6 + 2 Point Deductions

We don’t know what the breach is though yet.

We thought we were only like 8/9m over. The PL decided we were 19m over. But didn’t tell us that until after the end of the next financial year.

We may have worked to get it scraping under and reduced by 10m to meet our calculations but because the PL decided we were more, we are then 10m over again.

So it’s already flawed because we potentially did work to resolve the previous breach of what we believed it to be. As we have already been found to have acted in good faith, it would be a mockery to punish us in the same way again.

Saying this, we could be 100m over and that also wouldn’t shock me with our owners.
This is the exact issue for me. Did we in good faith believe we were under only to be subsequently adjusted? Because it makes no sense to me if we knew we were over and took no evasive action like selling players before the deadline.
 
I appreciate your feedback and agree with much of your post Chieftain. On your final point however I must correct you on your confusion regarding my envious feelings towards Matty1878.

Calling someone blissfully ignorant is not asserting a judgement on their intelligence. History is full of people who may well have been very intelligent individuals but were ultimately ignorant to the reality of a given situation (Neville Chamberlain's appeasement towards the existential threat of Adolf Hitler being a notorious example of that).

I do not wish for an apology as I know you made an honest mistake in your assessment. I do find it ironic however those who agreed with your misunderstanding, will often themselves "poke fun" at our Matthew and make him the topic of a joke. Hypocrisy is often the name of the game.lol

I think that you are having trouble making sense of the construction of your own words and sentences. Accusing somebody of blissful ignorance is a judgement on them, and an accusation that they ignore things that they should know. Other text in my response simply points out why people may be unaware of given themes. You further compound this rudeness through a suggestion that you are not ignorant of the situation due to your own level of self belief in your intellect. I suggest that you apportion a section of your intelligence to understanding the power of words and inference.

Your envious position towards the other poster was not put across as you wanting to be unware of a given situation, but rather that your interest in these displays a higher level of intellect that you wish you could return from. To conclude that any interest in any theme is a measure of intellect is ridiculous notion, and simply not true.

You'll not be getting an apology from me, as I made no mistake. Your words were very clear. If you never meant that, and you simply used the wrong words to make your point, an apology to the poster would likely resolve that.
 

I think that you are having trouble making sense of the construction of your own words and sentences. Accusing somebody of blissful ignorance is a judgement on them, and an accusation that they ignore things that they should know. Other text in my response simply points out why people may be unaware of given themes. You further compound this rudeness through a suggestion that you are not ignorant of the situation due to your own level of self belief in your intellect. I suggest that you apportion a section of your intelligence to understanding the power of words and inference.

Your envious position towards the other poster was not put across as you wanting to be unware of a given situation, but rather that your interest in these displays a higher level of intellect that you wish you could return from. To conclude that any interest in any theme is a measure of intellect is ridiculous notion, and simply not true.

You'll not be getting an apology from me, as I made no mistake. Your words were very clear. If you never meant that, and you simply used the wrong words to make your point, an apology to the poster would likely resolve that.
@ForeverBlue92 in other words don't be a belllend
 
Any news on if the others at risk will now get away scot free?
Pretty sure they said that any clubs with an ongoing case will be under previous rules. So us, Forest and City.

Kieran Maguire has done a rough estimate of how clubs currently stand if the new rules were in place. We would be fine but quite a few clubs would be in danger of breaching. This is based on the latest accounts though so will be different by the time the new rules come in (if they do).

 

Pretty sure they said that any clubs with an ongoing case will be under previous rules. So us, Forest and City.

Kieran Maguire has done a rough estimate of how clubs currently stand if the new rules were in place. We would be fine but quite a few clubs would be in danger of breaching. This is based on the latest accounts though so will be different by the time the new rules come in (if they do).


Surely it should also cover any breaches up until the new rules begin. So anyone who breaches current rules this season as well should still be done under current rules.
 
Cos it suits 95% of owners in this league if they don't have to spend their own money.

These new rules also leave 30% on the table each season for them to spirit away to their bank accounts.
Exactly, plus there are a lot of owners of clubs that are never going to compete, and knowing that the average football fan will never bother to look up who voted for what rules, they can deflect a ton of criticism by blaming the rules for their own lack of investment.
 

Top