Chelmofox Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April (edited) 39 minutes ago, PAULCFC said: Ah come on!An"indepent commission" is just going to look about the way we have conducted this whole thing and hammer us......like being taken to HR at work on a disciplinary...supposed to be impartial, but you know you have no chance. You danced a bit too close with Tracy from accounts at the Christmas party didn't you?! We don't know how how the commission deals with anything, but with Lawyers involved and such large amounts of money at stake, i have a feeling that the process will have to be pretty clear and i don't think they will just throw the book at anyone. Its why Evertons and Forests deductions seem almost engineered to give them every chance of staying up. Edited 8 April by Chelmofox 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAULCFC Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April Wish I had danced with Tracy....she was fit!...No it's just the way I see it....Suppose Leicester fans always look on what could be the worst outcome and anything else is a bonus! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urban.spaceman Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April 1 hour ago, moore_94 said: They were initially going to be deducted 5 points Everton successfully argued: 1. They had already been penalised for overlapping years and double punishment was unfair. 2. The loss of sponsorship revenue from USM Services Limited. 3. The fact the club admitted its PSR breach at the first opportunity. 1. & 2. resulted in two points deducted from the five, with a further point taken off for 3. That's what, 17 points they wanted to dock Everton overall? The same league who dished out a £3.6m fine each to six clubs who tried to set up their own league that would have bankrupted clubs like Everton, Forest and Leicester as well as ensured no other club could have competed with them again. When are we going to have the debate about whether the people in control of demanding club owners are fit and proper people, are actually fit and proper people themselves? Invite Everton to join in our legal action. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walkerfox Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April As embarrassing as it is, would one of our “mitigating circumstances” not be that we didn’t actually gain any advantage from over spending? Would that not count for something the fact that we dropped out of the league? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April 11 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said: That's what, 17 points they wanted to dock Everton overall? The same league who dished out a £3.6m fine each to six clubs who tried to set up their own league that would have bankrupted clubs like Everton, Forest and Leicester as well as ensured no other club could have competed with them again. When are we going to have the debate about whether the people in control of demanding club owners are fit and proper people, are actually fit and proper people themselves? Invite Everton to join in our legal action. They weren't going to leave the EPL. Take your point about the size of the fine though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filbertway Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April 1 hour ago, hackneyfox said: How would you get rid of him then? Which club could we force to sign him and how would we force him to agree to go for a lower salary? Or would you just pay him off, in which case we're no better off. Don't sign an unproven goalkeeper for £12 million and pay him so much that he'd happily rot away on the bench for the entirety of his contract? Just throwing out wild ideas. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quorndon_Fox Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April I think our get out is the speed in which we plummeted down and out there league. It's not unusual to offer players 3-5 years on a contract and the decline in our earnings played a part in the debt. The only problem is its coupled with terrible mismanagement at a number of levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April 2 minutes ago, filbertway said: Don't sign an unproven goalkeeper for £12 million and pay him so much that he'd happily rot away on the bench for the entirety of his contract? Just throwing out wild ideas. Agree but I don't think that's what he was alluding to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urban.spaceman Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April 16 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said: That's what, 17 points they wanted to dock Everton overall? The same league who dished out a £3.6m fine each to six clubs who tried to set up their own league that would have bankrupted clubs like Everton, Forest and Leicester as well as ensured no other club could have competed with them again. When are we going to have the debate about whether the people in control of demanding club owners are fit and proper people, are actually fit and proper people themselves? Invite Everton to join in our legal action. Further to this. An excerpt from today's report: Quote In this case, we have read and considered with care the parties’ submissions in this respect, set out above at paragraph 159 above and not repeated here. In our view, many if not most of the criticisms levelled against the Club in this respect by the PL are unwarranted, overstated, or both. In our view, the Club has indeed cooperated with the PL in the presentation of these proceedings according to the Standard Directions (to which the Club consented from the outset) albeit in a manner that protected (quite properly) the interests of the Club. The Premier League has already been caught acting outside of their own jurisdiction and rules, as have the EFL, in their pursuit of us. I have no faith in their ability to enact their own rules fairly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urban.spaceman Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April 12 minutes ago, hackneyfox said: They weren't going to leave the EPL. Take your point about the size of the fine though. I didn't say they would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzzy_no7 Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April 3 hours ago, Ecdysiast said: How much did it cost us to pay off the poison dwarf and his team? Upwards of 20m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corky Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April I think we'll end up with 8 like Everton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gw_leics772 Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April 46 minutes ago, hackneyfox said: I'm coming to the conclusion that if the commission was made up of some of the 'fans' on here that we'd probably get thrown out the league, have a transfer emabargo for 5 years and have our names taken off the Premier League Trophy and FA Cup. Our CL run would also be scratched. Some of you just love wallowing in your own shite. We may be praising top to high heaven if he gets away with it all and is still prepared to plough money Into us when the rules change. Maybe even avoid 30th June firesale if we get away with it completely. (Highly unlikely but just in case, all heil our Thai overlords) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Muzzy_no7 Posted 8 April Popular Post Share Posted 8 April Just now, Corky said: I think we'll end up with 8 like Everton. I strongly believe ours should be LESS than theirs given much of our predicament has come as a result of their breaches, as well as City’s and Forests. