Leicester City relegation excuse may not wash over For One Reason

There is no denying that Leicester City are in a spot of bother. The Premier League have charged them with an alleged breach of financial rules, and the EFL have placed them under a transfer embargo because they believe they are on course to do so. They could receive points deductions for both.

Rightly, fans have questions. How did City get into this predicament? Can the club’s relegation be argued as mitigation? Is the club’s argument a sound one? Can they exist between the two divisions? Will the whole matter be a distraction for players in their promotion push?

Those were among the topics discussed on our latest Q+A with supporters. You can read all of our answers below.

Q: The terrible January 2023 transfer deals, is that what will ultimately hurt us when we release our financial report?

A: I don’t think you can say it “ultimately” cost City, no. As far as PSR goes, the big problem really is the £92m loss they made the season before, when they spent heavily without a big sale and didn’t progress, failing to qualify for European football.

But yes, January 2023 was a problem. In summer 2022, there was recognition of the issues to come, with Fofana sold and replaced at a quarter of the cost by Faes, and with Schmeichel sold and nobody arriving in his place.

But with relegation a possibility, the club have obviously tried to push the boat out with a few signings that didn’t pay off. At the time, I thought they were good deals. Tete was a talent who had torn it up for Shakhtar and Lyon. Kristiansen had Champions League experience but was still very young and could get better. Souttar would help City dominate their defensive box. But that’s clearly not how it played out.

So it was a contributing factor, but not the only problem. City’s high wage expenditure, underperformance on the pitch, failure to move on unwanted players, those were all factors in this predicament.

Q: The silence from the club to the fans recently regarding FFP has been deafening. Surely they need to come clean and address fans’ legitimate concerns?

A: I don’t disagree. I do think the hierarchy should be more open with supporters. But I can’t see that happening now. City said in their second statement, about the legal proceedings they were taking out, that “the relevant rules require that these proceedings are conducted confidentially, and LCFC will therefore not be able to comment further about them at this stage”. So I’d expect there will be limited comment from the club until decisions are made and resolutions are found.

The club also suggested in that statement that they would “prefer the proceedings to be in public, so its supporters and the wider world can be informed”, but I think plenty of people will feel that that doesn’t really wash, given their lack of communication. Because of their approach over the past few years, I don’t see this issue changing things.

Q: Do you think it’s just a strange coincidence that we play before Leeds every weekend for the rest of the season now or another example of those holding power trying to mess us up?

A: I’d not noticed that, but I wouldn’t subscribe to any conspiracies over it. Either it’s a coincidence or because that’s the order in which Sky feels could generate the most drama. I’m also not sure it’s a bad thing. By playing first, City can put the pressure on with a win. Leeds then have to win to keep up. Equally, Leeds could be buoyed if City slip up, knowing they can take advantage. But I think if I’d been asked whether I would want City to play first or second every weekend, I’d probably say first.

Q: Do you suspect the club are going to hang Enzo out to dry in front of the media and leave him to answer questions which are not his responsibility?

A: Maresca will inevitably be asked questions, but I don’t think they will see it as him being hung out to dry. It’s quite easy for Maresca to say that it’s not something he knows the details about and not something he is worrying about. They would be fair responses. City have been charged for their expenditure over a three-year period of which he wasn’t at the club for any of it. Plus, him focusing on it would be detrimental to the team’s performance on the pitch. Nobody could dispute that if he shrugged off any questions.