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

Jim Kirk said:
You'll get no arguments from me on that score. We were run terribly for years and nearly put out of existence because of it. We had two point deductions too - the second one was 15 pts. Starting a season in league 1 on -15 was a great laugh.

And since when did GOT become so toxic? A reasonable post about the real threat being the longer term risks of litigation from Burnley and Leicester doesn't seem to warrant mass abuse. Used to be a fairly reasonable place (by footie forum standards at least, which aren't all that high really) and now a pretty mild post seems to get koppite levels of delusion in response. Sad.
Click to expand...

Apologise for Jimmy Saville.
 
AndyRJ said:
Infered means deduced from evidence or reasoning i.e. that was their opinion not based on any fact. How can we have CATEGORICALLY received a sporting advantage when in the very next sentence they admit it can't be quantified i.e. proven.

There absolutely ZERO evidence that we received a sporting advantage by over spending.
Click to expand...
It doesn't involve something being categorically proven it is based on the balance of probabilities.

What you are suggesting is that athletes shouldn't be punished for taking performance-enhancing drugs because the advantage they give an athlete can't be quantified. Pretending we didn't gain an advantage because we spent the money badly would be like an PED athlete claiming the drugs didn't matter because they didn't train properly.

The truth is we could have easily gotten within P&S limits but we chose not to because we wanted to stay up.
 
Jim Kirk said:
10 pts doesn't feel excessive. We got 15 pts, Birmingham and Derby both got 12 recently. 10 isn't a number that feels out of whack against those incidents.

Compensation is a finger in the air, it could be anything or nothing. Forget the other 3 clubs - small claims for lost prize money etc....Burnley and Leicester have legitimate issues and can argue it cost them real money. 50m each after accounting for parachute payments for their share of the TV pool, plus premier league prize money for the 22-23 season as a starter, plus any sponsorship and commercial income that was reduced as a result of relegation. They are reporting to be pursuing claims around 100m each for those reasons. It hasn't happened yet so there isn't any evidence for it, but its not a fantasy scenario either. The same commission is due to hear the claims of the litigating clubs and that commission has already said it feels that there are grounds to pursue those claims.

I agree that penalties shouldn't force a club into administration. Most genuine football fans (forget the 'go wobble your head' internet morons) don't want to see Everton put out to grass over this. They just want accountability to be enforced across the board, and not just for teams down the football pyramid.
Click to expand...
but the EFL and PL are two totally different entities. May as well talk about UEFA bans etc.
Now you can argue that they shouldnt be different entities and even have a go at Everton for being part of that.
So, for now, any comparison has to be from the Premier League. The outfit that handed down the punishment, the most severe punishment ever handed out.
Most fans are still a bit raw over the lax treatment of the scab six. To add to that, City, Chelsea, Spurs, United, liverool have all seemingly breached other rules with no points deduction.
Luton or Derby getting hammered by the EFL has very little to do with this. Or City getting booted out of Europe for two seasons for that matter.
 
Jim Kirk said:
As a leeds fan, I think I have 4 takes on this.

1 - The 10 pts mean very little this year. There are 3 terrible teams in the league, you'll stay up with 30 points probably. Can't see the penalty resulting in relegation.

2 - You broke FFP. You did so knowingly and then tried to cover it up with dodgy accounting. The penalty is fair enough - You got caught and lied about it. Suck it up.

3 - Your big problem isnt the 10 pts, its Burnley and Leicester. Leeds, Southampton etc.....have very small claims, which amount to a couple of million for being 'cheated' out of a place in the league, but neither resulted in a substantial impact. Burnley and Leicester however..........You could easily be looking at a couple of hundred million compensation and all the fun and games that come with that.

4 - This is for the 21-22 season. Your still not compliant with FFP today, so need to fix that pronto or you'll be proper hammered. As a result, there is an urgent need to sell players and reduce the wage bill - and forget about strengthening. I think this (and the 3rd point) are your main issues. The 10 pts won't mean a whole lot and is short term - a big compensation bill and a wage bill that is hugely out of kilter with your revenue are longer term problems that could bury you for a good long time.
Click to expand...

