6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Jacko93]

From my understanding, the report argues that being candid and admitting a breach is not considered to be valid mitigation. Clubs are expected to be candid in this regard! Whereas failing to be candid, or deliberately being misleading in order to bypass the rules would be considered an aggravating factor.

I feel this is relevant to the Forest case. I’ve just read that Forest will be provided leniency due to admitting the breach, but I don’t think that is accurate!

On the contrary, Forest’s admission involves deliberately choosing not to sell a player in a relevant accounting period that would have decreased their breach for that period. This decision exacerbated their breach for the relevant period, and it was a deliberate decision! This is an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one!

That’s before you even get into the fact that said player was was selected to play for Forest during the following accounting period. Surely to God, they won’t be getting away with that type of excuse. It’s nonsensical, and so easily dismissed!

It is this same process and reasoning that should see Chelsea dealt with heavily. Their self reporting is treated as an expected action so no mitigating factor, whereas the dishonesty of their action in cheating the system will be an aggrevating factor. The fact that they are under different ownership should also not be a mitigating factor in the same way that the FAB were dismissed in their submissions and explained that the club was being punished, not any individuals.

 

[Saint Domingo]

The issue with that is we then start next season on minus 6. I'd rather take our chances this season given our existing points gained and Luton, Burnley and Sheff Utd in the division.

There’ll be other teams falling foul next season as well. I’m not sure we can absorb 12 points this season and even if we do it’s ridiculously unfair to charge us twice in the same season for different rule breaches.

We didn’t get the sporting advantage in the same season, so why are we getting the sporting punishment?

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

Apologies my mistake and yes it will feature in the 22/23 statutory accounts but the bad news is ( if the report is correct ) that because it was an obligation to buy as opposed to an option to buy that means for PS purposes the fee would have been factored in earlier namely the date the obligation was signed off

The buying club would have to recognise the liability/creditor/future payment as soon as the obligation became contractually binding. The selling club does not recognise good news/income/profit until the transaction occurs.

Same for all areas of accounting. Recognise bad news when reasonably likely, recognise good news when it happens.

If a customer signs a contract to buy a car in 1 months time, even if they pay in full, the dealership only recognises the sale when handover of the car occurs. I.e. risk and rewards of ownership of the asset have transferred fully to the customer. Never before.

For all periods a player is still contractually owned by a club, and they bear all the risks of injury, form, disciplinary etc they can never ever record the benefit of a future sale until his locker is emptied and he has gone, irrespective of obligation to buy in X month time

Cheers

 

[Dixieslaces]

Many have said but just adding, we need to target as many points as possible to mitigate the incoming second charge, at the end of the day its on the team to ensure whatever comes out of it, is irrelevant.

We have certainly ruffled a few feathers looking at all the comments across the various platforms, all of them, for me taken and given from a point of ignorance, "Headline Readers!!" are as bad as mouth breathers for me, never look further than their noses, Sod em!


UTFT

Still want all 10 back though!

 

[hallamblue]

There’ll be other teams falling foul next season as well. I’m not sure we can absorb 12 points this season and even if we do it’s ridiculously unfair to charge us twice in the same season for different rule breaches.

We didn’t get the sporting advantage in the same season, so why are we getting the sporting punishment?

We should have been docked 6 last season and relegated according to this judgement, so we should try and get through this season with both charges heard and settled or next season will be the same as this one

 

[Lob]

I don’t think Forest will get much more than ours if any at all. The Commission said in our appeal basically it’s wrong to get more deduction for if you go into administration, which sounds to me like the maximum Forest get deducted will be 8, but it will be more likely 6. I expect us to receive 6 too.

I definitely do not expect the same point deduction for a charge that covers the same 3 year period and 2 of them years have already been dealt with and punished leaving just 1 year. There will be no punishment for it imo but we will just have to wait and see though as they are clearly just making it all up as they go.

 

[Jacko93]

I still find the idea of an inferred sporting advantage absolutely ludicrous to be honest. Especially when in the same section they admit it could never be quantified.

This is the problem with having legal debates decide something which should always be decided on a football pitch. We will never agree on interpretation of technical legal points and what mitigations are fair, but we can all see who score more goals on a Saturday or wins more points over 38 games.

I'm very very disappointed in the clubs timid reaction and acceptance of this decision. They should be calling for wholesale changes to how the game is governed and for the PL leadership to resign. Cooperation has clearly not helped in any way and we should be refusing to engage in an unfair process.

The crazy thing is, there is a point where they basically say, yeah you got worse while buuying these players, but imagine how much worse you would have been had you not of bought those players.

Watching Everton every single game for the entirety of this whole sorry period and more, I can confidently say of a number of purchases, we would have been better off had we not bought them. We also would have been better off had we not sold players we have done in order to satisfy an arbitrary figure.

 

[mikel_88]

I definitely do not expect the same point deduction for a charge that covers the same 3 year period and 2 of them years have already been dealt with and punished leaving just 1 year. There will be no punishment for it imo but we will just have to wait and see though as they are clearly just making it all up as they go.

Or atleast a reduced one to get another 6 for actually trying to cut down is unfair. Should never happen agein clubs getting two charges

 

[Jacko93]

I definitely do not expect the same point deduction for a charge that covers the same 3 year period and 2 of them years have already been dealt with and punished leaving just 1 year. There will be no punishment for it imo but we will just have to wait and see though as they are clearly just making it all up as they go.

However, their statement seems to reach 6 point deductions for a breach of PSR. All they will do is alter the period the PSR breach is judged over. Basically, if we are over (£35) then we've breached and will be charged with 6 points.

 

[edge]

Leicester and Leeds are fuming. They will be fiery games next season when we play them (in whatever division).

Leicester got a fine for overspend the last time they came up
Just been fined £880,000 as well.
Wolves did the same when they came up.

 

[Moomin]

Couldn't bare anymore of him on twitter

He left in a huff over his defence of Wacko Jacko.

 

[Lob]

However, their statement seems to reach 6 point deductions for a breach of PSR. All they will do is alter the period the PSR breach is judged over. Basically, if we are over (£35) then we've breached and will be charged with 6 points.

I doubt we were over the 35 for that year. We were only ever over it because they do it over a 3 year period. That changes now that 2 years of that have already been dealt with and punished for. Have to wait and see but i am more optimistic about it now than i was before we won the appeal.

 

[paultheblue]

I think the worst case senario is another 6 point deduction with Forest getting the same.
That puts us as it stands a point behind Luton and a point above Forest.

 

[MikeH72]

Yeah, they can wait until the final table and play God.

We need to get 8+ points clear of 3rd bottom*.



*if thats forest, and includes their deduction - then we need to add more points in case they get some back. Its like a never ending circle of chinese water torture.

Why?

 

[Walken]

Hopefully we can get a 'chelsea' fan on to persuade us its worse case for us and best case for forest, all according to their honest opinion of course