6 + 2 Point Deductions

[matty1878]

We didn't have a silk. I'm told "silk" only applies to very senior barristers. Frankly, it sounds like we went whatever the footy equivalent of 'public defender' is - or maybe just a couple of work experience lids - since we never expected such a heavy-handed punishment.

so this feller is a waste of time?

 

[peteblue]

Henry Winter basically saying the club's dispute the PL statement.

As they should

imagine if…

year 1 zero loss
year 2 zero loss
year 3 £130 Million loss
year 4 zero loss.
year 5 zero loss

so from year 1-3 you break the rule with£130M loss, it’s assessed and you get -10 points. From year 2-4 it’s still £130M so you get another punishment from the same £130, From year 3-5 it’s still £130M and you get yet another punishment for the same £130M you’ve already been punished for twice before. The legal guys will rip these rules to bits in court…..

 

[Deulofeumygod]

I reckon he’s been sat on the stairs doomscrolling this thread for the last 3 hours.

Haven’t we all

 

[TGW89]

so this feller is a waste of time?

No first time we got laurel and hardy, by all accounts this rebinowitz is mustard

 

[Bigduke1234]

I reckon he’s been sat on the stairs doomscrolling this thread for the last 3 hours.

Not just me then? (Promptly tell myself I’m logging off knowing I’ll be back in an hour)

 

[Bez2k2k]

As they should

imagine if…

year 1 zero loss
year 2 zero loss
year 3 £130 Million loss
year 4 zero loss.
year 5 zero loss

so from year 1-3 you break the rule with£130M loss, it’s assessed and you get -10 points. From year 2-4 it’s still £130M so you get another punishment from the same £130, From year 3-5 it’s still £130M and you get yet another punishment for the same £130M you’ve already been punished for twice before. The legal guys will rip these rules to bits in court…..

That so far is the best and easiest way for anyone to follow what is going on. Perfect.

 

[matty1878]

As they should

imagine if…

year 1 zero loss
year 2 zero loss
year 3 £130 Million loss
year 4 zero loss.
year 5 zero loss

so from year 1-3 you break the rule with£130M loss, it’s assessed and you get -10 points. From year 2-4 it’s still £130M so you get another punishment from the same £130, From year 3-5 it’s still £130M and you get yet another punishment for the same £130M you’ve already been punished for twice before. The legal guys will rip these rules to bits in court…..

will it go to court? and will our legal guys

or citys lol

 

[matty1878]

No first time we got laurel and hardy, by all accounts this rebinowitz is mustard

hope he’s mustard and not off sauce

 

[Bohemian Toffee]

Haven’t we all

You've not got homework?

 

[sbbefc]

As they should

imagine if…

year 1 zero loss
year 2 zero loss
year 3 £130 Million loss
year 4 zero loss.
year 5 zero loss

so from year 1-3 you break the rule with£130M loss, it’s assessed and you get -10 points. From year 2-4 it’s still £130M so you get another punishment from the same £130, From year 3-5 it’s still £130M and you get yet another punishment for the same £130M you’ve already been punished for twice before. The legal guys will rip these rules to bits in court…..

Not quite, because you have an opportunity to sell a player (or let players on high wages go etc) to make a 25 profit to even out the £130m to £105m?

 

[canuckblue]

That isn't true though the club was informed by the Premier League that the PSR exclusions would not be allowed as far back as 2022. From the IP report.

34. The Premier League responded to Everton’s submissions by way of a
telephone call on 9 December 2022 from Mr Herbert to Ms Charles. Mr
Herbert reported that the Premier League Board had considered carefully the
exclusions sought by Everton but had concluded, provisionally, that none fell
within a proper application of the PSR. It was recognised by both Mr Herbert
and Ms Charles that the differences between the Premier League and Everton
would become live only once the FY 2022 accounts and PSR calculation had
been provided.

[Poor language removed].

 

[peteblue]

will it go to court? and will our legal guys

or citys lol

It‘ll end up in court……a stated three year period is fine, a rolling three year period is obscene…..

 

[arch stanton]

What we need right now is an Andy Burnham blammo message that tells us everything is alright cos he's got the government, Mi5, NHS, Metropolitan Police, Fire Brigade, Gordon the Gofer, Roland Rat, Elton Welsby, Everton Clubcall, Barbie, Fleetwood Mac, Lollipop Lady, fella from the R Whites Lemonade advert and the Honey Monster all in our corner and ready to take in the PL.

I'd certainly feel a whole lot better If that post suddenly appeared from Burnhams X box thing

the kids will have no idea about this, the many repeated calls on the works phone line for a transfer update that never came

 

[peteblue]

Not quite, because you have an opportunity to sell a player (or let players on high wages go etc) to make a 25 profit to even out the £130m to £105m?

Of course you do, but if you cannot you are effectively punished 3 times for the very same offence.…..

 

[DanB90]

As they should

imagine if…

year 1 zero loss
year 2 zero loss
year 3 £130 Million loss
year 4 zero loss.
year 5 zero loss

so from year 1-3 you break the rule with£130M loss, it’s assessed and you get -10 points. From year 2-4 it’s still £130M so you get another punishment from the same £130, From year 3-5 it’s still £130M and you get yet another punishment for the same £130M you’ve already been punished for twice before. The legal guys will rip these rules to bits in court…..

I think you’re supposed to even out the losses over the next years accounts.
Hence the rolling 3 year period.

That’s my understanding anyway.

It’s still complete bollocks like.