6 + 2 Point Deductions

[catcherintherye]

The commission said there was a sporting advantage - that is a cast iron fact.

Edit - we've done this before, you want to jump through hoops, go ahead.

I don't want to jump through hoops.

And yes I know it's a fact, as it's a cast iron fact (whatever that means) that they were unable to quantify what any advantage was, indeed they deemed it "unquantifiable".

I'm not sure if you have ever been involved in legal litigation (I have) but you need to substantiate what quantifiable impact wrongdoing had on you.

There's lots of wrongdoing that occurs, but if you can't show a quantifiable, measurable impact it has no relevance to a legal case.

Like can't sue say Thames Water for wrongdoing unless I can show it impacted me, and how it impacted me.

 

[bluerobert]

Somebody correct me if I’m wrong but from that I’ve read it appears that Burnley’s entire point is that if we’d received the points deduction the season the breach happened they would have stayed up?

1. Surely their beef is with the people who impose the rules then? Everton can’t decide when a punishment is carried out?

2. Even if Everton had any say on when the punishment is carried out how do they know they’d have stayed up? I’ve always been of the belief that the “we would have finished 13th without the points deduction” was a completely flawed argument. We went on great runs after the points being taken from us, there’s no way to know we’d have accumulated those points without. If anything the evidence would suggest we wouldn’t have. So apply that to the season of the breach, what’s to say we wouldn’t have pulled cleanly away from the relegation zone had the points deduction been applied. You can’t take somebody to court over something that might have happened in an alternate universe

 

[catcherintherye]

Good point Leeds will have their begging bowl followed by, wait for it Leicester, those deduction dodgers.. We've been punished twice already, two separate points deductions, enough is enough don't give up without a fight and if we lose keep on appealing to the end of Eternity.

I think an agreement has come to Leeds.

I doubt Leicester would want to take anything to court currently.

 

[Tipp blue]

I can’t wait for the day a club sues a referee or PGMOL if they get relegated following a blatant VAR bias or something.
That’s where this is all heading.

I'd imagine that's a non runner, there is most likely a clause that every club has to sign stating that officials are not liable.

 

[mahermi1]

I think an agreement has come to Leeds.

I doubt Leicester would want to take anything to court currently.

Yeah especially after their con job last year, hope the agreement with Leeds was to give them Jack Harrison back..

 

[catcherintherye]

I'd imagine that's a non runner, there is most likely a clause that every club has to sign stating that officials are not liable.

I thought there was a clause stopping PL clubs undertaking litigation against each other?

 

[Tipp blue]

Somebody correct me if I’m wrong but from that I’ve read it appears that Burnley’s entire point is that if we’d received the points deduction the season the breach happened they would have stayed up?

1. Surely their beef is with the people who impose the rules then? Everton can’t decide when a punishment is carried out?

2. Even if Everton had any say on when the punishment is carried out how do they know they’d have stayed up? I’ve always been of the belief that the “we would have finished 13th without the points deduction” was a completely flawed argument. We went on great runs after the points being taken from us, there’s no way to know we’d have accumulated those points without. If anything the evidence would suggest we wouldn’t have. So apply that to the season of the breach, what’s to say we wouldn’t have pulled cleanly away from the relegation zone had the points deduction been applied. You can’t take somebody to court over something that might have happened in an alternate universe

The deduction couldn't have been applied for that season as the season in question is one of the 3 in which rules were broken, we were found guilty after that season.. I think they are calming that we were found guilty of cheating in the season they went down and they would have stayed up if we weren't cheating..

 

[mahermi1]

I thought there was a clause stopping PL clubs undertaking litigation against each other?

Does feel like double jeopardy being punished for the same thing twice, another Everton first. The only thing I agreed with Carragher when he said the worst run club in the Country, thank God they are all gone.

 

[hallamblue]

The Football league doesn't have this problem. It reviews finances before the season starts and if there are any breaches the clubs start with the points deduction already applied. The problem lies with the ineptitude of the Premier League.

 

[arch stanton]

I'd imagine that's a non runner, there is most likely a clause that every club has to sign stating that officials are not liable.

those kind of disclaimers arent worth a carrot

 

[Groucho]

Nothing will come of this

 

[hoppy]

The season Burnley are talking about finished four pointe behind everton
Burnley won 7 league games all season
Everton won 11 league games all season

 

[balggy]

I'd rather we be wound up for non payment than give those greedy bleeps a penny.

Pay them, Leeds will start and so on.

The PL hadn't got it's act together to punish us within the same season, not our fault. You can't say we would have definitely been down had we got a deduction, as we would approach games differently knowing what was required.

Agreed, you look at that Watford game away. Felt like we played it thinking we would take a point with Brentford and Palace remaining. Annoyed me, as they were already well relegated, but if we needed more points, we play that game differently.

 

[balggy]

Also, presumably Burnley’s sporting advantage argument is based on the fact we should have sold a player to comply with PSR, which would have resulted in us getting fewer points.

However, as it turns out, we could have sold our women’s team to ourselves for the amount of the overspend? Us, Chelsea and Villa have all done it subsequently.

Also, let’s say we sell DCL in January 2022 for £45 million. That’s not too crazy when you think Gordon left for £40 million 12 months later and DCL was in the Euro squad 12 months earlier. That’s £45 million pure profit.

Yes DCL scores the winner against Palace, but we would presumably have replaced DCL. Under PSR, we could have flipped DCL for £45 million, bought a new striker for £45 million, and still been in profit in terms of PSR, given amortisation.

So even in the argument, we should have sold someone else in January, I’m not sure I follow the argument it would have cost us on the pitch. It’s literally impossible to quantify.

 

[RD2910]

I don't want to jump through hoops.

And yes I know it's a fact, as it's a cast iron fact (whatever that means) that they were unable to quantify what any advantage was, indeed they deemed it "unquantifiable".

I'm not sure if you have ever been involved in legal litigation (I have) but you need to substantiate what quantifiable impact wrongdoing had on you.

There's lots of wrongdoing that occurs, but if you can't show a quantifiable, measurable impact it has no relevance to a legal case.

Like can't sue say Thames Water for wrongdoing unless I can show it impacted me, and how it impacted me.

If you know it's a fact, why did you tell me it didn't say it?