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 8 April Author Share Posted 8 April 1 minute ago, gw_leics772 said: We may be praising top to high heaven if he gets away with it all and is still prepared to plough money Into us when the rules change. Maybe even avoid 30th June firesale if we get away with it completely. (Highly unlikely but just in case, all heil our Thai overlords) There won’t be a firesale in June if we go up. If we stay down, it will obviously be a different story.., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaidstoneFox Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April 9 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said: I strongly believe ours should be LESS than theirs given much of our predicament has come as a result of their breaches, as well as City’s and Forests. Correct, especially this season. The whole system is not fit for purpose. If they want something like this it should be over a longer period of time as it doesn't account for the unforeseen changes that can occur over a short period of time and the impact of uncontrollable outside events on football and club ownership. The other issue are changes in the transfer market post COVID which have made it more difficult for clubs to re-coup fees to cover losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gw_leics772 Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April 41 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said: There won’t be a firesale in June if we go up. If we stay down, it will obviously be a different story.., That's not my understanding, we are likely on course to break the next rolling 3 season average and the only way of avoiding it is a firesale whether we go up or stay down as it's based on the 3 years up to this current season? Anyone with more understanding care to throw the casting vote? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UniFox21 Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April 48 minutes ago, Corky said: I think we'll end up with 8 like Everton. One plus of us delaying our punishment is being able to see how all the current clubs are punished. Gives our lawyering team previous decisions to go off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanSP Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April I'm guessing Everton will have theirs deducted by a point, and in their best case scenario quashed to 0 points. Apparently they'll appeal based on the fact that they've had two breaches amounting to 8 points deducted, whilst Forest's breaches were 'worse' and only got 4 points. It just smacks more of PL not really knowing what to do with their own rules in their own jurisdiction. As if they're totally out of their depth like @urban.spaceman alluded to. They've made up a set of rules that was meant to 'level the playing field' but in turn it's just complicated matters even more so that when a team has seemingly breached them, they've not been prepared enough to indicate the necessary punishments for the level of such a breach. You'd hope independent regulation outside of the PL will smooth things up. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 8 April Author Share Posted 8 April 8 minutes ago, gw_leics772 said: That's not my understanding, we are likely on course to break the next rolling 3 season average and the only way of avoiding it is a firesale whether we go up or stay down as it's based on the 3 years up to this current season? Anyone with more understanding care to throw the casting vote? Yes, we are on course to breach for this current period, too. But if we go up I suspect the club will decide that a firesale of players at bargain bucket prices will do us far more harm than any penalty we’re likely to get for an additional breach. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wasyls Pec Deck Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April The whole thing is just ridiculously non-transparent. But that’s what you get when you let a cartel regulate itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lambert09 Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April 1 hour ago, Walkerfox said: As embarrassing as it is, would one of our “mitigating circumstances” not be that we didn’t actually gain any advantage from over spending? Would that not count for something the fact that we dropped out of the league? no. it’s completely irrelevant. The only argument i feel we have, isn’t that we were entitled to spend more because we were doing well at the time… it would be that we had already entered into large contracts with players before the rules were enforced. if we can prove that our issues were created before the rules we would have a case but technically speaking these rules have existed for a very long time, they just weren’t enforced: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dahnsouff Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April 1 hour ago, Walkerfox said: As embarrassing as it is, would one of our “mitigating circumstances” not be that we didn’t actually gain any advantage from over spending? Would that not count for something the fact that we dropped out of the league? Think not, that’s like saying don’t arrest this guy as he failed to kick my backdoor in whilst he was trying to rob you. We tried, we couldn’t get the spending and tactics right, so double whammy of crapness unfortunately. Think we spin it out until after the season ends so we can go up to the land of milk and honey and then just take our medicine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
messerschmitt Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April 3 minutes ago, Lambert09 said: no. it’s completely irrelevant. The only argument i feel we have, isn’t that we were entitled to spend more because we were doing well at the time… it would be that we had already entered into large contracts with players before the rules were enforced. if we can prove that our issues were created before the rules we would have a case but technically speaking these rules have existed for a very long time, they just weren’t enforced: Could we not argue that point, you can't choose when you do or don't enforce the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weller Wing Posted 8 April Share Posted 8 April 4 hours ago, Chelmofox said: The number of points is just enough so they won’t get relegated. They are the turd the prem can't flush. Not really too much against them but they are the luckiest club out for avoiding the drop on so many occasions 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts