6 + 2 Point Deductions

[BirkenheadBlue]

I fear they'll throw the book at us again with 10 points which we eventually get down to maybe 6 or 7 on appeal. Reckon it'll be announced very soon too

The logical part of my brain says they just can’t do that, after the bafflement all round the game when they gave Forest less than us despite an overspend 77% bigger than ours, not to mention that we’ve already been punished for 2/3 of the reporting period. Plus they’ll want an appeal from us even less than they wanted one from Forest (just because the timeline is even later)

That said, logic hasn’t really played a part in this process so far.

 

[NeilMorepies]

I fear they'll throw the book at us again with 10 points which we eventually get down to maybe 6 or 7 on appeal. Reckon it'll be announced very soon too

It will be the 4 points we got back from the first charge. They will want to make the point that we can’t escape the punishment that they decide, regardless of any defence we have.

 

[Look to the future]

There should be no financial limitations at the top level. This is big boy football owned mainly by very rich people and syndicates. As long as the checks are good, you should be able to spend what you want. FFP makes sense at the lower levels. You want to give teams a more equal chance for promotion. All the current system does is create a group of 6 that are kept separate from the other 14 because they raised the drawbridge on spending after they were in the castle.

Agreed. The new system makes it a closed shop, protecting the interests and finances of the top 6 and makes it impossible for other teams to be successful. This makes the end product less appealing unless you support one of the controlling top 6 clubs.
They don’t like that we’re trying to increase our revenues by building the stadium and worry that we could be a threat to their closed shop in the future so are trying to damage us as much as they can, whilst they can.

 

[barneygumble]

Just hope there's some substance in MSP being active.

Sadly, the counter to that is The Esk is claiming this, so realistically we've got more chance of Witsel & Mata taking over

 

[Drico]

View attachment 251090

That’s true. She was in it for the money.

 

[mahermi1]

Agreed. The new system makes it a closed shop, protecting the interests and finances of the top 6 and makes it impossible for other teams to be successful. This makes the end product less appealing unless you support one of the controlling top 6 clubs.
They don’t like that we’re trying to increase our revenues by building the stadium and worry that we could be a threat to their closed shop in the future so are trying to damage us as much as they can, whilst they can.

Still can't just blame them though, quite a few of the other 14 "small clubs" voted for it too, just like a Turkey voting for Christmas Dinner, pathetic really.

 

[Evertonthat]

The logical part of my brain says they just can’t do that, after the bafflement all round the game when they gave Forest less than us despite an overspend 77% bigger than ours, not to mention that we’ve already been punished for 2/3 of the reporting period. Plus they’ll want an appeal from us even less than they wanted one from Forest (just because the timeline is even later)

That said, logic hasn’t really played a part in this process so far.

I'd agree with this. They can't ignore the double jeopardy argument as its standard practice in the championship, and although a 90M loss, the expected p&s figure is expected to be lower this time. If it’s 3 points for a breach and another 3 for a significant breach, we may get just the 3 points this time. With double jeopardy this could be changed to 1 point. Any more than that and it's a nailed on appeal, which the PL are desperate to avoid.

 

[Blue Willy]

Are we nearly there yet?

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

I'd agree with this. They can't ignore the double jeopardy argument as its standard practice in the championship, and although a 90M loss, the expected p&s figure is expected to be lower this time. If it’s 3 points for a breach and another 3 for a significant breach, we may get just the 3 points this time. With double jeopardy this could be changed to 1 point. Any more than that and it's a nailed on appeal, which the PL are desperate to avoid.

Another 2pts back for cooperating, and they owe us an extra point!!

Job’s a good’un

 

[DuncansPigeons]

I’m pretty sure Everton will be arguing that the previous deduction needs to be taken into account here specifically against the backdrop of Forrest’s more lenient punishment. Specifically when their commission didn’t use the same calculation for points as ours.

Then the double jeopardy element absolutely comes into play with our argument given that the PL used the EFL sanction policy as a benchmark. Everton absolutely have a right to draw that comparison if you’re going to punish us by their rules, we have the right to use their protections.

I still think the league want to clober us though and get their 10 points so I think we’ll get 4 deducted. I’d be made up with 2

Ultimately though until we know the PL and these commissions are hard to read and given the huge losses we don’t know the effect of the latest accounts

 

[Fralahna]

The logical part of my brain says they just can’t do that, after the bafflement all round the game when they gave Forest less than us despite an overspend 77% bigger than ours, not to mention that we’ve already been punished for 2/3 of the reporting period. Plus they’ll want an appeal from us even less than they wanted one from Forest (just because the timeline is even later)

That said, logic hasn’t really played a part in this process so far.

I can imagine someone in the boardroom mentioning all of this when discussing the punishment and Masters just saying "yes... but everton" and they all sign off on 10 points.

 

[Moderatelywarmwater]

2 tops!

Totally agree

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I’m pretty sure Everton will be arguing that the previous deduction needs to be taken into account here specifically against the backdrop of Forrest’s more lenient punishment. Specifically when their commission didn’t use the same calculation for points as ours.

Then the double jeopardy element absolutely comes into play with our argument given that the PL used the EFL sanction policy as a benchmark. Everton absolutely have a right to draw that comparison if you’re going to punish us by their rules, we have the right to use their protections.

I still think the league want to clober us though and get their 10 points so I think we’ll get 4 deducted. I’d be made up with 2

Ultimately though until we know the PL and these commissions are hard to read and given the huge losses we don’t know the effect of the latest accounts

I can imagine someone in the boardroom mentioning all of this when discussing the punishment and Masters just saying "yes... but everton" and they all sign off on 10 points.

This gathering narrative really needs to be nipped in the bud as there is a not a single coherent explanation or rationale of why any points should be deducted at all yet too many people are just taking it as read and even being happy with 1 or 2 points. It should have been made perfectly clear from the start of this latest hearing that any further points deduction would be met with legal action from Everton just like Forest did when 6 was mentioned for them.

As @BirkenheadBlue points out above we have already been dealt with and should not be punished again.

 

[Zezti]

Leicester City: Championship club report £89.7m in losses after Premier League charge

Leicester City report a loss of £89.7m for the 2022-23 season - taking total losses for their last three Premier League campaigns to more than £215m.

www.bbc.co.uk

Dont know how they managed it.

"What is perhaps most significant is the amount of money clearly being spent on wages. Despite a near £75m profit in player trading, the club still finds itself the best part of £90m in the red."


People always sleep on wages, as I keep saying Wages are the biggest spend any club makes every single season.

Scary thing about this, is:
"The accounts do not mention exactly how much it cost to dismiss Rodgers, but costs of sales increased by £26m to £301.8m, which the club partly attributes to a change of manager."
When you think about how many we've sacked... I don't want to imagine how much has been spent on paying off failures.

 

[Frenk]

So it's 6 points minus 2 for good behaviour + 1 for the draw last night = 5