6 + 2 Point Deductions

That table explaining the 4 points, If that logic is applied against our second case surely we get a 4-6 point deduction?
The fact we have have already been punished for 2 of the 3 years will be a significant mitigation, and how much we have gone over will determine if it is a minor or significant breach.
 
That table explaining the 4 points, If that logic is applied against our second case surely we get a 4-6 point deduction?
It’s pure guesswork because we don’t know the scale of the breach. The talk seems to be it is a good bit less than the previous one but we don’t know.

That’s important because this decision introduces a concept of “minor breaches” which are less than tens of millions although it doesn’t set an exact number. It suggests that needn’t be a points deduction. It’s interesting that they go into this when it’s not relevant to this case.

But if our breach falls into this minor category it does raise the possibility of a lesser punishment than a points deduction. But we don’t know the numbers.

Frankly, we shouldn’t be in significant breach territory. We had 40m to play with, our comparable PSR number from the year previous year was 10m. If we’re over 40m by a lot it’s unbelievable carelessness.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0065.jpeg
    IMG_0065.jpeg
    133.9 KB · Views: 3
  • IMG_0066.jpeg
    IMG_0066.jpeg
    84.3 KB · Views: 4

Compare that Forest statement to ours after the appeal. We'd had to play for 4 months with a 10 point deduction, reduced to 6 and look at the clubs response...

Satisfied. Particularly pleased. Positive outcome.

View attachment 249202

This is what galls me.

We may be a club in a state of flux, but we sent in a "super silk" and come out with silk handkerchief, a white one at that.

We're an embarrassment.

Next we'll probably get another 6 point deduction and the club will say okay thanks. ;)

A rudderless club full of spineless people while the rats already deserted and bailed out.
 
Indeed so. Bizarre to reference a prior case in the summation but yet not follow its precedent.
In any other court quasi or otherwise the ruling of an appellate body is binding on a subsequent court.

The PL just ignore that. Not only is that a breach of natural justice but it's also grounds for a judicial review on the Wednesbury principle unless the law has changed fundamentally since I was in practice a decade ago AT.
 

This is how I have see it and it’s nice to see someone finally arguing this in terms of how football got broken, the Champions League where most teams are not champions has perverted the landscape, in the musical chairs of football those at the top seats at that time swept all the sponsorship models and global fans, now they want to bolt the door behind them.

 
If our game in hand against Liverpool is rearranged (to fit their “busy” fixture list) to the final home game of the season as some are suggesting, I fear what the atmosphere in the ground may become if our PL future is at stake come that game.

Merseyside police won't allow that due to what is at stake this season, will go in the April 23-25th midweek. Derby games are never played in May these days.
 

Top