6 + 2 Point Deductions

[matty1878]

1) Leicester won a basic argument in front of an appeal ( well sort of appeal more a review) it’s extremely complicated but revolves around what counts as to what is deemed to be T1 ( the applicable ) year when clubs are relegated to or promoted into the EFL. The right to ask for a plan isn’t in dispute it’s the date upon which one has to be furnished. EFL wanted one in October but didn’t win the argument . Not quite sure why Leicester took the course they did you’d think they would have some sort of documentation cash flow

2) Leicester aren’t party to the 23/24 PL rule book but can only be charged and processed in accord with the 22/23 rules which didn’t allow for fast track hence which is why it’s not in season . Simply because the accounts now have to be in weeks earlier than the 1/3 date in that 22/23 rulebook . ( On the face of it they missed that filing date)

3) Leicester will be asking for a panel set up in exactly the same way as the ICs that heard the PSR cases , to be honest I am a little confused as to what they are trying to get a ruling on because for me I would have expected that to be a defence in the hearing

a
club with a board and directors and steady can do it

we have zero of it right now

 

[PITA]

If its a bigger breach than Everton, it will be a smaller deduction, standard the bar has been set every breach deduction must be less than Evertons

I hope that they are just £1 over. That will be the end of LCFC.

 

[Yarrgh]

Christ, where's Matlock when you need him?

He never lost a case in nine seasons!

He's tear the PL a new one and have it sorted in a week.

In an hour and that's including commercial breaks!

 

[PITA]

1) Leicester won a basic argument in front of an appeal ( well sort of appeal more a review) it’s extremely complicated but revolves around what counts as to what is deemed to be T1 ( the applicable ) year when clubs are relegated to or promoted into the EFL. The right to ask for a plan isn’t in dispute it’s the date upon which one has to be furnished. EFL wanted one in October but didn’t win the argument . Not quite sure why Leicester took the course they did you’d think they would have some sort of documentation cash flow

2) Leicester aren’t party to the 23/24 PL rule book but can only be charged and processed in accord with the 22/23 rules which didn’t allow for fast track hence which is why it’s not in season . Simply because the accounts now have to be in weeks earlier than the 1/3 date in that 22/23 rulebook . ( On the face of it they missed that filing date)

3) Leicester will be asking for a panel set up in exactly the same way as the ICs that heard the PSR cases , to be honest I am a little confused as to what they are trying to get a ruling on because for me I would have expected that to be a defence in the hearing

 

[PITA]

Must be Dave Prentice

He's got some tenuous link to Dixie hasn't he. Give him a break! Job for life. 'Slipper room' mentality.

 

[Neiler]

1) Leicester won a basic argument in front of an appeal ( well sort of appeal more a review) it’s extremely complicated but revolves around what counts as to what is deemed to be T1 ( the applicable ) year when clubs are relegated to or promoted into the EFL. The right to ask for a plan isn’t in dispute it’s the date upon which one has to be furnished. EFL wanted one in October but didn’t win the argument . Not quite sure why Leicester took the course they did you’d think they would have some sort of documentation cash flow

2) Leicester aren’t party to the 23/24 PL rule book but can only be charged and processed in accord with the 22/23 rules which didn’t allow for fast track hence which is why it’s not in season . Simply because the accounts now have to be in weeks earlier than the 1/3 date in that 22/23 rulebook . ( On the face of it they missed that filing date)

3) Leicester will be asking for a panel set up in exactly the same way as the ICs that heard the PSR cases , to be honest I am a little confused as to what they are trying to get a ruling on because for me I would have expected that to be a defence in the hearing

Thanks mate, 2. Seems ridiculous to me, Leicester, Forrest, Everton are all in breach in 22/23, yet only Everton and Forest can be processed because, Leicester weren’t in the PL when the fast track rule was signed up to by clubs - it’s ridiculous.

 

[DualityNSNO]

Thanks mate, 2. Seems ridiculous to me, Leicester, Forrest, Everton are all in breach in 22/23, yet only Everton and Forest can be processed because, Leicester weren’t in the PL when the fast track rule was signed up to by clubs - it’s ridiculous.

To be fair the whole process is a ridiculous mess of "making it up as we go along" anyway, so is this really surprising?

 

[PITA]

Thanks mate, 2. Seems ridiculous to me, Leicester, Forrest, Everton are all in breach in 22/23, yet only Everton and Forest can be processed because, Leicester weren’t in the PL when the fast track rule was signed up to by clubs - it’s ridiculous.

You're talking to a Chelsea fan and you use the words 'it's ridiculous'. Wow!

 

[Rita_Poon]

Christ, where's Matlock when you need him?

He never lost a case in nine seasons!

He's tear the PL a new one and have it sorted in a week.

 

[Neiler]

To be fair the whole process is a ridiculous mess of "making it up as we go along" anyway, so is this really surprising?

Not really mate, with every passing day and scenario though a new scenario is added where they haven’t a clue what to do and just make it up.

I’m utterly convinced now these rules were brought in with Mordor, Arsenal and Utd in mind to stop City and Chelsea, the great unwashed and various scenarios across the league/s.

I’m so curious to see how deep and blatant they can go.

 

[DualityNSNO]

Not really mate, with every passing day and scenario though a new scenario is added where they haven’t a clue what to do and just make it up.

I’m utterly convinced now these rules were brought in with Mordor, Arsenal and Utd in mind to stop City and Chelsea, the great unwashed and various scenarios across the league/s.

I’m so curious to see how deep and blatant they can go.

At the end Chelsea/City will get a monetary charge and 5 points at the beginning of the season and cry wolf for years anyway.

 

[WestStandLower]

You're talking to a Chelsea fan and you use the words 'it's ridiculous'. Wow!

There’s always someone that has to go all tribal.

 

[Neiler]

At the end Chelsea/City will get a monetary charge and 5 points at the beginning of the season and cry wolf for years anyway.

Think they have to do City myself mate. Don’t underestimate the power of Mordor and Utd.

 

[DualityNSNO]

Think they have to do City myself mate. Don’t underestimate the power of Mordor and Utd.

They will, but it'll be a relative slap on the wrist as they'll be definitely left for last when the process is actually written out, loopholes and all.

 

[Jacko93]

They did indeed try and claim the interest . On top of that they tried to claim £10 million in respect of player x , another chunk in respect of a levy on player trading claiming it should be counted and finally there was a claim about funds from player trading not generating funds in line with expectations

But my point was that they, Everton, were well within their rights to plead not guilty of exceeding the £105 m but unlike Forest who did it is very difficult to then convince any body let alone an IC working in accord with English Law to claim any sanction should be reduced

Not quite as I understood it. Evertons first PSR submission was (£85m). After a few months the PL returned with their figures explaining that they don't accept Evertons addbacks.
As far as I have seen, Everton only ever used the Player X argument as part of mitigation post charge.
From the moment we were told we had breached, our response was effectively, 'Well, when you put it like that...... I guess we have, however, consider these to reduce the level of which you accuse us of breaching.