Is it really corruption tho, or just severe incompetence?
Drico
Player Valuation: £50m
We are not going there and beating them if we have had 12 points deducted. The pressure will be too much for our lion-hearted wallflowers.
Even the notion we should go there to try to "compete" in that circumstance is hilarious.
The fix is in.
ashwuk76
Player Valuation: £30m
Add another five for the Everton 48hrs rule....
Jacko93
Player Valuation: £35m
I don't like this bit
Paragraph 4.1 of the Complaint notes that a sanction “must achieve, but also go no further than is reasonably necessary and proportionate to achieve, the legitimate purposes of . . . punishment of the Club in breach . . .[ii] vindication of compliant Clubs and the encouragement of future compliance . . . [iii] deterrence of similar conduct by any and all Clubs in the future . . . [and] [iv] restoration of the public’s confidence in the integrity of the competition”: see also EFL v Derby County Football Club Ltd (30 June 2021) at [20-23].
It seems to fly in the face of claims during our Initial points deduction and appeal, where it is claimed that they must apply the law without consideration of potential to relegate the club, or words to that effect. The sentence above seems to suggest that if they felt relegation, or in effect expulsion from the league was too high a penalty then they could adjust it to have it go the way they wanted.
Paragraph 4.1 of the Complaint notes that a sanction “must achieve, but also go no further than is reasonably necessary and proportionate to achieve, the legitimate purposes of . . . punishment of the Club in breach . . .[ii] vindication of compliant Clubs and the encouragement of future compliance . . . [iii] deterrence of similar conduct by any and all Clubs in the future . . . [and] [iv] restoration of the public’s confidence in the integrity of the competition”: see also EFL v Derby County Football Club Ltd (30 June 2021) at [20-23].
It seems to fly in the face of claims during our Initial points deduction and appeal, where it is claimed that they must apply the law without consideration of potential to relegate the club, or words to that effect. The sentence above seems to suggest that if they felt relegation, or in effect expulsion from the league was too high a penalty then they could adjust it to have it go the way they wanted.
hallamblue
Player Valuation: £35m
3 for any breach, 3 more for a "significant" breach. So 6 for us and Forest. Presumably over £50 million would equal another 3 and so on.
Little from column a, little from column b.
Yes "it's bollocks"
No written guidance is going to cause havoc.
Our appeal used foreign and lower league cases to use as a guide. Forests used ours, but found circumstances to bypass the KC’s judgment
Our second hearing could come up with a completely different charging metric
Our appeal used foreign and lower league cases to use as a guide. Forests used ours, but found circumstances to bypass the KC’s judgment
Our second hearing could come up with a completely different charging metric
so they still should of got a higher one?
ashwuk76
Player Valuation: £30m
That was kinda my point
the same silk?
hallamblue
Player Valuation: £35m
Because we haven't been as compliant as Forest so won't get 2 back.
