6 + 2 Point Deductions

[kenada_blue]

Ours was dismissed because we had no proof upon which we could claim Richarlison was worth more. Forest have the sale to prove Johnson was worth more.

But it's very contradictory. You've a deadline to sell a player to stick within financial rules.... however you don't because you wanted more money.

If that's upheld it's that type of flexibility within most of the rules the PL set up that it becomes an opinion based punishment rather than a fact based one.

 

[Bluemersey]

The administration argument for no points deduction equal to or above 9 points is a valid argument that I think any IC will follow as our ruling set a precedent.

Saying there is no reason to not take off 9 or more points is as ridiculous as Forest saying selling Johnson later should be a mitigation as they got more money for him.

I think it's pretty safe to assume the panel will follow the precedent set in our ruling.

Bet you they don't

 

[arch stanton]

Ours was dismissed because we had no proof upon which we could claim Richarlison was worth more. Forest have the sale to prove Johnson was worth more.

this is one of the problems of these quasi judicial processes is that they haven't thought about the practical implications of the rules when setting them out. In real laws, there are guidance notes and then test cases in the high court that model the application of the primary legislation by way of precedent that becomes case law. Further secondary laws (Statuory Instruments) that week it further. These grifters are making it up as they go along to suit the narrative of the moment to save their own arses with no publicised framework.

 

[SLAVEN BILIC]

If Forest get away with the Johnson mitigation then it says to every other team that it’s ok to backdate transfers to cover P&S. it’ll be pandemonium.

 

[jonnyboy316]

Ours was dismissed because we had no proof upon which we could claim Richarlison was worth more. Forest have the sale to prove Johnson was worth more.

Yes although they played him putting any future deal at risk due to possible long term injury

 

[nsno-chris]

You don't see the fact that Everton were allowed to write off over £200m of debt compared to Forest's 20M in the same period as Everton having a sporting advantage??
Plus the fact that Everton were warned then subsequently still found to be outside permissable debts despite spending big on players like Beto.
Forest's charge is their first charge and should therefore be treated the same as Everton's , with a warning not to do it again.

L O L

How much did we give Udinese in the summer for Beto mate

 

[MikeH72]

Ours was dismissed because we had no proof upon which we could claim Richarlison was worth more. Forest have the sale to prove Johnson was worth more.

They played him in 3 games, one of which they won so that’s a quantifiable sporting advantage.

 

[RD2910]

They played him in 3 games, one of which they won so that’s a quantifiable sporting advantage.

Personally I think it's incredibly hypocritical. We spent ages on here criticising the 'sporting advantage' element yet now we pinpoint that particular section of Forest's expenditure/failure to recoup funds and say 'look, sporting advantage'. I really wish everyone would stop saying those words.

It's exactly the same as saying we got a sporting advantage from not selling Pickford, which is utter nonsense.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Personally I think it's incredibly hypocritical. We spent ages on here criticising the 'sporting advantage' element yet now we pinpoint that particular section of Forest's expenditure/failure to recoup funds and say 'look, sporting advantage'. I really wish everyone would stop saying those words.

It's exactly the same as saying we got a sporting advantage from not selling Pickford, which is utter nonsense.

Sporting advantage is literally the basis for them giving us a points deduction. That’s what they decided justified the sporting sanction. It’s the most important element of it. And the fact people criticised it doesn’t mean it isn’t now in reality a critical element of it, so of course it’s going to be discussed.

 

[RD2910]

Sporting advantage is literally the basis for them giving us a points deduction. That’s what they decided justified the sporting sanction. It’s the most important element of it. And the fact people criticised it doesn’t mean it isn’t now in reality a critical element of it, so of course it’s going to be discussed.

That's got nothing to do with my point mate.

 

[MikeH72]

Personally I think it's incredibly hypocritical. We spent ages on here criticising the 'sporting advantage' element yet now we pinpoint that particular section of Forest's expenditure/failure to recoup funds and say 'look, sporting advantage'. I really wish everyone would stop saying those words.

It's exactly the same as saying we got a sporting advantage from not selling Pickford, which is utter nonsense.

What on earth are you talking about? Did we reject any bids for Pickford and then play him? Has there been any interest in Pickford at all? What a nonsense argument, it isn’t remotely the same as saying that at all.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

That's got nothing to do with my point mate.

You said you wanted people to stop talking about sporting advantage. It’s the key element of the whole bloody thing.

 

[RD2910]

You said you wanted people to stop talking about sporting advantage. It’s the key element of the whole bloody thing.

Do you take everything so literally?

 

[RD2910]

What on earth are you talking about? Did we reject any bids for Pickford and then play him? Has there been any interest in Pickford at all? What a nonsense argument, it isn’t remotely the same as saying that at all.

The advantage was in being able to go over the limit while clubs who obeyed the rules couldn't. They didn't seek to boil it down to individual parts of Everton's spending, because balancing the upsides and downsides would be absolutely impossible, hence the unquantifiable element.

Johnson might well be Forest's mitigation argument, but I imagine the commission will just turn that down. They won't point at that part of Forest's expenditure as evidence of further sporting advantage. But you are doing that.

Mykolenko scored a goal. Sporting advantage. You're joining the people who have told me that.

 

[MikeH72]

The advantage was in being able to go over the limit while clubs who obeyed the rules couldn't. They didn't seek to boil it down to individual parts of Everton's spending, because balancing the upsides and downsides would be absolutely impossible, hence the unquantifiable element.

Johnson might well be Forest's mitigation argument, but I imagine the commission will just turn that down. They won't point at that part of Forest's expenditure as evidence of further sporting advantage. But you are doing that.

Mykolenko scored a goal. Sporting advantage. You're joining the people who have told me that.

Oh look, that’s exactly what Forest did.