Initial 10, then reduced to 6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Jo3Fr3sh]

Some of the scab 6 clubs have decided they like a couple of our players so the PL are going to help them out by forcing our hand in a sale for well below value in order for us to not get more points docked.
Good luck at your next club Onana and Branthwaite

Sell to other leagues. Eff the PL

 

[JohnRoss23]

Some of the scab 6 clubs have decided they like a couple of our players so the PL are going to help them out by forcing our hand in a sale for well below value in order for us to not get more points docked.
Good luck at your next club Onana and Branthwaite

Yep. This is what it’s really about. The rest of the clubs in the leagues and leagues below are being forced to supply the top clubs with the best players. It’s a never ending cycle.

 

[Kurt.]

Is this the dawning of the return of the ESKimos ?

 

[GoldenToffee]

Never mind that kin Super Silk, this is the only guy that could get us out of the mess we're in.

 

[davek]

Esk: does the possibility / expectation we'll be charged tomorrow prove him to have been wrong? AFAIK he's stating we'll be found compliant not that we won't be charged? Surely the compliancy is decided by the adjudicating panel?

Esk safe for at least the new panel to hear fresh charges?

 

[RomanReigns]

Esk and ornstein need to have a straightener in a car park

 

[PITA]

Mate, we had a centre half booked today for not fouling a player, don't search for sense where it doesn't exist.

To be fair to the ref, the Villa players did think a card was merited.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Esk: does the possibility / expectation we'll be charged tomorrow prove him to have been wrong? AFAIK he's stating we'll be found compliant not that we won't be charged? Surely the compliancy is decided by the adjudicating panel?

Esk safe for at least the new panel to hear fresh charges?

Linguistically you are right, a referral to a fresh hearing tomorrow doesn't make him wrong as it could still find us compliant. So maybe that's the game he's playing.

But I don't know how it could be factually true that we are compliant and still get referred; it would at least be in an area of doubt and his tweets indicate no doubt.

If he was using "should be" or "I estimate that" there's enough doubt that a referral wouldn't mean he was wrong, but if he's stating it as an unequivocal fact I think a referral would mean he was wrong. Because an unequivocal fact wouldn't be referred.

 

[davek]

Linguistically you are right, a referral to a fresh hearing tomorrow doesn't make him wrong as it could still find us compliant. So maybe that's the game he's playing.

But I don't know how it could be factually true that we are compliant and still get referred; it would at least be in an area of doubt and his tweets indicate no doubt.

If he was using "should be" or "I estimate that" there's enough doubt that a referral wouldn't mean he was wrong, but if he's stating it as an unequivocal fact I think a referral would mean he was wrong. Because an unequivocal fact wouldn't be referred.

A charge isn't proof of guilt. An appeal would adjudicate whether we're compliant. The PL just regard us as such...if they decide that.

 

[TGW89]

Sounds like we are 1m out. How a business like everton couldn’t have saved 1m is beyond me

A point deducted for every 100k. New rule in effect from 15th January 2024. Only affects Everton for reasons of footballatory cromulence.

 

[Dymak]

We knew we had lost the money when we signed 5 players in the Summer.

Will be the response.

Everton's projected revenues for the year ahead were very suddenly and unexpectedly reduced by an unpredictable trade embargo that they had absolutely no control over.

Would it be a valid mitigating factor if we were still making the same excuse in five years time? Nah, we would understandably be expected to have adapted by then! But we are talking about the immediate year following the unexpected enforced trade embargo.

Saying "Deal with it" is completely ignorant to the mitigating factor being referred to!

This isn't a "My nan has died" claim of mitigating circumstances. This is "The invasion of Ukraine has caused me to lose my income" claim for mitigation. It's a strong claim that deserves far better than an inconsiderate "Deal with it" response.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

A charge isn't proof of guilt.

Sure, but he is stating that we have not broken the PSR limit. If we are charged then it is at least in dispute. He will at least be wrong in stating he knows we haven't breached because it will still at least be in dispute, and therefore no one will know it.

If the PL do come to a number that is not in breach of the PSR limit then we won't be charged and he will be right.

 

[blulouie]

Sure, but he is stating that we have not broken the PSR limit. If we are charged then it is at least in dispute. He will at least be wrong in stating he knows we haven't breached because it will still at least be in dispute, and therefore no one will know it.

If the PL do come to a number that is not in breach of the PSR limit then we won't be charged and he will be right.

The Esk is right ????

Best of luck with that.

 

[Goat]

.

Everton's projected revenues for the year ahead were very suddenly and unexpectedly reduced by an unpredictable trade embargo that they had absolutely no control over.

Would it be a valid mitigating factor if we were still making the same excuse in five years time? Nah, we would understandably be expected to have adapted by then! But we are talking about the immediate year following the unexpected enforced trade embargo.

Saying "Deal with it" is completely ignorant to the mitigating factor being referred to!

This isn't a "My nan has died" claim of mitigating circumstances. This is "The invasion of Ukraine has caused me to lose my income" claim for mitigation. It's a strong claim that deserves far better than an inconsiderate "Deal with it" response.

Im just saying, they denied it last time, im pretty sure they will this time.

But thats why we got SuperSilk in, to argue that point for us and others.

 

[TGW89]

Would it be a valid mitigating factor if we were still making the same excuse in five years time? Nah, we would understandably be expected to have adapted by then! But we are talking about the immediate year following the unexpected enforced trade embargo.

This makes me think... Ukraine happened about halfway through 2021/22. So if our super silk can successfully present this for the original appeal vs the 10 pts, could that not carry over to the charge we seem certain to face tomorrow?

After all if we're being punished for the same offence twice, surely the same mitigation can be used twice. Which makes going all the way with the second breach utterly pointless.

Nonetheless, I await Sky Sports' freshly prepared league table tomorrow morning, with a double asterisk next to our new tally of 7 points. We are repeat offenders after all.... bring it you corrupt fkers!