Yahoo News Where Leicester City can and can't meet Maresca demands as Dewsbury-Hall sale dilemma explained
Enzo Maresca wasted no time in getting back to business. Just an hour after Leicester City won the Championship, he expressed his desire to sit down with the club and talk through matters he “didn’t like”.
It seems he’s keen for a greater say on, or at least greater communication over, transfers and finances as City head back up to the Premier League. And that comes with the manager now being named in the Spanish press as one of the coaches on Sevilla’s shortlist in their hunt for a new boss.
So is there any danger of Maresca leaving? Will his demands be met by City? Those are among the topics on our latest Q+A with supporters.
READ MORE: Leicester City accused of 'insult' over controversial issue as dispute rages on
READ MORE: Get your hands on our Leicester City promotion special edition packed with features and pictures
Also discussed are headed goals, Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall’s future amid financial issues, potential points deductions, new contracts, and Maresca’s team selection for the final game of the season. You can read our answers below.
Q: Have we scored more headed goals in open play than normal? It feels like we've scored a lot of headers recently. Also, have we got one of the worst corners-to-goals-scored ratios in the league because they always seem like they are a waste of time?
A: It looks like you're bang on. I've just had a look at the stats and they've scored 15 headers this season, which is the second most in the league behind Norwich (16). And very few of those are from set-pieces. Most of those are from crosses from open play, which is a big part of Maresca's tactics, particularly with the run Ndidi makes to support Fatawu on the right. That was the move for Dewsbury-Hall's header against West Brom. But yes, crosses have been a big weapon for City this season and contributed to a lot of big goals. Dewsbury-Hall against Coventry on the opening weekend and Mavididi late on against Birmingham a few weeks ago pop to mind immediately.
Annoyingly, I can't find specific numbers for goals from corners in the Championship, so I can't work out the corners-to-goals ratio. But I would say you're right there too. We do have the Opta data for set-pieces as a whole, and so including free-kicks, and that suggests what we're seeing, that City are poor at creating from dead balls. The Opta data says City have scored 11 goals from set-pieces, which is joint-13th, but that the expected goals of the chances they've created is 9.48, which is the third-worst in the division. They've had the eighth highest number of corners in the league too, so it’s not unreasonable to think that expected goals figure should be higher. It's definitely an area to improve on.
Q: What friendlies are being planned for the summer, especially with Premier League opponents? And we must unload the ‘deadwood’ at any cost, which won’t be easy, considering the wages of some of these players. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to offer them severance packages and just part ways amicably?
A: There's no word on friendlies yet. As is the norm these days, it wouldn't surprise me if there was an overseas trip. Although, the Premier League Summer Series that saw six clubs face each other in the US last summer is not going ahead this year. If City don't head abroad, I imagine their plans will see them face a few lower-league local sides away from home before a top-quality European team at home.
On unloading deadwood, I guess it would probably be cheaper to do that, but we don’t see a lot of them, so maybe it’s not. I remember the club cancelling Benkovic's contract a couple of years ago, but he only had six months left on it at the time. But even if severance packages are cheaper than fringe players sitting around taking their wages for another couple of seasons, they don't look great on the books. If City are to go some way to satisfying Profit and Sustainability rules, they need to get these players out for a fee.
Q: Do you know if we get prize money for being champions? And can it be used to help our financial situation or to help purchase players?
A: I don't know the specific amount and a quick bit of research just now has not helped find an answer. But I have been told previously that it's barely worth writing home about. Winning the Championship is not going to help City's PSR situation or help fund signings, no.
Q: How reliable are the rumours of an Enzo exit?
A: Well, so far, the rumours are just that Sevilla quite like him. So there's no danger of an exit until they make an official approach. It seems the stories from Spain are that he's one of a number of potential coaches on their shortlist. Obviously, he was a big player there, helping them to win a Uefa Cup, so that adds an extra layer of romanticism about it.
