6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Johnniepk]

“The commission does not know how the three extra points were arrived at by the appeal board for Everton, but some part of those three points must relate to the provision of incorrect information.”

Seems we got an arbitrary 3 points for being Everton to me.

 

[Jacko93]

Unfortunately this is true. I'm sorry but if you think otherwise you are an ostrich with blue tinted glasses on.

We did delay the original hearing and the PL accepted that. The effect was that we weren't dealt with last season. If we had been and got a points deduction we would have been relegated. Did we delay deliberately? Make your own mind up , if you have one

There are facts that are available in the public domain and then there are assumptions that you are making, both are at odds with each other.

Forest and us (for charge 2) are part of an Expedited process, one which led to a charge being initially raised 16th January this year following a newly devised financial reporting system. The process must run to its full conclusion and, even though it is part of an expedited process specifically created to allow that to happen, it may still run into one week post season. The speed of this process was considered the fastest possible to allow fair outcomes and proper application of due process. That consideration was through the PL and the IC.

Our initial charge was raised against us on 24th March, and in order for completion to happen within the season, the entire process, incl. appeal which is an agreed part of the process, would have been required to have been completed in 65 days. (it took 240 prior to appeal, 340 inclusive of Appeal)

The Forest charge, as part of the expedited process, and without an appeal yet even being raised, never mind heard, has taken 64 days. They relied heavily on the Everton case to assist in their decision making, allowing them to make assumptions based upon prior findings, something that wasn't afforded to the IC during Evertons first hearing. Everton are 64 days into the expedited process without a hearing even taking place (though the previous charge lead to extenuating circumstances in that regard)

Are you saying, with those given facts available to you, that anybody who doesn't think Everton delayed the process "deliberately" in order to stave off relegation is brainless? Or, do you think that, as many people who do have minds of their own do, that it is entirely possible that we suggested that in order to have the full process followed and come to a fair conclusion, the timeline to complete it in the same season was just far too tight. The IC agreed with us, the PL agreed with us. Did it serve us positively that this was the case, yes, absolutely, but none of that is our doing, nor did we deliberately delay any of our provision of evidence or response to charges. We worked entirely within the confines of the process as it was laid out, as we are also doing this time.

To imply that people have no mind of their own for having the temerity to disagree with you, while you are ignoring simple facts, is really quite a bold move.

 

[Micky_T]

Forest and us (for charge 2) are part of an Expedited process

Forest are part of an expedited process.

Everton, as usual, are left to wait and wait and wait. It's never expedited when it comes to Everton.

 

[jimmythenut]

Separate argument altogether, but what needs to happen is, the bottom 14 teams need to use their voting power once and for all and try and get the league back to a level playing field.

All you ever hear is how much power the top 6 have, but without the other 14 teams who'd watch it? Wish the top 6 had broken away would have been the best thing to ever happen for English football.

 

[Jarvick]

We still have a chance to laugh last. We can win some damn games, stay up, and roll out the blue carpet for the Independent Regulator whose first order of business should be to sack Masters, or at least give him a one finger wave.

 

[CahillsCornerFlag]

This is beyond a shambles and nobody can say with a straight face they’re not out to relegate us. Getting punished twice in the same season, getting punished more than our rivals despite them overspending more, and new rules coming in so that this will literally never happen to anyone else ever again. It’s a complete scapegoating.

The whole process couldn’t be less fit for purpose and if they take so much as another point off us I’m going to struggle to follow football anymore let alone Everton. I simply can’t be invested in something so obviously corrupt.

 

[kenada_blue]

There are facts that are available in the public domain and then there are assumptions that you are making, both are at odds with each other.

Forest and us (for charge 2) are part of an Expedited process, one which led to a charge being initially raised 16th January this year following a newly devised financial reporting system. The process must run to its full conclusion and, even though it is part of an expedited process specifically created to allow that to happen, it may still run into one week post season. The speed of this process was considered the fastest possible to allow fair outcomes and proper application of due process. That consideration was through the PL and the IC.

