Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Tiger Tiger
26 Feb 24 14:17
Joined:
Date Joined: 14 Jul 09
| Topic/replies: 23,510 | Blogger: Tiger Tiger's blog
WALOFS

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  Previous 1 | 2 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 62
By:
Tiger Tiger
When: 26 Feb 24 14:18
Reduced to six points.....should have been extended to 15 imo.

PL chickening out.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 26 Feb 24 14:52
4 more for last season, back to 10.

Not that bothered except it's a farce whatever they do...
By:
The Dragon
When: 26 Feb 24 15:12
football is finished in this country total joke run by incompetent fools
By:
1st time poster
When: 26 Feb 24 15:15
if EVERTON had won last 4 games wonder if it would have stayed at 10 Devil
By:
The Dragon
When: 26 Feb 24 15:17
any reason for the change......  i guess not?
By:
LoyalHoncho
When: 31 Mar 24 03:32
This club is in deep trouble.  They dominate so many games but simply cannot get ahead in a match.
Calvert Lewin is a total passenger and big Branthwaite looks the part - an imposing presence and decent on the ball - but he gets caught out of position so often when running towards/facing his own goal  it is scary.
I don;t think Dyche can do any more than he is.  These players need to stand up and shoulder the load.
By:
barstool
When: 01 Apr 24 15:19
Sneaked last years accounts out last night while all eyes were on the City/Arsenal game.

Lost a further £89m last year (double the previous just done for). Club debt now £330m.

They have lost £255m over 3yrs. £105m is the max allowed in that time.

You can only think a higher points deduction is coming.

Clearly they don't give a hoot to the rules.
By:
LoyalHoncho
When: 01 Apr 24 20:46
When you face relegation and oblivion, and particularly the ire and cold fury of your fan base, it must seen very hard not to try and spend your way out.
The trouble is that the buys have rarely delivered.
By:
lurka
When: 01 Apr 24 22:27
I can't for the life of me see Everton getting a second deduction in the same season for two separate 3 year rolling periods. It would be manifestly unfair and they would likely win a legal challenge. The second deduction should only be applied next season. No other club will face two in the same season. The only reason Everton would is because they have changed to a fast-track procedure during the time they fell foul of FFP. That is not their fault.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 01 Apr 24 22:30
Why would they win a legal challenge?

If they appeal long enough, like city does it prevent future penalties too
as you need to apply them in different seasons.

No logic whatsoever.

Apply them as soon as they are proven.
By:
lurka
When: 01 Apr 24 22:41
Because the change to fast-track would result in the imposition of two deductions in the same season whereas every other club will have theirs applied in separate seasons. They would be victims of the timing of the PL's decision to change to fast-track. It would single out one club only for two in the same season and they would challenge it, likely win imo, the PL would prob be advised the same and will choose not to even bother attempting to apply it this season just to avoid it spilling over into next season and making a farce of it. In short, I don't think there will be a legal challenge because I don't think the PL will go there, that's how it will play out practically.

At no stage were the rules designed to have two deductions for two separate periods applied in the same season. The rules haven't changed AFAIK, only the speed at which the penalty is applied, but if that involves one club getting two in the same season purely due to the accident of the PL deciding to change to fast-track at the time they fell foul of FFP and thru no fault of their own then that is manifestly unfair.

If you can't see how two deductions applied in the same season to one club only but not the rest is manifestly unfair then I don't know what to say to you. They wouldn't be challenging the imposition of a penalty per se, only asking that it be applied next season like it would be for every other club or would be if the PL hadn't changed the procedure.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 01 Apr 24 22:43
So should other clubs get deduction off next season too.

I'm sure some court case will settle this, but your logic is flawed.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 01 Apr 24 22:44
Forest have 4 points off, for a different season to Everton.

It's a mess.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 01 Apr 24 22:48
Everton, who avoided relegation last season by delaying their punishment
could stay up because forest are punished more quickly whilst Everton lose points next season.

