6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Drico]

We should be fighting them for every single point the corrupt shower have taken from us.

The entire process and punishment was bent - end of.

We need to ramp up the noise again, it’s gone suspiciously quiet in the media, except really for Andy Burnham continuing to nail them with every tweet he’s putting out there about the way they have gone about it all.

We bent over in 1985 and we'll bend over again.

 

[NathDogg]

We bent over in 1985 and we'll bend over again.

I’m hoping we’ve changed, but I doubt it. Spot on about 85, I never ever got why we just took it.

 

[BNJ1878]

Well we are stupid then.

Hard to believe when the Chairman said our board we're revered and the CEO was the 'Best in the Business.'

 

[msb]

I’m hoping we’ve changed, but I doubt it. Spot on about 85, I never ever got why we just took it.

Because the British government backed it, that’s why.

Thanks again Maggie.

 

[JLW]

 

[Jacko93]

Have we had to issue our financials this Christmas then? I wasn't sure we had.

 

[JLW]

Have we had to issue our financials this Christmas then? I wasn't sure we had.

Not sure mate

 

[roydo]

Have we had to issue our financials this Christmas then? I wasn't sure we had.

Pretty sure we had to show the PL the accounts by now.

 

[Jacko93]

Pretty sure we had to show the PL the accounts by now.

The word was that anybody at risk had to issue accounts prior to December 31st. If we haven't done, then we're not at risk. If we have, it may be more indicative. Not sure what the rules are for public issue though, if they do in fact need to be.

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

Suspicious rumours emerging about Forest too. Going to need an extra column in the league table at this rate to make sense of it.

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

The word was that anybody at risk had to issue accounts prior to December 31st. If we haven't done, then we're not at risk. If we have, it may be more indicative. Not sure what the rules are for public issue though, if they do in fact need to be.

Guess by the fact we have admitted guilty over the previous cycle, we are automatically obliged to provide early and be classed as “at risk”.

The PL can’t change the date we need to submit accounts to companies house (which is when they would become public and thus the club would release their commentary on them).

 

[roydo]

The word was that anybody at risk had to issue accounts prior to December 31st. If we haven't done, then we're not at risk. If we have, it may be more indicative. Not sure what the rules are for public issue though, if they do in fact need to be.

The PL said a while back that they want to make punishments in the same accounting year, hence the 31st Dec date. Sommet like that anyrate. Either way up, its a mess.

 

[Victus]

I just can't see how considering we really have not bought much and sold quite a bit. There was also Ornstein last month saying we are in compliance according to his sources.

 

[Ring master]

Why would it take from in 2weeks time, to early April. seems a long time when everyone knows the answer in 2weeks, anyway sticking to things we have a small profit, and we are ok this one

Under a new system brought in by the Premier League for this season, charges for straightforward breaches will be fast-tracked and dealt with by early April, A club will have two weeks to respond to a charge and then a hearing by an independent commission must be concluded by April 8. Appeals will have to be completed by the end of the season.

 

[Groucho]

I just can't see how considering we really have not bought much and sold quite a bit. There was also Ornstein last month saying we are in compliance according to his sources.

There’s no way we can have overspent since the initial concerns.

We’ve behaved.