6 + 2 Point Deductions

Milk said:
100% this.
It was very instructive that neither Arsenal nor the RS didn’t immediately distance themselves from A22 when they announced that their Super League was going ahead after the recent European court ruling. They could smell money (plus they are Yankee owned of course so closed shops appeal)

I used to go in late 70s & early 80s when at the start of a season any Div 1 club could win - Forest were promoted and won immediately, Ipswich were a team to be feared - but now you can predict the top 6 teams before a ball is kicked
And players on wages per week most of us wouldn’t see in 5 years of work

Won’t happen but a reset is what’s badly needed
Click to expand...
This is why The Big Match Revisited is better TV than Super Sunday. In both cases, you know who's going to win as the broadcast begins...but at least there was an innocence about the former. It meant something to ordinary people. The salaries alone are preposterous - and people are supposed to relate to these players?

Sport has become entertainment. And business. And that means one of our midfielders is about as relatable to us fans as the CEO of a multinational.
 
Drico said:
This is why The Big Match Revisited is better TV than Super Sunday. In both cases, you know who's going to win as the broadcast begins...but at least there was an innocence about the former. It meant something to ordinary people. The salaries alone are preposterous - and people are supposed to relate to these players?

Sport has become entertainment. And business. And that means one of our midfielders is about as relatable to us fans as the CEO of a multinational.
Click to expand...

Don’t even relate to their haircuts tbh …

1703423689623.webp
 
hallamblue said:
If you only get a fine for breaking p&s rules there's nothing to stop Newcastle spending £1 billion on players and then just paying the fine
Click to expand...

What you need to understand is 2 things, Everton perhaps clumsily but not intentionally, broke the PSR rules, so regardless of the "inferred" sporting advantage we didn't actually do anything to gain sporting advantage or intentionally flout the rules. The rules seemed to be made up as this went along. That brings us to
the 2nd thing.

Is how the PL applied the rules and punishment. Which Andy Burnham set out clearly in his letters to the PL. They hadn't an actual agreed rule and agreed punishment just a "formula" and what they did use to punish Everton they appeared to suggest it would be only used for us.

Something not quite right here.
 
Davideeyore said:
What you need to understand is 2 things, Everton perhaps clumsily but not intentionally, broke the PSR rules, so regardless of the "inferred" sporting advantage we didn't actually do anything to gain sporting advantage or intentionally flout the rules. The rules seemed to be made up as this went along. That brings us to
the 2nd thing.

Is how the PL applied the rules and punishment. Which Andy Burnham set out clearly in his letters to the PL. They hadn't an actual agreed rule and agreed punishment just a "formula" and what they did use to punish Everton they appeared to suggest it would be only used for us.

Something not quite right here.
Click to expand...
Nothing to argue with there. But the point he made remains true; that a monetary fine for breaching the rules could make things even worse in terms of protecting the teams which already have massive established worldwide incomes, or infinitely wealthy owners. A £10m fine could actually damage ours or Bournmouths ability to compete in the next window. A £200million fine would mean absolutely nothing to most of the scab 6 and they would gladly pay it each and every year if it meant they could wash their way to the CL final every season.

The whole setup of rules being based on Revenue is massively biased and in no way protects clubs and fans in the way it is supposed to.

No doubt the issue is that ANY form of punishment should have been outlined in minute detail before the rules were voted on. The PL hid behind the need for independence and said the commission should decide the punishment (and then tried to influence it anyway).
 

HalfTimeSayers said:
Nothing to argue with there. But the point he made remains true; that a monetary fine for breaching the rules could make things even worse in terms of protecting the teams which already have massive established worldwide incomes, or infinitely wealthy owners. A £10m fine could actually damage ours or Bournmouths ability to compete in the next window. A £200million fine would mean absolutely nothing to most of the scab 6 and they would gladly pay it each and every year if it meant they could wash their way to the CL final every season.

The whole setup of rules being based on Revenue is massively biased and in no way protects clubs and fans in the way it is supposed to.

No doubt the issue is that ANY form of punishment should have been outlined in minute detail before the rules were voted on. The PL hid behind the need for independence and said the commission should decide the punishment (and then tried to influence it anyway).
Click to expand...

Finishing down the league will be the equivalent of a big fine, relegation would be catastrophic and not be about sustainability, it's the ultimate punishment.
 
canuckblue said:
There was no precedent set FOR us, either.
Click to expand...

I think there was, loosly, they used Sheffield Wednesday. I don't know anything about what happened there, but as far as I understand theirs was far more deliberate.

The clear and obvious error is that they (PL) had no actual punishment. Just a formula.

The other clear and obvious point to make is so clear and so obvious. 9 points Portsmouth received for going in to administration. Whilst the six breakaway teams got a mere £3m fine. Which is worse? Administration? Trying to break from the league pyramid (they weren't just trying to break away they actually presented they were joining the ESL) OR a poxy £19.5m overspend? Lets not forget they also moved the goal posts hence Everton went from robustly claiming they were innocent to holding their hands up.

