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


kenada_blue said:
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
Click to expand...
The reason why the PL have to factor in the Limitations Act is that in the rules ,which I believe form a formal contract, state categorically that all discipline matters will be carried out in accordance with English law.
Co operation is indeed subjective and there were some interesting comments in the original Everton written reasons but my guess would be as a minimum is admitting the charge on receipt of the papers and then again as a minimum fully disclosing all documents as requested. In that regard it’s abundantly clear that City have obstructed the process not in any degree can they be viewed to have fully co operated.
The PL had no choice but to acknowledge that following Everton’s appeal any argument put forward by them advocating a deduction in excess of the sum set for entering an insolvency event was, going forward, always going to fail hence why they pitched in at 8 points.
The Everton appeal panel relied heavily on the Everton final outcome and I would suggest that in at least Everton’s second charge the entry point will be 3 points another 3 points will be added if it goes into “ significant “ territory.
But as was debated yesterday you then have the question of what is a minor breech and will that in full mitigate the second 3 points or indeed the full 6.
Cities charges ( and probably Chelsea’s likely charges ) don’t come under the same PSR rule as the charges against Forest and Everton we have absolutely no idea at this time how in isolation they will be viewed but what without doubt in Cities case no cooperation will be a major factor.
Tony’s Carp makes some very good points around potential points deduction for the second charge and I now have the view that if the £105 million over 3 years is not massively exceeded then it will be six points but mitigation will take it down to two points.
 

WestStandLower said:
The reason why the PL have to factor in the Limitations Act is that in the rules ,which I believe form a formal contract, state categorically that all discipline matters will be carried out in accordance with English law.
Co operation is indeed subjective and there were some interesting comments in the original Everton written reasons but my guess would be as a minimum is admitting the charge on receipt of the papers and then again as a minimum fully disclosing all documents as requested. In that regard it’s abundantly clear that City have obstructed the process not in any degree can they be viewed to have fully co operated.
The PL had no choice but to acknowledge that following Everton’s appeal any argument put forward by them advocating a deduction in excess of the sum set for entering an insolvency event was, going forward, always going to fail hence why they pitched in at 8 points.
The Everton appeal panel relied heavily on the Everton final outcome and I would suggest that in at least Everton’s second charge the entry point will be 3 points another 3 points will be added if it goes into “ significant “ territory.
But as was debated yesterday you then have the question of what is a minor breech and will that in full mitigate the second 3 points or indeed the full 6.
Cities charges ( and probably Chelsea’s likely charges ) don’t come under the same PSR rule as the charges against Forest and Everton we have absolutely no idea at this time how in isolation they will be viewed but what without doubt in Cities case no cooperation will be a major factor.
Tony’s Carp makes some very good points around potential points deduction for the second charge and I now have the view that if the £105 million over 3 years is not massively exceeded then it will be six points but mitigation will take it down to two points.
Click to expand...
Don't get hung up on City, they will never be found guilty. Chelsea is a different matter as they don't have the government's ear, although from recollection I think the government were involved in Boehly winning the bidding competition so they may well get off as well.
 
WestStandLower said:
The reason why the PL have to factor in the Limitations Act is that in the rules ,which I believe form a formal contract, state categorically that all discipline matters will be carried out in accordance with English law.
Co operation is indeed subjective and there were some interesting comments in the original Everton written reasons but my guess would be as a minimum is admitting the charge on receipt of the papers and then again as a minimum fully disclosing all documents as requested. In that regard it’s abundantly clear that City have obstructed the process not in any degree can they be viewed to have fully co operated.
The PL had no choice but to acknowledge that following Everton’s appeal any argument put forward by them advocating a deduction in excess of the sum set for entering an insolvency event was, going forward, always going to fail hence why they pitched in at 8 points.
The Everton appeal panel relied heavily on the Everton final outcome and I would suggest that in at least Everton’s second charge the entry point will be 3 points another 3 points will be added if it goes into “ significant “ territory.
But as was debated yesterday you then have the question of what is a minor breech and will that in full mitigate the second 3 points or indeed the full 6.
Cities charges ( and probably Chelsea’s likely charges ) don’t come under the same PSR rule as the charges against Forest and Everton we have absolutely no idea at this time how in isolation they will be viewed but what without doubt in Cities case no cooperation will be a major factor.
Tony’s Carp makes some very good points around potential points deduction for the second charge and I now have the view that if the £105 million over 3 years is not massively exceeded then it will be six points but mitigation will take it down to two points.
Click to expand...
I'll take that (2pts).
 
The PL want to portray the premiership as the best in the world.
Instead they have made it a joke. Asrerix teams, var mistakes, poor match schedules.
I've not enjoyed this season. Whats the point? Paid good money to watch my team. We might be crap but there's the odd good result. Now, they take points off us after winning them. Some taken off you, a bit off them. We're not far off them deciding who wins the title.
Even the 3 horse race doesnt excite me.
Its shame what they have done.
 
We have also 'pleaded guilty' at the first opportunity and have been just as cooperative as Forest in this second breach, so it follows that we should also be subject to at least the same level of mitigation that Forest have received on the grounds of their supposed cooperation. So we should also be having at least two points knocked off whatever punishment we are given.

It would be great if the double jeopardy argument was accepted and then we were subjected to the same mitigation as Forest. I have my doubts that the double jeopardy argument will be accepted, however.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top