6 + 2 Point Deductions

[HalfTimeSayers]

I reckon we just winged it.

I suspect the legal team was screaming no every time we opened our mouth.

Moshiri strikes me as somebody who listens to nobody, Managers, DoF, Lawyers.

We supposedly used Pinsents, who are legit, at least in corporate. But it seems well known that Mosh pushed aside other club officials to represent the club himself in the hearings, so would be no surprise if he ignored half the legal advice (which will have been “shut up you idiot and let us handle this, you are paying us more per hour than your manager!!!”)

Using “our non-existent midfield” as a reason why he continued to buy players when they were authorising them but also warning against it beggars belief. Convinced he just found all of his billions in a bin when walking his dog.

 

[Blue Willy]

Yeah, City have kicked the can down the road for a long time, and will continue to do so. Give it 3 or 4 years before throwing it out of court (with a dodgy settlement). Disgraceful but money is like that.

 

[hallamblue]

We supposedly used Pinsents, who are legit, at least in corporate. But it seems well known that Mosh pushed aside other club officials to represent the club himself in the hearings, so would be no surprise if he ignored half the legal advice (which will have been “shut up you idiot and let us handle this, you are paying us more per hour than your manager!!!”)

Using “our non-existent midfield” as a reason why he continued to buy players when they were authorising them but also warning against it beggars belief. Convinced he just found all of his billions in a bin when walking his dog.

He was an accountant who did what he was told and didn't ask questions.

 

[Sussex]

Maybe because pleading guilty normal results in a reduced punishment.

I get that but we initially said we had complied with FPP (PSR) but shortly before the hearing we pleaded guilty.

We then admitted guilt but tried to argue that instead of £20m over we were only £9m over.

Which was it, guilty or innocent? And if guilty, we were only £9m over not £20m.

Who suggested the change from innocent to guilty? reduced punishment because we plead guilty and we were only £9m over the threshold. So following logic, 1 point for every £5m over the threshold, our legal team thought an 8 point deduction was worth all this hassle than a 10 point deduction.

The above to me suggests a "Boris Johnstone with Nick Hancock" legal team in charge.

 

[kev]

He was an accountant who did what he was told and didn't ask questions.

Yes he was, but now he's a football club owner who does ask questions . . . but then disregards the answers.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

I think the main complaint is the severity of the punishment... it's a punishment worse than you ger for going into administration, which is basically telling your creditors you can't pay them your staff/players don't get paid.. we spent less than 5 million too much per season over 4 seasons and were hit with this ridiculous punishment.. if you don't agree that the punishment was far too harsh for the crime then I believe you are a kopite on here fishing for a reaction.

Can’t be emphasised enough how much less bad our offence is than going into administration. As far as we’re aware every player, staff member, supplier and football creditor has always been paid fully and on time. Our spending has been good for the football (and overall) economy.

There’s a debate to be had about FFP in general but it’s an optional rule, it’s not essential to the running of football or for anyone’s protection. We may have caused slight harm to other clubs but then plenty of other clubs have benefitted from our wild spending.

That’s miles away from the clear, unarguable harm done by clubs going into admin- the punishment shouldn’t even be in the same ballpark.

 

[nevsonlymate]

Not really the case....years ago I smashed the telly playing football in the house with my brother,and thought if I owned up and begged clemency I'd be fine.

I still got leathered with the rubber side of a pair of slippers.

And still to this day he gets the same punishment each Friday from Sandra but unfortunately has to pay for it

 

[Gilbert..]

City have arranged a date for 18 months time. In about 15 months they'll say they need more time to prepare, and so on ad infinitum. If it ever gets heard it will have been so long since the offences that they'll say it's not worth it. Either that or they'll leave for a Super League or there will be a new league agreement that means no penalties for past offences.

And the premier league know it. It suits them just as much not to go for City. They dont want the battle. They dont want the negative press for their brand.
Everton came along with their one single charge just in time. Just in time for them to say look, we're handing out punishments. We really are in control of all this. We've even picked our own independent panel(lol)
Any Evertonian who says we should just take whats been dished out is a million miles away from where i'm at.

