Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

6 + 2 Point Deductions

WestStandLower said:
Do you think then that the £67.7 million figure in respect of player trading profit will be less, the same or greater in the 22/23 accounts?

Neiler

Here’s the relevant section re loans


From UEFA site.
Loan of a player from the lender club to the new club with an unconditional obligation to buy
a) The loan must be reflected by the lender club as a permanent transfer and the player’s registration rights must be derecognised from its intangible assets. The proceeds from the loan and from the future permanent transfer must be recognised from the inception of the loan agreement.
b) The direct costs of the loan and the future permanent transfer for the new club must be recognised by the new club in accordance with the accounting requirements for permanent acquisition of a player’s registration

Loan of a player from the lender club to the new club with a conditional obligation to buy
a) If a condition is considered to be virtually certain, then the player’s registration must be recognised by both clubs as a permanent transfer from the inception of the loan agreement.
b) If the fulfilment of a condition cannot be assessed with sufficient certainty to trigger the permanent transfer from the inception of the loan, then the player’s registration must be recognised first as a permanent transfer.

Admittedly it’s the UEFA but my understanding is that the PL rule mirrors this requirement
Click to expand...

The structure of the deals had caveats in it I believe mate, there were certain milestones based on Juves performence, CL qualification etc - that had to be satisfied before the deal could be permanent, it was never a direct obligation to buy from day one, it had clauses to meet.

There was murder on here last year when Juve got a point deduction as it called the deal into question.
 
Neiler said:
Here’s the Burnley take:

So, in brief:

Season 1: Spend more than the rules allow to stay up at the expense of Club X, who are playing by the rules.
Season 2: again spend more than the rules allow, this time to purchase players from the club X (such as Dwight McNeil), at reduced rate as their players wish to stay in the tope tier.
Season 3: Upon club X's return to the division, utilise your squad (bolstered by years of financial rule breaking) to beat them home and away, gaining the six points required to negate the punishment from all previous rule breaking.

I give you the English Premier League - Where cheats prosper.
Click to expand...
He forgot to mention his club came up took the 90M didn’t spend anything, went down took the parachute payment and spent nothing. Got promoted and received another 90M, spent nothing and are heading back into the Championship to receive another 40M.
 
allen said:
That’s some professional grade nonsense.

If we really must make an utterly bizarre comparison to murder, it’d be a triple murder where we’ve already been sentenced for two of them.

Of course double jeopardy should apply.
Click to expand...

DanB90 said:
Know what does my head in more?

People posting doomsday scenarios every waking minute of the day.
Click to expand...
This fella lee MC is a notorious attention seeking gimp I will never forget the whinging he did over Rodriguez leaving, bad bad melt.
 

ToffeeTim said:
They had no intention of listening to any of the financial mitigations. The way they were all rejected out of hand shows that. I still don't trust the process at all.
Click to expand...
Essentially, if you breach, you get punished, they basically said it in the report. So Forest will get punished. And it will be a minimum of 6 points. If at any point a club breaches and gets let off, mitigation allowed, I’d hope we chase the PL through the courts.

But the question remaining is around how they manage a second breach.
 
Marius57 said:
Essentially, if you breach, you get punished, they basically said it in the report. So Forest will get punished. And it will be a minimum of 6 points. If at any point a club breaches and gets let off, mitigation allowed, I’d hope we chase the PL through the courts.

But the question remaining is around how they manage a second breach.
Click to expand...
Usually by picking balls out of a hat. They’re just making them up as they go along.
 
Fralahna said:
Whys this bell calling themselves Club X, then specifying McNeil as a player. Who's he trying to impress.

Also yeah, we've breached and been punished. We aren't disputing that. Its the level of the punishment. To say we have prospered shows they no nothing about what is going on at Club A... I mean Everton
Click to expand...
Was McNeil a reduced price - thought we paid £20m for him!
 

Walken said:
It's your understanding it would be the worst case scenario for us? Of course it is sunshine
Click to expand...
I am trying to get my head around the extent of the 22/23 P & S loses . I think that you have been treated shabbily but I don’t see that ending come the end of this witch hunt.

The original IC gave a strong hint that the 23 figures had worsened and it seems now that if 19/20+20/21 averaged was £55 million 21/22 was £10 million then the 23 figures for have to be in excess of £40 million that in effect will be an increase of £30 million PS loss year on year

So I have been trying to make sense of how those numbers are made up

I think that non stadium interest will by virtue of interest rate increases be more, perhaps almost doubled , that the prize money will be less by several million but I am struggling to see how when there clearly was a clear out of high wage earners can it be the £40 million I mention above unless the player trading profit has dipped by £30 million ish that and or amortised sums have increased as well.

From my reading none of the disputes re allowable sums will be a feature in the 2nd charge. Everton didn’t really return to them in the appeal so practically speaking it will be the extent of the breach first and second how the claim re double jeopardy plays out and. Similary it’s worth noting that Forest by virtue of the fact that were promoted won’t be assessed against a £105million loss and yes they had a massive spend but until we know the numbers it’s near enough impossible to gauge matters even more so than Everton’s

As I said yesterday like most I can’t see that you could or even should receive a second punishment for 2 of the 3 years but the fact that a charge has been levelled the IC won’t be questioning the rules ( which need questioning) but will look coldly at the rule which was strangely agreed by the clubs and then how to measure the appropriate sanction.

You can throw all sorts of analogies as to what punishment could look like and I have no idea which way any IC will go but the cold calculation that any sanction for a breach of a PS rule re the limits brings with it a minimum entry point of 6 points and then reduced by way of mitigation or increased by aggravating matters is just wrong.
 
Groucho said:
View attachment 247327
Click to expand...
The idea of a points deduction being necessary to achieve fairness is a good one.

Would that be to make it fairer for the clubs that are already able to spend continuously whatever amounts they like due to the current rules?

This whole sporting advantage theory is just a total nonsense. The fact that it can never be quantified proves that.
 
All this nonsense and uncertainty is down to the PL refusing to structure how these points are reached.
If they simply said theres a 3 point deduction for going over and then a point per 5 million increments (or something like that), then everybody would know whats going on.
We'd be able to know what to expect and forest to.
The appeal process would be easy and quick as well.
 
Neiler said:
The structure of the deals had caveats in it I believe mate, there were certain milestones based on Juves performence, CL qualification etc - that had to be satisfied before the deal could be permanent, it was never a direct obligation to buy from day one, it had clauses to meet.

There was murder on here last year when Juve got a point deduction as it called the deal into question.
Click to expand...
There really isn’t enough in the public domain to work out just what will or won’t be shown in which year. On the face of it you are probably correct but until we see the accounts we won’t know the impact.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top