Everton deducted another 2 points.

Capybara said:
Extra six points for a frivolous appeal. At least.

edit: sorry, others got there first.
Click to expand...
What about this year's breach knowing they'd breached previous years?
Should they be allowed to spend on a stadium to go into debt?
That article says they could go into administration if relegated - all clubs relegated in that period should again be allowed to sue them out of existence if necessary to get the money back they were cheated out of
The new stadium could be sold to pay off debts
 
TeessideCleveland said:
What about this year's breach knowing they'd breached previous years?
Should they be allowed to spend on a stadium to go into debt?
That article says they could go into administration if relegated - all clubs relegated in that period should again be allowed to sue them out of existence if necessary to get the money back they were cheated out of
The new stadium could be sold to pay off debts
Click to expand...
I can't read the article. Why might they go into administration if they were relegated?
 
AytonMews said:
Wonder when they’ll get round to looking at Man City’s infringements!
Click to expand...
Everton and Forest charges are they've overspent so it's factual, the only debate is the punishment.

Man City charges are the over inflation of sponsorship deals, which is harder to prove.
 
I've not kept particularly close to this but presumably there is some guidance around potential points deduction or punishment dependent on the offence?

Seems bizarre that they're seemingly plucking a number out of thin air.

Appreciate it could be "gamed" if the consequences were known beforehand but it's hardly an effective deterrent at the moment?
 
changingman said:
I've not kept particularly close to this but presumably there is some guidance around potential points deduction or punishment dependent on the offence?

Seems bizarre that they're seemingly plucking a number out of thin air.

Appreciate it could be "gamed" if the consequences were known beforehand but it's hardly an effective deterrent at the moment?
Click to expand...


Judging from the BBC article, the initial punishment was a 5 point deduction but it was reduced to 2 points because of cooperation and mitigation.
 
Only 8 points in total to Everton for all that cheating!
To me this makes our one-time fax-fiasco Blackburn no-show 3 pointer a gross over-assessment.
 
Ravs said:
Only 8 points in total to Everton for all that cheating!
To me this makes our one-time fax-fiasco Blackburn no-show 3 pointer a gross over-assessment.
Click to expand...
Co-operation and mitigation did not come into the equation all those years ago. The premier league must have mellowed since then.
 
It stinks of corruption.
What's the point of the rules if there is no real deterrent to breaking them?
I know relegation would probably put them in administration, but that should be no excuse for not punishing them sufficiently.
Probably too many lawyers involved for an appropriate penalty to be enforced and if I was one of the chairmen of a relegated club come the end of season I'd be taking legal action against the PL.
 
Guilty your honour. I know there are rules and laws and regulations in place but we thought we they did'nt mean us because we are a big club and have lots of money
 
set number of points is needed per each say 10m overspent. which would mean each and every club would know how much the deduction would be if they overspend.
the problem with it being over a 3yr period means the overspend can stack up or the club can try to recover it which means either way they have gained an advantage in some seasons they shouldn't have.
 
Angelmatty said:
set number of points is needed per each say 10m overspent. which would mean each and every club would know how much the deduction would be if they overspend.
the problem with it being over a 3yr period means the overspend can stack up or the club can try to recover it which means either way they have gained an advantage in some seasons they shouldn't have.
Click to expand...
The only problem I see with this is that teams can calculate exactly how an overspend affects them. If they're just in the bottom 3 they may think spending £10m on a new signing will cost us 2 points but potentially gain us more. I'd rather see punishments in the form of demotion of 3 places for a minor breach and then automatic relegation if the overspend is above a certain level.
 
My personal opinion is that this should be left as it is , the appeal declined , all declared or imminent declarations are dealt with by the end of June (points deductions may be Impossible in the circumstances)
And then absolute clarity be brought in moving things forward
It's not ideal, but this farce of basically making it up as they go along needs a line drawing under it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top