Burnley Case

[JimmyJeffers]

Needs to become PM first.

He’s not getting my vote unless promises are made. The chub face scruff

 

[Simo]

Don't we have some sort of arrangement with a law firm?

View attachment 356637

Good point, but can't see them wanting to get involved. Sponsoring the stadium not the club, apparently

 

[PhilEFC]

Sick of all this. It’s not a sport anymore.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

It shows you how badly mismanaged Everton were. They thought they were in compliance and wanted to bank the fee for the next rolling 3 year period.

That's the irony of this all, these buffoons weren't even attempting to gain a sporting advantage. They were just so bad at their jobs that the club is still paying for it years later.

It does, but it also shows how absurd the rules are. If we’d sold Richy a day earlier (and who knows why we didn’t - to me it seems like something delayed it, rather than it being intentional, otherwise why do it on 1st July, why not later in the summer to draw in more bids?) we wouldn’t have breached… but it would have made zero material difference on the pitch, and NO impact on Burnley’s relegation.

It’s ridiculous.

 

[Username.]

Still fully expecting part of our fan base to find a way to blame Moyes for it.

Why and how.

 

[daza_1973]

The appeal should be for it to not be reduced but to be dismissed.

Burnley's whole argument is if me Auntie had balls she'd be my Uncle

In Burnley I reckon a fair few do.

 

[Groucho]

On this point the reason Chelsea was given such lenient outcome, was because it was the previous owners who had committed the perceived issues and therefore the new ownership couldn’t be punished for the sins of previous?? Am I right in thinking that??

Because the same is true with us, different owners and yet that again hasn’t been applied.

They absolutely love giving Everton a kicking. Even more insulting is they have done nothing with City in the same time they’ve bummed us to death!

Yes that’s correct, Chelsea’s change of ownership was cited as a factor.

So therefore, logic dicates that will also be the case with an appeal, even before double jeopardy is considered.

This is the Premier League however, and I’m not sure their particularly odd brand of logic applies to those who play in blue outside of London.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Is that the season we brought McNeil off them? Happy to take the cash then, the scruffs.

 

[pfim]

It does, but it also shows how absurd the rules are. If we’d sold Richy a day earlier (and who knows why we didn’t - to me it seems like something delayed it, rather than it being intentional, otherwise why do it on 1st July, why not later in the summer to draw in more bids?) we wouldn’t have breached… but it would have made zero material difference on the pitch, and NO impact on Burnley’s relegation.

It’s ridiculous.

Yes, the rules are/were stupid, but in this instance the timeframe is quite clear. And logically there's no way they would have chanced it if they thought they were in breach.

 

[gonetomorrow]

Can't we just give them Dibling?

 

[Librarian]

We can bluster all we like but there’s no way out of this one, the appeal will just be around the amount, not the verdict as the new panel won’t overturn the whole verdict and once you have concluded on the principle of the verdict then the amount probably stays the same

 

[toffeemeister77]

Brilliant.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Yes, the rules are/were stupid, but in this instance the timeframe is quite clear. And logically there's no way they would have chanced it if they thought they were in breach.

I don’t disagree. But the fact that the rules were breached is a different issue to proving a sporting disadvantage to Burnley… which to me is basically impossible with the rules structured like that.

If the cutoff was the start of the season, they would have a much better argument.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Burnley fans are all pissing themselves on Twitter

 

[Timhowardsswearbox]

Hahahahaha, has anyone suggested we give them one of our crap players yet?!