6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Fralahna]

Here’s the Burnley take:

So, in brief:

Season 1: Spend more than the rules allow to stay up at the expense of Club X, who are playing by the rules.
Season 2: again spend more than the rules allow, this time to purchase players from the club X (such as Dwight McNeil), at reduced rate as their players wish to stay in the tope tier.
Season 3: Upon club X's return to the division, utilise your squad (bolstered by years of financial rule breaking) to beat them home and away, gaining the six points required to negate the punishment from all previous rule breaking.

I give you the English Premier League - Where cheats prosper.

Whys this bell calling themselves Club X, then specifying McNeil as a player. Who's he trying to impress.

Also yeah, we've breached and been punished. We aren't disputing that. Its the level of the punishment. To say we have prospered shows they no nothing about what is going on at Club A... I mean Everton

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

As I understand it:

Initial breach, 6 point penalty.

Second breach takes into account 2/3 of the initial breach, which has now been solidified and confirmed.

You cannot expect that 2/3 to be punished again, so it's the 1/3 of it that will be looked at and judged.

Unless we just happened to have massively overspend by about £20m on that season alone that hasn't been accounted for, seems implausible that anything more than 2-3 point deduction could be awarded for second breach.

Yes technically they could still look at that 2/3 timeframe and take it into account, but that's been punished now and it must surely boil down to the remaining season that's yet to be judged.

What with Forest having gone about 5x over versus how much we went over, they're almost certainly getting bummed to oblivion - the precedent has now been set.

Bummed to oblivion is an under utilised phrase in legal circles. I salute you sir.

 

[Marius57]

It was 6 this time with 2 acceptable mitigations, will those mitigations stand up a 2nd time?

But they dismissed the mitigations. We got points back due to errors in law and the severity of the initial punishment.

 

[cantlivewithem]

Gow's point makes no sense. Firstly we have not been cleared of the first 'murder', and secondly the second 'murder' is essentially the same as the first.

Agreed, its like saying you have been convicted of 3 murders and then you have been found to have murdered someone else a year later so you get charged with that murder and two out of the three previous ones again

 

[RD2910]

It was 6 this time with 2 acceptable mitigations, will those mitigations stand up a 2nd time?

One mitigation, the fact that the 2021/22 losses were much lower, but it wasn't given much weight at all.

 

[edge]

Comparing a rule breach with a murder is not what I would call sensible

Bit of a mute piont anyway you can't be found quilty for the same murder twice

 

[Exeter_Gently]

So new 6 points deduction imminent?

No one knows...just like no one knew whether points where coming back,So stay tuned coz this looks like its going to be the hot new argument on here.

 

[DanB90]

It does my head in that people post this sort of stuff, we have a 2nd charge pending and the IC says any breach should ONLY BE A POINTS DEDUCTION....



This guy seems to be more level headed and a bit more clued up on the subject.

Know what does my head in more?

People posting doomsday scenarios every waking minute of the day.

 

[allen]

It does my head in that people post this sort of stuff, we have a 2nd charge pending and the IC says any breach should ONLY BE A POINTS DEDUCTION....



This guy seems to be more level headed and a bit more clued up on the subject.

That’s some professional grade nonsense.

If we really must make an utterly bizarre comparison to murder, it’d be a triple murder where we’ve already been sentenced for two of them.

Of course double jeopardy should apply.

 

[WestStandLower]

We know how it works fella.

In those figures are transfers in Onana , Garner etc are on 5 year contracts so the figures are skewered on both ins and outs due to amortisation. Just like your 8 year contracts no ?

But still the overall trading is a very healthy profit plus the termination of some very hefty contracts . I can't see the club can do any more than this.

Do you think then that the £67.7 million figure in respect of player trading profit will be less, the same or greater in the 22/23 accounts?

Neiler

Here’s the relevant section re loans


From UEFA site.
Loan of a player from the lender club to the new club with an unconditional obligation to buy
a) The loan must be reflected by the lender club as a permanent transfer and the player’s registration rights must be derecognised from its intangible assets. The proceeds from the loan and from the future permanent transfer must be recognised from the inception of the loan agreement.
b) The direct costs of the loan and the future permanent transfer for the new club must be recognised by the new club in accordance with the accounting requirements for permanent acquisition of a player’s registration

Loan of a player from the lender club to the new club with a conditional obligation to buy
a) If a condition is considered to be virtually certain, then the player’s registration must be recognised by both clubs as a permanent transfer from the inception of the loan agreement.
b) If the fulfilment of a condition cannot be assessed with sufficient certainty to trigger the permanent transfer from the inception of the loan, then the player’s registration must be recognised first as a permanent transfer.

Admittedly it’s the UEFA but my understanding is that the PL rule mirrors this requirement

 

[ToffeeTim]

Bit of a mute piont anyway you can't be found quilty for the same murder twice

Nor does committing one murder put you on a path that makes it very difficult not to commit another

 

[Walken]

Do you think then that the £67.7 million figure in respect of player trading profit will be less, the same or greater in the 22/23 accounts?

Neiler

Here’s the relevant section re loans


From UEFA site.
Loan of a player from the lender club to the new club with an unconditional obligation to buy
a) The loan must be reflected by the lender club as a permanent transfer and the player’s registration rights must be derecognised from its intangible assets. The proceeds from the loan and from the future permanent transfer must be recognised from the inception of the loan agreement.
b) The direct costs of the loan and the future permanent transfer for the new club must be recognised by the new club in accordance with the accounting requirements for permanent acquisition of a player’s registration

Loan of a player from the lender club to the new club with a conditional obligation to buy
a) If a condition is considered to be virtually certain, then the player’s registration must be recognised by both clubs as a permanent transfer from the inception of the loan agreement.
b) If the fulfilment of a condition cannot be assessed with sufficient certainty to trigger the permanent transfer from the inception of the loan, then the player’s registration must be recognised first as a permanent transfer.

Admittedly it’s the UEFA but my understanding is that the PL rule mirrors this requirement

It's your understanding it would be the worst case scenario for us? Of course it is sunshine

 

[Groucho]

This is interesting. Does it mean that they will ignore the amounts being over in the first two years of this period and only ask if we are over by more than 35m in the third year ??

If so how far are we over in year 3 this time ?

No idea mate, I wanted answers not questions

 

[Azza]

Any news on the points deduction?

 

[bag a yoko]

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!

The whole thing is nonsense. I dont wish any extra deductions on Forest.
How can the PL say they broke PL rules when they werent in the PL?