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.
It wasn't for the EFL. Derby argued that various sanctions or legal battles had cost them investment, revenue, reputation damage etc to which they were basically told by the Commission that such negative consequences were their own fault. That their own actions had put them in a certain position- far more legalese of course.
That will teach me to at least check the figures I had it my mind it was £120m loss in year one at £30 odd million profit in year two.
I expect Chelsea fine to 2022, 2023 as it stands right now much sketchier.
Nothing. Rules are meant to apply to everyone equally, are they not? If not that is a witch hunt.
Paragraph 75-95 (2) on here seems of interest in terms of legal argument etc.
That was much more complex and messy than Everton's case. They entered administration and were deducted 12 points. The P&S deduction came later and concerned some murkiness surrounding the sale of the stadium.
Amortisation was what got them in the end, the sale was unbelievably cleared. They also didn't release accounts for 3 years so yes it's not wildly comparable.
It's more straight forward in the sense that the aurthorities know they're dealing with a solvent organisation that's been fully co-opertaing with an investigation into their spending.
Wind it in, you do not have any mutual friends with Mr Moshiri or the 777 Sports Group or whatever they are called. Moderators, keep an eye on this one please.
Solvent yes, although Birmingham, Reading and Sheffield Wednesday were all solvent too. Yeah big the best comparison all I'm saying is that e.g. past embargoes or similar would not count as mitigation as such.
