6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Titus Bramble]

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.

I'd imagine all salaries and severance payments for club employees are a part of the PSR calculations, so yes that would include board members.

 

[sbbefc]

I'll take that (2pts).

Obviously depends on the severity of the breach. But if it's a minor one and with double jeopardy I wouldn't accept more than 1 point.

 

[Amokachi1995]

Analysing Forest's Points Deduction

Nottingham Forest were deducted four points on Monday as the PSR saga rumbles on.

mtag.substack.com

Put this together, if anyone wants a look.

Good write up. Didn't realise that Atletico had bid on 30th June. If they'd have accepted that they would have been fine. Maybe Johnson said no...

 

[Jeff Jones]

Rest easy in the knowledge that @Ragnar is planning to fart in his eyeball. Lets hope that it follows a night discussing point deductions over a curry and plenty of ale.

It'd be smelly, but not really painful, I don't think.

 

[trueblue84]

Good write up. Didn't realise that Atletico had bid on 30th June. If they'd have accepted that they would have been fine. Maybe Johnson said no...

It was a tenuous enquiry. It was an offer, subject to athletico selling players. They shouldn't be accepting mitigating circumstances of "what if" scenarios for player sales, while rejecting our sponsorship deals that fell through.

 

[Amokachi1995]

It was a tenuous enquiry. It was an offer, subject to athletico selling players. They shouldn't be accepting mitigating circumstances of "what if" scenarios for player sales, while rejecting our sponsorship deals that fell through.

I was more thinking why wouldn't Forest have accepted but think you've answered.

 

[Toffe3m4n]

Apologies for linking talksport but get a load of this charlatan called ‘Borson’ defending City.

TalkSport are literally the only national platform who've given him a go and I think that speaks volumes of the fella lol

 

[kenada_blue]

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.

But it's still the issue of what's constitutes "massively exceeding".

For this 2nd charge in our case...the original IC accepted the only mitigation was that we've reigned in spending and there's a downward curve. They can't for the 2nd then charge say "you've continued to overspend".

There's also the starting point of the initial 6 points which is now 3. Then there's by how much we're over...which by all accounts should be minor (people like The Esk were surprised at the 2nd charge as we looked to be just under).

Also as the account period include what's already been punished, then add the whole agenda of wanting the put this to bed before the new set of rules come into place...I wouldn't be surprised to see 3 points but suspended to 0 based on mitigations.

Any more actual points we should appeal. But personally think they'll agree something.

 

[bluenorthwarrior]

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.

I'm not sure pleading guilty is a requirement of cooperation personally, no way that would stand in law. I know you can get up to a third off the sentence for an early guilty plea, but that is not the same as cooperating in this sense. Cooperating is providing the information requested in a timely manner and not hiding anything - does not mean you need to agree that you are guilty of the charge though.

 

[Jeff Jones]

One thing for certain in all of this, it gives Luton a massive shot in the arm and when we play them at their place it will be hostile and they will be well up for it, just hope our clowns are also

We'll sell out our ticket allocation and make a lot of noise in their tiny ground.

 

[pfim]

It was a tenuous enquiry. It was an offer, subject to athletico selling players. They shouldn't be accepting mitigating circumstances of "what if" scenarios for player sales, while rejecting our sponsorship deals that fell through.

It's a stupid defense.

 

[Toffeelover]

I'm not sure pleading guilty is a requirement of cooperation personally, no way that would stand in law. I know you can get up to a third off the sentence for an early guilty plea, but that is not the same as cooperating in this sense. Cooperating is providing the information requested in a timely manner and not hiding anything - does not mean you need to agree that you are guilty of the charge though.

Does it mean though you bend over and have your rear smacked, we were fighting our corner and standing up for ourselves not accepting what they had to say lying down.

Still unclear where BMD costings fit into all this.

 

[Fralahna]

I say we continue to breach each season in protest of the biased rules, and when they slap a random number generated point deduction on us we continue to stay in their league and continue to breach. F em. Highlight the shambles the system actually is and still stay like an unwelcome guest until they are forced into being regulated. And we can stay in the league. The teams promoted will work like a revolving door. Just keep breaching.

Hows that for not cooperating with the league

 

[Tony’s Carp]

I say we continue to breach each season in protest of the biased rules, and when they slap a random number generated point deduction on us we continue to stay in their league and continue to breach. F em. Highlight the shambles the system actually is and still stay like an unwelcome guest until they are forced into being regulated. And we can stay in the league. The teams promoted will work like a revolving door. Just keep breaching.

Hows that for not cooperating with the league

Good plan, Farhad.

 

[toffeeblue9]

But it's still the issue of what's constitutes "massively exceeding".

For this 2nd charge in our case...the original IC accepted the only mitigation was that we've reigned in spending and there's a downward curve. They can't for the 2nd then charge say "you've continued to overspend".

There's also the starting point of the initial 6 points which is now 3. Then there's by how much we're over...which by all accounts should be minor (people like The Esk were surprised at the 2nd charge as we looked to be just under).

Also as the account period include what's already been punished, then add the whole agenda of wanting the put this to bed before the new set of rules come into place...I wouldn't be surprised to see 3 points but suspended to 0 based on mitigations.

Any more actual points we should appeal. But personally think they'll agree something.

I could be wrong, but I could have sworn that the appeal decision report referenced that our 22/23 losses had shown an upward trend (in other words losses were higher) but that they couldn't/shouldn't be using that as an aggravating factor in the 21/22 decision