@davek disagrees.Wish he’d just stop.
Whatever he says the opposite usually happens.
You couldn’t physically get this much wrong if you tried. You’d accidentally get one or two things correct.
Under The Lights
ORDER NOW
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
@davek disagrees.Wish he’d just stop.
Whatever he says the opposite usually happens.
You couldn’t physically get this much wrong if you tried. You’d accidentally get one or two things correct.
na i’m be back later to cry some more
“We do have a concern that it could potentially be too interventionist on healthy clubs, rather than being really laser-focused on helping the clubs that need it and that’s what we want to work with government [on] to make sure that … we’re providing that support where it’s required.”
But the EFL have this double jepody rule in place, so it's hardly looking to set a precedent...and the PL also want to change this lack of rigour in their own guidelines.I believe double jeopardy would relate to criminal cases, not civil cases, and was essentially scrapped in the UK in relation to the Stephen Lawrence case and following Macpherson Report. Besides, this isn’t a legal case, it’s a Premier League hearing or sanction.
I don't know anything about UK politics, but will any of the MPs who've spoken up for us be able to question him?
You omitted the possibility of another 9 points for admission in your "worst case scenario"Worst case scenario:
We don't get the 10 points already docked back.
We stay on 17 points at present.
We get docked another 10 points along with Forest, taking us down to 7 points.
17 games to play.
So what points total would we need to survive with a total of 20 points deducted?
I would suggest 34, as I don't see the present bottom three getting to that total (nor probably Forest if they get 10 deducted).
So, I feel we would need 27 points from 17 games.
Do-able? Just might be.
Anything less than a final total of 20 points lost improves the above situation...
This situation could also be seen as a display of authority by the Premier League, aimed at constraining the influence of the upcoming independent football regulator.
Some within the league view the regulator's impending role as an excessive intrusion into football affairs, possibly into the suspect actions that we fans have long suffered. It's possible that the Premier League is attempting to assert that regulatory authority needs constraints and that the league is fully capable of self-governance.
Premier League makes late attempt to reshape role of independent regulator
The Premier League has made a bid to alter the role of English football’s independent regulator, weeks before legislation is expected to be announcedwww.theguardian.com
Only time and tears take away grief.It’s 5:54pm
The PL wanted to adopt the EFL sanctions. Shocked they didn’t want to adopt the double jeopardy rules…..But the EFL have this double jepody rule in place, so it's hardly looking to set a precedent...and the PL also want to change this lack of rigour in their own guidelines.
I stated this...@davek disagrees.
i know but i love everton why is it always us
It’s 5:54pm
That isn't true though the club was informed by the Premier League that the PSR exclusions would not be allowed as far back as 2022. From the IP report.The downfall is, we have been punished for a previous charge after the end of the year we have just submitted.
We believed we were compliant in that previous cycle, meaning that we continued into the year just submitted unable to make any necessary changes to ensure compliance because it was unknown.
Your speeding example doesn’t really add up, the 3 year cycle more aligns with the rules that if you get caught speeding and go through a further speed camera on the same road within a certain timeframe, it is considered the same journey and you won’t get a double punishment.