Initial 10, then reduced to 6 + 2 Point Deductions

[bernie inn]

Right so you are trying to dey depsite me pointing out the section where they explicitly say a sporting advantage is inferred and that's why a points deduction is the only appropriate punishment why we didn't get a fine?

I never once said it was a deliberate breach. But we got a points deduction exactly because of the Sheffiled Wednesdsy decision. If they didn't think we got a sporting advantage they would have given us a fine... and the aggrevating factors would only have pushed the fine higher.

We didn't get a fine because our owner's rich as I understand it

 

[Lob]

Could the implication be when they get round to City and Chelsea they will be more lenient ?

Definitely. They can basically do whatever they want to do.

 

[Tramps_mate]

We can appeal but I think the PL will give us the "V" sign.

I'm fairly confident the points will be halved..

 

[gedefc]

Whats the score with the Appeal, anyone know when this is due for completion?

 

[ashwuk76]

We didn't get a fine because our owner's rich as I understand it

That wasn't the only reason. As I have shown we got a points deduction because of the Sheffiled Wednesday decision where a sporting advantage was inferred from an overspeed so only a sporting penalty is appropriate.

 

[RD2910]

Nope, every quote was from their official report.

Yes. You quoted from a section titled 'Sanction Principles - The Premier League's Proposed Formula'. This section begins with an outline of EFL rules, which is the part about 12 points that you quoted.

The report then goes on to refer to the Premier League's proposed formula, which is 'similar to, but different from' the EFL's formula. The commission specifically do not use the Premier League, or indeed the EFL, formula.

This section does not deal directly with the claim of sporting advantage.

 

[ToffeeTim]

Whats the score with the Appeal, anyone know when this is due for completion?

We don't know much other than it's expected before the end of the season. My guess would be that they will want it held before the last few games, because I can imagine the reaction if we get some points back (which would be entirely appropriate given the ridiculous punishment !) and it moves us out of the bottom 3.

 

[ashwuk76]

Yes. You quoted from a section titled 'Sanction Principles - The Premier League's Proposed Formula'. This section begins with an outline of EFL rules, which is the part about 12 points that you quoted.

The report then goes on to refer to the Premier League's proposed formula, which is 'similar to, but different from' the EFL's formula. The commission specifically do not use the Premier League, or indeed the EFL, formula.

This section does not deal directly with the claim of sporting advantage.

And as I've said above the PL don't currently have a formula or didn't when all this started. I belive one has since been baught into the PL which is why they tried to introduce it but the commission said thanks but no thanks we got this...

 

[Toffeelover]

Hammers insider Sean Whetstone says West Ham’s ex Finance Director Nick Igoe was one of a three-man independent panel that decided on Everton’s 10-point deduction for financial irregularities.

What happened to neutrality ?

 

[ToffeeTim]

I'm fairly confident the points will be halved..

It should be more than half the points back. Anything more than a couple of points for a first offence, on a technical accounting point, would be totally excessive.

 

[Tramps_mate]

It should be more than half the points back. Anything more than a couple of points for a first offence, on a technical accounting point, would be totally excessive.

I think they went in harsh knowing full well we will appeal it. Then they'll settle on 4-6 points..

 

[Jacko93]

The thing is and I stand to be corrected but City aren't being charged with what we were. They are being charged with inflating commercial deals for 9 seasons from what I can see and I haven't fully read what that means. But yes if proven how can it not have been a sporting advantage. And if you go by what the commission did to us in that monetary fine is appropriate due to how rich our owners are you can only assume in a years time Man City will be playing Sunday league.......

We all know they will change the rules to mean a maximum penalty of less than what we just got though...

A Number of people have made the claim that City or Chelsea will be playing in Norther Prem, or similar, but the points deduction will finish on eth season that they are given it. Like a life sentence of 300 years. If they get 500 points, it is simply a relegation certainty, then they start from 0 the next year in the EFL, win that and are back up evens with everybody to start again at 0 infractions.

The only way that they can do anything that will mean anything to City at all, is to make the charges across all the 9 years apply in and of themselves, within a year for each infraction.
Year one they did X, for that they will start the 2024/35 season on -30 points
Year two, they did Y, for that they will start the 2025/26 season on -30 points

Even just by doing that it doesn't condemn them to relegation, it just slows them down a bit.

 

[brieverton]

I wouldn't expect an appeal to be heard until well into the spring. Even if it could be held earlier The PL will want to see how the season unfolds and our place in the table. It's critical as I see things, that we submit as thorough and robust an appeal as possible, regardless of where we are in the table at the time it's heard.

I don't know what team of lawyers represented us, but I'd look at that too, with a view to change. The commission's rejection of multiple mitigation arguments put forward suggests an issue with how those arguments were presented and advocated for.

 

[mahermi1]

What I don't get is reading the report, the Premier league went against us at almost every point, the Commission didn't. What was the point with working so closely with the pl in the first place ? And how can they both say the Russia/ Ukraine war wasn't a mitigating factor ? Of course it was and any idiot could see that, we lost/ had to lose our main sponsor through it, the ground sponsor, £30m on approval, we has to give back, the £200m sponsorship itself and the FinchFarm USM sponsorship apparently worth £24m a year, ( started at £12m).
Considering we were only £19.5m over in the first place, that would well have seen us let off. That is unless the Pl and the Commission thought we could just stop the war at any time that is, silly me.

 

[Toffeelover]

I think they went in harsh knowing full well we will appeal it. Then they'll settle on 4-6 points..

I hope that would happen. But if they did the 3 "B"s would jumping up and down in protest.