Jim, it’s good to see other supporters on here, and I always liked Leeds back in the 70’s tbh. However you know you are a small club who had a little bit of success, a bit like Leicester, and I can understand your frustration. Not everyone can sue us because over the period teams went down purely because they were crap, and you know this. We will put the 10 points behind us and end up mid table, you know this. Meanwhile you will still be in old money, a second division team who got above themselves for a short period but still didn’t reach anything we ever did. So I hope life treats you and your team well, I hope you don’t behave like some loser club who has to resort to legal means to overcome your lack of football ability and I wish you well for the future in whatever lower level league you exist. All the best, Pete……
 

AndyRJ said:
Infered means deduced from evidence or reasoning i.e. that was their opinion not based on any fact. How can we have CATEGORICALLY received a sporting advantage when in the very next sentence they admit it can't be quantified i.e. proven.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that we received a sporting advantage by over spending.
Click to expand...
It is their opinion, but they're the ones doing the judgement. They have inferred from the fact of the breach that there was a sporting advantage. It's probable that the commission agrees that it is unquantifiable, given they refer to the Sheffield Wednesday case which does make that clear, although as discussed on this thread earlier on it's actually the Premier League's suggestion that it cannot be quantified, rather than explicitly the commission.

You'll disagree with them. I disagree with them. But there's no value in telling people that the report has said there was no sporting advantage, or that there may have been one, because it says there was one.
 
gwladysnight said:
It doesn't involve something being categorically proven it is based on the balance of probabilities.

What you are suggesting is that athletes shouldn't be punished for taking performance-enhancing drugs because the advantage they give an athlete can't be quantified. Pretending we didn't gain an advantage because we spent the money badly would be like an PED athlete claiming the drugs didn't matter because they didn't train properly.

The truth is we could have easily gotten within P&S limits but we chose not to because we wanted to stay up.
Click to expand...

You've said some bizare things on here since you decided come out of the closet. But performance enhancing drugs in an individual sport comparison is up there as one of your worst.
 

RD2910 said:
It is their opinion, but they're the ones doing the judgement. They have inferred from the fact of the breach that there was a sporting advantage. It's probable that the commission agrees that it is unquantifiable, given they refer to the Sheffield Wednesday case which does make that clear, although as discussed on this thread earlier on it's actually the Premier League's suggestion that it cannot be quantified, rather than explicitly the commission.

You'll disagree with them. I disagree with them. But there's no value in telling people that the report has said there was no sporting advantage, or that there may have been one, because it says there was one.
Click to expand...
So we should be dealing out severe punishment and paying out compensation on opinion then rather than proof? Glad we cleared that one up.

The facts are the commission are suggesting that there was a sporting advantage on the basis of the overspend but have absolutely no way of proving it or what it would have been. Spending money does not equal results on the pitch.
 
peteblue said:
Jim, it’s good to see other supporters on here, and I always liked Leeds back in the 70’s tbh. However you know you are a small club who had a little bit of success, a bit like Leicester, and I can understand your frustration. Not everyone can sue us because over the period teams went down purely because they were crap, and you know this. We will put the 10 points behind us and end up mid table, you know this. Meanwhile you will still be in old money, a second division team who got above themselves for a short period but still didn’t reach anything we ever did. So I hope life treats you and your team well, I hope you don’t behave like some loser club who has to resort to legal means to overcome your lack of football ability and I wish you well for the future in whatever lower level league you exist. All the best, Pete……
Click to expand...
Close the thread, this is the clear winner 👏👏👏
 
gwladysnight said:
It doesn't involve something being categorically proven it is based on the balance of probabilities.

What you are suggesting is that athletes shouldn't be punished for taking performance-enhancing drugs because the advantage they give an athlete can't be quantified. Pretending we didn't gain an advantage because we spent the money badly would be like an PED athlete claiming the drugs didn't matter because they didn't train properly.

The truth is we could have easily gotten within P&S limits but we chose not to because we wanted to stay up.
Click to expand...


Wondered how long it would be before you piped up 🙄

That is a ridiculous analogy lol There is clear evidence that 'Performance Enhancing Drugs' would enhance an athletes performance. You'd have to be a complete moron to suggest it wouldn't....or for using it as an analogy in the first place.

Where is the evidence that spending £19.5m over the PSR threshold equates to an advantage on the pitch? An advantage so great that it warrants a 10 point deduction?
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top