To be fair, we should probably all get £10k a day for pain and suffering as Evertonians.
I’ve read all the new pages for today, but I can’t see anywhere just which 4 points we have back
I was at Burnley vs Arsenal the other week (don’t ask) and genuinely heard a few of their fans say “we’ve come up too soon, we weren’t planning this promotion so quickly”
Errrrr lads, youse out spent everyone in the championship.
They’re not bright.
USABlue
Player Valuation: £70m
You are massively naive if you think they're getting anything other than slap on the wrist fine and maybe 1-2 window transfer ban
Dixie D
Player Valuation: £6m
Brown on a full English & red on a bacon butty
Dixie D
Player Valuation: £6m
Dixie D
Player Valuation: £6m
uglykidjoe1982
Player Valuation: £500k
Suspended punishments are usually given to people of previous good character as a warning to keep in line. I can’t see how you can go from a 6 point deduction for a first offence to a suspended deduction for a second.
Dymak
Player Valuation: £40m
From my understanding, the report argues that being candid and admitting a breach is not considered to be valid mitigation. Clubs are expected to be candid in this regard! Whereas failing to be candid, or deliberately being misleading in order to bypass the rules would be considered an aggravating factor.
I feel this is relevant to the Forest case. I’ve just read that Forest will be provided leniency due to admitting the breach, but I don’t think that is accurate!
On the contrary, Forest’s admission involves deliberately choosing not to sell a player in a relevant accounting period that would have decreased their breach for that period. This decision exacerbated their breach for the relevant period, and it was a deliberate decision! This is an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one!
That’s before you even get into the fact that said player was was selected to play for Forest during the following accounting period. Surely to God, they won’t be getting away with that type of excuse. It’s nonsensical, and so easily dismissed!
I feel this is relevant to the Forest case. I’ve just read that Forest will be provided leniency due to admitting the breach, but I don’t think that is accurate!
On the contrary, Forest’s admission involves deliberately choosing not to sell a player in a relevant accounting period that would have decreased their breach for that period. This decision exacerbated their breach for the relevant period, and it was a deliberate decision! This is an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one!
That’s before you even get into the fact that said player was was selected to play for Forest during the following accounting period. Surely to God, they won’t be getting away with that type of excuse. It’s nonsensical, and so easily dismissed!
windymiller
Player Valuation: £50m
Ha ha. I play darts with a Notts County fan and I call you lot Notts Forest just because it drives him nuts. Glad to see it works both ways.
evertony
Player Valuation: £40m
Worth relocating for that alone.
