Yahoo News Leicester City's firefighter or vision-builder choice as double PSR problems laid out
Before Leicester City decide who they want to succeed Enzo Maresca, they need to decide what they want.
With the club heading up to the Premier League and expected to be deep in the fight for survival, do they want to be hiring a relegation-battling expert? Or, having had success with Maresca's possession-focused style of play, is the gameplan all-important when they come to deciding who will take the reins?
That's one of the big topics on our latest Q+A. Also on the agenda were the strengths of Carlos Corberan and Steve Cooper, the impact of PSR on the manager hunt, what the points deduction could be in the upcoming season, what the punishment could look like if City are charged with a breach by the EFL, contracts, and the curious case of Maresca's mystery assistant. Read our answers below.
READ MORE: Steve Cooper to Leicester City: Tactics, strengths, and why he's still loved at Nottingham Forest
READ MORE: Ricardo Pereira posts Enzo Maresca message after 'best coach' moves to Chelsea
Q: If you are to choose between Steve Cooper and Carlos Corberan to become the new Leicester manager, who would you pick? I'm slightly worried about hiring Cooper because he definitely doesn't put as much emphasis on possession as Maresca does. I'm afraid the sudden change of play style would not be ideal for the players.
A: I do really like Corberan and feel his intense analysis of the opposition is similar to Maresca's. I don't think he's as committed to possession football, but a slightly more pragmatic approach might help City in the Premier League anyway.
It seems Cooper changed to become more defensive once Forest reached the Premier League but had ideas on becoming more expansive in his second season, only to be sacked. I think his man management is impressive and I actually think he would do well in a club that's not as erratic as Forest are. I know a lot of money was spent, but it must have been difficult to get a tune out of a side where new players were constantly arriving.
So of the two, maybe I'd edge towards Corberan, but I do like Cooper and I don't see any issue around his relationship with Forest. However, I do think it will be difficult for anybody who comes in, not just because of the potential points deduction, but because they are following a manager in Maresca who was very well liked by the players. They thought very highly of his tactical knowledge and his work ethic.
Q: What makes the hierarchy think that City fans would accept the Forest reject Cooper? The cheapest option is not the best!
A: Well, there's no confirmation that the City hierarchy do think Cooper is the best man available. But I don't actually think City supporters would have a problem with Cooper if he started getting results. Martin O'Neill was a Forest legend when he arrived at Leicester, and they loved Wes Morgan at the City Ground too. It's possible to do well for both clubs and have both sets of supporters on side.
Q: Do you think the club would consider the great work Rob Edwards has done at Luton?
A: I don't doubt that Edwards would be under consideration but I've not heard anything to suggest he's definitely on a shortlist like Corberan is. I would certainly consider Edwards over the usual managers that get touted for jobs at the bottom of the Premier League, and I think City would feel that way too. But I do think Potter and Corberan are a better fit for what they're after.
Q: For a relegation dogfight, wouldn't you think Cooper, Moyes or Potter are the best options? All three have succeeded in staying up. For me, Potter would be the perfect appointment for staying up and getting us to the next level while playing similar football to Maresca. However, do you think it’s unlikely we would get him? Do you think there is anything in David Moyes? Finally, what do you think the owners would prefer, stay up with firefighter like Moyes, or would rather get the West Brom manager?
A: I do think Potter would rank very highly on City's list. They've been interested in him for a while, they know he can keep a team in the Premier League, and he plays a way that fits with what they want and does not divert too far from what Maresca brought. But it may be the case that Potter feels his reputation is above City at the moment.
Based on everything the club have said publicly, I can't see them going for a firefighter, no. Which I don't think helps Moyes' case, even if he has plenty of Premier League experience. Everything points towards them wanting a manager who has a certain way of playing and I don't think they will deviate from that unless they're desperate.
They’ve spoken of a vision. Maresca has said that when he was appointed, promotion wasn’t mentioned, it was all about changing the style of play. It does feel like the club are going for performances and tactics first, results second. That may seem odd, but it often leads to better results than a results-first approach, as was the case in the season just gone.
Q: Do you think that there is any possibility that the board could wait until July to appoint a manager if it helps with the accounts? If they decided that someone like Corberan is the best candidate, might they negotiate paying the buy-out clause next month? I suppose what I'm asking is, will this year's balance sheet really be an impediment to them making their preferred appointment as some reports have claimed?
A: Yes, I do think that's possible. That depends whether the compensation for Maresca changes their plans. This is speculative, but let's say the £10m compensation for Maresca gets City closer to the threshold and reduces the need to sell someone like Dewsbury-Hall for a big profit, they might try to sell a couple of other names and balance the books that way. It might be tight on that front, and so they won't want to jeopardise their plans by paying £4m or so for Corberan. But equally, if Maresca's compensation isn't enough to change their plans to satisfy PSR, then I think they'll just get on with it and pay for a manager to come in as soon as possible.
Because it would be a risk to appoint a manager that late. Ideally, you want them in place by mid-June so that they have a couple of weeks to analyse the squad before they return to pre-season. I imagine the fanbase will get very tetchy too if they take a month to find a new manager.
Q: What is your understanding on a possible points deduction?
A: I'd start by saying it's quite difficult to have an understanding over the possible points deduction because there is so much that is unknown. The independent commission that will crunch the numbers does not appear to have even been set up yet, so it could be a while before we get an answer.
