Initial 10, then reduced to 6 + 2 Point Deductions

[matty1878]

Fake account.

i would have a
break down if it was real!

 

[Tony’s Carp]

i would have a
break down if it was real!

You mean this isn't the breakdown?

 

[Walken]

Don’t get upset fella.

I'm permanently upset, I'm one gaslighting financial expertise post away from changing my name to Matty1879

 

[matty1878]

You mean this isn't the breakdown?

oh knowhere near!

 

[matty1878]

I'm permanently upset, I'm one gaslighting financial expertise post awat from changing my name to Matty1879

lol lol lol lolm

 

[matty1878]

my RS mate saying he’s got sent it and laughing saying you blue sheet can’t add you thick twits



hate them!

 

[John BCN]

People need to read the actual information that’s out there on the breach and the views of the commission. We have absolutely zero chance of getting all ten points back. Zero. We have admitted to the breach for starters so we have clearly broken some rules.

What we will be doing is arguing for mitigation to reduce the points penalty. However contrary to what people are saying, we don’t have much room for manoeuvre. Our best bet is is going down the road that the punishment is overly harsh. The precedent used against us was from the EFL and Sheff Wed. They got 12 points reduced to 6 on appeal.

Arguing the stadium costs shouldn’t be included ain’t gonna wash. That only accounted for £2.2 million and we were apparently just over £20 million above allowed. Also the loan we are arguing about in terms of interest payments was from Metro Bank. If you read this loan application (which the commission has) it clearly states “not to be used for the stadium”. So this just won’t work.

Best case is we say it’s too harsh for a first time offence and get it reduced to five. We will then need to be clear of the bottom three at the end of season. The second breach will probably take two further points from us.

Only £2.2 million for the stadium costs issue? Seems very low. Do you have a source for that? (Genuine question).

 

[COYBL25]

You mean this isn't the breakdown?

As we`ve witnessed over the past couple of seasons, this is nowhere near the peak.

 

[matty1878]

The reasons we gave for breaching aren’t likely to get us off.

One of the reasons we gave was to quote “well we needed a midfield”.
The loan application also stated that that loan wasn’t for the stadium but for the club. potentially for transfers/wages. Meaning that it went against us as we couldn’t argue against what was written down.

they don’t know if it was or wasn’t if we said the “club”

 

[matty1878]

As we`ve witnessed over the past couple of seasons, this is nowhere near the peak.

 

[matty1878]

40 million pre planning approval....... nothing to do with interest nothing to do with midfielders... it was money that had to be spent in order to get planning for the stadium..

so do we need to show this?
or just say this?

 

[COYBL25]

This is the just the starter before the main course.

 

[MikeH72]

You mean this isn't the breakdown?

That was yesterday when he claimed Stelios Giannokopoulos was taking over our catering department.

 

[matty1878]

That was yesterday when he claimed Stelios Giannokopoulos was taking over our catering department.

he is!

 

[kenada_blue]

Heard a lot of pundits , ex players taking about the clubs voted for this including Sam matterface on talkSPORT yesterday. I’m sure if the 10 point penalty was part of the voting, it would have never got through, even 5 points. Most likely the clubs would have voted for a fine, transfer ban, 2nd offence maybe 5 points

They voted for the idea they presented. As it went on most of the clubs started to feel it doesn't really work.

Hence they they're changing the rules and the whole P&S will be removed for something that aligns with uefa.

The whole "the clubs voted for it" line is spat out as an argument to say "it's what they wanted so suck it up" when it's completely not the point.