Financial Fair Play investigation

[Eggs]

This 12 point reduction story is complete and utter codswallop started by a very unreliable tabloid and then copied, repeated and regurgitated. Simple common sense tells you that it would be illegal for the PL to interfere/influence an ongoing 'independent' investigation and doing so would leave them open for legal action. Even if they had been idiotic enough to do that, they definitely would not be telling news media about it.

Unless a story comes from someone very reliable, take it with a pinch of salt and use discernment with everything.

….would you expect the PL to come out and refute it?

 

[Market trader]

Man City tried to argue that the Commission would be influenced by the media. The Appeal Court Judges disagreed, saying that the jurors were experienced and impervious to bias. Also Commission led by KC (QC at the time). So that line was thrown out and precedent set.

 

[Lob]

….would you expect the PL to come out and refute it?

Well they could either come out and refute it or just ignore it for the codswallop that it very obviously is.

 

[Eggs]

Well they could either come out and refute it or just ignore it for the codswallop that it very obviously is.

….the Telegraph source might be genuine or might be codswallop but it’s now the subject of high-profile reporting. If it’s codswallop, I’d expect the PL to say so.

 

[roy vernon]

I think it’s B. I also think it’s PL trying to put some form of boundaries on it because the rules state what punishments can be given, but not the lengths/amounts of the punishments.

I think it's possibility that there should be an option C, that the league have said nothing at all and the so called leak has been fabricated by the journalists from what they already knew to be the maximum penalty. This has undoubtedly caused an awful lot of clicks on their web pages. Yep, I think my money would go on option C, mind you we're Everton, so, you never know.

 

[Lob]

….the Telegraph source might be genuine or might be codswallop but it’s now the subject of high-profile reporting. If it’s codswallop, I’d expect the PL to say so.

It is definitely codswallop mate. They would be sued to the hilt for making any comments whatsoever about an ongoing private independent investigation, particularly comments of an influential manner. They said themselves last March that they would be making no further comments about it until the private independent investigation is complete and published. They can either come out and refute it or just stick to what they said originally as in no further comment. Both are fine, they are not obliged to say anything.

The Premier League said: “In accordance with Premier League Rule W.82.1, the Premier League confirms that it has today referred an alleged breach of the League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules by Everton Football Club to a Commission under Premier League Rule W.3.4. The assessment period for which it is alleged that the Club is in breach is the period ending Season 2021/22.

“Commissions are independent of the Premier League and member clubs. The members of the Commission will be appointed by the independent Chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel, in accordance with Premier League Rules W.19, W.20 and W.26.

“The proceedings before the Commission will, in accordance with Premier League Rule W.82, be confidential and heard in private. Under Premier League Rule W.82.2, the Commission’s final award will be published on the Premier League’s website. The League will be making no further comment until that time.”

 

[the golden visionary]

This story's got matt Hughes grubby little fingerprints all over it

 

[Saint Domingo]

Here's where we are:

no one outside the PL and EFC knows what's happening...

MESSAGE ENDS.

Doesn’t mean hack journos can’t peddle clickbait for their kopite customers though. Anti Everton stories are the best sellers after all as they rake in all the usual kopite audience and also get concerned Everton fans too plus the disenchanted fragile bra from Leeds West Ham Leicester Newcastle and anyone else who has invented a rivalry with us recently.

 

[GP_Monty]

The source is key: the Telegraph. They've constantly jumped out with flyers on this story and they always get it wrong.

The other press stories were repeating the Telegraph story because they want a bit of the click action.

No one knows anything outside EFC and the PL.

Is this like when you said an 'anti Everton journo' had made up that Carlo was suing the club, and then Carlo sued the club?

 

[gilly93]

Feels like we are an easy target at the moment. The attention and narrative around punishments etc is ridiculous. Even Jamie is speaking some sense on this.

 

[WestStandLower]

They in a rock and hard place, they cant justify giving us a points deduction for one type of infringement. what the hell would they do with 100 plus from Man City, no way they will endanger their financial inflows

The alternative whereby we get penalty and Man city gets nothing would essentially ruin their reputation for life

As with CAS each case is handled by a different membership be it on a commission , an appeal commission etc.They will be mindful of maximum punishments within the governing bodies rule book. If it’s say 12 points for each charge then imagine if City are found guilty of say 12 charges that each can be deducted 12 points whereas Everton face one charge

The supposed whole point of set ups being independent is that look at the case through their eyes and won’t base matters on previous cases.

A clear example of that revolves around the Webster ruling and how each instance of CAS involvement( and I now we are talking about a PL Commission ) the interpretation as to how compensatory should be calculated varies.

None of us know how any guilty decision ( and we aren’t even there yet ) will be sanctioned. Some hack probably has got of the more detailed PL rules and bang 2+2 =5

 

[Eggs]

It is definitely codswallop mate. They would be sued to the hilt for making any comments whatsoever about an ongoing private independent investigation, particularly comments of an influential manner. They said themselves last March that they would be making no further comments about it until the private independent investigation is complete and published. They can either come out and refute it or just stick to what they said originally as in no further comment. Both are fine, they are not obliged to say anything.

….they might get sued for officially announcing something, but newspapers have contacts that leak information.

 

[arch stanton]

A guilty plea obviates the need for a trial, therefore it is a matter for the arbitrator to decide on consequences for the defendant.

S/he may at this stage ask the complainant for a view on consequences.

I have never seen this happen before there is a clear guilty determination, verdict or a guilty plea.

well I have seen it as I stated, the without prejudice bit is important as if the judge wouldld have indicated a custodial was on the cards, the trial would have continued. We are mixing up our systems here, this is a private club enforcing its rules and I am commenting upon a process in the criminal system I saw happen. a moot point and somewhat off topic.

 

[irishtony1878]

If it ends up being -12 Dyche will really have to up his game.

No point messing about with draws, it needs to be all gun's blazing go for the wins.

Nothing to lose at that point.

Dyche isn't capable of setting teams up that way, it's not in his DNA, so it's not happening.

 

[everton fan number one]

nope on that you are correct.

but in civil cases they do, and this is technically a civil case, yes its not in a civil court but its still a civil case

Whilst the rules (W38) say it's up to the commission to direct, on a case like this it's very probable there have been written statements of case already. That will likely include submissions on remedies as you say ( unlike criminal proceedings where's up to the Judge)

The way it's stated in the rule book is that there is an opportunity for the Respondent to put forward arguments on mitigation (W43.1). I would imagine at that point the PL would state (or re-assert if there have been statements of case) the punishment they think is appropriate.

It follows the civil process like an arbitration, rather than resembling a criminal process.