Initial 10, then reduced to 6 + 2 Point Deductions

[sbbefc]

No chance we would settle for a further three unless ours is on the same scale as Forests (and most reports suggest our 2nd is much less than both Forests and our own first). That's only one less than Forest got for an egregious 34m breach with all mitigations bar cooperation rejected.

We have mitigations of our own to argue, most notably double punishing years and possibly the scale, and I imagine we'll have cooperated ourselves more fully. Bearing that in mind only 1 less than Forest would be a poor result and an almost certain appeal.

I'd only accept one point for the second if it's true that the breach is much less than our first. Even then I think we should get a fine.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

There is no way on god's green earth we should accept any further deductions at all.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

That’s fair comment although at 3.5 they touch on two levels but you are right.

It's all pretty speculative, and they admit they are somewhat spitballing, but by bringing up this possibility of a "minor breach" category what they have done is leave the door ajar to the idea that not EVERY breach is a points deduction, as may have been previously implied. It specifically suggests a single digit breach may not be.

So very much something for Everton to latch on if we are in single digits, and reports do suggest the breach is lower than the first. Especially if there is appetite post-Forest to be a bit more lenient to avoid messy appeals.

It also strikes me (very speculatively / optimistically) that introducing this softer "minor breach" category, albeit tentatively, could be in contemplation of something they know is in the pipeline because it comes up somewhat a propos of nothing.

It certainly gives renewed hope that IF (big if) our breach is relatively small, it need not be points.

 

[sbbefc]

There is no way on god's green earth we should accept any further deductions at all.

All depends on the scale of the breach. If it's still 20m then they'll give us maximum points deductions. And in that kind of scenario it would show serious mismanagement of the club. I very much doubt we have though. But it is Everton.

 

[jazzy]

Am i reading that as though AL reckons nothing (or he doesnt see any points been suspended) - whch doesnt look good considering he pretty much said exactly same hing on 1st one lol

Good to see that Alan has no more if a Scooby than any of us

Who the hell knows what the sanction will be.

We know what the think it should be but given the wild inconsistencies between the 3 commission judgements no one can say with any confidence what the outcome will be.

Just win some games Dyche and our worries go away .

 

[ToffeeTim]

Unless they are extremely close to the process, no one can honestly predict what our punishment will be because they are making it all up as they go along.

 

[Ring master]

Good to see that Alan has no more if a Scooby than any of us

Who the hell knows what the sanction will be.

We know what the think it should be but given the wild inconsistencies between the 3 commission judgements no one can say with any confidence what the outcome will be.

Just win some games Dyche and our worries go away .

These calls are like VAR lol, depending how much you lose (Points etc) is depending on who you get. They should have the same people in a way on everything, so everything is consistent - not make it seem like some are good and some are bad

 

[Tony’s Carp]

All depends on the scale of the breach. If it's still 20m then they'll give us maximum points deductions. And in that kind of scenario it would show serious mismanagement of the club. I very much doubt we have though. But it is Everton.

The scale is all important and everything else is just guesswork really. As I mentioned above re this new "minor breach" anything in single digits I think need not be points, especially with other mitigations / cooperation.

Anything under 14 also creates an interesting situation where the total of our two breaches could still be less than Forest's one. I don't know if that would be formally considered but optically it looks pretty unfair if we are already on a greater punishment and get still more when our combined total is less.

Like you say, if our breach is worse than last time, with 40m seemingly to play with, I absolutely give up.

 

[jazzy]

Unless they are extremely close to the process, no one can honestly predict what our punishment will be because they are making it all up as they go along.

Even those close to the process , those who pore over the judgements don't know for exactly the reason that you have said

There is no binding precedent , there is no sanctions framework, they are indeed making it up as they go along

The lack of objectivity and consistency is a massive own goal for the PL and why I think a legal action against them could be successful.

 

[jazzy]

The scale is all important and everything else is just guesswork really. As I mentioned above re this new "minor breach" anything in single digits I think need not be points, especially with other mitigations / cooperation.

Anything under 14 also creates an interesting situation where the total of our two breaches could still be less than Forest's one. I don't know if that would be formally considered but optically it looks pretty unfair if we are already on a greater punishment and get still more when our combined total is less.

Like you say, if our breach is worse than last time, with 40m seemingly to play with, I absolutely give up.

Ah yes but they said sorry nicely and weren't sullen Scousers lol

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

All depends on the scale of the breach. If it's still 20m then they'll give us maximum points deductions. And in that kind of scenario it would show serious mismanagement of the club. I very much doubt we have though. But it is Everton.

The scale of the breach is immaterial as we should never have been deducted in the first place and we have already been treated disproportionately.

Take one look at the squad and tell me how we have gained an advantage as it is full of loans,frees and cheap transfers like Coleman, Branthwaite and Calvert-Lewin.

We didn't spend 200 odd million on two squads of players and they got less points than us for doing that rather than building a stadium for crying out loud.

 

[Ring master]

If we had basically around 40million to use, based on figures over the weeks by some that say 2 years were 65mil, surely any amount over that, has to be small for our 2nd charge. plus if we had any sense, we should have people actually somehow constantly checking amounts for everything - not just make it seem like its a last min check, as we have to have next years in by June, otherwise we go through this again very soon

 

[blue to the bone]

Unless they are extremely close to the process, no one can honestly predict what our punishment will be because they are making it all up as they go along.

I predict a riot !

 

[jazzy]

I predict a riot !

Quite possibly if we go down.

 

[Drico]

Am i reading that as though AL reckons nothing (or he doesnt see any points been suspended) - whch doesnt look good considering he pretty much said exactly same hing on 1st one lol

Myers's record is up there with that of the Esk.

On this reading, we're getting another 10 points deducted.