6 + 2 Point Deductions

[ToffeeTim]

Definitely a point that caught my eye. One of several points I found that I don't think I agree with.

 

[b-rad]

Player X name is still under a high court injunction in the UK.

But in answering the question Carragher replied that all clubs were facing the same issue around transfers during Covid. The point is more that Carragher was not aware of the "player X" mitigating circumstance being separate to general player devaluation during Covid.

 

[hallamblue]

It's hard to escape the conclusion that the real mistake we have made is being utterly transparent.

GIven our deals with USM etc I'm not sure we're that squeaky clean.

 

[Goat]

What? No.

Yes.

 

[kenada_blue]

By the way, you're £9.7 million over budget.

20 points

 

[Toffeeback]

Someone earlier posted a screenshot of the part of the document that explains how the 10 point deduction was calculated (too far back to find it right now). But basically, it was related specifically to the amount of losses over the £105 million threshold. If I remember correctly, any overage at all is an automatic 6 points, and then every £5 million chunk of the overage amount garners one more additional point.

They didn't arbitrarily decide on 10 points from scratch, then. It was based on a standard calculation. £19.7 million / £5 = 4 points (they rounded up, ha) + 6 automatic points = 10 point deduction.

What worries me about that is how do we then get that reduced on appeal?

There would only be two ways I could see:

1) Argue that the calculated amount of the losses was wrong, but that only gets us at best 1 or 2 points taken off, as the automatic 6 point deduction would still stand for the existence of any breach at all + whatever amount of losses was still shown to have happened. Plus we did already admit to the breach apparently.

or

2) Argue that the entire system of an automatic 6 points + 1 point per £5 million is unfair. But that would require whatever body who hears the appeal to be willing to overturn the actual punishment structure in general - not only as it applies to us but for all future breaches by anybody. That seems a hard sell too, even if it is the ethically correct one. This is not an ethically correct system we're operating in.

So as much as it pains me, I kind of agree with a few earlier who said the 10 points will stick. I just don't see how we win an appeal without essentially overturning the system, which you know isn't going to happen for us of all clubs.

 

[Marius57]

Also, if its the FA who suspended player X, than why have the FA not suspended 'number 5'?

I don’t know what number 5 is a reference to. I must have missed something,

 

[davep]

Did we hire our lawyers off wish?

 

[Milkman]

So if we'd sold one of our deadweight players in 2021 for £20m, none of this would've happened?

 

[Lapeno77]

But we still all know who it means.

Biggest clue was calling him Player X when his squad number was 10

 

[pfim]

But in answering the question Carragher replied that all clubs were facing the same issue around transfers during Covid. The point is more that Carragher was not aware of the "player X" mitigating circumstance being separate to general player devaluation during Covid.

I actually agree with the finding there. Players are suspended all the time, players lose value. It's normal risk. There's also the argument that a single player of his ability would really change our financial performance? Seems unlikely to the extended it needed to be.

We admitted guilt and many of the mitigations were frankly dubious.

 

[Cool_Blue]

And I've said before... clubs have lost out on millions more by City winning the league by unfair means. Taking a champions league spot over other clubs.

Let's not get it wrong by saying just because it's the bottom of the league it's different. United, Chelsea, RS etc would've had extra titles on the board.

And it's not really the nub of the issue as the commission admitted we gained zero advantage on the field for being over £19.5mill over the loss threshold.

They should all be asking questions. PL have opened a can of worms here if City get away Scot free

 

[Bebeto]

Basically, the PL saying they couldn’t care less about the players welfare (even though at that point he wasn’t charged and never actually was anyway) and that we should have sued him for 10m in losses.

Surely we could have sued the FA for the losses instead? Considering they are the ones that banned him despite him never being charged.

Wondering why tomas partey was allowed to continue playing whilst there were very strong allegations against him investigated by the police. Unless everton was a first and a last...as per usual.

 

[MikeH72]

Yes.

View attachment 235659

Nowhere in that piece does it say they are suing us? The financial compensation would come from the Premier League as the points deduction was handed out by them.

A points deduction for us wouldn’t have kept Southampton and Leeds up anyway so I’m not sure what their case is.

 

[Azza]

Someone earlier posted a screenshot of the part of the document that explains how the 10 point deduction was calculated (too far back to find it right now). But basically, it was related specifically to the amount of losses over the £105 million threshold. If I remember correctly, any overage at all is an automatic 6 points, and then every £5 million chunk of the overage amount garners one more additional point.

They didn't arbitrarily decide on 10 points from scratch, then. It was based on a standard calculation. £19.7 million / £5 = 4 points (they rounded up, ha) + 6 automatic points = 10 point deduction.

What worries me about that is how do we then get that reduced on appeal?

There would only be two ways I could see:

1) Argue that the calculated amount of the losses was wrong, but that only gets us at best 1 or 2 points taken off, as the automatic 6 point deduction would still stand for the existence of any breach at all + whatever amount of losses was still shown to have happened. Plus we did already admit to the breach apparently.

or

2) Argue that the entire system of an automatic 6 points + 1 point per £5 million is unfair. But that would require whatever body who hears the appeal to be willing to overturn the actual punishment structure in general - not only as it applies to us but for all future breaches by anybody. That seems a hard sell too, even if it is the ethically correct one. This is not an ethically correct system we're operating in.

So as much as it pains me, I kind of agree with a few earlier who said the 10 points will stick. I just don't see how we win an appeal without essentially overturning the system, which you know isn't going to happen for us of all clubs.

That's what the PL have now adopted going forward based on similar to what EFL do.

The Commission have not been restricted to following that.