6 + 2 Point Deductions


From my understanding, Everton never actually admitted guilt. They admitted they were 19.5 million over or whatever the figure was but they presented several legitimate reasons for it which would have comfortably brought them back within. The PL however rejected and ignored every claim, charged them and then painted it as if we had admitted it all. They have been controlling the narrative and who and what gets reported what ever since.

If the appeal board comes to a decision that the reasons for being over were legitimate, then it would mean that there has been no breach and all charges dropped, at least on the first charge anyway.

Having said that, the legitimacy and independence of the appeal board is very questionable when you consider that it was chosen and briefed by the PL themselves and you would have to assume that they get paid by them too. Makes a mockery out of the whole process once again. Kangaroo courts is the term i would use as it has more in relation to what has been going on.

We did aknowledge we breached didn’t we, albeit unintentional.
 
Last edited:
We did aknowledge we breached didn’t we, albeit unintentional.
We said that we didn't breach and submitted mitigating factors to confirm the accounts were all fine. They chose to reject all of the mitigating factors and hence we had to acknowledge it but disagreed with them. In other words, It is not a clear cut admission of guilt as the PL and their media puppets would have everyone believe. The whole appeal will have been arguing that no breach occurred and the decision was wrong etc.
 

We said that we didn't breach and submitted mitigating factors to confirm the accounts were all fine. They chose to reject all of the mitigating factors and hence we had to acknowledge it but disagreed with them. In other words, It is not a clear cut admission of guilt as the PL and their media puppets would have everyone believe. The whole appeal will have been arguing that no breach occurred and the decision was wrong etc.

I think we admitted the breach, albeit unintentionally and presented the mitigating factors mate. The dispute between the parties was the extent of the breach in the end.
 
We said that we didn't breach and submitted mitigating factors to confirm the accounts were all fine. They chose to reject all of the mitigating factors and hence we had to acknowledge it but disagreed with them. In other words, It is not a clear cut admission of guilt as the PL and their media puppets would have everyone believe. The whole appeal will have been arguing that no breach occurred and the decision was wrong etc.

Here you go mate. Thought I’d imagined there for a second. ;)

 
We said that we didn't breach and submitted mitigating factors to confirm the accounts were all fine. They chose to reject all of the mitigating factors and hence we had to acknowledge it but disagreed with them. In other words, It is not a clear cut admission of guilt as the PL and their media puppets would have everyone believe. The whole appeal will have been arguing that no breach occurred and the decision was wrong etc.
The club admitted a breach but disagreed about the calculation as well as arguing for mitigating factors.
 

Top