6 + 2 Point Deductions

[HalfTimeSayers]

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!

Indeed.

I would also hope the IC are savvy enough to point out that you can’t claim for lost revenue without considering costs avoided by going down. It’s massively more expensive to run a team in the PL.

The complete impossibility to quantify anything at all in the case (points gained, points lost, lost sponsorship, players who may/may not have joined, value of lost revenue, value of avoided costs, devaluation of squad value etc etc) means it’s madness.

We were punished (harshly) at in line with the PLs timetable and according to their rules. End of. If you bring down a player on a break you get a yellow card and they get a free kick. At the end of the season you don’t then try and calculate the probability of scoring on that breakaway and thus the extra points you may have got from the game and sue the offending player and his mum.

Our punishment being a season “late” is nothing to do with us at all. The PL admitted fault in this by asking clubs to vote on the rule that the punishment must be in the same season as the breach. Take it up with them. They literally highlighted that their timetable they enforced up our first breach was unfair to other clubs.

The fool that said he was happy compensation could be claimed has broken football until this is sorted out. We denied everyone the chance of a higher league placing with our cheating, so everyone can sue us then? And then everyone including us sues Forest, and Chelsea and City? Ok then.

They have ruined almost every facet of the sport. Even bloody standing near a wall.

 

[The binman chronicles]

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.

Don't want to really get in to the whole thing again, but we broke rules by a perfect storm hitting us. We bought a load of players right before covid that made player values plummet, we had two near 30m players that had basically (top) career finishing injuries, another who got arrested and stayed under investigation until his contract finished and then no charges were made.

All the while we were building a stadium which was also being used in PSR calcs due to a misunderstanding in the rules and lost big sponsors. The reason why we sunk to the levels that made us relegation candidates in the first place is because we were off loading decent players, then shopping in the bargain bins to replace them. All in the attempt at staying within the rules! If any one of the above wasn't going on at the same time we probably would have stayed within it.

 

[Lanolin]

Don't want to really get in to the whole thing again, but we broke rules by a perfect storm hitting us. We bought a load of players right before covid that made player values plummet, we had two near 30m players that had basically (top) career finishing injuries, another who got arrested and stayed under investigation until his contract finished and then no charges were made.

All the while we were building a stadium which was also being used in PSR calcs due to a misunderstanding in the rules and lost big sponsors. The reason why we sunk to the levels that made us relegation candidates in the first place is because we were off loading decent players, then shopping in the bargain bins to replace them. All in the attempt at staying within the rules! If any one of the above wasn't going on at the same time we probably would have stayed within it.

I don’t disagree, and that’s my point really. It’s like people feel like by admitting we broke the rules it makes us a terrible club that we should all be ashamed of or something, and it’s daft. We broke the rules, we got punished, move on, it’s no big deal. There’s still loads of people saying there was no sporting advantage or it was just the stadium costs or it was an error or whatever. It’s just not true, there’s no need to pretend it is, it doesn’t change anything.

 

[PITA]

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.

I didn't say that it doesn't make sense. Not sure why you are putting words in my mouth.

 

[RichCee123]

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?

Changing the goalposts might have helped them

 

[Hellerad]

I didn't say that it doesn't make sense. Not sure why you are putting words in my mouth.

My apologies. The “doesn’t make sense” referred to why “beyond a reasonable doubt” requires 100% certainty, but juries didn’t have to be unanimous.

 

[catcherintherye]

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.

That makes it a bit clearer. I don't think it's about opportunity really, but I probably sounds pedantic.

There is a credible argument that of either a 6 or 4 points penalty was applied that season, in a very crude way, they would have had equal or more points than us (but less had it been the two points).

Who's fault that is, and whether there is evidence Everton requested it was pushed into next season would be a strong point for them.

I think litigation is a bit pathetic, but objectively I can see the case on that basis. I'm not sure I see the stuff about opportunity though.

 

[catcherintherye]

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!

If you don't secure enough points, just find someone else to blame, rather than focus on your own mistakes.

If I remember that was the season we had a penalty not awarded that should have been. So that's a point we are due back isn't it? If we are going to go down this route of fictionally guessing how mistakes may impact how many points you achieve?

 

[Moomin]

It will get settled out of court and it will be kept quiet.

 

[Lanolin]

If you don't secure enough points, just find someone else to blame, rather than focus on your own mistakes.

If I remember that was the season we had a penalty not awarded that should have been. So that's a point we are due back isn't it? If we are going to go down this route of fictionally guessing how mistakes may impact how many points you achieve?

Again I just find this stuff really weird. It’s clearly not the same, you’re not an idiot so why are you pretending it is?

 

[summerisle]

 

[RD2910]

But Everton wouldn't have been relegated in their stead? It is practically impossible for points deductions to be applied to the last season to which these breaches relate. They weren't the rules then and they aren't the rules now. How can that be the central assertion?

 

[Jacko93]

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.

This is how I understand it, the loss of chance.

However, I would counter that with an argument that we had not breached PSR until the point at which our financial period had finished. If, for example, Chelsea spend £300bn on players on January 1st, putting them hundreds of milions over the PSR allowance, and those players win them the next 4 games. They then sell those players on Jan 31st for what they bought them for bringing them back under, would that be handled the same. Reduction of chance of their opponent winning, by breaking what rule?

If we had sold our Women's team to ourselves, or brought in a sponsorship deal on may 31st, everything else about the league and its positions would have been perfectly fine, no PSR breach, but each team with equal chance. The argument could be made, with performances prior and post event, that we didnt breach because our players were too good, but rather our ownership and financial teams were so bad.

 

[Lanolin]

This is how I understand it, the loss of chance.

However, I would counter that with an argument that we had not breached PSR until the point at which our financial period had finished. If, for example, Chelsea spend £300bn on players on January 1st, putting them hundreds of milions over the PSR allowance, and those players win them the next 4 games. They then sell those players on Jan 31st for what they bought them for bringing them back under, would that be handled the same. Reduction of chance of their opponent winning, by breaking what rule?

If we had sold our Women's team to ourselves, or brought in a sponsorship deal on may 31st, everything else about the league and its positions would have been perfectly fine, no PSR breach, but each team with equal chance. The argument could be made, with performances prior and post event, that we didnt breach because our players were too good, but rather our ownership and financial teams were so bad.

I agree, and I’m sure our lawyers will argue along similar lines and hopefully (I think probably) win, at least to some extent. My point wasn’t that Burnley are totally right and should win the case, just that I think it’s fairly easy to see where they’re coming from and if we’re honest we’d probably want us to do the same in their position.

 

[Jacko93]

I agree, and I’m sure our lawyers will argue along similar lines and hopefully (I think probably) win, at least to some extent. My point wasn’t that Burnley are totally right and should win the case, just that I think it’s fairly easy to see where they’re coming from and if we’re honest we’d probably want us to do the same in their position.

Yeah, I'm with you. I get the premise of their claim, and see why a KC may say "go ahead", but I dont think a decent defence loses this one if given the time and supplies. The only question for me is, can TFG be arsed with it. It may not even be them paying any fine, it could be covered by money in Escrow from the sale. The settlement effectively covered by just not paying Moshiri as much. If that was me I'd juts pay them off, forget about it all and get on with my life. Let others fight it out in future. If we settle, then no precedence is set, the date has passed for anybody else to raise a claim, this isnt a test case in a group litigation. Let others take a chance suing other clubs, let them take the arguments and costs. Lets just draw a line under it for an undisclosed amount.