That won't stack up in any court.
By:
lurka
When: 01 Apr 24 22:50
If it's a mess then blame the PL for changing to fast-track. Overall it's a good idea as teams should be penalised ASAP. It is telling that Everton haven't been sanctioned a second time yet and there doesn't seem to be much talk about it happening this season (for the second time). Again, it would be clear unfairness to sanction them again this season for a second 3 year period.

Everton didn't delay their punishment. They were sanctioned under the old (slower) procedure. Forest have been sanctioned under the new one. To sanction Everton a second time this season would be ridiculously unfair.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 01 Apr 24 22:52
Oh yes it is deffo a mess and deffo their fault.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 01 Apr 24 22:53
To sanction forest and not Everton for same offence
in same time frame would be ridiculous
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 01 Apr 24 22:57
City have delayed their case too.

Should sanctions be applied together or if breaches are over 10 seasons would
you prefer punishment staggered across 10 seasons...
By:
lurka
When: 01 Apr 24 23:10
No, it wouldn't. If the rules hadn't changed, Everton would be sanctioned this season for one period and next season for another. Forest would be sanctioned next season (and prob the season after that too as it is almost impossible to fix things in one year). Both cubs get sanctioned in separate seasons for breaches in separate 3 year periods. That is completely fair and entirely within the spirit of the rules. Imposing two sanctions on one club only in the same season is a perversion of the spirit of the rules. I haven't seen anyone in the PL or media suggest that Everton are going to get sanctioned again this season.

City's case is completely different. The charges apply to the periods between 2009 and 2018, so it is all historic and doesn't apply to current periods. It is a much bigger case and will be challenged to the hilt by them. If they are found guilty they should have punishments applied retrospectively to each season unless the rules provide otherwise. I think they will lawyer up so much that the case will fizzle out over a number of years. I would like to see them demoted as it would send a message that the PL will not be used for sportswashing but that isn't going to happen in reality.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 01 Apr 24 23:26
It's not a sportswashing issue it's a cheating issue.

Sportswashing is separate issue.




Forest and Everton being punished for same offence
and punishments being applied in different seasons is a comical siggestion
befitting today's date.
By:
lurka
When: 02 Apr 24 10:27
It's not a comical suggestion. Applying 2 sanctions for 2 periods to one club in one season but not to others is a comical suggestion. Forest will likely be in trouble again next season if they stay up but won't have a second deduction applied in the same season.

Everton's statement in January after the second set of charges were levied states that there is nothing in the PL guidelines to prevent them being sanctioned a second time (but there is eg in the EFL rules). So, it is technically open to the PL to sanction them again this season but, as I said above, that would result in a legal challenge they would likely win and imo the PL will not go there, they will instead give reasons why a second deduction should be deferred until next season and let the 18th placed team challenge them if Everton stay up as a result of the deferment, hoping that that scenario doesn't arise, rather than face a guaranteed challenge from Everton that they are far more likely to lose.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 02 Apr 24 13:12
So city can have numerous sanctions in same season
and because Everton cheated more often than forest
it could relegate forest whilst Everton suffer deduction
next season instead.

It's comical
By:
barstool
When: 02 Apr 24 14:26
Clubs have had more than one points deduction in a season before, although they were not in the premier league.

What is adding to the farce, will be clubs appealing again so we may not know the final league table at the end of the season.
By:
lurka
When: 03 Apr 24 12:49
Yes, and all the other clubs could have had them too if they'd committed the same offences, nothing wrong with that. But if one club only can be sanctioned for 2 periods in one season (purely because of the timing of a rule change) whereas all the other clubs committing the same offences over two periods will have theirs applied over separate seasons - do you not see the distinction? You are asking for legal challenge there and there is clear discrimination against one club only, so you are very likely to lose and will be advised not to go there.