Our initial charge was raised against us on 24th March, and in order for completion to happen within the season, the entire process, incl. appeal which is an agreed part of the process, would have been required to have been completed in 65 days. (it took 240 prior to appeal, 340 inclusive of Appeal)

The Forest charge, as part of the expedited process, and without an appeal yet even being raised, never mind heard, has taken 64 days. They relied heavily on the Everton case to assist in their decision making, allowing them to make assumptions based upon prior findings, something that wasn't afforded to the IC during Evertons first hearing. Everton are 64 days into the expedited process without a hearing even taking place (though the previous charge lead to extenuating circumstances in that regard)

Are you saying, with those given facts available to you, that anybody who doesn't think Everton delayed the process "deliberately" in order to stave off relegation is brainless? Or, do you think that, as many people who do have minds of their own do, that it is entirely possible that we suggested that in order to have the full process followed and come to a fair conclusion, the timeline to complete it in the same season was just far too tight. The IC agreed with us, the PL agreed with us. Did it serve us positively that this was the case, yes, absolutely, but none of that is our doing, nor did we deliberately delay any of our provision of evidence or response to charges. We worked entirely within the confines of the process as it was laid out, as we are also doing this time.

To imply that people have no mind of their own for having the temerity to disagree with you, while you are ignoring simple facts, is really quite a bold move.

Yep. The timeframe was agreed not delayed. The expedited one was brought in afterwards due to clubs, like Forest, complaining.

Mentioned before, Forest bringing us into it and insinuating we'd be relegated if it was dealt with in the season was in poor form. The attack should've focussed on the league, not us.

 

[Titus Bramble]

Yes but I wouldn’t count on the PL changing their stance, given they said they wouldn’t be suspending points deductions, then go and suspend 2 of Forest’s 6.

They haven't suspended any points from Forest, they removed 2 from the original total of 6 deducted. Similar to us getting 4 back on appeal.

 

[Joey66]

They haven't suspended any points from Forest, they removed 2 from the original total of 6 deducted. Similar to us getting 4 back on appeal.

We had to appeal costing money - they got 2 back for overspending 30 percent more than us - for good conduct ?
Nonesensical IMO...

 

[Zatara]

We still have a chance to laugh last. We can win some damn games, stay up, and roll out the blue carpet for the Independent Regulator whose first order of business should be to sack Masters, or at least give him a one finger wave.

Win games
Stay up
Forest relegated
We sign their best couple of players
Forest implode

 

[Drico]

“The commission does not know how the three extra points were arrived at by the appeal board for Everton, but some part of those three points must relate to the provision of incorrect information.”

Seems we got an arbitrary 3 points for being Everton to me.

Some would argue that some part of those three points must relate to trying to scapegoat Everton.

 

[Jeff Jones]

Right now I'd back Lennon to give us a better chance of staying up than Dyche.

But to be clear my preferred choice at this stage is big Joe Royle.

I love Joe Royle but that's stupid. Why not Roy Hodgson. They're about the same age and I'm not sure that Joe's health is
any better than Roy's, But you know that, don't you?

 

[Drico]

If our lily-livered braveheart wallflowers have anything about them, they will hammer Forest in late April in front of a baying mob of rabid Evertonians celebrating the three points needed to confirm Premier League survival.

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

We all know that's not what happened. It's like Trump delaying his trials until he's elected and can pardon himself. We hoped we'd somehow be in a better situation regarding relegation this season, and we'd have another year of TV money and Premier League money. It looks like we might have been right.

Obviously we did what is right for our outcome, no argument. But it was done in complete transparency and the IC made the final decision.

And we will pay the price for this, by being the only club it’s ever possible will receive 2 penalties in one season relating to different assessment periods.

 

[b-rad]

The people deciding on our next punishment have zero involvement in our first charge, our appeal, or Forests charge.

If anything, the PL should be appealing. They requested 8 points, which is in the middle of our 6 and the administration 9. The PL were soundly beaten in this hearing by Forest, and are now being blamed for Forest getting a lower punishment for a higher breach, which was not the PL’s intention.

The PL suggested there should be a "substantial" reduction in Forest's punishment due to good behaviour.