Punishment for the 6 clubs?

[Foxes_Trust]

7 hours ago, Vlad the Fox said:

They should strip them of power in the premier league, suspend representatives from having a vote for something like 5 years and there should be a government and fan led body that has power to stop any such like changes in future and create laws to back them up. Refusing the clubs licenses etc to play in their own stadiums if they attempt it again, basically locking them out their own stadiums. 

its called the Fan Led Review, see posts above

[snoopy87]

14 hours ago, Number 6 said:

Can see why a fine was decided as the appropriate approach. But really has to be significant enough to disrupt their transfer plans.

 

Was on the cards as soon as I saw Parish on TV though...too many of the 14 are just happy to feed off the scraps of the big 6.

This is exactly what I thought while he was being interviewed that night. There was never even the slightest hint of a fight in him there, just happy to keep taking the money, the 13 are as bad as the 6, I say 13 because I firmly believe we'd have been going full on for any sanction we could hit them with, seeing as we're actually a properly run club!

[UniFox21]

9 hours ago, Foxes_Trust said:

its called the Fan Led Review, see posts above

To be abrupt, I think it's naive to think anything hugely positive will come from this review. Just looking at the panel, what can we realistically expect? The review can suggest what it wants, but any implementation is another step 

[Number 6]

Have to remember that not all of the other 14 are like us. Many owners happy to sit at the top table and feed off scraps - just content with hitting 40 points. Clearly this was done during covid deliberately because some of the smaller clubs in the league will be nervously looking at their finances and actually NEED to keep the big 6 on side.

 

[Matt]

Quote

 

QPR were fined £42m and received a transfer ban in 2018 for breaking FFP rules.

 

Sheffield Wednesday were given a points deduction which resulted in relegated this past season for spending too much. 

Liverpool, Arsenal, United, City, Tottenham and Chelsea tried to kill off the game and were fined £3.6m.

 

[Arkie Bennett]

The greedy 6 and their media chums are laughing at the rest of us. They even have the bare-faced audacity to call the pathetic fine a "gesture of goodwill". 

 

Come the new season the media, including Carragher and Neville, will be puffing up the "big 6" narrative more than ever. 

[foxfanazer]

The 14 other prem clubs should do no transfer business with the greedy pricks for a season or 2

[evil jack]

Disappointing that the football podcasts & radio shows have devoted so little discussion to this amidst all the Euros chat.

Edited 11 June 2021 by evil jack

[jmono84]

2 hours ago, evil jack said:

Disappointing that the football podcasts & radio shows have devoted so little discussion to this amidst all the Euros chat.

Shows who controls the media. There’s a massive cover up going on here

[Lambert09]

18 hours ago, Matt said:

QPR were fined £42m and received a transfer ban in 2018 for breaking FFP rules.

 

Sheffield Wednesday were given a points deduction which resulted in relegated this past season for spending too much. 

Liverpool, Arsenal, United, City, Tottenham and Chelsea tried to kill off the game and were fined £3.6m.

[Premier League: yes but if you punish them, it hurts our money   their fans 

[Les-TA-Jon]

19 hours ago, Matt said:

 

QPR were fined £42m and received a transfer ban in 2018 for breaking FFP rules.

 

Sheffield Wednesday were given a points deduction which resulted in relegated this past season for spending too much. 

Liverpool, Arsenal, United, City, Tottenham and Chelsea tried to kill off the game and were fined £3.6m.

Counter point: What rule did the 'ESL 6' actually break? 

 

FWIW, I totally agree with the ridiculousness of Project big picture, and the attempted ESL breakaway. And they seemingly tame/corrupt way in which this 'punishment' has been handled.

 

But what rule(s) did they actually break? 

[davieG]

4 hours ago, evil jack said:

Disappointing that the football podcasts & radio shows have devoted so little discussion to this amidst all the Euros chat.

That's why they've waited until now to announce it. Organisation and Governments are well known for burying bad news. The only surprise is they didn't wait until 8pm tonight or better still Sunday @ 4pm

[urban.spaceman]

47 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

Counter point: What rule did the 'ESL 6' actually break? 

 

FWIW, I totally agree with the ridiculousness of Project big picture, and the attempted ESL breakaway. And they seemingly tame/corrupt way in which this 'punishment' has been handled.

 

But what rule(s) did they actually break? 

L.9:

Except with the prior written approval of the Board, during the Season a Club shall

not enter or play its senior men’s first team in any competition other than:

L.9.1. the UEFA Champions League;

L.9.2. the UEFA Europa League;

L.9.3. the F.A. Cup;

L.9.4. the F.A. Community Shield;

L.9.5. the Football League Cup; or

L.9.6. competitions sanctioned by the County Association of which it is a member.

 

B16:

In all matters and transactions relating to the league all clubs shall behave towards each other clubs and the league with the utmost good faith.

 

https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/09/11/dc7e76c1-f78d-45a2-be4a-4c6bc33368fa/2020-21-PL-Handbook-110920.pdf

 

Considering they spent months planning this in secret while still attending Premier League meetings and being privy to sensitive information, you could make the argument for corporate espionage.

[Les-TA-Jon]

2 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

L.9:

Except with the prior written approval of the Board, during the Season a Club shall

not enter or play its senior men’s first team in any competition other than:

L.9.1. the UEFA Champions League;

L.9.2. the UEFA Europa League;

L.9.3. the F.A. Cup;

L.9.4. the F.A. Community Shield;

L.9.5. the Football League Cup; or

L.9.6. competitions sanctioned by the County Association of which it is a member.

