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

jazzy said:
Unfortunately this is true. I'm sorry but if you think otherwise you are an ostrich with blue tinted glasses on.

We did delay the original hearing and the PL accepted that. The effect was that we weren't dealt with last season. If we had been and got a points deduction we would have been relegated. Did we delay deliberately? Make your own mind up , if you have one
Click to expand...

There are facts that are available in the public domain and then there are assumptions that you are making, both are at odds with each other.

Forest and us (for charge 2) are part of an Expedited process, one which led to a charge being initially raised 16th January this year following a newly devised financial reporting system. The process must run to its full conclusion and, even though it is part of an expedited process specifically created to allow that to happen, it may still run into one week post season. The speed of this process was considered the fastest possible to allow fair outcomes and proper application of due process. That consideration was through the PL and the IC.

Our initial charge was raised against us on 24th March, and in order for completion to happen within the season, the entire process, incl. appeal which is an agreed part of the process, would have been required to have been completed in 65 days. (it took 240 prior to appeal, 340 inclusive of Appeal)

The Forest charge, as part of the expedited process, and without an appeal yet even being raised, never mind heard, has taken 64 days. They relied heavily on the Everton case to assist in their decision making, allowing them to make assumptions based upon prior findings, something that wasn't afforded to the IC during Evertons first hearing. Everton are 64 days into the expedited process without a hearing even taking place (though the previous charge lead to extenuating circumstances in that regard)

Are you saying, with those given facts available to you, that anybody who doesn't think Everton delayed the process "deliberately" in order to stave off relegation is brainless? Or, do you think that, as many people who do have minds of their own do, that it is entirely possible that we suggested that in order to have the full process followed and come to a fair conclusion, the timeline to complete it in the same season was just far too tight. The IC agreed with us, the PL agreed with us. Did it serve us positively that this was the case, yes, absolutely, but none of that is our doing, nor did we deliberately delay any of our provision of evidence or response to charges. We worked entirely within the confines of the process as it was laid out, as we are also doing this time.

To imply that people have no mind of their own for having the temerity to disagree with you, while you are ignoring simple facts, is really quite a bold move.
 
Separate argument altogether, but what needs to happen is, the bottom 14 teams need to use their voting power once and for all and try and get the league back to a level playing field.

All you ever hear is how much power the top 6 have, but without the other 14 teams who'd watch it? Wish the top 6 had broken away would have been the best thing to ever happen for English football.
 

This is beyond a shambles and nobody can say with a straight face they’re not out to relegate us. Getting punished twice in the same season, getting punished more than our rivals despite them overspending more, and new rules coming in so that this will literally never happen to anyone else ever again. It’s a complete scapegoating.

The whole process couldn’t be less fit for purpose and if they take so much as another point off us I’m going to struggle to follow football anymore let alone Everton. I simply can’t be invested in something so obviously corrupt.
 
Jacko93 said:
There are facts that are available in the public domain and then there are assumptions that you are making, both are at odds with each other.

Forest and us (for charge 2) are part of an Expedited process, one which led to a charge being initially raised 16th January this year following a newly devised financial reporting system. The process must run to its full conclusion and, even though it is part of an expedited process specifically created to allow that to happen, it may still run into one week post season. The speed of this process was considered the fastest possible to allow fair outcomes and proper application of due process. That consideration was through the PL and the IC.

Our initial charge was raised against us on 24th March, and in order for completion to happen within the season, the entire process, incl. appeal which is an agreed part of the process, would have been required to have been completed in 65 days. (it took 240 prior to appeal, 340 inclusive of Appeal)

The Forest charge, as part of the expedited process, and without an appeal yet even being raised, never mind heard, has taken 64 days. They relied heavily on the Everton case to assist in their decision making, allowing them to make assumptions based upon prior findings, something that wasn't afforded to the IC during Evertons first hearing. Everton are 64 days into the expedited process without a hearing even taking place (though the previous charge lead to extenuating circumstances in that regard)

Are you saying, with those given facts available to you, that anybody who doesn't think Everton delayed the process "deliberately" in order to stave off relegation is brainless? Or, do you think that, as many people who do have minds of their own do, that it is entirely possible that we suggested that in order to have the full process followed and come to a fair conclusion, the timeline to complete it in the same season was just far too tight. The IC agreed with us, the PL agreed with us. Did it serve us positively that this was the case, yes, absolutely, but none of that is our doing, nor did we deliberately delay any of our provision of evidence or response to charges. We worked entirely within the confines of the process as it was laid out, as we are also doing this time.

To imply that people have no mind of their own for having the temerity to disagree with you, while you are ignoring simple facts, is really quite a bold move.
Click to expand...

Yep. The timeframe was agreed not delayed. The expedited one was brought in afterwards due to clubs, like Forest, complaining.

Mentioned before, Forest bringing us into it and insinuating we'd be relegated if it was dealt with in the season was in poor form. The attack should've focussed on the league, not us.
 
TrixyStevens said:
Yes but I wouldn’t count on the PL changing their stance, given they said they wouldn’t be suspending points deductions, then go and suspend 2 of Forest’s 6.
Click to expand...

They haven't suspended any points from Forest, they removed 2 from the original total of 6 deducted. Similar to us getting 4 back on appeal.
 

Johnniepk said:
“The commission does not know how the three extra points were arrived at by the appeal board for Everton, but some part of those three points must relate to the provision of incorrect information.”

Seems we got an arbitrary 3 points for being Everton to me.
Click to expand...
Some would argue that some part of those three points must relate to trying to scapegoat Everton.
 
If our lily-livered braveheart wallflowers have anything about them, they will hammer Forest in late April in front of a baying mob of rabid Evertonians celebrating the three points needed to confirm Premier League survival.
 
hallamblue said:
We all know that's not what happened. It's like Trump delaying his trials until he's elected and can pardon himself. We hoped we'd somehow be in a better situation regarding relegation this season, and we'd have another year of TV money and Premier League money. It looks like we might have been right.
Click to expand...
Obviously we did what is right for our outcome, no argument. But it was done in complete transparency and the IC made the final decision.

1710841683726.png

And we will pay the price for this, by being the only club it’s ever possible will receive 2 penalties in one season relating to different assessment periods.
 
HalfTimeSayers said:
The people deciding on our next punishment have zero involvement in our first charge, our appeal, or Forests charge.

If anything, the PL should be appealing. They requested 8 points, which is in the middle of our 6 and the administration 9. The PL were soundly beaten in this hearing by Forest, and are now being blamed for Forest getting a lower punishment for a higher breach, which was not the PL’s intention.
Click to expand...
The PL suggested there should be a "substantial" reduction in Forest's punishment due to good behaviour.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top