PSR/FFP fun with calculators

That's ludicrous. Laughable.

Leicester's latest loophole seems to be that, according to the way the rules are written, the allowable loss reduction for being in the championship only applies in the seasons preceeding the final one in the report (so in the latest set of accounts, you get a reduction for being in the championship in 21/22 and 22/23 but not for 23/24), so they will be arguing that are allowed to lose the full £105m, rather than £83m.

*The sum set out in Rule E.53 shall be reduced by £22m for each Season covered by T-1 and T-2 in which the Club was in membership of The Football League.
*

And swiss ramble reckons their loss falls in that gap.

Basically, whoever wrote the rules, as well as failing to foresee that a club could get relegated before the end of their reporting year, also failed to foresee that a club could get promoted while losing more than £13m in a year.

Wouldn't that loophole have applied to us then?

No. We were punished for the three seasons that ended in 22/23.

I don't really understand this latest loophole.

Sorry, don't get it. Why is that different to the three years ending 23/24, the last of which we both spent on Championship and I think the loophole is saying the last year you get the full 35m allowance rather than the reduced 13m?

Or have the rules been re written between last year and this?

The rules refer to a reduction in the allowance if you were in the championship in T-1 and/or T-2 but not T.

For the accounts that are currently being checked, T is 23/24 (Leicester in the championship), T-1 is 22/23 (Leicester in the premier league), T-2 is 21/22 (Leicester in the premier league).
When we were punished last year, T was 22/23 (Forest in the premier league), T-1 was 21/22 (Forest in the championship), T-2 was 20/21 (Forest in the championship).

The argument is that the way the rules are written, Leicester get the full £35m allowance for 23/24 because there is no reduction explicitly stated for a club in the championship in T. (No idea why they use T, T-1 and T-2).

I'm frankly going to be pretty pissed off if they escape punishment AGAIN.

Their squad is shit but everyone should be going full out to poach their accountants and lawyers.

@Simon so they will be in a worse position for the next two years with an 83m allowance not a 105m (assuming they were to stay up)?

That seems to be the result of their argument.

So the best result is that they get relegated and then as a result of their argument, can lose less money?

I can imagine the EFL are waiting for them, hopefully they managed to draft things a bit better.

What bunch of absolute ubercunts.

That being said, let them go down on merit.

THEN get battered by the EFL for transgressions past.

What's the going rate for an insolvent League One club without their own ground after Power Holdings Co, Ltd. sell that asset* to service insurmountable third party debt?

*no idea if this is even remotely possible but it remains the dream.

Sadly I don't think so. Think of it as this year they are getting more than you'd expect, in the following years they will get what you would expect.

But have to admit I am somewhat confused!