 

[hallamblue]

And the premier league know it. It suits them just as much not to go for City. They dont want the battle. They dont want the negative press for their brand.
Everton came along with their one single charge just in time. Just in time for them to say look, we're handing out punishments. We really are in control of all this. We've even picked our own independent panel(lol)
Any Evertonian who says we should just take whats been dished out is a million miles away from where i'm at.

This is true. What's also true is that we're the first club to be found guilty under the p&s rules so they had to be seen to be firm, which is, in one way, fair enough. However,10 points is not firm, it's disproportionate. If they wanted to dish out punishment like this, they should have reached agreement with the clubs over the sanctions for breaching p&s when they brought it in.

 

[RD2910]

And the premier league know it. It suits them just as much not to go for City. They dont want the battle. They dont want the negative press for their brand.
Everton came along with their one single charge just in time. Just in time for them to say look, we're handing out punishments. We really are in control of all this. We've even picked our own independent panel(lol)
Any Evertonian who says we should just take whats been dished out is a million miles away from where i'm at.

I get this view, but if that was the case wouldn't it have suited the Premier League not to have charged City at all? When they first brought up P&S/FFP, it seemed like the push was coming from the traditionally rich clubs, Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool, who wanted to prevent further spending sprees by newly-rich clubs, and Chelsea and City had found their way into that club under the radar as it were. I reckon both Everton and City's charges back up that view.

 

[Tipp blue]

This is true. What's also true is that we're the first club to be found guilty under the p&s rules so they had to be seen to be firm, which is, in one way, fair enough. However,10 points is not firm, it's disproportionate. If they wanted to dish out punishment like this, they should have reached agreement with the clubs over the sanctions for breaching p&s when they brought it in.

PL said they forwarded a motion for a punishment to be set but all clubs said no..

 

[hallamblue]

PL said they forwarded a motion for a punishment to be set but all clubs said no..

They did that in 2020, not when p&s first came in.

 

[Bedfordblue]

We supposedly used Pinsents, who are legit, at least in corporate. But it seems well known that Mosh pushed aside other club officials to represent the club himself in the hearings, so would be no surprise if he ignored half the legal advice (which will have been “shut up you idiot and let us handle this, you are paying us more per hour than your manager!!!”)

Approaches the bench, ‘Good ebening……’

 

[Kevhart]

I get that but we initially said we had complied with FPP (PSR) but shortly before the hearing we pleaded guilty.

We then admitted guilt but tried to argue that instead of £20m over we were only £9m over.

Which was it, guilty or innocent? And if guilty, we were only £9m over not £20m.

Who suggested the change from innocent to guilty? reduced punishment because we plead guilty and we were only £9m over the threshold. So following logic, 1 point for every £5m over the threshold, our legal team thought an 8 point deduction was worth all this hassle than a 10 point deduction.

The above to me suggests a "Boris Johnstone with Nick Hancock" legal team in charge.

Appointing a legal team made up of two comedians was always going to be a risky strategy...still, could have been worse if Matt Hancock was fronting it!

 

[brieverton]

Can’t be emphasised enough how much less bad our offence is than going into administration. As far as we’re aware every player, staff member, supplier and football creditor has always been paid fully and on time. Our spending has been good for the football (and overall) economy.

There’s a debate to be had about FFP in general but it’s an optional rule, it’s not essential to the running of football or for anyone’s protection. We may have caused slight harm to other clubs but then plenty of other clubs have benefitted from our wild spending.

That’s miles away from the clear, unarguable harm done by clubs going into admin- the punishment shouldn’t even be in the same ballpark.

Good post. There were plenty of beneficiaries from our reckless spending. A lot of those deals we had multiple rejected bids. Swansea were spinning us around for a full fortnight with Sigurdsson. Much to Koemans ire I recall.