Wsl

But then you'd miss them all running to the other side so that the arrows carried on pointing the right way! This is brilliant, and I needed a laugh. Thanks.

We argued for a points deduction all the way from referring the initial EFL decision right up until the night before closing submissions in front of the Commission. Only then did we switch our case and argue that a fine would be the only available sanction. Again, I can't do better than to set out what the Appeal Board said: LCFC’s initial position on sanction in these proceedings was that the only appropriate sanction for breach of the P&S Rules would be a points deduction on its return to the Premier League and that a fine would be “unfair and unreasonable”. It maintained this position until the night before closing submissions and did not amend its pleading even then. Nevertheless, it was permitted to argue that a fine was appropriate and both parties were permitted by the Commission to make submissions as to how the fine should be calculated". Unfortunately for us, the Commission decided that it did have the power to recommend to the EFL a points deduction by way of sanction, and that a points deduction was the correct sanction in the circumstances. Only because we raised an argument that there was no power to impose a points deduction and it therefore had to be a fine did the Commission set out and explain its view of the right way to go about calculating an appropriate fine, should the EFL be unwilling or unable to give effect to the Commission's recommendation to deduct points. The Appeal Board rejected our appeal on this ground and confirmed that the Commission had the power to recommend a points deduction. So it was never a case of us being able to choose to take a fine, but we did argue a points deduction was the right approach to begin with.

I keep forgetting that James McCarron was due to start work by now, so I'm guessing he will/should have a huge influence over who comes in. But I can't think much further than "what the hell possessed him to join us?" Still find it strange. But what are the odds on it being Steve Bould or Lee Johnson, given their connections to McCarron?

We were lucky; ordinarily you'd expect a sanction (even if small) for each breach. And it was a miracle we didn't get hit with a points uplift for aggravation. And the Appeal Board agree with you that it was a ridiculous stand - Mr Segan submitted that this was a serious breach of the disclosure obligation. We agree. As the Commission put it, it involved LCFC’s “repeated refusal to provide information reasonably sought by the PL [which was] capable of prejudicing the effective and timely operation of the disciplinary process”, a process which concerned “a serious breach by [the Club] of the P&S Rules” which warranted “an immediate points deduction in the current season”. When refusing to disclose the Accounts, LCFC must have known that disclosure would confirm the P&S Rules breach; such a refusal to disclose Accounts is egregious misconduct by a Club; and the Club advanced no positive reason for the refusal “other than its deference to its [undisclosed] legal advice” . But the PL also argued that the failure to disclose the accounts was part and parcel of the same conduct that led to the PSR breaches, which left an open door for the Appeal Board to say, yup, and as such the Commission were entitled to treat the non-disclosure breach as aggravating the P&S Rule breaches, rather than imposing a separate sanction for it. It also meant that if the 6 points gave credit for an improving financial situation, also included and rolled up into it the serious failure to produce accounts to the PL and didn't add anything for non-cooperation, our appeal never stood a chance. As many on this forum have noted, on that basis, we were lucky it was just 6.

I don't know where this is coming from - this idea that that the PL appealed so we had to appeal in turn and that the PL appealed against the substantive points deduction. I can't find any evidence of who was first to appeal. Both appeals appear to have been submitted on the last day to appeal. We don't get to see the Notices of Appeal either. But more importantly, it's just plain wrong to say the PL appealed the 6 points deduction. That's demonstrably untrue. It is crystal clear from the decision itself that the PL never appealed that. So if the source for saying that the PL appealed first is also saying that the PL appealed the 6 points deduction, then they're clearly wrong on the nature of the appeal so I doubt their accuracy as to who went first. I'd bet a reasonable sum of money that we appealed first because we were desperate (as unlikely as it was, a successful appeal by us was the best hope of staying up). Then the PL thought if you're going to do that and they'll have to be a hearing then we may as well throw in an appeal on the basis you got no specific sanction applied for the breach of failing to submit accounts and argue that we should get one more point. So that's what they did. An appeal on that one narrow point for one additional point. The odds I'd get would be lousy though. Linklaters are advising the PL and I'd be astonished if they'd advised that they'd be successful in getting one more point added on - there's a band of discretion that means you don't win those arguments on appeal, and the PL did not. We also means you don't launch an appeal on that basis. But you do throw it in if the other side have already appealed so you're all going to be up in front of the Appeal Board anyway. It doesn't matter now anyway; we've run out of road now, and no neatly constructed arguments will make a blind bit of difference. It's back to the on the pitch performances. It's just telling that the "leadership" of the club have so little faith and confidence in that when push comes to shove that they instructed de Marco KC to switch to a plea for a fine rather than points, and took the appeal as far as they could.

