped. A cynic would say it's been deliberately set up this way……

Another kicking to the amateur and improper Masters for the improper and less than professional PSR rulebook.

Accordingly the rules of both the EFL and PL cannot be applied as the club was not a continuous member of either association for the obligatory 3 years, irrespective of spent amounts in either.

Spirit of law be dammed, well done Messers Masters and Parry, you despise each other so much you failed to cover the obvious eventuality of a Leicester City. Pillocks.
I bet Leicester's boardroom is rolling on the floor with laughter..

Just underlines what a travesty the Premier League's independent commission is... farcical.

No doubt Man City will get off too.

Bollocks to them all, crooked pricks!

I don't see how there could have been any other conclusion, it was farcical for the Premier League to charge them in the first place, didn't they read what their rule book actually says?

And even worse that the original "independent" commission didn't throw the charges out as being farcical.

Off on a technicality... but the whole thing is based on technicalities. This counts, that doesn't, credit for this, aggravation for that.

The real issue should be the sustainability of football clubs that have great history and are of massive importance to their community. Oh, and sporting fairness, but let's not even pretend the rules cater to that.

If they got off on a technicality, then good for them. Their lawyers earned their money. A good lawyer is apparently a very worthwhile signing in the current climate.

This has nothing to do with us.

Leicester City are not Man City and I'm glad to see them beating the North Wharf Road shower in a case that should never have been brought.

So the first independent commission addressed only the vexed question of jurisdiction.

LCFC were denying all charges of a PSR breach because they claimed they were no longer a Premier League club, no longer had to abide by the Premier League's rules, and therefore could not be legally charged for any breach by the Premier League.

This argument was not accepted by the first independent commission held in May 2024, and it's that decision which LCFC appealed. This position, taken by the commission in the jurisdiction hearing, is key:

The Commission considers that LCFC is a "Club" under the PL Rules applicable to the Season in which it participated and remains so despite its relegation. … A literal interpretation of the term "Club" would thwart the purpose of the PSRs and enable LCFC, and other clubs in a similar position, to avoid disciplinary proceedings for alleged breaches of the PL Rules which in the Commission's view cannot have been intended by the PL clubs when they
agreed the PSRs and the PL Rules.

I expect that the appeal commission reverted to the literal interpretation, rather than "the spirit of the rules", which is obviously a nonsense.

More to follow…

Christine @ 4. Exactly. Eric @ 6. Exactly.

It is staggering to believe that the P&S Rules were written by anyone with any comprehension of football, the Premier League, law, drafting rules and equality. It is a piece of buckshot aimed at keeping the prolls in their place.

Sadly, our own club voted it in so can have little complaint when charged with some breach of it. The fact that any quarter-decent barrister could have driven a bus through the holes in the so-called offence shows how piss poor Moshiri is at any understanding of operating in the football Bureaucratic world. Or his ability to hire the strongest legal team in the land.

As for Leicester City, when I saw the schedule of charges and the legislation being used, my first thought was: "That is an abuse of power." Rightly, they had nothing to answer. I am glad to see the commission criticise the bollocks that is that piece of junk called PSR.

The Premier League despots are so up their own chuffs and are lording it that they have long since forgotten about football and a game of the people for the people.

Like when our sovereignty was signed (illegally) to the EU, so has the beautiful game been sold to rich elitists as their new toy. The Premier League is not fit for purpose. None of them are.

It should be completely independent and run by elected officials who are from the recognised supporters club of each team in the Premier League. They should have no contact with anyone from the club and receive no favours. That way, it might work.

Although Leicester City ceasing to be a Premier League club is integral to this decision, the technicality that got them over the line was the date that they transferred their Premier League share (13 June) after relegation, and the end date of their accounting period (30 June).

The appeal commission found that LCFC were charged for the whole accounting period but were not a Premier League club for the whole of that period (ie, between 13 and 30 June). The commission found that LCFC could, theoretically, have used the 2 week gap to comply with PSR but not have been a Premier League club. The Premier League rules are drafted as years and, therefore, create a gap if a club's accounting period is beyond their relegation and transfer of Premier League share date.

Interestingly (to me anyway) LCFC changed their accounting date to 30 June earlier in the year. If they hadn't and had left it at the end of May, they'd have lost the case.

Quite happy for Leicester, the whole thing is a joke.

Prior to the breakaway by the top flight, all divisions would have been part of the same Football League & subject to the same rules.

However, once that separation of organisations has occurred the knock-on effects can be myriad. The FA must be chuckling at the monster they helped create.

Who is next up to be charged with trying to compete?

Eddie Howe said it could take 10 years before Newcastle can compete with the spending power of the Top 6.

Our purse strings have been cut for 4 years and counting whilst Chelsea amass an army of players on 10-year contracts.

It's so obvious the powers that be are only interested in keeping the top clubs sweet and protecting the product rather than growing a game.

Hopefully ends any threat to us of a deduction this season.

If a club were sanctioned and relegated, whilst Leicester dodge it, surely opens up the Premier League to be sued for negligence. Poor drafting of the rules left the loophole that Leicester took advantage of.

This is all set up nicely to let Man City off.

Mike "Hopefully ends any threat to us of a deduction this season. If a club were sanctioned and relegated, whilst Leicester dodge it, surely opens up the Premier League to be sued for negligence."

Mike, I think the issues might be different? The Premier League wanted to sanction Leicester after they were relegated. Everton being sanctioned while in the Premier League (with that leading to relegation) seems to be a different scenario and a legitimate area for Premier League involvement.

Well, Leicester are back in the PL. Can’t they be recharged ?