catcherintherye
Player Valuation: £80m
What do you think inferred means, out of interest?
Suggested? Considered? Posited?
What do you think inferred means, out of interest?
Would not be surprised if the IC somehow turn it around and say we have failed to prove we didn’t cause them to go down with our scurrilous cheating buying such a talented squad. When something that should so obviously be dismissed immediately isn’t dismissed immediately, it’s a sign of an impending shafting.It will be almost impossible to prove that.
Absolutely smashes head against wall.Not sure how those clubs can prove we are guilty of anything? The independent commission found we gained no sporting advantage, so it would have to be some turnaround. Especially when half of those teams achieved the lowest points totals for the bottom 3 teams. Seems like a non-story.
The earth's flat, Trump won the 2020 election, 9/11 was an inside job, and the independent commission found that Everton gained no sporting advantage.Not sure how those clubs can prove we are guilty of anything? The independent commission found we gained no sporting advantage, so it would have to be some turnaround. Especially when half of those teams achieved the lowest points totals for the bottom 3 teams. Seems like a non-story.
The big difference is that a club suing us doesn't go through a premier league "independent" comission. A normal judge would laugh the case out of court. I'm going to go out on a limb and say those clubs will be given legal advice that it's not worth trying and it'll all go away.The earth's flat, Trump won the 2020 election, 9/11 was an inside job, and the independent commission found that Everton gained no sporting advantage.
Would not be surprised if the IC somehow turn it around and say we have failed to prove we didn’t cause them to go down with our scurrilous cheating buying such a talented squad. When something that should so obviously be dismissed immediately isn’t dismissed immediately, it’s a sign of an impending shafting.
All that crap about a sporting penalty for a sporting advantage, but somehow left us open to a financial penalty, which the IC themselves said wasn’t suitable due to rich owners. By default we suffered a financial penalty already due to lost league placing following points deductions.
Once again, poorly written regulations mean you get tried, penalised totally at random and differently than a club with a bigger breach, the rules changed mid season to say all charges and penalties dealt within one season - so we will be the only team EVER to be penalised twice in a season. They left the interest charge hanging over us, so broke the “same season” rule anyway. And the judgement of the ICs are not final; they leave you open to compensation claims. Utter crap.
We should immediately be filing a case against Forest. About to get CL football using a team they assembled by breaching (admittedly they bough a load of tosh, so it’s not really true, but so did we). We lost one league placing as they should still be 17th.
If they hadn’t been such cheats, they wouldn’t have been able to outbid us for MGW. He’d now have been our greatest ever player and we’d have won 2 straight domestic trebles. Easy this “causation” lark isn’t it Mr Talksport waffling bell.
Horrible side of the “sport”.
The earth's flat, Trump won the 2020 election, 9/11 was an inside job, and the independent commission found that Everton gained no sporting advantage.
They found there was a sporting advantage. Which is the exact opposite to finding there was no sporting advantage. It's a lie.They found we had no quantifiable sporting advantage.
They found there was a sporting advantage. Which is the exact opposite to finding there was no sporting advantage. It's a lie.
They found there was a sporting advantage. Which is the exact opposite to finding there was no sporting advantage. It's a lie.
They never said it was so small they couldn't assign value to it, that would in itself be quantifying it. They said the advantage can't be quantified, sure, but that's not the same thing.Well they suggested there could have been a sporting advantage, but it was so small that they couldn't assign any value to it.
It's not a lie to say they pointed out there was no quantifiable, or measurable sporting advantage.
You could also argue we were disadvantaged by the complete dross we signed.They never said it was so small they couldn't assign value to it, that would in itself be quantifying it. They said the advantage can't be quantified, sure, but that's not the same thing.
They didn't 'suggest there could have been' either, they concluded there was.