6 + 2 Point Deductions

It's a consortium Ashley, the Venkys and Michael Knighton (not the one in knight rider)
*taps nose
Adobe_20240226_165523.jpg


Confirmed.
 
I cannot hide how angry I am with Everton, for rolling over with glee and acceptance over the decision.

"The Club is also particularly pleased with the Appeal Board’s decision to overturn the original Commission’s finding that the Club failed to act in utmost good faith. That decision, along with reducing the points deduction, was an incredibly important point of principle for the Club on appeal. The Club, therefore, feels vindicated in pursuing its appeal".

What it says is they never really challenged the Premier League what they were more concerned about was a principle! Don't forget this is the same Everton that smeered the fans over headlock. Because it was their call. It was them that made the first submission.

I hope there are more Everton fans that can see how pathetic this club is. They should have been pushing for a wiping of the 10 points not a reduction.
 
He argued 2 points and won both. Assuming he couldnt argue the others as we previously admitted guilt. Maybe we should have got him in earlier.

Hopefully we are keeping him on for the second breach.
He argued 9 points but focused more on 2. 7 were dismissed as it was about specific mitigation etc.

The two he won were about how the commission “erred in law”.
 

The way all the mitigations were handled again just suggests that FFP is deliberately there to stop smaller clubs from spending too much to challenge the elite.

TBF, they did essentially state in one section that FFP (PSR) is not to make all teams equally rich, or equally competitive, it is in fact there to maintain what exists, but was voted in by all clubs, so tough.
 
The way all the mitigations were handled again just suggests that FFP is deliberately there to stop smaller clubs from spending too much to challenge the elite.
Take UTD they owe over £1billion in debt make losses year on year but are fit & proper for PSR
1708966521380.png

Now maybe I live in a different reality but 23+92+115 is very much over the 105 limit for 3 years losses, it's over double at 230 so how are they not in breach ?
 
But a much easier argument to say no sporting advantage, especially since we've already been punished for the majority of that time frame

Signing players can give give an advantage on field. I'm not sure how racking up debt and paying interest will.
We've already been punished for our "sporting advantage" and we've hardly signed anyone in the latest accounts. Masters used EFL rules in his argument against us, EFL does not allow punishment twice for the same accounting period, or will this just be part of the EFL rules that dosent suit him so can be ignored...
 

We've already been punished for our "sporting advantage" and we've hardly signed anyone in the latest accounts. Masters used EFL rules in his argument against us, EFL does not allow punishment twice for the same accounting period, or will this just be part of the EFL rules that dosent suit him so can be ignored...

Logic suggests they now have to accept that part of the EFL rules, but nothing would surprise me
 
I can't believe how quickly people on here have accepted the six point penalty as if that's still OK. They didn't even have their own rules and had to use the Football Leagues' for proportionality. Ten points! more than for actually going into administration. How did they work that out, proportion of games, proportion of finances? It's all bollox. Forest might have broken the spending rules, but their threshold was £40 million lower because they were in the Football League with their owner, they aren't going to go quietly. We should appeal again, what are we going to do if they slap on another six point penalty in six weeks!. The clever thing to do would be to ally with Forest and drag the Premier League into a place that they don't want to be in June.
 

Top