6 + 2 Point Deductions

[pejic]

So, if we'd sued Player X we would have reduced the overspend?
Do clubs usually sue players for breach of contract, or were we clutching at straws with that defence?

 

[LinekersLegs]

Which would be the reason to be angry/cynical about the punishment, many are quite rightly questioning the motivation.

Others are eating greggs

I chose a bacon and egg butty to fuel my rage - no greggs in California! lol

 

[ChesterBlue]

Apparently the fan base who had to deal with lies and accuations from its own board and bills mates in the media because of their protests at the board , don't blame their own board at all, hmmm

They’re definitely to blame for the charge existing at all, but 10 points is a insanely harsh penalty imo. Especially given that the big six got a pathetic slap on the wrist for attempting to start a super league.

 

[roydo]

So, if we'd sued Player X we would have reduced the overspend?
Do clubs usually sue players for breach of contract, or were we clutching at straws with that defence?

Straws is the answer mate. Not being able to sell him may have been a better defence, maybe we tried both, dunno.

 

[radiostar]

Ideal scenario for you and why you are delighted with it all, you may even get a couple more asterix titles out of it.

Amazed you can smell anything considering how far you have your head is buried in the sand.

He called me a kopite years ago for saying I thought Moshiri was a disaster waiting to happen and he would destroy us.

Fair to say he's not the brightest.

 

[gwladysnight]

Yeah just looking at it and the relevant phrase is "sporting advantage cannot be quantified but must be inferred". So by inference we have obtained an advantage, which isn't what I've seen some saying.

What makes it interesting for any compensation claim is that if a club wants to claim we would've been relegated instead of them the sporting advantage MUST be quantified. Something their judgement says the commission cannot do.

The burden of proof though is only the balance of probabilities. David Phillips KC indicated that it was his belief that if the case was proven then the other clubs would have a case. Even if relegation couldn't be proved Everton have a duty to treat the rest of the League with utmost good faith.

 

[HappyJack]

These are the 5 that need to be targetted, anything about them needs to be raked up:
David Phillips KC - Wilberforce Chambers
Nick Igoe - Accountant
Alan Eliezer Greenwood – Judge
Angus Kinnear Leeds CEO
Alan Pace Burnley Chairman

 

[Davideeyore]

Agreed but didn't the report say Everton got no sporting advantage ? If so there shouldn't possibly be any sporting penalty, such as a points deduction, which will mean nothing at all to an owner that has practically sold us anyway. It should have been a massive fine that Moshiri and Co had to pay, not the club.

There was a point 135, saying a fine would be pointless because we have a wealthy owner. But surely that has to be contested?

The so called wealthy owner is selling us.

At the same time his purse strings are tightened due to where his money is (correct me if I'm wrong) as a result of the war in Ukraine he can't fund us any longer.

The mitigating circumstances should also include the loss of USM, Megafon money etc. I find that hard to believe that this is disregarded.

 

[Walken]

He called me a kopite years ago for saying I thought Moshiri was a disaster waiting to happen and he would destroy us.

Fair to say he's not the brightest.

Making stuff up now are we, be sure to get your other 'allies' into these quotes

YNWA

 

[Wat Tyler]

Yeah just looking at it and the relevant phrase is "sporting advantage cannot be quantified but must be inferred". So by inference we have obtained an advantage, which isn't what I've seen some saying.

What makes it interesting for any compensation claim is that if a club wants to claim we would've been relegated instead of them the sporting advantage MUST be quantified. Something their judgement says the commission cannot do.

 

[roydo]

The mitigating circumstances should also include the loss of USM, Megafon money etc. I find that hard to believe that this is disregarded.

Some might say the deck was loaded....

 

[mahermi1]

Yeah just looking at it and the relevant phrase is "sporting advantage cannot be quantified but must be inferred". So by inference we have obtained an advantage, which isn't what I've seen some saying.

What makes it interesting for any compensation claim is that if a club wants to claim we would've been relegated instead of them the sporting advantage MUST be quantified. Something their judgement says the commission cannot do.

Our sporting advantage was after selling our better players two relegation battles on the trott, with survival on the penultimate match and the last match of the season consequently. Some sporting advantage we gained there, we couldn't even do that right.

 

[Dougie]

There was a point 135, saying a fine would be pointless because we have a wealthy owner. But surely that has to be contested?

The so called wealthy owner is selling us.

At the same time his purse strings are tightened due to where his money is (correct me if I'm wrong) as a result of the war in Ukraine he can't fund us any longer.

The mitigating circumstances should also include the loss of USM, Megafon money etc. I find that hard to believe that this is disregarded.

Also needs to be stated if that’s their stance why did they fine then sky 6 for trying to leave. All 6 of there owners have more wealth and assets than ours.
Have no problem with our club being guilty, even if it’s a technical breach, but at least ensure the punishment fits the crime and treat every club the same.

 

[matty1878]

this is a f n joke my head can’t get round it

 

[Wat Tyler]

So, if we'd sued Player X we would have reduced the overspend?
Do clubs usually sue players for breach of contract, or were we clutching at straws with that defence?

Has it been explained why the FA suspended him? Is it because the allegations involved a child?