6 + 2 Point Deductions

Just reading this silk is one of the best in the country, but hasnt been involved in a high profile sports case before. Forests guy is one of the top sports law KC's.

The guy we have specialises in commercial litigation, arbitration, banking and finance, company law, energy, civil fraud, competition and professional liability.

Are we going for one of these angles in our argument or are we just banking on him being a top KC regardless of his experience in sports.
 

Strangely I think being in the relegation zone may help us. With the original decision I felt they wanted to punish us enough to put us near the bottom of the league. I think if we'd only had 8 points at the time they'd have docked us 4. Therefore the fact that we're still in trouble now may get us 4 points back, although we may lose some or all of them for the 2nd breach.
 
hallamblue said:
Strangely I think being in the relegation zone may help us. With the original decision I felt they wanted to punish us enough to put us near the bottom of the league. I think if we'd only had 8 points at the time they'd have docked us 4. Therefore the fact that we're still in trouble now may get us 4 points back, although we may lose some or all of them for the 2nd breach.
Click to expand...

So basically we're screwed right.
 
The knock on effect of the outcome of this hearing will be huge.

The problem is, if the 10 point deduction is upheld... we'll undoubtedly get hit with another sanction for this second alleged breach. You'd imagine that also means Forest will probably be sanctioned as well.

If our deduction is reduced but not completely removed... See the above, except we regain ground on a number of clubs, including Forest, dragging more deeper into the relegation scrap.

If the 10 point punishment is completely overturned, then realistically we shouldn't receive any significant punishment for the second breach, as it includes the same accounts as the first which have since been overturned. Not sure if that would change any potential punishment for Forest come the end of the season.

Assuming Sheffield Utd and Burnley are down (which I am) our job is to finish as far ahead of Nottingham Forest as possible IMO. That way, even if we're hit with a second sanction, Forest also will be which will keep them below us.

What a mess the PL have made this season into.
 
Tin-Tin said:
Just reading this silk is one of the best in the country, but hasnt been involved in a high profile sports case before. Forests guy is one of the top sports law KC's.

The guy we have specialises in commercial litigation, arbitration, banking and finance, company law, energy, civil fraud, competition and professional liability.

Are we going for one of these angles in our argument or are we just banking on him being a top KC regardless of his experience in sports.
Click to expand...
Maybe we concentrated too much on it being “just” a sport case the first time. In some respects this is a sport-adjacent financial case so someone with a broader specialism might be able to argue detail of things like classification of stadium interest costs better than a sports lawyer.

It’s a mish mash of issues we’ll likely be raising (sporting / contractual / procedural / financial) so it’s probably better having the broadest range of specialism possible.
 

MACCA75 said:
Reduced to 6 and given another 6 points for the second charge is my guess.
Click to expand...
There’s nothing in the rules about overlapping periods but on natural law grounds I think we’d have a very strong argument that 2/3rds of the second period are punished by the first so I’d say the second is more likely to be 1/3 of the first- so if reduced to 6 we’d face another two, and I actually think those sort of numbers are quite likely.
 
Tony’s Carp said:
There’s nothing in the rules about overlapping periods but on natural law grounds I think we’d have a very strong argument that 2/3rds of the second period are punished by the first so I’d say the second is more likely to be 1/3 of the first- so if reduced to 6 we’d face another two, and I actually think those sort of numbers are quite likely.
Click to expand...

That would be ideal if Forest are docked 6
 

Tin-Tin said:
Just reading this silk is one of the best in the country, but hasnt been involved in a high profile sports case before. Forests guy is one of the top sports law KC's.

The guy we have specialises in commercial litigation, arbitration, banking and finance, company law, energy, civil fraud, competition and professional liability.

Are we going for one of these angles in our argument or are we just banking on him being a top KC regardless of his experience in sports.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter cos I don't think the committee can handle the fire
 
Adscum said:
You realise what an unholy mess this is when you look at the remaining games for us and other teams down the bottom - and realise you have NO IDEA what anyone needs to do in order to stay up.

I've loosely got us finishing on ~33 points (assuming 10 points total deduction) but whether that will be enough depends on Forest's potential deduction, our appeal, our further charge, and then THAT appeal as well.

Just a terrible, terrible mess initiated by the idiots who run the league. The likes of Masters must be feeling pressure to resign. You have one of the biggest, most glamorous brands in the world, awash with money and adored around the world, and you reduce it to this entirely through your own hubris, arrogance and greed.
Click to expand...
He's doing exactly what the scab6 wants. Affecting a permanent internal division and glass ceiling within the football pyramid.
Outside of ourselves no-one else seems to be interested in combating it.
 
Tony’s Carp said:
Maybe we concentrated too much on it being “just” a sport case the first time. In some respects this is a sport-adjacent financial case so someone with a broader specialism might be able to argue detail of things like classification of stadium interest costs better than a sports lawyer.

It’s a mish mash of issues we’ll likely be raising (sporting / contractual / procedural / financial) so it’s probably better having the broadest range of specialism possible.
Click to expand...

Was thinking that. He's been involved in some huge cases looking at his profile. Hopefully his skill and experience works in our favour.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top