6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Blueclouds]

So we should all sue the rs when we all got banned from Europe if this is the case

 

[catcherintherye]

Why arent they sueing Forest for thier breach and Burnleys relegation.


Sheff Utd Vs WHU may be the closest with the Tevez and Mascherano affair - that ended with an out of court settlement.

Sheffield United, West Ham and the Carlos Tevez saga

Watch Sheffield United vs West Ham live on Friday Night Football from 7pm on Sky Sports Premier League; kick-off 8pm

www.skysports.com

We must be confident if we haven't gone that route.

Nottingham Forest weren't in breach in the season in question.

If their legal argument is we weren't penalised that season, then again that wouldn't really fit Forest (or indeed ourselves).

 

[Moomin]

If that is their argument, I would say it would be easily quashed. Sure we could have sold a player, or we could have:

1) Sold property (a hotel,.training ground) etc
2) Added another sponsorship(s)
3) Continued to capitalise the interest on the stadium as we had previously did (before the PL changed the goalposts)
4) Paused the stadium build to not incur costs
5) Reduced the spec/size of the new stadium
6) Sold a player who was not involved (such as Sigurdsson)
7) Sold out women's team

None of these things would have impacted in any way in any game during that season. There will be a plethora of other options. I would be very open to hear how any of the above would have helped Burnley win more games to stay up?

Infrastructure costs don't account on PSR.

 

[RomanReigns]

Is there any predecent that can be applied in this case?

To a degree it's pointless us arguing the merits for/against Everton here as it will be up to those hearing the case to decide. We will always look at it with blue-tinted glasses.

Both clubs are not lashing out on legal fees and a hearing being constituted for the sake of it. It seems clear we have a liability and what remains to be seen is the extent of it. And how this leaves us open to other claims. That is my main concern here.

So we pay up something and then what? Either that or our lawyers can successfully argue that there is no liability on our part. The issue there is the KC from the initial commission found that we do have a liability for claims. So his expert legal opinion has to be thrown out if Burnleys claim is to be dismissed in full. As a layman I'd say the likelihood of that is very small.

£50m seems like a laugh but a strategy where you ask for it anyway and are happy to settle for £10m. Still that seems like quite a severe punishment to me on top of two points deductions bearing in mind the lost income due to lower league placement and legal fees incurred in facing two hearings already. We are certainly being put through the mill here.

the leicester city precedent is the one to use

 

[Neiler]

Nottingham Forest weren't in breach in the season in question.

If their legal argument is we weren't penalised that season, then again that wouldn't really fit Forest (or indeed ourselves).

They were in breach in 23/24 when Burnley went down under Komapny mate.

If they are arguing Sporting advantage its relative.

Sporting advantage in subjective the points deduction is objective.

Depends on the nature of their case.

 

[Bedfordblue]

Is there any predecent that can be applied in this case?

To a degree it's pointless us arguing the merits for/against Everton here as it will be up to those hearing the case to decide. We will always look at it with blue-tinted glasses.

Both clubs are not lashing out on legal fees and a hearing being constituted for the sake of it. It seems clear we have a liability and what remains to be seen is the extent of it. And how this leaves us open to other claims. That is my main concern here.

So we pay up something and then what? Either that or our lawyers can successfully argue that there is no liability on our part. The issue there is the KC from the initial commission found that we do have a liability for claims. So his expert legal opinion has to be thrown out if Burnleys claim is to be dismissed in full. As a layman I'd say the likelihood of that is very small.

£50m seems like a laugh but a strategy where you ask for it anyway and are happy to settle for £10m. Still that seems like quite a severe punishment to me on top of two points deductions bearing in mind the lost income due to lower league placement and legal fees incurred in facing two hearings already. We are certainly being put through the mill here.

Nearest one is WHU fielding ineligible players due to 3rd party ownership with Tevez and Mascherano imo.
Cost them £20m iirc.
Obviously not exactly the same but the principle of fielding an ineligible team is similar in principle.

 

[Bedfordblue]

Infrastructure costs don't account on PSR.

Unless it’s our stadium build.

 

[Moomin]

Unless it’s our stadium build.