Connections Puzzle #1033 🟩🟩🟩🟩 🟦🟦🟦🟦 🟨🟨🟨🟨 🟪🟪🟪🟪 Would not have got the purples if I tried for a month of Sundays without them being the only four left and struggled with the so called easy yellow today.

Wordle 1,755 3/6 ⬜⬜🟨🟨🟨 🟨⬜⬜🟨🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

The PL only cross appealed for one point or some sanction to be applied to the failure to submit accounts, and did not appeal the 6 point deduction on the main grounds. That’s clear from the decision. Looks like we appealed because Top and Ruskin realised it would likely take us down. They pretty much announced that intention as soon as the decision was given months ago. So the PL threw in a cross appeal given there was going to be a hearing anyway. In other words, we started it as a last throw of the dice to avoid relegation. And lost. I don’t know the timing of the appeal notices, but I’d be willing to bet we didn’t appeal to off set anything; it was a desperate attempt to get the whole six point deduction removed, and I don’t believe the club are quietly satisfied at all. They lost on all three grounds of appeal.

Wordle 1,754 4/6 🟨⬜🟨⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜🟨🟨 🟩🟩🟨🟩🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Connections Puzzle #1032 🟪🟪🟪🟪 🟨🟨🟨🟨 🟦🟦🟦🟦 🟩🟩🟩🟩

Not a great watch, but I’d forgotten how strong Sporting are at home; they’ve not lost at home apart from once in around October last year. CL home record was 15-3 adding up all the matches! 5 teams in the CL feels a bit wrong somehow, but I can’t explain why!

From other press I've read I think the PL came out with a statement and said an appeal board would set up to hear it "urgently" so that it can be all resolved before May and the end of the season so there's no doubt about who's relegated.

Given that regulatory sanctions are always supposed to be proportionate it would be a sensible argument to run, but it would involve Top and Rudkin not just acknowledging the dire straits the club is in, but putting forward some evidence that this is what would happen. But we promote, so I don't think they could bring themselves to present that argument.

My guess is that we appealed first - because it was fairly clear then when the judgment was first handed down that our on pitch performances would not be good enough - and the PL cross-appealed. The PL are not re-opening the whole thing; they have limited their appeal to the point that no sanction was given for the late submission of accounts, and I think submitting that it should be an additional one point. Largely to make the point that there should be some sanction if there is a breach, but I don't think they'd have bothered to do that on its own as it doesn't bind anyone in any way (although you could argue it creates a precedent; that's the highest it goes). But once we appealed so they'd have to be a hearing in any event, it's no surprise that they decided that they may as well cross-appeal but keep the point to a narrow short argument.

Wordle 1,753 4/6 ⬜⬜🟨⬜🟨 ⬜🟩🟨⬜🟩 🟩🟩⬜⬜🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Wordle 1,752 5/6 ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜ 🟩⬜🟩⬜🟩 🟩⬜🟩🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

I was earlier about to say that that throw was amazing; can't really blame Patel there, but Holland's was a loose poor shot and that I couldn't see us batting all day tomorrow, but didn't press the right button. Now at 4 down, we'll be lucky to make it to lunch. Then again, it's what realistically we knew we were in for. Not sure if Sussex is one of the weaker teams though - they came 4th last year, and I can't see a 12 point deduction being a decider - they'll make that up against us this game! Last season was extraordinary compared to the past seasons where a win was a major cause for celebration. Most teams get relegated back down again, and I'm afraid I don't expect us to be the exception.

Connections Puzzle #1022 🟩🟩🟩🟩 🟨🟦🟪🟪 🟦🟦🟦🟦 🟨🟨🟨🟨 🟪🟪🟪🟪

Wordle 1,744 4/6 ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ ⬜⬜🟩⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Wordle 1,743 4/6 🟨⬜⬜🟨⬜ ⬜⬜🟨⬜🟩 🟩⬜🟩⬜🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Connections Puzzle #1021 🟩🟩🟩🟩 🟨🟨🟨🟨 🟦🟦🟦🟦 🟪🟪🟪🟪

Wordle 1,742 4/6 ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜ ⬜⬜🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Connections Puzzle #1020 🟨🟨🟨🟨 🟪🟪🟪🟪 🟩🟩🟩🟩 🟦🟦🟦🟦

Wordle 1,741 4/6 🟨⬜🟨⬜⬜ ⬜🟨🟨⬜🟨 ⬜⬜🟨🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Connections Puzzle #1019 🟨🟦🟪🟩 🟨🟨🟨🟨 🟪🟪🟪🟪 🟦🟦🟦🟩 🟦🟦🟦🟦 🟩🟩🟩🟩