6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Neiler]

We did, but we didn't

Thus any offence occurred on the 1st of July 2022.

*Same with Forest.

 

[Marius57]

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

No other club can. They have a time frame that they had to apply/state they were pursuing compensation by and seems only Burnley did.

 

[Ring master]

No other club can. They have a time frame that they had to apply/state they were pursuing compensation by and seems only Burnley did.

There was certain things yesterday that said (Not a clue if true) that they did apply/state they were pursuing compensation. But were awaiting the Burnley outcome before they fully went ahead

 

[Hellerad]

Why do they accept a majority verdict then (10 out of 12 jurors, I believe). Genuine question.

That’s an English rule that I disagree with. I agree that it doesn’t make sense, but it came about to reduce hung juries. In the US, juries must be unanimous for criminal trials.

 

[windymiller]

Based on nothing at all, I suspect it gets settled, with no wrongdoing admitted so no precedent.

This is exactly what will happen because it suits all parties. Burnley get some dosh, we get to move on and the PL don't get a light shone on their house of cards system.

 

[BullensRoad]

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.

£20m back then was considerable money too.

 

[The binman chronicles]

This is exactly what will happen because it suits all parties. Burnley get some dosh, we get to move on and the PL don't get a light shone on their house of cards system.

We've already been punished 4 times for the crime, two points deductions, the legal fees for those cases and the loss of income from losing 3 million per league place.

Don't see why we have to pay out anything to Burnley and hopefully they'll be paying our legal fees soon.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

We've already been punished 4 times for the crime, two points deductions, the legal fees for those cases and the loss of income from losing 3 million per league place.

Don't see why we have to pay out anything to Burnley and hopefully they'll be paying our legal fees soon.

Spot on mate, the entire affair is laughable especially when another club are yet to even have the findings of their hearing published almost 12 months after the hearing.

If you compare it to the speed with which our case has been dealt with it is clearly a case of preferential treatment and as I continue to state an absolute shafting.

 

[catcherintherye]

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.

I'm sure someone cleverer than me can explain, but I have little idea what that means. I actually can't get my head around it.

To what extent were they denied the opportunity to stay up? They clearly had an opportunity.

Like I can understand the argument that had the PL out the points deduction at 4+ points the season previous they would have stayed up. I'm not sure football works like that, as you have second order affects, but I can follow the argument.

I'm not sure how we denied them an opportunity to stay up though. It would be like saying someone who spends more than us denies us the opportunity to win the league. They just don't.

This feels like Pandora's box to me if we are opening up opportunities that might lead to people doing things.

 

[allen]

We've already been punished 4 times for the crime, two points deductions, the legal fees for those cases and the loss of income from losing 3 million per league place.

Don't see why we have to pay out anything to Burnley and hopefully they'll be paying our legal fees soon.

I want to see some fight from this new leadership, too.

Everyone else kicks and screams about this stuff. We’ve just meekly sucked it up so far.

We may lose, and it’d be unjust if we did, but I want to see us fight and not just settle.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Hope we stuff the 6-toed, pointy-headed mutants in court and take six points off them this season and relegate the insects.

 

[Lanolin]

I'm sure someone cleverer than me can explain, but I have little idea what that means. I actually can't get my head around it.

To what extent were they denied the opportunity to stay up? They clearly had an opportunity.

Like I can understand the argument that had the PL out the points deduction at 4+ points the season previous they would have stayed up. I'm not sure football works like that, as you have second order affects, but I can follow the argument.

I'm not sure how we denied them an opportunity to stay up though. It would be like saying someone who spends more than us denies us the opportunity to win the league. They just don't.

This feels like Pandora's box to me if we are opening up opportunities that might lead to people doing things.

I would imagine at its most basic level their argument is that they were denied a fair opportunity to stay up because we broke the rules. I don’t really understand this desire to act as if we didn’t do anything wrong and this is all madness - we did break the rules and admitted to doing it, the basic principle of their point is totally valid.

In my opinion we already received an overly harsh punishment and were treated unfairly because of the way other issues were handled and I don’t envisage Burnley getting the outcome they want from this, but making out like this is just the same as someone spending more on transfers is bizarre. It’s not the same thing, there are rules in place and we broke them, let’s stop being kopites about it and just own it and move on.

 

[windymiller]

We've already been punished 4 times for the crime, two points deductions, the legal fees for those cases and the loss of income from losing 3 million per league place.

Don't see why we have to pay out anything to Burnley and hopefully they'll be paying our legal fees soon.

I don't disagree but I stand by my guess about what will happen.

 

[matty1878]

This is a major surprise to me.

oh you!

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

I'm sure someone cleverer than me can explain, but I have little idea what that means. I actually can't get my head around it.

To what extent were they denied the opportunity to stay up? They clearly had an opportunity.

Like I can understand the argument that had the PL out the points deduction at 4+ points the season previous they would have stayed up. I'm not sure football works like that, as you have second order affects, but I can follow the argument.

I'm not sure how we denied them an opportunity to stay up though. It would be like saying someone who spends more than us denies us the opportunity to win the league. They just don't.

This feels like Pandora's box to me if we are opening up opportunities that might lead to people doing things.

From a BBC article...

"Burnley won just five matches in their return to the top-flight - losing 24 - and conceded 78 goals in total."

Sounds like the teams they faced in the 24 losses denied them opportunity of winning games. Sue them!