6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Spadge Vernacular]

Andy Burnham on record there now, saying he believes Masters was dishonest to the Parliamentary Commission. Would have thought that was massive news, but not a sniff of it being reported yet.

Where is this, mate?

 

[Victus]

Where is this, mate?

All in that video.

 

[ForeverEverton]

Where is this, mate?

Across the Park podcast on YouTube, he believes Masters may have deceived the Select Committee....

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

All in that video.

I must have missed it.

 

[Tipp blue]

Any points deduction is farcical. It’s not a crime that warrants a points deduction.

Correct... 19.5 over 4 years... less than 5 million a year, does not warrant a punishment harsher than administration, a transfer ban for 1 window would have been ample for a first offence which in football terms was not a lot of money..

 

[matty1878]

Across the Park podcast on YouTube, he believes Masters may have deceived the Select Committee....

Really? And if he has he will get away with it anyway

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Across the Park podcast on YouTube, he believes Masters may have deceived the Select Committee....

Ta la, got it.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I must have missed it.

No doubt as soon as he opened his mouth the duplicitous arrogant toad

 

[matty1878]

Correct... 19.5 over 4 years... less than 5 million a year, does not warrant a punishment harsher than administration, a transfer ban for 1 window would have been ample for a first offence which in football terms was not a lot of money..

Will we get it overturned?

 

[Tipp blue]

Will we get it overturned?

Convince the new commission that we wouldn't have breached if we weren't building a stadium I'd imagine the PL case is in the bin..

 

[Yarrgh]

Always thought that banner was off tbh, should read "Where there is power and money, there is greed and corruption".

But heyho

I thought it should read, "Where there is power, money, greed and corruption there is the PL."

 

[John from Bootle]

I dont really know the Sheff Wed story.

But is Leicester not a precedent?

Leicester make £3.1m settlement with Football League over FFP claim

Leicester City have agreed to pay the Football League £3.1m to settle a long-running claim that club breached financial fair play rules

www.theguardian.com

The statements made clear that: “In reaching the settlement, the EFL acknowledges that the club did not make any deliberate attempt to infringe the rules or to deceive and that the dispute arose out of genuine differences of interpretation of the rules between the parties.”

The more you look at these people, the shadier it gets. How Masters survived the Newcastle thing is beyond me:

On 9 September 2020, Masters was accused by Newcastle United of not "acting appropriately" in relation to the Premier League's blocking of the attempted takeover of the club by a consortium consisting of PCP Capital Partners, Reuben Brothers and the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia.[9] This was following accusations from the consortium that the Premier League had deliberately misapplied their Owners' and Directors' test in order to frustrate the deal, due to improper influence from various third parties to block it.[10] On the 29th September 2021, a Competition Appeal Tribunal heard that Masters and the Premier League "Abused its position" after it was "improperly influenced" by outside agencies such as the Qatari owned media outlet, BeIN Sports.

Then you read that article about Leicester and it mentions Dave Richards and the deal Leicester made with his son's' company, Trestellar Ltd: That article contains a link that takes you to more of the story around that:

The investigation centres on a deal Leicester say they did in January 2014 with a company called Trestellar Ltd, to market the club in the UK and south-east Asia. That deal immediately produced an apparent £11m increase in Leicester’s sponsorship and commercial income, reducing the club’s loss from £34m the previous year. In the club’s most recent accounts, for 2014-15, Leicester say Trestellar sold the club’s main sponsorships – the name on the players’ shirts and the stadium – to King Power, the club’s owners.

The Thai owners were already sponsoring the shirt and stadium before the Trestellar deal; in 2012-13 Leicester’s sponsorship and other commercial income was £5.2m. After the Trestellar deal, with King Power still holding the same main sponsorships, the income immediately jumped to £16m.

Note the original article you quoted said Richards son owned the company. I'm not disputing he was btw, but what they didn't mention, was that Dave Richards was a company director for Trestellar Ltd, for Three days??? in 2013: Here's a screenshot, and a link to the page i've taken it from, companies house

David Gerald RICHARDS personal appointments - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

 

[Del-boy]

We may have admitted the breach but we gave reasons as to why? Pre planning for the new stadium having to go against P&S is the biggest joke of all.. we spent 40 million before planning was approved... we would not have breached if we weren't building a stadium, convince the new panel of that and the whole PL case is in the bin..A new stadium that will up our income and go towards making us more sustainable while benefiting the city economically should not go against us.

The reasons we gave for breaching aren’t likely to get us off.

One of the reasons we gave was to quote “well we needed a midfield”.
The loan application also stated that that loan wasn’t for the stadium but for the club. potentially for transfers/wages. Meaning that it went against us as we couldn’t argue against what was written down.

 

[arch stanton]

People need to read the actual information that’s out there on the breach and the views of the commission. We have absolutely zero chance of getting all ten points back. Zero. We have admitted to the breach for starters so we have clearly broken some rules.

What we will be doing is arguing for mitigation to reduce the points penalty. However contrary to what people are saying, we don’t have much room for manoeuvre. Our best bet is is going down the road that the punishment is overly harsh. The precedent used against us was from the EFL and Sheff Wed. They got 12 points reduced to 6 on appeal.

Arguing the stadium costs shouldn’t be included ain’t gonna wash. That only accounted for £2.2 million and we were apparently just over £20 million above allowed. Also the loan we are arguing about in terms of interest payments was from Metro Bank. If you read this loan application (which the commission has) it clearly states “not to be used for the stadium”. So this just won’t work.

Best case is we say it’s too harsh for a first time offence and get it reduced to five. We will then need to be clear of the bottom three at the end of season. The second breach will probably take two further points from us.

if the process is flawed and unfair we can claim for every single one of them.

 

[Tipp blue]

The reasons we gave for breaching aren’t likely to get us off.

One of the reasons we gave was to quote “well we needed a midfield”.
The loan application also stated that that loan wasn’t for the stadium but for the club. potentially for transfers/wages. Meaning that it went against us as we couldn’t argue against what was written down.

40 million pre planning approval....... nothing to do with interest nothing to do with midfielders... it was money that had to be spent in order to get planning for the stadium..