City's case is completely different in terms of scope, scale and timing. I don't think you can compare the two. I think individual sanctions should be retrospectively applied to individual seasons but the scope and scale of them might warrant a demotion or more current penalty too (if found guilty and if allowed under the rules). It won't happen but you are talking about a club who struggles to fill their ground elevating themselves to perennial CL money at the expense of others for years and declaring larger commercial revenues than the likes of Real Madrid and Man U while having a sponsorship from an owner associated company at a massive overvalue. They are also accused of making undeclared payments to managers and players over a number of years. Completely different to and much more serious allegations than clubs incurring current losses over and above the allowed max.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 03 Apr 24 17:23
No chance Everton would win a challenge.

Every chance other teams win based on Everton repeated cheating
is treated differently to forest sanction.

As for Luton, they didn't cheat so why
should they lose out to serial cheats.

Not sure law will look kindly upon Everton.
By:
nineteen points
When: 03 Apr 24 19:37
i hope not.they will get football done away with.
By:
lurka
When: 04 Apr 24 01:26
There is something seriously wrong with anyone who can't see the clear logic in how applying sanctions for two separate periods to one club only in one season is unfair.

The PL will be advised not to go there. It's not so much about legality but practicality. You are guaranteeing a challenge from Everton v possibly not having one at all and you have a solid reason not to impose it this season - clear discrimination against one club only purely on the basis of a rule change which you introduced. If Forest or anyone else fall foul two seasons in a row (which is very likely given the fact that it is very difficult to unravel in one season due to unmarketable underperforming players who won't get paid the same wages anywhere else, won't budge and if you sell them at fire sale prices or pay them a lump to leave it makes the current year loss far greater) they get one sanction per season but not Everton.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 04 Apr 24 11:43
Lol, no matter how many times you repeat your comical
idea of fairness to all Premier League teams, it just
remains comical.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 04 Apr 24 13:03
It's only the daily fail, but some interesting ideas
floating around...


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13271249/Premier-League-eyeing-ABOLISHING-points-deductions-introducing-NBA-style-luxury-tax-fears-stars-leave-rules-restrict-pay-Everton-Nottingham-Forest-lost-points.html

..
By:
barstool
When: 04 Apr 24 14:53
Everton are NOT being investigated twice in the same year for the same offence.

The rules are based on a maximum loss over 3 rolling years. EG years 19/20,20/21,21/22,22/23,23/24 so they are allowed 105m loss over19/20,20/21,21/22. Then a £105m loss over 20/21,21/22,22/23. Then a £105m loss over 21/22,22/23/24 and so on.

They failed to submit their accounts two years ago (cynics would say to avoid a fine and relegation) hence they are being done for two rolling periods this year.

They are not being picked on. If they had followed the rules and submitted their accounts on time, the six points (reduced to 4) they got this year would have been done last year.

This action is all of their own making.
By:
lurka
When: 04 Apr 24 15:40
I didn't say they were being investigated twice in the same year for the same offence. I said it is manifestly unfair that they might be sanctioned twice in the same season for breaches that occur over two consecutive 3 year rolling periods, while no other club will be and that it might arise purely because of a rule change. It is clear discrimination against one club only to do that and I don't think it will happen.

AFAIK the timeline is as follows - they filed accounts for 21/22 in March 23, which was on time. The PL raised a case against them shortly after (but it wasn't decided until November 23 when they were deducted 10 points initially). In or around Aug 23 the PL introduced a rule change that required clubs with a recent history of overspending to file accounts 3 months earlier than everyone else, ie by 31 December 2023 instead of 31 March 2024 for the 22/23 season. This applied to Everton and Forest and they both submitted accounts for 22/23 in Dec 23 and cases were raised against them very shortly afterwards. Forest's case for the 3 year period ending 22/23 has been dealt with, Everton's hasn't yet.

I have not seen any suggestion that Everton failed to file accounts on time. I'd imagine there'd be some reference to that in the judgment or even a separate charge for that. Can you quote a source for your assertion that they are being done for two rolling periods this year because they failed to file accounts on time?
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 04 Apr 24 15:57
Lol, still comical, impose it on last year, they are relegated.