But I do think Sevilla's apparent interest makes things intriguing. Maresca was very quick to say he wanted to sit down with the club and address matters he "didn't like", such as finances and transfers. That Maresca has brought that up publicly and that Sevilla may be interested means that City may feel they have to bow to Maresca's demands to ensure he stays at the club.
Q: In terms of selling players before July in order to avoid another PSR breach, would that just be a potential breach of EFL rules or also the Premier League? If another points deduction could only be applied in the Championship, surely the club would prefer to keep hold of KDH and just pay a fine again? Could you foresee a situation where he is sold in the summer when his preference is to stay?
A: Selling players this June would be to avoid a breach of EFL rules and the knock-on effect of that. What City decide to do probably does depend on the level of punishment, as you point out. Previously when clubs have breached financial rules en route to promotion, they've just been fined (as with City in 13-14). Points deductions have only been applied to teams still in the EFL.
So yes, in that sense, keeping Dewsbury-Hall and paying a fine could be a good idea. But if the fine is a big one (and we don't really have a ballpark figure at the moment), then that is going to impact City's ability to stay within PSR in the future. As far as the Premier League assessment for the three years up to June 2025 is concerned, City are already on the backfoot. We only know the finances from one of the three years that will be assessed, but it was a £90m loss, meaning City are going to have to work hard to stay within budget.
The last thing they'd want, given they're likely to start the new season with a points deduction, is to overcome it and stay up, but then be hit with another points deduction in 25-26. When QPR went up with City in 13-14, they breached FFP to such an extent they ended up with a £42m fine. If City were hit with a similar charge, they'd be in deep trouble over PSR thresholds going forward.
On top of that, I get the sense that the Premier League and EFL will start working more closely so that points deductions can pass between different leagues. Otherwise loads of relegated Premier League clubs will buy their way to promotion.
So yes, I can still see a situation where Dewsbury-Hall is sold, even though he wants to stay. I don't think they'd want to sell him, but it would be the simplest way to balance the books.
Q: When will we publicly know the amount that City are potentially in breach of financial requirements or do we have to wait to June 30th?
A: In terms of the Premier League charge against City, we will learn how much they have exceeded the PSR threshold by when the independent commission concludes their hearing. When it's done, the written reasons will be released and it should say in there how much City have gone past the £105m mark by.
The quickest a case has been heard so far was for Forest, and that took exactly nine weeks from the date they were charged. If matched, that would mean City get their news on May 23. But it wouldn't surprise me if it came after that as there is not the rush to get it done before the end of this season.
As for the potential breach of EFL rules, we won't know for a long time, I don't think. Only after June 30 will the EFL begin to analyse City's finances, and it could be a few months after that before we hear their assessment.
Q: Reading between the lines I get the feeling Enzo will walk if he isn't given assurances about recruitment. Do you agree? And if so can we meet his ambitions?
A: My reading between the lines was that, after winning the title, Maresca realised he was in a very strong position and thought it might help his cause if he mentioned publicly that he wanted talks over certain issues. I can't see him walking out because of it, not before he's got the chance to manage in the Premier League, and not unless there is another job for him to walk into.
But sometimes managers say these things to protect their reputation, so that if results go badly, it's on record that they weren't happy with certain things and felt they were hamstrung by the club they were working for. Sometimes, with Maresca, I think it can be a little naivety in terms of dealing with the media. He's hot-headed and will speak his mind, whereas perhaps more experienced managers may keep their thoughts to themselves.
In terms of whether they can meet his ambitions on transfers, the finances situation is going to be a very difficult one to negotiate. There's only so much Maresca can demand before City are at risk of more charges and more punishments down the line. He still seems irritated over the Sensi saga, and I do think the club could have dealt with it much better, but if it was going to cause them more PSR problems, they were probably right to not go through with it.
What Maresca can reasonably demand is that the organisation of the finances is good enough that he knows what the situation is. He claims he was only told once the January transfer window opened that the club actually needed to sell before they could buy, which seemed to suggest there were issues with communication behind the scenes, because the club definitely knew of the potential problems at that points as they were knee-deep in their dispute with the EFL over the business plan.
