6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Jacko93]

It didn't state that we got no sporting advantage. That's just wrong.

It stated that we.must have got a sporting advantage due to spending more money, but that couldn't be quantified.

It still baffles me that even when it couldn't be quantified, they managed to apply a 10 point penalty. That would suggest that they think we got a 10 point advantage. Even if they apply the same logic and continue to use Sheffield as a barometer and reason for their inference of sporting advantage, then they went £18m over a £39m limit. We went £19.5m (disputed) over £105m. That's approximately a 3rd of the breach, which if being used as a barometer of sporting advantage, would put us at 4 points, being halved to 2 on appeal (as Sheffields was halved aswell). A serious committee surely shouldn't be using other cases as an example without following it to its natural conclusion.

Unless of course they were judging in line with the PL suggestions that were made half way through the process. I would suggest we take the same stance as Andy Burnham and ask them to prove that it was not the case and that the process had not been prejudiced.

 

[RD2910]

It didn’t say we did either.

Needless to say, the commission did not state there was a sporting advantage and the commission stated there was no sporting advantage are different sentences with different meanings.

However, it genuinely did Phil. It's the main reason why the punishment was so harsh. I can't really get my head around people wilfully misunderstanding that.

 

[d0rk]

No, it literally did say that Everton enjoyed a sporting advantage over four seasons. Why are people still parroting rubbish on this point? It's right there in the report.

Paragraph 95:

"We also recognise that the inference of a sporting advantage is one that should properly be drawn from the fact of a PSR breach, and that sporting advantage will have been enjoyed for each of the seasons on which the PSR calculation was based – in this case, because of Covid, four seasons."

 

[Jacko93]

No, it literally did say that Everton enjoyed a sporting advantage over four seasons. Why are people still parroting rubbish on this point? It's right there in the report.

Paragraph 95:

"We also recognise that the inference of a sporting advantage is one that should properly be drawn from the fact of a PSR breach, and that sporting advantage will have been enjoyed for each of the seasons on which the PSR calculation was based – in this case, because of Covid, four seasons."

But even this, I disagree with. By the average of 3 years being used as a yardstick, it is entirely conceivable that a single year of mismanagement can lead to a PSR breach and, also entirely conceivable that it is tye final year in which that mismanagement happened, so there is no way that they can state the sporting advantage which they infer was found across 3, or 4 seasons. For a sporting sanction to apply, they must surely prove the sporting advantage they accuse us of, or at least prove the timeframe it applies, rather than just 'infer'

 

[d0rk]

But even this, I disagree with. By the average of 3 years being used as a yardstick, it is entirely conceivable that a single year of mismanagement can lead to a PSR breach and, also entirely conceivable that it is tye final year in which that mismanagement happened, so there is no way that they can state the sporting advantage which they infer was found across 3, or 4 seasons. For a sporting sanction to apply, they must surely prove the sporting advantage they accuse us of, or at least prove the timeframe it applies, rather than just 'infer'

That's fine, you can disagree with the conclusion. You can't disagree this is what the investigation said though, which is what the posters prior to me in this thread were claiming.

 

[Drico]

But even this, I disagree with. By the average of 3 years being used as a yardstick, it is entirely conceivable that a single year of mismanagement can lead to a PSR breach and, also entirely conceivable that it is tye final year in which that mismanagement happened, so there is no way that they can state the sporting advantage which they infer was found across 3, or 4 seasons. For a sporting sanction to apply, they must surely prove the sporting advantage they accuse us of, or at least prove the timeframe it applies, rather than just 'infer'

They've also got to be able to quantify that "sporting advantage" if they want to fit a proportional punishment. In the case of West Ham and Sheffield United 16 years ago, it was easy to quantify the sporting advantage as the illegally signed Tevez scored the only goal of the last game of the season to send Sheffield United down and ensure West Ham stayed up.

In our case, it's much harder to see what "sporting advantage" if any was gained - certainly impossible to quantify it. The whole thing was a kangaroo court designed to fit an arbitrary punishment on us and give a pretence of independence. A sham.

 

[Jacko93]

They've also got to be able to quantify that "sporting advantage" if they want to fit a proportional punishment. In the case of West Ham and Sheffield United 15 years ago, it was easy to quantify the sporting advantage as the illegally signed Tevez scored the only goal of the last game of the season to send Sheffield United down.

