Leeds, Leicester and the other small clubs.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Claims the 3 clubs are coming together to determine a case are rediculous.

If we are somehow adjudged to be the cause of Burnley’s relegation instead of us and ordered to give them £million, we can’t possibly be the cause of Leicesters relegation as we wouldn’t have been in the PL last season! They will have to argue amongst themselves as to which season we should have gone down. Can’t be relegated from the PL 3 seasons in a row.

Sort of hope we have to give Burnley a few million after the January window just so the other clubs have completely wasted money on legals.

Leicesters argument will be that if we should have been related the year before… we wouldn’t have been in the league when they got put down and a weaker, newly promoted team would have been there instead
 
Claims the 3 clubs are coming together to determine a case are rediculous.

If we are somehow adjudged to be the cause of Burnley’s relegation instead of us and ordered to give them £million, we can’t possibly be the cause of Leicesters relegation as we wouldn’t have been in the PL last season! They will have to argue amongst themselves as to which season we should have gone down. Can’t be relegated from the PL 3 seasons in a row.

Sort of hope we have to give Burnley a few million after the January window just so the other clubs have completely wasted money on legals.
Excellent post.
 
It’s a pity they look at the actual cost of the player in these rules and not the actual market value, because we well overpaid in the first instance and inc a lot of the players joined us their performances meant their market value finished further.
 
Leicesters argument will be that if we should have been related the year before… we wouldn’t have been in the league when they got put down and a weaker, newly promoted team would have been there instead
But where do you draw the line? I work in Claims, and there is a principal called remoteness of loss…basically, the loss has to be fairly close in proximity to the actual event which has created some loss….otherwise the chain effect would be endless.
 
Feel sorry for Forest.
After their performance yesterday it’s clear they need to buy another 40 odd players so hopefully they’ll get some money of us big spending blues…
The worst thing they can do will be to get rid of Cooper, he is a decent coach who has taken them from the bottom of the Championship and by all accounts if he did get the sack is just going to walk into a job at Palace who are a direct rival.
 
It’s a pity they look at the actual cost of the player in these rules and not the actual market value, because we well overpaid in the first instance and inc a lot of the players joined us their performances meant their market value finished further.
If the ruling is based on overspending then how much was spent is the only thing to look at.

Spending poorly doesn't retroactively justify or excuse breaking spending rules. Players losing value due to underperformance is not an unforeseeable event in football and should be took into account when making financial decisions.
 
If the ruling is based on overspending then how much was spent is the only thing to look at.

Spending poorly doesn't retroactively justify or excuse breaking spending rules. Players losing value due to underperformance is not an unforeseeable event in football and should be took into account when making financial decisions.
Yeah I know….it was a joke
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top