Q: With a number of players about to run out their contracts and the league title secured, do you think Maresca will rotate the squad against Blackburn and allow the unfavoured players a farewell match? I’m thinking of Albrighton, Iheanacho, Praet, Souttar and Ward.
A: Potentially. I would certainly hope Albrighton gets a game. It's very likely to be his last and such a brilliant servant for the club deserves a proper send-off. They are still going for 100 points though, so I can't see them making 11 changes to get everybody minutes, so that may limit opportunities for the likes of Iheanacho, Praet, and Souttar.
But now you've mentioned it, I could perhaps see Ward playing. Maresca has been full of praise for the way he has helped the group this season. After Stolarczyk got his chance on Monday, maybe it's now Ward's turn.
Q: There is lots of speculation going on around contract extensions, but am I not correct in thinking we can't sign a single one until/if the transfer embargo is lifted? Obviously discussions can take place with those players and they will know what they would get if they sign, but I understand that no contract can be formally signed until the embargo is lifted. Do you think the players in question will wait around for that to happen, or do you see a risk that some accept concrete offers which are on the table now so as not to risk being left without a club if their contract expires and the embargo remains in place? On that note, assuming the embargo isn't carried over by the Premier League and is lifted, do we officially become a Premier League club before or after the contracts expire?
A: Some good questions there. Yes, I believe, despite what Maresca may be saying, that the club have held informal talks with players over contracts, and that likely will have been the purpose, to show those players that there is a future for them at City before they go off and sign deals elsewhere.
You're correct in saying that the embargo stops contracts being signed. Well, sort of. While it point-blank stops transfers, contracts for current players can be signed, but only with special permission from the EFL.
I think now City are promoted, they can probably outline to players what they would be able to offer, and I can't see the embargo delay causing such a barrier that players will sign contracts at other clubs on the basis they can do it sooner than at City. The bigger problem will be if other clubs can offer more money or offer better trophy prospects, I feel.
Yes, as far as I know, there is an official transfer of clubs between leagues in early June. I believe it's before the fixtures are announced and so definitely before the contracts run out. So if the Premier League don't carry over the embargo, which they’re not expected to, City will be able to offer contracts before those deals do expire.
Q: If Leicester City had not been promoted this season, would they still be susceptible to a points deduction from a league they were no longer a part of? If so, are Leicester City being punished with a possible points deduction, when relegation from the Premier League was hard enough on the club? They lost a lot of money due to relegation. Could this also follow under double jeopardy?
A: No, if City had not been promoted, the Premier League could not enforce a points deduction on them. The EFL tried to enforce that, with the chief exec Trevor Birch writing to the Premier League to ask them to fast track City's case so the EFL could give them a points deduction before May 4 and the final game of the season, but the EFL's own lawyers then reminded Birch that they would be operating outside of their own rules to do that. I do think there is a possibility the rules will now be rewritten.
As for the relegation being punishment enough, I think the club may make that argument in their hearing. However, I think the Premier League would be within their rights to say that relegation was punishment for City not being good enough on the pitch and that they still need punishment for breaching financial rules. I would be very surprised if City avoided a points deduction.
Q: As you have stated, Vardy plans to stick around for at least another season. However, as we have the real need to realign our books under the rules, do you realistically think City can keep him at his current wage or do you think he will be willing to accept a substantially lower wage with added bonuses for scoring a set number of goals, etc.?
A: I suspect any offer that goes Vardy's way won't be as lucrative as his current deal. I think it will reflect the club's financial situation, but also his decrease in importance to the team and ability from where he was when he signed his last deal. Saying that, he's still the club's top scorer and his form over the past few months has been terrific.
But I think City can probably justify reducing Vardy's wage, knowing that their offer will still be the best offer he can get anywhere in England at 37 years old. I would be very surprised if there are other Premier League clubs willing to offer more to him at his current age. I think his only hope of getting a better deal would be to go abroad, and that would involve a bigger life decision.
