6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Osamabindiesel]

Can we sue Burnley for being cringe?

 

[banno]

There’s a few intangibles though I guess, which doesn’t exactly make for a strong case still…..
Arguments they could use are they abided the regs and had they not, they could have
A) beat us twice, gaining them 6 points and reducing the deficit to 4 points as we would lose also be 6 points worse off
B) only breached PSR 1 therefore only getting a 6 points penalty (putting them 10 points off is)
C) having improved the team beyond PSR limits, they could have won 3 more matches leaving them 2 points above us.
D) Argue that had we not breached PSR we wouldn’t have been so far clear and might not have beaten them twice or had some of the other wins or draws etc (assuming we did - cba checking!)


All very hypothetical / speculative, but just that’s the point, it’s hard to say what could or would have happened and likely why they are trying to sue.

Didn't our case say we gained no sporting advantage?

 

[RD2910]

Didn't our case say we gained no sporting advantage?

Don't start that again.

Sorry, sounded snippy. It said there was a sporting advantage.

 

[Yarrgh]

If we got Burnley relegated then the rest of the league should club together to thank us for getting rid of those weasels.

 

[Toffeeslam]

If we got Burnley relegated then the rest of the league should club together to thank us for getting rid of those weasels.

Absolutely

10 point head start and a further point for every missing teeth and misspelt tattoos the fan base is sporting.

The lads are horrible too

 

[catcherintherye]

Don't start that again.

Sorry, sounded snippy. It said there was a sporting advantage.

I said there was no intentional sporting advantage gained, and the alleged sporting advantage was so irrelevant it could not even be quantified.

 

[Neiler]

I said there was no intentional sporting advantage gained, and the alleged sporting advantage was so irrelevant it could not even be quantified.

Intentional or rather non - intentional is the key word the commission used - essentially we weren’t trying to be savvy we were just thick as bottled pig poo.

 

[RD2910]

I said there was no intentional sporting advantage gained, and the alleged sporting advantage was so irrelevant it could not even be quantified.

It said we didn't intentionally break the rules to gain a sporting advantage, and if it can't be quantified it didn't rule out the advantage being absolutely massive.

The poster asked if the case said there was not a sporting advantage. The answer is no, it said the direct opposite. You didn't need to make a song and dance about it.

 

[catcherintherye]

Intentional or rather non - intentional is the key word the commission used - essentially we weren’t trying to be savvy we were just thick as bottled pig poo.

Yes, they very clearly said there was nothing intentional at all.

 

[catcherintherye]

It said we didn't intentionally break the rules to gain a sporting advantage, and if it can't be quantified it didn't rule out the advantage being absolutely massive.

The poster asked if the case said there was not a sporting advantage. The answer is no, it said the direct opposite. You didn't need to make a song and dance about it.

Well the report said there was no deliberate or intentional attempt to gain a sporting advantage..I would say mens rea matters.

It also couldn't stipulate any impact of this alleged advantage.

Typically it someone gains an advantage, if one has occurred, you would be able to quantify it. It's interesting, and rather telling they were unable to do so.

They also explcitly said, there was no intentional attempt to gain an advantage. Those are the facts of the report.

 

[RD2910]

Well the report said there was no deliberate or intentional attempt to gain a sporting advantage..I would say mens rea matters.

It also couldn't stipulate any impact of this alleged advantage.

Typically it someone gains an advantage, if one has occurred, you would be able to quantify it. It's interesting, and rather telling they were unable to do so.

They also explcitly said, there was no intentional attempt to gain an advantage. Those are the facts of the report.

I think the lack of intent is completely irrelevant to Burnley's case, it makes no difference to them. They're going nowhere because, as you say, the judged sporting advantage is unquantifiable and they would need to quantify it.

 

[Librarian]

If so
Then if the officials make a mistake on the pitch and they don’t pick up on a mistake which is later acknowledged (like a shirt pull in the box)

Then potentially that costs a team 2 points you might sue for the value of those points at the end of the season?

 

[catcherintherye]

I think the lack of intent is completely irrelevant to Burnley's case, it makes no difference to them. They're going nowhere because, as you say, the judged sporting advantage is unquantifiable and they would need to quantify it.

Yes I probably agree.

Id also suggest, it's not Everton's fault that the Premier League, the de facto regulator chose to hear the case the following season.

But they also signed up to the rules to that point that said any infraction wouldn't be heard in the same season?

 

[Librarian]

Tell them to eff off

 

[Infernus]

I honestly fail to see how you could possibly prove in court that the only reason that you got relegated was Everton. It’s football, it’s a sport, there are far too many factors to consider. How this has even got this far is completely beyond me.