6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Duncan’s Pigeon Loft]

Dear Mr Masters

Dear Mr French Policeman

 

[Goat]

I hope so, but what is to stop the prems so called independent panel watching our KC absolutely dominate the argument but then say we will still punish everton?

Not much I suppose.

Unless we could take it to an actual Court of Law, cos that would be a pretty short case.

 

[HowardsWay]

 

[Iana]

Did Spurs really have its pre-planning costs removed from PSR?

I don’t know I just like arguing the toss!

Seriously, Tipp Blue’s earlier post alludes to the notion that between PSR being introduced in 2013 and planning permission being granted to Spurs in 2016 their pre-planning costs were deducted from PSR calculations.

If that is the case then it has to apply for all clubs which Old Gwladys seems to think should only apply because Spurs had no PSR issues at the time.

 

[WestStandLower]

But I thought you said FFP didn't exist in 2011?

FRS is a long term accounting standard

It’s not irrelevant as each club must be treated in a consistent and equitable manner with regard to what is permissible to be excluded from PSR calculations.
Regardless of a club’s proximity to the PSR threshold the same policy must apply to all
clubs. If a club or clubs are allowed to deduct pre-planning costs from PSR prior to Everton’s case being heard then the same principle must be applied to us.

I am going to say this through gritted teeth .

Spurs we’re so far under any PSR threshold they probably didn’t need to worry too much but I am far from sure that it has ever been put in the public domain if Spurs were or weren’t claiming an allowance pre planning for P&S purposes

There is a comment in the written reasons that sort of suggest that there may well be a different convention when the development centres around an improving or redevelopment on an existing site. I have no idea if that’s correct but Spurs actually did redevelop on the old footprint

 

[malfosse]

So sad that the vast majority on here would rather shoot the messenger than come up with a counterargument.

Who appointed you messenger and why are you so bothered about what other posters think. You're unlikely to change anyone's mind, so why try?
The top and bottom of it is the punishment seemed to be delivered arbitrarily and was excessive.
Don't bother with a 1000 word reply mate because it won't change what I think.

 

[Lloydaldo11]

As we've seen with masters stuttering performance and the holes poked by Burnham and the FAB, its a case there to be made. My big concern is the case is being heard by a PL selected 'independent' board. We can win the argument and most likely will and they could still kill us off to suit their own ends.

Which of course we know is their MO. The issue is that firstly the optics of doing it once is one thing but pulling the same stunt for an appeal and a further charge brings more scrutiny and questions let alone legal ramifications.

If the club goes into admin, from a business perspective etc. I’m sure their is scope to claim loss of earnings following a defective ruling that leads to a club entering admin.

I’m no legal expert of any kind but if the club can’t go to the CAS on the judgement itself, it might be open to gross incompetence in the administration of penalties from a defective set of rules that led to the club going bust leaving staff wages and jobs at risk etc. a long shot but this is the scale of risk for the PL if firstly we have a good lawyer and secondly the PL fail to have the foresight of their decisions and the potential risk at play.

Probably wrong on a number of levels on the legal side but optics do count a lot especially for a brand like the PL where image is seen as money

 

[Neiler]

I hope so, but what is to stop the prems so called independent panel watching our KC absolutely dominate the argument but then say we will still punish everton?

This is the thing, what’s the point of having a top brief, if there is no standard to be held to in terms of punishment, essentially its Roman emperor justice.

Why a 10 point deduction? Just cause….

 

[Moomin]

I don’t know I just like arguing the toss!

Seriously, Tipp Blue’s earlier post alludes to the notion that between PSR being introduced in 2013 and planning permission being granted to Spurs in 2016 their pre-planning costs were deducted from PSR calculations.

If that is the case then it has to apply for all clubs which Old Gwladys seems to think should only apply because Spurs had no PSR issues at the time.

Spurs fans hate Levy and Lewis for not spending on players but they have run that club really well compared to what we have done these last 8 years.

 

[matty1878]

Which of course we know is their MO. The issue is that firstly the optics of doing it once is one thing but pulling the same stunt for an appeal and a further charge brings more scrutiny and questions let alone legal ramifications.

If the club goes into admin, from a business perspective etc. I’m sure their is scope to claim loss of earnings following a defective ruling that leads to a club entering admin.

I’m no legal expert of any kind but if the club can’t go to the CAS on the judgement itself, it might be open to gross incompetence in the administration of penalties from a defective set of rules that led to the club going bust leaving staff wages and jobs at risk etc. a long shot but this is the scale of risk for the PL if firstly we have a good lawyer and secondly the PL fail to have the foresight of their decisions and the potential risk at play.

Probably wrong on a number of levels on the legal side but optics do count a lot especially for a brand like the PL where image is seen as money

so we have a case we just have to be good at showing it?

 

[Lloydaldo11]

so we have a case we just have to be good at showing it?

I’ve no idea. I’m no legal expert but if we do have some super silk who doesn’t turn out to be another Robert steelhammer then I’m sure they’ll be going through the case like a stag do in Prague

 

[diggerdestroyer]

#sackrichardmasters

 

[Neiler]

This is the thing, what’s the point of having a top brief, if there is no standard to be held to in terms of punishment, essentially its Roman emperor justice.

Why a 10 point deduction? Just cause….

On this point, if the breach is an ongoing legacy issue, the commission has to dock us 10 points a second time, if not it undermines the legitimacy of the original commissions decision.

It’s why all eyes are now on the appeal. If that heavily weighs in our favour, how can the second commission be more sever for the same offence.

Like the Matrix this.

 

[WestStandLower]

I'm not sure a punishment at the hands of independent commissions will stand.

What if one commission gives clubs different punishments for the same offence?

I think and hope between them the lawyers reiterate that.

You make a good point but is has always been the case that at appeal a different or changed sanction will be awarded just as a judges will have tariffs to refer to but circumstances in mitigation will always be factorEd in

 

[malfosse]

To be fair, I have him on ignore, I saw people abusing him, I read the post I replied to and thats all ive read that he said, I have no idea what else he has said and I do not blanket support everything hes typed.

Don't worry, if you saw one of his posts then you've seen them all.