Search results for query: *

If he keeps us up, I don't see any benefit from keeping in. If he's given more time, the style of play will catch up with him. Of that, there is little doubt.

I'm not sure that's the case, based on the paper. Even if the interests are included., it's unlikely to change that the fact our loss was 'substantial' and wouldn't remove any of our mitigation.

Thomas Frank is the only one on that list i'd consider. If we're going cheap but creative (with risk attached), Davide Ancelotti.

I think the point is more... yes you can sell all those players...but - how much are you generating for them? - what if they don't want to leave? - what happens if we can't replace them? regardless of the obvious flaws in the make-up of the squad, it's at least a squad. I also don't think...

If we stay up, we need a fire-sale. My issue though is I don't trust the manager and DOF to achieve the reset we need. We are in desperate need of some creative thinking. There can be no doubts that the following must leave: Gomes Godfrey Young Holgate Keane Dele (unfortunately) Danjuma and...

Completely normal. If he's as good as his reputation suggests, he'll be booked up for the next 12 months. We were lucky his schedule allowed for helping us with the appeal.

Translated: "What a win."

It's an interesting read but in summary: the complaint is that each commission is making different decisions. Which is completely correct. Because the PL (and the member clubs) refuse to put in an agreed formula. A MESS.

"You can reduce the points they deduct with early admission" If you breach to any real level, you're getting a points deduction.

Hmm I didn't read it as that. Our punishment was: - 3 points for being in breach - 3 points for it being a 'significant' breach 6 points no aggravation for us (there was initially but this was successfully appealed) and no mitigation Forest's is: - 3 points for being in breach - 3 points...

My main takeaway from the Judgment is that the new commission agreed with the framework of the Appeal panel. So I can't see how, unless there are NEW aggravators, that we will get anything more than 6 points for our next breach.

Yes sorry what is mad is that it was the PL that suggested 2 points be awarded / reduced from the sanction because of the early admission / co-operation. Not sure they need to get involved in that.

What is utterly MAD about this is, the PL actually SUPPORTED this defence of Forest: So seemingly, if you fess up early and don't muddy the water, the PL will SUPPORT a reduction in points.

Just reading the judgment now mate BUT I have to say, already, i'm a bit astounded Unlikely. As again, the PL didn't sanction us. The commission did.

Of course not. but it might give us some hint at what's to come next for us. Speculatively, it seems like there could be a 2 points per season model developing within the case law (our first case, our appeal and forest's case). That Maguire chap on X says that Forest have only breached 1 out...

They will. Literally today.

Well we don't know yet. We don't know the case at all. Once the PL announce the verdict, they'll be then releasing what's known as the Judgment. Within it, it will state everything that was heard in the hearing and then what the Panel decided / how it came to 4 points. Before we can read...

Not sure if this serious Gorgeous George but we certainly won't be getting a deduction of 10 points.

I certainly don't mean this in a rude way mate but just to confirm, the PL have not punished us. The independent commission has. The PL act as the CPS would in a criminal trial. Like the CPS do for the law of the land, the PL have a barrister (or multiple) who argue for the breach and for...

both hearings you mean mate? The PL will have a single department that works on these cases, instructing Barristers etc. They'll say i'm sure that they don't have the capacity to run two different cases at the same time. Plus there was the appeal we had too which would have delayed them...