In our case, it's much harder to see what "sporting advantage" if any was gained - certainly impossible to quantify it. The whole thing was a kangaroo court designed to fit an arbitrary punishment on us and give a pretence of independence. A sham.

The case they used wasn't the Tevez one, but rather a PSR breach where they got 12 points, reduced to 6 on appeal, for going £18m over the £39m permitted EFL losses. They breached it due to something happening with their sale of Hillsborough.

The Tevez thing was settled out of court and no points deduction or otherwise was applied by the league.

 

[RD2910]

But even this, I disagree with. By the average of 3 years being used as a yardstick, it is entirely conceivable that a single year of mismanagement can lead to a PSR breach and, also entirely conceivable that it is tye final year in which that mismanagement happened, so there is no way that they can state the sporting advantage which they infer was found across 3, or 4 seasons. For a sporting sanction to apply, they must surely prove the sporting advantage they accuse us of, or at least prove the timeframe it applies, rather than just 'infer'

I think it's a bit of a silly phrase to be honest. Losing money also entails not getting money you would have expected to get, not getting any money for Cenk Tosun for example. Those examples are clearly disadvantages. I don't think such a complex series of transactions considered together can be boiled down to 'a sporting advantage', especially when a massive sanction is then applied because of it.

 

[mahermi1]

Even they aren't stupid enough to ignore the holes in their original unbiased judgement. How can 1 breach of arbitrary rules be more serious than going into administration?

Spot on it simply can't.

 

[Bez2k2k]

By all accounts I’ve seen January is when we’ll know the appeal result.

I’m totally calm and confident we will get the points back and our punishment will be altered.

Do we then have a case to say it’s affected us from a sporting point of view and therefore we could sue for all of the games we have played and lost because the players and staffs’ minds weren’t correct?

 

[Bez2k2k]

I don't normally go into these conspiracy theories against us. But the referring so far and the amount of little decisions goin against us would worry me big time for the rest of the season. They look like they are goin to do us by what ever means .

Add it to the long list.

 

[Jacko93]

By all accounts I’ve seen January is when we’ll know the appeal result.

I’m totally calm and confident we will get the points back and our punishment will be altered.

My concern is that, if reports are to be believed, it is the same panel sitting for the appeal. I find it much more unlikely that any reduction will happen. But that is based entirely off me being a negative Nelly than any actual fact based deducement

 

[Dymak]

It’s good to learn that Sheffield Wednesday’s initial 12 point deduction was halved to six on appeal, as it was deemed to be excessively harsh.

Wasn’t it the Sheffield Wednesday case that they referred to as precedent in the report? If so, let’s hope they they take Wednesday’s appeal as precedent as well!

We have a chance with a 5 point deduction, but I think we will go down if it’s any more than that!

 

[WestStandLower]

My concern is that, if reports are to be believed, it is the same panel sitting for the appeal. I find it much more unlikely that any reduction will happen. But that is based entirely off me being a negative Nelly than any actual fact based deducement

It is possible that the same panel will be appointed to hear the appeal but that is almost certainly not going to happen but even if the chair of the judicial panel did appoint the same panel if the club weren’t happy with those appointments they , the Club, can object against the appointments.

As an outsider looking in it’s pretty obvious that the backlash to all this isn’t something that the bulk of observers and indeed the PL excepted that is I suspect save a couple of individuals who totally misread the room and that includes the Independent Commission who embarked on a massive Willy waving exercise intoxicated on power

Be it directed from the PL Board in total or one individual the sceptre of external regulation clearly has been central in all this and I personally am under no illusion a regulatory body I believe a regulatory will be a disaster. For me it will be a bureaucratic version of VAR .

At one time I thought that yours at worse would be a fine and a points deduction suspended so I was like most taken aback. I will this into the pot if your 10 point deduction remains that will set the benchmark and quite simply it they , the PL, or regulator long term adopt the same level of sanction the PL will in a blink of an eye will implode.

 

[mahermi1]

My concern is that, if reports are to be believed, it is the same panel sitting for the appeal. I find it much more unlikely that any reduction will happen. But that is based entirely off me being a negative Nelly than any actual fact based deducement

I think it's the same panel, but only for the compensation appeals, not the appeal to the 10 point reduction.