6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Rollo Tomassi]

It would have been back tomorrow, seems as the 2nd case starts tomorrow ish

This QC needs to go in swinging from the outset tomorrow with none of this meekness and rolling over and being delighted with the verdict that happened after the 4 points were given back.

He should threaten to sue them if they give us any points deduction at all which is what Forest did when 6 was suggested and they even got 2 points back for cooperating. He has had time to see all the paperwork from the latest
" independent comission ", this week and should be clued up and able to put forward a case which highlights how disgracefully and unfairly we have been treated with the initial charge.

If 19.5M = 6 points

And 34.5M = 4 points

Then we should not be deducted a single point whatsoever and should go straight to the courts if it is even mooted by those corrupt set of cranks.

 

[Richard Alex]

This QC needs to go in swinging from the outset tomorrow with none of this meekness and rolling over and being delighted with the verdict that happened after the 4 points were given back.

He should threaten to sue them if they give us any points deduction at all which is what Forest did when 6 was suggested and they even got 2 points back for cooperating. He has had time to see all the paperwork from the latest
" independent comission ", this week and should be clued up and able to put forward a case which highlights how disgracefully and unfairly we have been treated with the initial charge.

If 19.5M = 6 points

And 34.5M = 4 points

Then we should not be deducted a single point whatsoever and should go straight to the courts if it is even mooted by those corrupt set of cranks.

100% mate

 

[mikel_88]

This QC needs to go in swinging from the outset tomorrow with none of this meekness and rolling over and being delighted with the verdict that happened after the 4 points were given back.

He should threaten to sue them if they give us any points deduction at all which is what Forest did when 6 was suggested and they even got 2 points back for cooperating. He has had time to see all the paperwork from the latest
" independent comission ", this week and should be clued up and able to put forward a case which highlights how disgracefully and unfairly we have been treated with the initial charge.

If 19.5M = 6 points

And 34.5M = 4 points

Then we should not be deducted a single point whatsoever and should go straight to the courts if it is even mooted by those corrupt set of cranks.

I could only see them give us 3 going by forest then should be 2 off with good behaviour so down to 1. But agree really should be 0

 

[arch stanton]

This QC needs to go in swinging from the outset tomorrow with none of this meekness and rolling over and being delighted with the verdict that happened after the 4 points were given back.

He should threaten to sue them if they give us any points deduction at all which is what Forest did when 6 was suggested and they even got 2 points back for cooperating. He has had time to see all the paperwork from the latest
" independent comission ", this week and should be clued up and able to put forward a case which highlights how disgracefully and unfairly we have been treated with the initial charge.

If 19.5M = 6 points

And 34.5M = 4 points

Then we should not be deducted a single point whatsoever and should go straight to the courts if it is even mooted by those corrupt set of cranks.

the KCs job is to do as they are instructed Rollo, if the client instructs them to accept a dry bumming, thats what the KC advocates for

 

[Moderatelywarmwater]

We will survive because of what we do or don’t do on the pitch.

Start scoring, start picking up points

Oh, we’ll survive. But only because the bottom three are worse than we’ve ever seen before.
Provided we avoid administration, we’ll be fine even if we get another 4 points (not that I expect that)

 

[formerly manx toffee]

Oh, we’ll survive. But only because the bottom three are worse than we’ve ever seen before.
Provided we avoid administration, we’ll be fine even if we get another 4 points (not that I expect that)

I agree that these are the worst teams to come up and PSR will make this the same every year from here on in

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1) Leicester won a basic argument in front of an appeal ( well sort of appeal more a review) it’s extremely complicated but revolves around what counts as to what is deemed to be T1 ( the applicable ) year when clubs are relegated to or promoted into the EFL. The right to ask for a plan isn’t in dispute it’s the date upon which one has to be furnished. EFL wanted one in October but didn’t win the argument . Not quite sure why Leicester took the course they did you’d think they would have some sort of documentation cash flow

2) Leicester aren’t party to the 23/24 PL rule book but can only be charged and processed in accord with the 22/23 rules which didn’t allow for fast track hence which is why it’s not in season . Simply because the accounts now have to be in weeks earlier than the 1/3 date in that 22/23 rulebook . ( On the face of it they missed that filing date)

3) Leicester will be asking for a panel set up in exactly the same way as the ICs that heard the PSR cases , to be honest I am a little confused as to what they are trying to get a ruling on because for me I would have expected that to be a defence in the hearing

I thought I'd just nip in due to the Leicester case which is fascinating all told. To add to your points...

1. Correct albeit that is also about Profit and Forecast Profit Before Tax rather than mere Cash Flow.

2. Agreed. Albeit there seems to be provision to pass between Leagues if allowable. Question is how well it applies here.

