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

mikel_88 said:
All depends if they accept some of it has already been covered by the first charge. Honestly i am still shocked at the forest charge just cant get my head around it, just have a horrible feeling these clowns try get us with another 6. Would expect the club to be looking at every point forest got back in there charge, we need to be on the attack,
Click to expand...

same mate it’s sickening i knew we would be worse off

it’s so not fair

hope we appeal what we get but it could cost us our status this
 
matty1878 said:
can we?
Click to expand...
The one thing I would say though Matty is, if I were Everton, I would be writing to the PL and copying in Andy Burnham and DCMS, highlighting all of the inconsistencies applied in the Forest decisions and ours, and asking them, if they intend on appealing the decision for Forest as their punishment was too lenient. It would teach the little blurts to keep our name out of their mouths when trying to defend themselves and would also apply pressure on the PL to do something about it.
 
Blue peter said:
The one thing I would say though Matty is, if I were Everton, I would be writing to the PL and copying in Andy Burnham and DCMS, highlighting all of the inconsistencies applied in the Forest decisions and ours, and asking them, if they intend on appealing the decision for Forest as their punishment was too lenient. It would teach the little blurts to keep our name out of their mouths when trying to defend themselves and would also apply pressure on the PL to do something about it.
Click to expand...

it’s madness we get made an example of and forest use us aswell the cheeky barstewards

it’s definitely a vendetta and il argue it till i faint
 

NathDogg said:
He blocked me ages ago for correcting his untruths, fellas an absolute whopper. He’s having a go a Guilia Bould now the little rat.

His “facts” have been shot down and debunked more times than I’ve had hot dinners.
Click to expand...
His seemingly rapid media rise in the sports finance expert world is incredible. His entire work in sports finance (other than that related to betting and sporting goods stores) seems to be advising the same club he is defending, and his arguments sometimes seem to be based upon straight up unadulterated lies. Like, you can say that 115 charges is more complicated and all, but even if you don't know anything about the arcane details of rules and law, Manchester City literally has a history of doing things like announcing lucrative sponsorship deals from completely nonexistent companies, ffs. Like, they have literally done this in broad daylight. They absolutely clearly have violated FFP/PSR to a a ridiculous degree. Yeah there are some complexities surrounding them, but any media organisation giving this guy any airtime for any reason other than to absolutely destroy his reputation by having a better expert to counter every claim he makes is doing their audience a massive disservice. I know people on here don't care much for Kieran Maguire, but the guy has literally been a specialist professor on the topic for decades, publishing on it repeatedly, and is not really tied to any club, so if he's brought in there's a legitimate claim that there's an expert in the room; this other guy is like, you could call any professional club accountant or CFO and you'll probably get somebody with significantly more expertise than him.

But here's the thing: Media throughout the world are lousy with guys who became well known by saying what extremely rich people want to hear, and there's a good chance that if you turn on Sky Sports in 2029 you'll be seeing him with some title like "Senior Football Finance Correspondent" or similar.
 
Matelot said:
The frustrating thing about this whole mess is, for us personally, it ceases to be an issue if the lads could just win a handful of games.

That bothers me more than being docked points, just win some bloody games and put this abomination of a season behind us. 🤬
Click to expand...

We have “just won a handful of games” though. We should be on 31 points. So actually “just winning a handful of games” doesn’t even appear to be the golden ticket out of this. It seems like, on a whim, they can just come and steal as many points off us that we’ve actually won in football matches to artificially insert us into a relegation battle whenever they want.
 

Blue Smoke said:
I think theyll (PL) hope if we get 3 points and forest have been given 4 points that they will avoid appeals from both clubs. They'll want to avoid appeals at all costs if possible.
I imagine behind closed doors theyve told forest that they should be grateful for just 4 points
Click to expand...
Thats my hope the first case was unfortunately by us a normal situation of not been prepared. And the absolute scum of ex board members not even providing evidence even after a huge payout. With the appeal and the second charge i hope silk is ready to attack and again the different results off each case. I am furious at the forest result with a higher breach and again we have done wrong but have been punished far to heavy
 
mikel_88 said:
Thats my hope the first case was unfortunately by us a normal situation of not been prepared. And the absolute scum of ex board members not even providing evidence even after a huge payout. With the appeal and the second charge i hope silk is ready to attack and again the different results off each case. I am furious at the forest result with a higher breach and again we have done wrong but have been punished far to heavy
Click to expand...
Got me thinking this

With the huge severence pay to those Board members plus all the salary paid to them for months . Is this in the accounts & has this been a factor in us breaching PSR.
 
WestStandLower said:
He got schooled the other day around impairment on Blue Cos ( Chelsea’s current holding Company) particularly around asset acquisition

To be fair to him based on what is in the public domain he is right that the charges around Sponsorship will be difficult for the PL to prove but we have absolutely no idea what the PL investigators have uncovered all we know is that City wouldn’t submit information and the PL took City to arbitration but rather than accepting the competence of the arbitration panel City took it to High Court and we’re firmly put in their place did that lead to full disclosure or did they keep withholding?

When UEFA charged them City likewise refused to submit full information particularly a string of emails which UEFA were said to be so confident of their case they didn’t keep pursuing. That was an error because the court wouldn’t take any inference from them withholding whereas the PL panel aren’t governed by Swiss but English Law . You can bet your bottom dollar at that the PL will want to see everything that UEFa couldn’t get their hands on

You might have read that under UEFA statutes there is limitation in effect CAS said some charges were time barred . As we know the PL don’t have such restrictions but in English law there is still a Limitation in terms of how far back you can go to pursue a matter ( not appropriate to Criminal Law) The “expert” tells everyone that some of the older charges can’t be pursued because of limitation but that is waived in cases of fraud, concealment or mistake. Based on everything I have read concealment is exactly what the PL are suggesting. If that’s right then limitation is not it seems appropriate .

There are some areas where City are in trouble one around payments to players and payments to ex managers . Prove either or both of these and the whole deck of cards tumbles. Like us in this area but they really will have difficulty claiming co operation justifies mitigation.

Finally there are a significant number of charges for failing to co operate ( remember your first commission talking about being far from Frank) these probably in themself aren’t going to attract major sanctions but it’s the whole package of non co operation.

Please don’t think I suggesting that we Chelsea, won’t be charged at some point but again this City chap has absolutely no idea of what the issues are or how the PL view them.
Click to expand...

I guess that law around time limitations doesn't count as the PL is a private company they're a member of. If a company wants to see your books you're gonna have to pony up as far back as they want (data protection and record management aside).

As for the cooperation to me it's subjective. We didn't withhold anything that the IC felt was dubious, they just disagreed with what was put across. Hence the whole "no intentional wrong doing" to break the PSR threshold. The PL feel City haven't fully disclosed or been transparent which is different.

Forest were apparently "super cooperative" and got 2 points back because basically...there's was a cut and dry case. You over spent. Yes. Done.

The issue is the complete turn around on punishment. The PL pushed for a fixed starting position of 6 points for any breach. Then suddenly after our appeal goes through...it's now 3. In 6 months you've got 2 different decisions.

But it's how the PL have set themselves up by having this open door punishment scale that they can serve up whatever they want. If they don't want to punish Chelsea or City, they'll make up a reason not to
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top