They are likely obfuscating again, and if they have a good run
will want penalty this season to start next season on zero points.

Of course if they play poorly they may want sanction
next season.

Funny old game serial cheats fiddling the system.
By:
lurka
When: 04 Apr 24 16:19
Why would it be imposed last year? They only filed their accounts in March 23 which was on time? The case took a year to be finalised after that with 3/4 of the season gone. The procedure wasn't there to get it all done last year, that's why they changed it.

Leicester might have stayed up. Leicester who settled up with the EFL for breaches in the season they got promoted to the PL. Won a PL and FA Cup for the first time ever, got 9 years of PL money and a couple of years of CL/EL money too. Boo hoo, they can't have any complaints. You live by the sword.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 04 Apr 24 16:49
Lol that's the problem.

They faffed on obfuscating and the rules are now changed
because of that.

It will be their own doing to get 2 punishments applied
in same season, one for serial cheating and t'other
for serial obfuscation.
By:
Ell
When: 04 Apr 24 18:36
If the rules had been applied in a timely fashion Everton would've been relegated last season.
Then they would've faced another points deduction this season ending the season in mid table.
By facing 2 points deductions in the same season will leave them in the same position starting next year in Div 1.

Would also add the points deduction should be larger considering they're repeat offenders.
Also Leicester will probably be looking for compensation for relegation last year.
By:
lurka
When: 04 Apr 24 18:47
They filed their documents on 1 and 2 March 2023. They could have waited until 31 March but they filed them early. They sought to have items excluded from PSR calculations but that was declined and proceedings against them were initiated on 23 March 2023. The PL asked for an expedited hearing before the end of the 2023 season and made a preliminary application in this regard. That was determined on 31 March 2023.

"The Commission decided that it was unrealistic to expect these proceedings and any appeal to be determined in the current season – and that to compel Everton to attempt to meet such a timetable would run the risk of procedural unfairness. Conventional directions were agreed, with the substantive hearing to take place in the autumn of 2023, which would permit any appeal to be heard and determined in the 2023/2024 season."

Absolute nonsense about the rules being changed because Everton obfuscated. The rules were changed because the previous timelines were too short to allow the whole procedure (which took a full year in total on appeal) to be finalised before the end of the season. This is not Everton's fault, Everton actually saved the PL time by filing their accounts almost a month before the deadline and allowing proccedings to issue against them a full 8 days before they even had to file their accounts.

The PL changed the rules to bring the filing date forward and fast-track the whole procedure as a result of the shortcoming of its own procedures. The rules were applied in a timely manner under the then current rules. It is 100% the PL's fault if their rules weren't fit to have the matter dealt with before the end of the season.
By:
----you-have-to-laugh---
When: 04 Apr 24 19:14
They have been changed so it's done in same season this time.

That's what you've been whining about for weeks...

You want it changed again to penalise them next season

Lol, stop smoking the wacky backy
By:
lurka
When: 04 Apr 24 19:37
I don't want it changed. I don't care what the timelines are. I'm not an Everton fan either. But if you are applying penalties differently to one club only for one season only it's completely unfair.

The PL thought they could have a hearing and an appeal, which involve solicitors and barristers being instructed, heard in the space of a couple of months. They got a reality check and then scrambled around in the middle of a transfer window to have their own flawed procedural rules, which Everton complied with, changed. A transfer window where Everton could have significantly improved their position if they had known they might face two penalties the following season. The whole thing smacks of complete incompetence by the PL.

And stop making stuff up about Everton being responsible for the delay. Maybe read the facts of the case instead of spouting nonsense about it.
By:
scandanavian_haven
When: 04 Apr 24 19:47
they said on white and jordan Forest got off lightly because unlike Everton, Forest were more cooperative
Page 1 of 2  •  Previous 1 | 2 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com