 

B16:

In all matters and transactions relating to the league all clubs shall behave towards each other clubs and the league with the utmost good faith.

 

https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/09/11/dc7e76c1-f78d-45a2-be4a-4c6bc33368fa/2020-21-PL-Handbook-110920.pdf

 

Considering they spent months planning this in secret while still attending Premier League meetings and being privy to sensitive information, you could make the argument for corporate espionage.

I suppose their argument would be that they didn't enter nor play in the ESL competition - they only signalled their intention to do so? 

[Rocket-Ron]

2 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

I suppose their argument would be that they didn't enter nor play in the ESL competition - they only signalled their intention to do so? 

They claimed to be founding members!

[davieG]

2 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

I suppose their argument would be that they didn't enter nor play in the ESL competition - they only signalled their intention to do so? 

Didn't they all sign SL contracts, I'm sure there were reports at the time of them not being able to get out of them?

[foxile5]

On 10/06/2021 at 00:15, Foxes_Trust said:

Certainly not the case, see our posts above

Absolutely the case. People stormed a stadium and staged protests when they attempted it. Where is that level of anger? 

 

The 'goodwill gesture' is much more troubling than the attempt and what has been the reaction? 

[Dahnsouff]

The competition was planned, but its planning was incomplete (needed Bayern and others) therefore despite intent there was nothing finalised to enter, let alone play. Yes they utterly trampled, p*ssed all over the spirit of the rules. I am however doubtfully they legally contravened them.

Edited 11 June 2021 by Dahnsouff

[davieG]

The Star - European Super League contracts 'are binding and nobody can leave' now they have signed up
The 12 founding members of the European Super League have all signed binding contracts according to chairman Florentino Perez - and he insists they cannot leave

 

The Mail - The Big Six could also be forced to pay compensation to the six other European founding clubs for breaking a clause in the ESL’s 23-year contract which stated they could not leave for the first three years. But given the competition’s swift spectacular implosion, it is unclear whether the clause will be enforced. 

 

Also in many other papers. 

 

So did they sign contracts? Is Perez lying? If they did then surely the broke some PL Rules as per @urban.spaceman post above.

[nnfox]

14 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

I suppose their argument would be that they didn't enter nor play in the ESL competition - they only signalled their intention to do so? 

 

11 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

The competition was planned, but its planning was incomplete (needed Bayern and others) therefore despite intent there was nothing finalised to enter, let alone play. Yes they utterly trampled, p*ssed all over the spirit of the rules. I am however doubtfully they legally contravened them.

My guess would be more along the lines that the rules were breached but there was a lack of a written disciplinary procedure to deal with such a rule breach.  Any punishment that was not 'agreed' would likely be unenforceable and subject to a successful legal challenge.  If they had each been handed a 30 point deduction as is now proposed, they would all have protested given that there was no indication that such a severe punishment would be dished out.  Now that the 30 point deduction will be documented, any future repeat would be much easier to enforce.

 

It's still an absolute shambles.

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, nnfox said:

 

My guess would be more along the lines that the rules were breached but there was a lack of a written disciplinary procedure to deal with such a rule breach.  Any punishment that was not 'agreed' would likely be unenforceable and subject to a successful legal challenge.  If they had each been handed a 30 point deduction as is now proposed, they would all have protested given that there was no indication that such a severe punishment would be dished out.  Now that the 30 point deduction will be documented, any future repeat would be much easier to enforce.

 

It's still an absolute shambles.

and this is where it has become totally incomprehensible 

 

we were told that whilst they couldn’t be ‘punished’ for what they’d done, the PL would bring in rules that made sure that they didn’t do it again. Fines of £100m were banded about. Massive points deductions or relegations 

 

only twice in the last ten years would a thirty point deduction have relegated any of them and twenty million is just an irrelevance compared to he rewards on offer.  
 

the agreement is a green light to do it again from a rules and regs perspective- it shows that the PL is not really bothered about an ESL  type situation because it probably considers it a uefa problem.  It’s madness. removing the meritocracy is one of the two main issues and the PL don’t seem to care. 

[MPH]

On 11/06/2021 at 13:34, Dahnsouff said:

The competition was planned, but its planning was incomplete (needed Bayern and others) therefore despite intent there was nothing finalised to enter, let alone play. Yes they utterly trampled, p*ssed all over the spirit of the rules. I am however doubtfully they legally contravened them.

 
They didn’t need Bayern and others to start the league. It’s possible they would have expanded the league in a couple of years to Include the likes of  Byern and the likes of PSG

[Dahnsouff]

12 minutes ago, MPH said:

 
They didn’t need Bayern and others to start the league. It’s possible they would have expanded the league in a couple of years to Include the likes of  Byern and the likes of PSG

That’s not the point, there was not the full rota of teams, it wasn’t a viable league, so their intent is moot if the league was not viable. (Unfortunately, as intent should really be enough in such a covert despicable attempt)

[MPH]

41 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

That’s not the point, there was not the full rota of teams, it wasn’t a viable league, so their intent is moot if the league was not viable. (Unfortunately, as intent should really be enough in such a covert despicable attempt)

The intention was for it to be a midweek league that did NOT take place of the domestic league. At least not at first.

[Dahnsouff]

3 minutes ago, MPH said:

The intention was for it to be a midweek league that did NOT take place of the domestic league. At least not at first.

Officially yes, but this was always likely to be test bed (a second one) for further change I would imagine. Will be a couple of years before the next attempt probably.