All of which is very arbitrary. This keeps unravelling.
 
Davideeyore said:
I think there was, loosly, they used Sheffield Wednesday. I don't know anything about what happened there, but as far as I understand theirs was far more deliberate.

The clear and obvious error is that they (PL) had no actual punishment. Just a formula.

The other clear and obvious point to make is so clear and so obvious. 9 points Portsmouth received for going in to administration. Whilst the six breakaway teams got a mere £3m fine. Which is worse? Administration? Trying to break from the league pyramid (they weren't just trying to break away they actually presented they were joining the ESL) OR a poxy £19.5m overspend? Lets not forget they also moved the goal posts hence Everton went from robustly claiming they were innocent to holding their hands up.

All of which is very arbitrary. This keeps unravelling.
Click to expand...

That's the part people tend to forget about what the scab 6 did.

They didn't discuss it with anybody. They agreed to it in secret, and announced it was going ahead.

Manchester United chief executive Ed Woodward calls UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin, telling him he's happy with and supports plans to reform the Champions League and expand from 32 teams to 36.

Woodward, Ceferin says, had in fact already signed a contract to break away and form the Super League.
Click to expand...

FRIDAY, APRIL 16​

MORNING

It's a big day for UEFA, with their competitions' committee and the European Clubs Association (ECA) meeting to finalise plans for the Champions League revamp they have spent months arranging.

The ECA meet, with all 12 of the to-be Super League clubs involved, and 'set aside' their differences over distribution of prize money - or at least that's what they told UEFA.

It's agreed that the final plans will be rubber-stamped on Monday and the meetings end with UEFA confident they have found an agreement. But they were wrong...

AFTERNOON

With the Super League still a secret, law firm Clifford Chance apply for a trademark for 'The Super League' and their new logo in Germany. The clubs are preparing to break cover but it all remains hush-hush for now.

Chelsea and Manchester City agree to join the rebel group and, with that, the 12 teams are strong enough to go it alone - even though the French and German champions PSG and Bayern Munich haven't signed up.
Click to expand...

THE DAY AFTER IT WAS ANNOUNCED AND FAN AND MEDIA OUTRAGE WAS APPARENT FOR ALL TO SEE...
If anyone wasn't taking the Super League seriously, they are now. The 12 clubs send a letter to FIFA and UEFA, issuing notice of legal proceedings in European courts to block any sanctions they try to place on them.
Click to expand...
 

Davideeyore said:
I think there was, loosly, they used Sheffield Wednesday. I don't know anything about what happened there, but as far as I understand theirs was far more deliberate.

The clear and obvious error is that they (PL) had no actual punishment. Just a formula.

The other clear and obvious point to make is so clear and so obvious. 9 points Portsmouth received for going in to administration. Whilst the six breakaway teams got a mere £3m fine. Which is worse? Administration? Trying to break from the league pyramid (they weren't just trying to break away they actually presented they were joining the ESL) OR a poxy £19.5m overspend? Lets not forget they also moved the goal posts hence Everton went from robustly claiming they were innocent to holding their hands up.

All of which is very arbitrary. This keeps unravelling.
Click to expand...

we getting these back or some in your opinion mate?
 
Davideeyore said:
My opinion means nowt i'm no lawyer! But I think it's clear the whole punishment should be ripped up. Whether that happens is another matter. Over to the barristers.
Click to expand...

Thing is Sheffield Wednesday wasn't the only miscellaneous, why didn't they use Leicester City's ?
They got a paltry fine for their breach in the Championship, that year they were promoted. Ironically Leicester are one of the club's trying to use us...
 
Davideeyore said:
I think there was, loosly, they used Sheffield Wednesday. I don't know anything about what happened there, but as far as I understand theirs was far more deliberate.

The clear and obvious error is that they (PL) had no actual punishment. Just a formula.

The other clear and obvious point to make is so clear and so obvious. 9 points Portsmouth received for going in to administration. Whilst the six breakaway teams got a mere £3m fine. Which is worse? Administration? Trying to break from the league pyramid (they weren't just trying to break away they actually presented they were joining the ESL) OR a poxy £19.5m overspend? Lets not forget they also moved the goal posts hence Everton went from robustly claiming they were innocent to holding their hands up.

All of which is very arbitrary. This keeps unravelling.
Click to expand...
This gets forgotten/unrealised by the 'but you pleaded guilty' brigade
 
mahermi1 said:
Thing is Sheffield Wednesday wasn't the only miscellaneous, why didn't they use Leicester City's ?
They got a paltry fine for their breach in the Championship, that year they were promoted. Ironically Leicester are one of the club's trying to use us...
Click to expand...
Haven't they let the clock run out now? Thought it was one month after the sanction was the time limit, or has the appeal put a stay on that do you know?
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top