Once again, it was another cock up by us.

We took loans out and classed them as working capital and tried to claim they want on the build and couldn't back it up.

 

[toffeeblue9]

They were in breach in 23/24 when Burnley went down under Komapny mate.

If they are arguing Sporting advantage its relative.

No they weren't?

They were penalised in 23/24, but the rolling 3 year period ending 22/23 is what they were in breach for

 

[Lanolin]

You obviously can't say that for sure - but uncertainty is exactly the problem with Burnley's bogus complaint.

You might be right in what you've written, you might be wrong. It might be that our overspend resulted in 4 more points than we might have won, but it might not.

If it was possible to say that we'd definitely have been relegated instead of Burnley, then it'd be a fair cop.

It's not even just binary unknowns like that - Burnley literally have to prove that we gained 4 or more points than we otherwise would've.

I just can't see any way that can be proven - and the independent panel who punished us so severely even agreed with that.

According to the Athletic article today:

"For Burnley to win this case, they would likely need to prove ‘loss of a chance’ claim. This legal doctrine, which is expected to be part of their argument, offers a party the chance to claim damages for a loss of opportunity. Burnley would not be required to prove they would definitely have survived if Everton had not overspent, but rather that they had lost the opportunity to stay up."

So as I suspected, no they don't need to prove that we gained 4 more points.

 

[Neiler]

No they weren't?

They were penalised in 23/24, but the rolling 3 year period ending 22/23 is what they were in breach for

Isn't that the crux on this case to be decided? Whether a punishment dished out in 23/24 has relevance in additional sanction for the year ending 21/22.

 

[toffeeblue9]

Isn't that the crux on this case to be decided?

See my reply here:

Post in thread '6 + 2 Point Deductions'

Wednesday at 1:30 PM

I've just had a quick look at the commission's findings to see whether you're right that the wording is ambiguous but it's not. It actually doesn't say unquantifiable at all, or anything like it, it says quite clearly that they believe there was a sporting advantage and the idea of the points deduction is to remedy the advantage that they believe we gained. They go on to say that the points deduction should have been applied in the season it happened, but they don't blame us or the PL for that not happening. I assume that's Burnley's case in a nutshell - they're saying that the...

• toffeeblue9

• 

Burnley aren't suing us for the year we were docked points (or even the year before when we could have been docked points). They're suing us for them being relegated in the final year of the rolling three year window in which we were in breach.

By the same logic, Burnley have no axe to grind with Forest.

Leicester, however, could be seen as having a legitimate issue with both us and Forest, given they went down in the season which both ourselves and Forest were in breach (for us our 2nd breach).

 

[Ring master]

Another year where we deal with off field stuff. Hopefully any deal if sorted before it gets to far (If we do it) stops the chance of any other club coming at us. Dont know if that's how it would work, or can they still come at us bar if we won the case

 

[Neiler]

See my reply here:

Post in thread '6 + 2 Point Deductions'

Wednesday at 1:30 PM

I've just had a quick look at the commission's findings to see whether you're right that the wording is ambiguous but it's not. It actually doesn't say unquantifiable at all, or anything like it, it says quite clearly that they believe there was a sporting advantage and the idea of the points deduction is to remedy the advantage that they believe we gained. They go on to say that the points deduction should have been applied in the season it happened, but they don't blame us or the PL for that not happening. I assume that's Burnley's case in a nutshell - they're saying that the...

• toffeeblue9

• 

Burnley aren't suing us for the year we were docked points (or even the year before when we could have been docked points). They're suing us for them being relegated in the final year of the rolling three year window in which we were in breach.

By the same logic, Burnley have no axe to grind with Forest.

Leicester, however, could be seen as having a legitimate issue with both us and Forest, given they went down in the season which both ourselves and Forest were in breach (for us our 2nd breach).

Technically we weren't in breach when they were relegated though, we had until June 30th to rectify the 21/22 accounts, after their relegation.

 

[toffeeblue9]

Technically we weren't in breach when they were relegated though, we had until June 30th to rectify the 21/22 accounts, after their relegation.

We did, but we didn't