6 + 2 Point Deductions

Jcr1878 said:
Johnson played in 3 premier league games in the season before being sold, I don't think that argument has weight
Click to expand...
It should, if the PL were actually concerned about sustainability then a club if they can prove that waiting a few months before selling so they could get a lot more income, should be looked at as a sensible thing to do, if sustainability rules are forcing teams to sell at lower price by a certain date then the rules aren't fit for purpose. (Which we all know they aren't).
 

GrandOldTeam said:
Unless they reject mitigation, but say the penalty was too much.

Always felt it would be 4/less than half because the PL select the panel, brief the panel and will want to save face.

-6 points for £19.5m would set the criteria for Nottingham Forest and co, though unlike us who have had to carry -10 on our backs for most of the season, Forest wont have too.
Click to expand...
No way 2 boards can look at the mitigation we put forward and dismiss everything.. if we weren't building a new ground we wouldn't have breached as simple as that.. thats all that a board needed to be convinced of, surly Mr Shagger Silk could have argued this quite easly.
 
Tipp blue said:
It should, if the PL were actually concerned about sustainability then a club if they can prove that waiting a few months before selling so they could get a lot more income, should be looked at as a sensible thing to do, if sustainability rules are forcing teams to sell at lower price by a certain date then the rules aren't fit for purpose. (Which we all know they aren't).
Click to expand...
Completely agree, the rules are completely broken, Everton being deducted 10 points and dropping from 12th to 17th currently would result in a loss of over 10 million in prize money, that hardly helps the sustainability of a club.
 

Tipp blue said:
No way 2 boards can look at the mitigation we put forward and dismiss everything.. if we weren't building a new ground we wouldn't have breached as simple as that.. thats all that a board needed to be convinced of, surly Mr Shagger Silk could have argued this quite easly.
Click to expand...

You'd hope not, but then the first did.

If the second accept any of the mitigation, then I figure we're in the clear and it's 10 back.

It clearly should never have been a points deduction - and certainly not had points deducted pending appeal. Points should only be done when it's final.
 
efcste97 said:


if true, it'll surely mean forest get at least 6 for their 1st charge?
Click to expand...

I don’t believe anything any randomer on Twitter is saying

However, even though I’ve been vocal about us deserving all our points back, I think at this point I’d take minus six points and scrap the other charge just so we know where we are and can get on with doing what we need to do.
 
Tipp blue said:
It should, if the PL were actually concerned about sustainability then a club if they can prove that waiting a few months before selling so they could get a lot more income, should be looked at as a sensible thing to do, if sustainability rules are forcing teams to sell at lower price by a certain date then the rules aren't fit for purpose. (Which we all know they aren't).
Click to expand...
This was my initial feeling and I still dislike the idea that "small" clubs should have to sell their best players below market value to hit a certain number on a certain date, one which doesn't actually mean anything business wise other than in the PL handbook.

At the same time- there's no way Forest didn't know the numbers they were spending so it's abundantly clear they had a strategy of "sod it, we'll spend big now and sort it before the end of the financial year". That's totally valid (you "borrow" PSR allowance but pay it back before the end of the year) but the inherent risk you've accepted is that the market might not give you what you want for the players when you're up against a deadline.

Having accepted that risk I don't think it's valid to say "we didn't get what we wanted so we didn't sell". That's the exact game they played and the specific risk they took. If their IC takes a consistently hard approach as ours did I don't think it'll wash.
 

GrandOldTeam said:
You'd hope not, but then the first did.

If the second accept any of the mitigation, then I figure we're in the clear and it's 10 back.

It clearly should never have been a points deduction - and certainly not had points deducted pending appeal. Points should only be done when it's final.
Click to expand...

I couldn’t believe it when the points just immediately came off the league table before an appeal had been heard in the middle of a season. But then it ignited what had previously been a signed and sealed relegation battle and gave a load of jeopardy to a load more PL games throughout the whole season. So against that backdrop it made perfect sense from the PL perspective. Shaft Everton, get the viewers watching the product, ask questions about sporting integrity later.
 
James Roberts said:
i cant see it being announced this weekend due to the cup final but with no international break till March 18...there isnt a easy weekend.
Click to expand...
If we’re getting points back and Masters and co are going back on their verdict like knob heads then surely releasing it right now knowing it’ll get buried by cup final nonsense and how everyone loves Klopp so much is a great idea
 

Welcome

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

Register

Shop

Back
Top