What we do know is that from the Forest and Everton cases, a six-point deduction has been set as the standard for a breach of the £105m threshold. How far City are in breach of that could see extra deductions on top.
But the other issue City have is that they were also charged over failing to submit their accounts. That's likely to lead to an extra punishment. If I was to estimate based on what we know at the moment, I would say the deduction would be at least eight points, but I would be very surprised if it got close to 15.
Q: If it follows that we get relegated back to the Championship, are we likely to then suffer another points deduction from the EFL for season 25-26?
A: That depends on what happens this month. City will only be in breach of the EFL's PSR if they fail to balance the books before the end of June. It's clear the EFL expect them to breach PSR but they do have time to change that.
In the past, when teams have been found to have been in breach of the EFL's FFP during a promotion season, they've been hit with a fine and avoided a points deduction. For an EFL points deduction to be applied to a Premier League team, that would be unprecedented.
If they had remained in the EFL, they would be susceptible to a points sanction, yes. But I think it's up in the air and I think the EFL will want Leicester punished as seriously as is reasonable if they are in breach. A fine could still be a problem anyway. If it's a substantial one, then that could affect City's ability to comply with PSR in the future.
Q: How much money from sales do we still have to make by the end of this month?
A: On how much money needs to be made from sales, I don't know. It's a complicated matter and depends very much on countbacks. The Maresca deal helps, of course, but I've been told more sales are still required.
As for the allowed losses, it's looking like £13m for the 23-24 season. In the EFL, there is a double-jeopardy rule. So, if a club has already been charged for a three-year cycle, and are then at risk of another breach, the first two years of the cycle are capped at the maximum. So for the three-year cycle ending in 23-24, City are allowed losses of £83m (£35m each for two Prem seasons, and £13m for the Championship season). But because City have already been charged and are likely to be punished for the three-year cycle ending in 22-23, the EFL double jeopardy rule will cap their losses at £35m for the 21-22 and 22-23, meaning City only have to avoid losses of more than £13m for 23-24.
If they did breach that £13m threshold then I would expect punishment for it to come next season, yes. However, whether that would be a fine or a points deduction, it's not clear. The Premier League have never deducted points from a club on the EFL's behalf before.
Q: Do you think that our PSR punishment could be mitigated because we were relegated (unlike Forest and Everton, who broke the rules and stayed up)? Otherwise, surely, that would be double jeopardy?
A: Honestly, I don't think there will be mitigation on that front, no. I could see City trying to argue it, and maybe they have a case if the numbers suggest they have not breached the threshold to the same extent as Everton and Forest, because I suppose then they are also victims of other clubs' breaching of the rules.
But really, the relegation is punishment for not doing well on the pitch. They haven't yet received any sanction for not meeting financial rules. I don't think the Premier League would want to get themselves into a situation where they're mitigating punishments based on how successful a team was after breaching the regulations.
Q: When are we likely to hear which players are being released? When will Leicester be officially confirmed as a Premier League club and will that mean the transfer embargo will be lifted?
A: On players being released, we're expecting an answer by the end of the weekend. It may be that the EFL release their full lists before City actually publish their own. And as of Thursday, City are officially a Premier League club. It was the AGM, where shares are transferred from relegated clubs to promoted clubs. That means the EFL registration embargo ends.
Q: Will we be able to not publish our retained list whilst we wait to appoint a new manager? Also if Rudkin and Top already know they will not be renewing certain contracts, why not just let them leave so we can all get on with things, or do you think again they are waiting for the new manager to make the call?
A: No, the retained list is not related to the manager appointment in any way really. There's a possibility it's published before the end of the weekend. I think the delay for City has been that they have not officially been allowed to register players to new contracts while under the EFL embargo, but that expires with their shares transferring to the Premier League.
I know Albrighton said a few weeks ago that he'd not officially been told by the club he was being let go, but I think if there's been no conversations about a new deal, the writing's on the wall. It's not a case of letting them go really. You just have to wait until their current deals expire on June 30. So Albrighton and Praet are off, Iheanacho possibly will be too. We're expecting Vardy and Vestergaard to pen new deals, but with Ndidi's future up in the air.
Again, I don't think that's dependent on a new manager. I think the club will be negotiating with Ndidi regardless. But it might affect Ndidi's decision. Thinking about it though, I do wonder if Iheanacho becomes a worthwhile option again. It made sense to let him go based on his lack of game-time under Maresca, but he's a proven Premier League player and might come in handy for whoever takes the reins. Albeit, admittedly, City do have a lot of strikers.
Q: It's curious that City's first official mention of Roberto Vitiello was to confirm his exit alongside Maresca. When did he join the club and what was his role?
A: I also thought that was curious and I'm trying to get to the bottom of that one. He was Maresca's assistant manager at Parma and was rumoured to take on the same job at Leicester before Caballero came into the frame.
I do know that Maresca had a close confidante attending all of the Under-21s matches at City, basically acting as his eyes and ears there and as a bridge to the first team so that Maresca didn't have to be present at every game. I never found out that person's name, but it may have been Vitiello as there are reports that his job at Chelsea will be to help young players transition from the development squad to the first team. But yes, an excellent question and one I'm asking myself at the moment. Hopefully by the next Q+A, I'll have an answer.
