6 + 2 Point Deductions


Jacko93 said:
TBF, this may help our cause.
They have stated in their report that they can not calculate a level of sporting advantage, and the only reason they state there was one was due to a previous ruling. If a group of other clubs turn up and attempt, or manage to prove a level of sporting advantage beyond all reasonable doubt, then we would be able to call into question the capability of the whole board and therefore their whole judgement.

They either make themselves look incompetent or tell the others their judgement on Everton stands and sporting advantage can be inferred but not quantified.
Click to expand...
Beyond reasonable doubt is for criminal cases. The burden of proof in this case will be the much lower 'balance of probabilities'. In essence, all they will have to decide is whether it was likely that Everton committing a serious breach of P&S rules affected the relegation battle.

Legal cases are usually decided by legal precedents. Given the Sheff Wed case, it is likely that they will find that a serious breach gave us a significant sporting advantage.
 
Wat Tyler said:
Click to expand...

You couldn’t make this up. We’ve been saying there’s a different rule book for us compared to other teams and although it’s the Athletic, it’s effectively in writing.

Utter sham and corruption of the highest order.

Yes we need a root and branch overhaul of the club and new suitable owners in charge of which Mosh and 777 clearly aren’t but when the deck is stacked against you, we have to circle the wagons to call out this disgrace handed down by the gangsters in charge of football who are governed only by self interest and not for the good of the game
 

Amokachi1995 said:
It doesn't say that. Talks about the spending on training facilities (outside of PSR) and the competitive advantage it gave them.
Click to expand...
Correct. City’s charges have nothing to do with trying to capitalize interest into an infrastructure project where it doesn’t belong. They’re not in the same situation, comparing them is lazy.

City are in trouble for overvalued commercial contracts.
 
pfim said:
Correct. City’s charges have nothing to do with trying to capitalize interest into an infrastructure project where it doesn’t belong. They’re not in the same situation, comparing them is lazy.

City are in trouble for overvalued commercial contracts.
Click to expand...
His point was the ability to spend on infrastructure outside of PSR which we could then suddenly couldn't do.
 
BlueToff said:
Would be very, very surprised.

It might get reduced - because Everton's best argument is going to be that the commission plucked something out of thin air that just happens to match what the PL wanted, and yet is harsher than any previous punishment.

But Everton have admitted wrongdoing.
Click to expand...
Yes. At a time when the rules/calculation that landed us minus ten DIDN'T EXIST!
 

Amokachi1995 said:
His point was the ability to spend on infrastructure outside of PSR which we could then suddenly couldn't do.
Click to expand...
He’s wrong though. We were spending outside of PSR on the construction cost.

The issue is that we tried to capitalize interest onto the project from general funding. We took interest that was related to working capital (and specified in loan documents) and tried to claim that the money went to the stadium.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top