6 + 2 Point Deductions

[coollino]

Yeah, I'm with you here.
They clearly thought they could make an example of Everton without the legal drama of taking on City and chelsea, they likely expected an 'about time' response from the public. Including stuff like officially referring to a wealthy owner shows the amateurish poorly thought through nature of all this.
It's obvious that they made it up as they went along and opened the door for the likes of Burnham to pick it apart.

It leaves them in a tricky spot. They set a precedent either way.
I'm not sure why the appeal cant be heard and ruled on in weeks but it wont be, it'll be months.
And if I was a fan of any of the other clubs at the bottom of the league, I wouldn't be happy about that.

The corruption is more cowardice and incompetence for me.

It's madness that that say 2 teams might be ahead of Everton by 6 points in April but then are more nervous of the outcome of the appeal than actually on a football pitch. Sums it all up, in a way

 

[Blue Smoke]

Clubs breaking a financial breach should be punished financially, to the level of how much they went over. with consideration of how much it benefitted their team.
City for example have won a ton of trophies and income by buying the players they bought with their dodgie accounting.

 

[b-rad]

Clubs breaking a financial breach should be punished financially, to the level of how much they went over. with consideration of how much it benefitted their team.
City for example have won a ton of trophies and income by buying the players they bought with their dodgie accounting.

Agreed.
And hacking scouting databases should be a transfer ban.
Fielding ineligible players etc should be points deductions

 

[Blue Smoke]

Agreed.
And hacking scouting databases should be a transfer ban.
Fielding ineligible players etc should be points deductions

I'd add that administration justifies a points deduction

 

[kenada_blue]

Inflation is always in flux, and you can't disregard it as a factor. It's the only way we have of measuring relative value over time.

But I think you're right that the international rights will be the thing that makes the league decide whether they've wrung as much out of the current rights model as possible.

It's all a question of money, ultimately. Streaming is getting technically easier all the time and the expertise is broadening.

Personally, I think it's a question of when and not if.

I agree but only when the current model begins to stagger.

Like you say, it's all about money. But all Id say is if going down standalone streaming route was a license to print money, they'd have done it by now. But if you look at most streaming models, the money they hemorrhage is ridiculous and the big ones are generally propped by other bigger organisations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon etc).

The PL will have done the figures.

 

[Charles Hawtrey]

No, the rules say that the commission can basically do whatever they like. If they did use a sanctions formula (considering they didn't use the Premier League's new formula), it was at their discretion to do so.

The argument is that in drawing up the new formula and submitting it to the commission, the Premier League trampled on the independence of the commission, unduly influencing the strength of the eventual punishment. I reckon it's a strong argument, but I'm not sure I hold out much hope for the independence of the appeal board.

And.... if they want to revise the formula for next season they can do so. so the so-called big six teams do not get such a big penalty, after all you dont want to punish the fans!!

 

[allen]

I agree but only when the current model begins to stagger.

Like you say, it's all about money. But all Id say is if going down standalone streaming route was a license to print money, they'd have done it by now. But if you look at most streaming models, the money they hemorrhage is ridiculous and the big ones are generally propped by other bigger organisations (Google, Microsoft, Amazon etc).

The PL will have done the figures.

Streaming services haemorrhage money on content, and the PL wouldn’t have to produce content.

 

[Osamabindiesel]

So we are looking to settle when we are not even sure if we are required to do so? That’s so unbelievably dodgy. It’s as if we are preemptively trying to settle to bargain with the league for points- when we aren’t even sure if the other clubs are entitled to compensation.

Something stinks. Almost like we are being extorted for points here. Is this the league’s resolution to make everyone happy? Compensation for points?

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

So we are looking to settle when we are not even sure if we are required to do so? That’s so unbelievably dodgy. It’s as if we are preemptively trying to settle to bargain with the league for points- when we aren’t even sure if the other clubs are entitled to compensation.

Something stinks. Almost like we are being extorted for points here. Is this the league’s resolution to make everyone happy? Compensation for points?

Rings a bell? Cash avoids points.

"As a gesture of goodwill, the clubs have collectively agreed to make a contribution of £22m, which will go towards the good of the game, including new investment in support for fans, grassroots football and community programmes.”

If we have been seen to “make right” a couple of clubs that feel wronged, it gives the PL/Commission an excuse to backtrack on their embarrassing charade without admitting a mistake.

 

[WestStandLower]

They can't do that...it will be far too obvious. If one charge is 10 points, city with 115 will have to be at the very least 115 points...one point for every charge...and even if they manage to get reduced to let say 80 charges, it will still probably be 80 points you would think meaning dead certain to be relegated.

Sorry but Cities charges are based around administrative matters and not FFP. Although for obvious reasons there are links across to P&S. Personally, and I have no pleasure in saying this, I very much doubt that the IC will be able to close to the level of proof needed on multiple numbers of the points at issue and as I have stated before their real problems exist around Mancini’s contract (s) , image rights payment’s and of course failing to assist the Pl with their investigation

We can talk all day and I fully agree that the grossly excessive punishment handed out is just not justified but one charge under one section of the rulebook does not as a matter of course have the same level of severity punishment wise to charges under other sections

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Sorry but Cities charges are based around administrative matters and not FFP. Although for obvious reasons there are links across to P&S. Personally, and I have no pleasure in saying this, I very much doubt that the IC will be able to close to the level of proof needed on multiple numbers of the points at issue and as I have stated before their real problems exist around Mancini’s contract (s) , image rights payment’s and of course failing to assist the Pl with their investigation

We can talk all day and I fully agree that the grossly excessive punishment handed out is just not justified but one charge under one section of the rulebook does not as a matter of course have the same level of severity punishment wise to charges under other sections

They don't have to prove anything as they didn't prove that we overspent by 19.5M they just came to that figure.

 

[Moderatelywarmwater]

They don't have to prove anything as they didn't prove that we overspent by 19.5M they just came to that figure.

Eh?

they did prove we overspent by £19.5m. You and I might disagree with the way they did it, but you're arguing with reality here.

 

[Jacko93]

I'd add that administration justifies a points deduction

If Liverpool had rightly been docked 9 points for going into administration in 2010, then guess what would have happened.

They have finished 1 place lower on 54 points. Just below the 8th placed team who were on 61 (who'd move into 7th and Europa league)

 

[Moderatelywarmwater]

If Liverpool had rightly been docked 9 points for going into administration in 2010, then guess what would have happened.

They have finished 1 place lower on 54 points. Just below the 8th placed team who were on 61 (who'd move into 7th and Europa league)

I know it doesn’t fit our narrative, but the reason that our dear neighbours didn’t get docked 9 points is that they didn't go into administration.

 

[Jacko93]

I know it doesn’t fit our narrative, but the reason that our dear neighbours didn’t get docked 9 points is that they didn't go into administration.

Their lenders demanded a place on the board and facilitated the sale of the club for the value of their debts.