.Forest 4 points deducted

Alzi said:
And yet still not even a slap on the wrist for Man City.
Click to expand...
Man City haven’t been found guilty yet, or even had a hearing, which is likely months away at least. Is it that difficult to understand? “Sentence first verdict afterwards” might work in Alice in Wonderland, but you are not going to get away with it in the real world.
 
FishofContemplation said:
Man City haven’t been found guilty yet, or even had a hearing, which is likely months away at least. Is it that difficult to understand? “Sentence first verdict afterwards” might work in Alice in Wonderland, but you are not going to get away with it in the real world.
Click to expand...
A lot of people are querying why it is taking so long for a Man City hearing given some of the charges go back many years. There is a sense of inequality and a sense with the more potential charges the longer you can string things out.

Is that difficult to understand? Just in case it is I’ve provided an illustration.

1710775876685.jpeg
 
Marvanelli said:
These deductions and the quality (or lack of) teams at the bottom just make it even more frustrating at the fact we didn't get promoted last season.

The total amount of points needed to stay up could be as low as 31/32.

We missed a huge opportunity there.

I'm not saying we'd have stayed up - but it would have probably been the best opportunity for a long time.
Click to expand...
100% agree, last season was such a great opportunity to get out of this league. But, hey ho, "It is what it is".

UTB 👍
 
Alzi said:
A lot of people are querying why it is taking so long for a Man City hearing given some of the charges go back many years. There is a sense of inequality and a sense with the more potential charges the longer you can string things out.

Is that difficult to understand? Just in case it is I’ve provided an illustration.

View attachment 73666
Click to expand...
The issue is the complexity of the Man City case.

Forest and Everton simply spent more than they were meant to - the accounts showed that - they were punished.

With Man City it is a lot about them creating false income to balance the books from the middle East. For example, false sponsorship, movement of players between multiple City Group owned teams. Man City deny all this and it is much more difficult to investigate.

It is also why Man City have 100 charges being investigated - most of them aren't pure FFP breaches, they are suspected use of illegal loop holes to cover FFP breaches.

There is still a large chance that Man City get no punishment because it is too complex to prove.
 
Alzi said:
A lot of people are querying why it is taking so long for a Man City hearing given some of the charges go back many years. There is a sense of inequality and a sense with the more potential charges the longer you can string things out.

Is that difficult to understand? Just in case it is I’ve provided an illustration.

View attachment 73666
Click to expand...

They’re totally different though. The Manchester City case is massively complicated. They have submitted compliant returns for each of the years in question. They have done so by using techniques that may or may not be in accordance with the rules. The Premier League has said they aren’t, and charged them. That’s all it can do. The commission now has to collect evidence and make a judgement on the facts.

The other three were admitted but arguably relatively minor breaches of the rules (a late guilty plea, admittedly, in the first Everton charge) and have only ever really been hearings about mitigation.

Simple cases are quicker than complicated ones. Hearings after guilty pleas are quicker than hearings to determine guilt. Hearings with agreed facts are quicker than hearings that require the collection of evidence in relation to disputed facts. You don’t need to imagine a conspiracy here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B_G
Fofacut said:
I really hope so, don’t want Luton to stay up, really dislike them and their horrible ground where we always seem to get beat.
Click to expand...
While I'm not too bothered who goes down I'm certainly not a lover of Luton - so I'm not going to be cheering them on hoping they stay up
 
Must admit - I quite like their argument.
They breached FFP because they held on to a player they were going to sell.
By doing that, they argue, the got more cash than originally offered - its the epitome of managing your club sustainably ?

Understandable tho - if they hadn’t splashed the cash before that they wouldn’t have breached so…. Tough
 
1finny said:
Must admit - I quite like their argument.
They breached FFP because they held on to a player they were going to sell.
By doing that, they argue, the got more cash than originally offered - its the epitome of managing your club sustainably ?

Understandable tho - if they hadn’t splashed the cash before that they wouldn’t have breached so…. Tough
Click to expand...

That's what I can't understand about the argument.

They knew they'd broken the spending rules, they knew the deadline for solving the issue, they chose to ignore it.

I don't see how it's at all relevant that they sold a player 2 months later, when the rules have already been significantly broken.
If they hadn't needlessly spent like a kid in a sweet shop, they'd not have had an issues to begin with, it's all self inflicted.
They signed so many players that they couldn't even register all of them in their squad, which is how ridiculous they were.
 
FishofContemplation said:
Chelsea didn’t breach the limits last year. Only Everton and Forest did. Chelsea’s problem is that they probably will this year unless they manage to offload a substantial amount of value by June 30th.
Click to expand...
With everyone knowing they need to offload & are hocked up to the rafters for ever.. they'll not get top price for them..
 
Marvanelli said:
These deductions and the quality (or lack of) teams at the bottom just make it even more frustrating at the fact we didn't get promoted last season.

The total amount of points needed to stay up could be as low as 31/32.

We missed a huge opportunity there.

I'm not saying we'd have stayed up - but it would have probably been the best opportunity for a long time.
Click to expand...
We would have been a totally miserable season had we gone up IMO - maybe worse than 16-17 season.
 
Zoophonic said:
We would have been a totally miserable season had we gone up IMO - maybe worse than 16-17 season.
Click to expand...
I don't agree. I honestly think we would have been a lot better on the eye than that 16-17 season.

We may have not stayed up, but I reckon we'd have seen more attacking football and therefore more goals (also conceded a lot more)

Plus I genuinely think we'd have signed Archer and Ramsey and potentially kept Chuba (albeit unlikely as Ajax are just simply a giant compared to us). We'd have also signed others too in trying to help stay in the division.
 
Marvanelli said:
I don't agree. I honestly think we would have been a lot better on the eye than that 16-17 season.

We may have not stayed up, but I reckon we'd have seen more attacking football and therefore more goals (also conceded a lot more)

Plus I genuinely think we'd have signed Archer and Ramsey and potentially kept Chuba (albeit unlikely as Ajax are just simply a giant compared to us). We'd have also signed others too in trying to help stay in the division.
Click to expand...
Archer and Ramsey (before his injury) have proved ineffective in the premier league and as Burnley have spent £90m and pretty much stunk the division out signing players would have been no guarantee of success.
 
Zoophonic said:
Archer and Ramsey (before his injury) have proved ineffective in the premier league and as Burnley have spent £90m and pretty much stunk the division out signing players would have been no guarantee of success.
Click to expand...
Ramsey was largely ineffective for Norwich before we grabbed him on loan and look at how that worked out?

Archer has been placed in a truly awful team, who have no patterns in attack and now has a manager who barely plays him and basically doesn't know what he's doing.

I am pretty confident that both Archer and Ramsey would've been different players if they were signed for us, in the PL, under Carrick.
 
Marvanelli said:
I am pretty confident that both Archer and Ramsey would've been different players if they were signed for us, in the PL, under Carrick.
Click to expand...
You've just said on another thread that they were lucky last season and they are now playing to their real level. Make your mind up.
 
Marvanelli said:
I don't agree. I honestly think we would have been a lot better on the eye than that 16-17 season.

We may have not stayed up, but I reckon we'd have seen more attacking football and therefore more goals (also conceded a lot more)

Plus I genuinely think we'd have signed Archer and Ramsey and potentially kept Chuba (albeit unlikely as Ajax are just simply a giant compared to us). We'd have also signed others too in trying to help stay in the division.
Click to expand...
It's wouldn't have just been choosing between Boro and Ajax though.
It would also have been choosing between the Premier League or the Eredivisie.
He'd have stayed and signed an extension I reckon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top