6 + 2 Point Deductions


I see “PL sources” have supposedly disputed Burnham’s letter where he makes the point about changing penalty mechanism in the middle of the process. Now saying the commission asked for their suggestion in August, and also asked the same of Everton, who suggested fine or transfer ban, which is as per the report.

First time they have defended themselves? They will feel they don’t have to defend the 10 points as they didn’t give us the penalty.

More pressure needed. Hopefully them allegedly breaking silence is a sign the criticism is hitting home.
Then the IC is contradicting themselves.
The PL rule book/handbook says that the IC has wide ranging powers in relation to punishments and sanctions in relation to a breach of PSR guidelines.
Why would the IC ask what the PL thought if they had complete autonomy to set the punishment themselves and which they argued vehemently about in their final report.
Andy Burnham is right to point out the supposed “independence” of the commission and the prejudicial process undertaken.

I hope a whistleblower has supplied him with some evidence of PL internal comms and fear of an independent regulator leading to this wholly disproportionate punishment.
 

Then the IC is contradicting themselves.
The PL rule book/handbook says that the IC has wide ranging powers in relation to punishments and sanctions in relation to a breach of PSR guidelines.
Why would the IC ask what the PL thought if they had complete autonomy to set the punishment themselves and which they argued vehemently about in their final report.
Andy Burnham is right to point out the supposed “independence” of the commission and the prejudicial process undertaken.

I hope a whistleblower has supplied him with some evidence of PL internal comms and fear of an independent regulator leading to this wholly disproportionate punishment.
Like any commission they can ask what the prosecution and defence feel is just punishment before coming to a supposed impartial decision.
 

Then the IC is contradicting themselves.
The PL rule book/handbook says that the IC has wide ranging powers in relation to punishments and sanctions in relation to a breach of PSR guidelines.
Why would the IC ask what the PL thought if they had complete autonomy to set the punishment themselves and which they argued vehemently about in their final report.
Andy Burnham is right to point out the supposed “independence” of the commission and the prejudicial process undertaken.

I hope a whistleblower has supplied him with some evidence of PL internal comms and fear of an independent regulator leading to this wholly disproportionate punishment.
It's bollocks.

When there is a breach of the rules it is the responsibility of the Premier League Board to lay charges against any club that breaches the rules.

In this case, the Premier League has a responsibility to outline what rules have been breached and suggest an appropriate punishment.

That is what they did. The irony is that the IC over ruled the PL and came up with a harsher punishment.
 

Welcome

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

Shop

Back
Top