3. The PL thing may take as long as it takes. Where Leicester are now potentially in danger in respect of the EFL Regs. These are quite real-time and specific plus they have an External Body who can sort matters within 4-6 weeks. The CFRP.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

In layman's Leicester have forecast a 3 Year Breach to this present season and the EFL have reacted accordingly.

Whether they now refer them to the external Body for adjudication remains to be seen. I'd say it depends on..

A) If they have forecast a straight up breach. If so they must refer ASAP.
B) If they have forecast remaining in line but only by selling no later than June 30th. Then Referral atm is less clear but the Embargo well no reason to remove that any time soon.

Embargo also prevents renewal of contract or at least Registration of such without EFL consent.

The Embargo is public. Some would say that damages the negotiating position of Leicester ahead of a possible June 30th deadline. I would say that it is a natural application of the Rules as they stand (EFL Clubs voted to make them public in 2021) and that Leicester have only themselves to blame for putting themselves in that position.

 

[maccavennie]

In layman's Leicester have forecast a 3 Year Breach to this present season and the EFL have reacted accordingly.

Whether they now refer them to the external Body for adjudication remains to be seen. I'd say it depends on..

A) If they have forecast a straight up breach. If so they must refer ASAP.
B) If they have forecast remaining in line but only by selling no later than June 30th. Then Referral atm is less clear but the Embargo well no reason to remove that any time soon.

Embargo also prevents renewal of contract or at least Registration of such without EFL consent.

The Embargo is public. Some would say that damages the negotiating position of Leicester ahead of a possible June 30th deadline. I would say that it is a natural application of the Rules as they stand (EFL Clubs voted to make them public in 2021) and that Leicester have only themselves to blame for putting themselves in that position.

I'm assuming you've also joined a Leicester forum and posted this there as it affects them yes?

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I'm assuming you've also joined a Leicester forum and posted this there as it affects them yes?

I tried a while ago funnily enough to join FoxesTalk. However I dunno I didn't succeed. The point by West Stand Lower I couldn't help but respond to.

 

[maccavennie]

I tried a while ago funnily enough to join FoxesTalk. However I dunno I didn't succeed. The point by West Stand Lower I couldn't help but respond to.

You didn't succeed why? To join a forum, any forum you create an account with an email address and username.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

You didn't succeed why? To join a forum, any forum you create an account with an email address and username.

Last time I checked I was barred from posting on there. Shall try again now.

 

[perth_blue]

Last time I checked I was barred from posting on there. Shall try again now.

What did you do to get barred from a football forum?

 

[GN!]

Yeah, that line of thinking makes no sense to me.

The Premier League generated a huge amount of extra buzz globally that season because of the extraordinary nature of Leicester somehow winning it.

It didn’t harm the Premier League brand. Quite the opposite.

I think i heard some podcast make the point that the PL made less money when Leicester won it as if to say its reasonable or right to make moves to protect the bigger clubs.

Sure, i understand that commercial realities need to be addressed but i can't get my head around this mindset. whilst there will always be big market strong rich teams and smaller teams the league needs both for this thing to work the clubs themselves need paying fans buying tickets, gear et al, this is done on the assumption that one day it will be their turn to lift trophies but closing shop might look great on the profit and loss but is it the best for the game.

I remember a conversation I had with a mate who supports west ham I asked if it was the only chance to get a trophy and have that day you see the club lifting the trophy and that day of celebration would you accept going down to the championship to do that? Beacuse it is looking like it will be the only chance we'll ever see it.

It goes without saying that money makes the world go around I know this, but I guess the question is how much is enough. It's not like the league is struggling financially. I also understand that rich clubs want to protect their interests and think they should be able to use the resources they have, but to hamstring the smaller clubs even more than they already do is the wrong way.

Taking the purpose of PSR on face value (to protect clubs for going bust) surely the right thing is to is to shift the burden on the owners maybe;
-Guarantees
-Charges
-Escrow deposits
-monitoring and financial performance management if club fall below guidelines (correctly and consistently calculated)

 

[GN!]

This QC needs to go in swinging from the outset tomorrow with none of this meekness and rolling over and being delighted with the verdict that happened after the 4 points were given back.

He should threaten to sue them if they give us any points deduction at all which is what Forest did when 6 was suggested and they even got 2 points back for cooperating. He has had time to see all the paperwork from the latest
" independent comission ", this week and should be clued up and able to put forward a case which highlights how disgracefully and unfairly we have been treated with the initial charge.

If 19.5M = 6 points

And 34.5M = 4 points

Then we should not be deducted a single point whatsoever and should go straight to the courts if it is even mooted by those corrupt set of cranks.

Is Forest's $34.5m after addbacks and allowances? I can't seem to find information on that.

Also, the "less than forthcoming" accusation was retracted in the appeal wasn't it?