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

For everyone saying that Everton delayed the initial hearing, we did nothing of the sort.

There was no realistic timeline which would have seen our initial hearing dealt with including any appeal before the end of last season and the commission said as much too.

The major reason for that is that we have a right to a fair trial under law and so to expect us to do sign over that right to a fair trial so the case is dealt with last season is a nonsense.

If you were due up before a court, out on bail and the judge comes to you and says “listen lad, I’m off for a long holiday in a few weeks so do you fancy cutting short your defence prep time (jeopardising your ability to defend yourself) so it’s all sorted before I go” - would anyone honestly say yes?
 
Forest’s statement is assertive in rejecting their punishment but makes no mention of an appeal, whereas I think Everton’s statement to the initial appeal mentioned our intention to appeal straight away.

I hope this is a good sign. I would be in acceptance of these reported agreements in which clubs are given lower deductions in return for not appealing.

Our objective is to finish above LUTON!
 
Wat Tyler said:
99% of blues agree with you about terrible ownership of us.

However, how can it be even close to fair that Forest knowingly breached the rules and waited to a month after to sell a player and only lose 4 points; while we sold Richarlison for a lower value and played by the rules, but had 6 points stolen off us?

It isn’t a fair scenario, blues think it, neutrals have been saying it (Maguire), Forest fans online have been saying it, and even some of my red mates too.
Click to expand...
This is true. The only part of this I'm not clear on is what is the period of Forest's wrongdoing vs ours? Like, a 50% uplift on the fine if we've been at it for 3 seasons vs there one doesn't seem wildly disproportionate.

The ball of wool that is EPL's process doesn't help at all here and the independent regulator seems the way forward for how the EPL's become. Lack of clarity just gives rise to all these different views, all of which are sincere and hold water from different points of view. Galling to see Everton tied up in it. Would dearly love for a legit non-777 player to pick us up after Dyche scrapes us over the line again :)
 
UltraVires said:
For everyone saying that Everton delayed the initial hearing, we did nothing of the sort.

There was no realistic timeline which would have seen our initial hearing dealt with including any appeal before the end of last season and the commission said as much too.

The major reason for that is that we have a right to a fair trial under law and so to expect us to do sign over that right to a fair trial so the case is dealt with last season is a nonsense.

If you were due up before a court, out on bail and the judge comes to you and says “listen lad, I’m off for a long holiday in a few weeks so do you fancy cutting short your defence prep time (jeopardising your ability to defend yourself) so it’s all sorted before I go” - would anyone honestly say yes?
Click to expand...
Overshare...?

Just kidding. It's a very fair point and I told the judge to do one when he er, oh nevermind.
 


UltraVires said:
For everyone saying that Everton delayed the initial hearing, we did nothing of the sort.

There was no realistic timeline which would have seen our initial hearing dealt with including any appeal before the end of last season and the commission said as much too.

The major reason for that is that we have a right to a fair trial under law and so to expect us to do sign over that right to a fair trial so the case is dealt with last season is a nonsense.

If you were due up before a court, out on bail and the judge comes to you and says “listen lad, I’m off for a long holiday in a few weeks so do you fancy cutting short your defence prep time (jeopardising your ability to defend yourself) so it’s all sorted before I go” - would anyone honestly say yes?
Click to expand...

Some might say Man City have delayed there's a bit...
 
Drico said:
I don't have an issue with "cooperation" being taken into account. But how much mitigation can that offer when Forest have breached to the tune of 35m compared to our 19m? Secondly, if Everton acted in good faith - as per the appeal commission - how were we uncooperative?

The fact of the matter is, rules need to be applied consistently. Otherwise, they are not fit for purpose. Worse, they leave the governing body open to accusations of favouritism and/or corruption even if incompetence is the real issue. The Premier League have undermined themselves every bit as expertly as Moshiri has Everton.
Click to expand...
Agree. And further, Forest knew they had a chance to be in compliance if they sold Johnson by 30 June, yet blatantly refused to do so; this amounts to an intentional breach. How exactly does that demonstrate cooperation that should be rewarded with a reduced penalty?
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top