Need to go at him like a Dyson on the second charge!
*other hoovers are available, but nothing sucks like a Dyson does
Marius57
Player Valuation: £50m
Has he had anything right at any point during this entire process?
He says anything at anytime to cover as many bases as possible so that something he says will eventually be correct.
Toffe3m4n
Player Valuation: £70m
Forest's first charge & our second.
It would be entirely unfair. Completely ridiculous to be honest.
But I'm just thinking of possible routes to survival at this point. If they got 6 points docked and we lost 2 more, I would back us to finish above them with effectively a 5 point lead.
I'm just doing permutations in my head to take my mind off my frustration at the punishment.
I don't think so I think in the end we just are guilty and we're aware that if the premier league stick to their guns and say they're going to punish us we haven't really got a leg to stand on. I've seen so many people saying we shouldn't have pled guilty as if we had a choice when the accounts we'd submitted proved that we were! They've tried to argue that we shouldn't be punished because we didn't do it on purpose I assume because thats what the lawyers thought was our best choice of getting off with it people like Rabinowitz don't take on a case and get told what to do by the client they decide what to angle to go with and he obviously chose that one. And like I said before I think there might be more to that statement that they're saying WE didn't do this deliberately and we're glad they're taking this into account because we all know that Forest DID do it deliberately and so their punishment should be more than ours.
Let’s wait and see how this goes first.
So proceedurely my early reading on this is, we admitted the breach, we appealed on 9 grounds of mitigation, 7 were upheld and two were accepted leading to the four points return.
The grounds accepted seem to be:
1) The Stadium debt calculations were an accounting error and in good faith and the intention wasn’t to mislead or breach.
2) The original sanction should have taken existing benchmarks into account from the EFL for proportionality.
Analysing this if we have admitted a breach for the first change, one must assume we will also do for the second, as the breach is likely the same.
What we don’t know is how that will travel and land - there is the double jeopardy argument, but balance that against the possibility of a harsher penalty for a second breach in 12 months.
The second charge is very much in the melting pot.
The grounds accepted seem to be:
1) The Stadium debt calculations were an accounting error and in good faith and the intention wasn’t to mislead or breach.
2) The original sanction should have taken existing benchmarks into account from the EFL for proportionality.
Analysing this if we have admitted a breach for the first change, one must assume we will also do for the second, as the breach is likely the same.
What we don’t know is how that will travel and land - there is the double jeopardy argument, but balance that against the possibility of a harsher penalty for a second breach in 12 months.
The second charge is very much in the melting pot.
I'm sure Tony Campari will make them see sense
Marius57
Player Valuation: £50m
How’s Tony doing? Concerned he will be getting loads of grief about his source given him bad intel.
trueblue84
Player Valuation: £50m
Thought this was just more jarg reporting from that josimar account, but it has come from a reputable source... Worrying.
