Notts F & Everton admit to breaking rules and face points deduction

[teblin]

12 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

We signed handidly kept Everton up in 2021/22 by gifting them 4 points and last season we were safe had we put that peno away.

 

We should sue ourselves.

Very true cost ourselves Europe too.

[fox in the sox]

32 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

But how do you know we would have stayed up? 
The only real way to prove it would be to be able to show actual evidence that Everton stayed up as a direct result of the players they signed above the threshold allowed, how do you prove that? 
 

The vast majority of Evertons signings were awful and you could easily argue made them a worse team when you factor in how gutless they were week in week out, the only way to categorically state we would have stayed up would be to be able to pinpoint exactly why the players they signed were the reason they stayed up. I’m not sure that’s possible. 

I think you are missing the point. The 10 point deduction is for things that happened before the end of last season, without those points we would have stayed up. 

[cityfanlee23]

1 minute ago, fox in the sox said:

I think you are missing the point. The 10 point deduction is for things that happened before the end of last season, without those points we would have stayed up. 

Just to make sure I understand do you mean that the 10 point deduction would have kept us up if it was given last season? 

[shailen]

They have cheated regardless of whether they would have stayed up or not signing those players. Both Burnley and us have directly been impacted and yes we may have still both been relegated but we are both due some compensation for the loss of income relegation brought at the expense of a club that stayed up by cheating. 

[String fellow]

I wonder if this news will filter through to the late Bill Kenwright?

[fox in the sox]

2 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Just to make sure I understand do you mean that the 10 point deduction would have kept us up if it was given last season? 

yes 

[StevieH]

This means nothing. Everton will easily stay up - far worse teams in Prem. Complete joke all at LCFC expense. Should have been relegated instead of us. 

[The Doctor]

37 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

But how do you know we would have stayed up? 
The only real way to prove it would be to be able to show actual evidence that Everton stayed up as a direct result of the players they signed above the threshold allowed, how do you prove that? 
 

The vast majority of Evertons signings were awful and you could easily argue made them a worse team when you factor in how gutless they were week in week out, the only way to categorically state we would have stayed up would be to be able to pinpoint exactly why the players they signed were the reason they stayed up. I’m not sure that’s possible. 

Simple. They signed Doucoure during the time period they're being cited for. He scored the winner on the last day to keep them up. There's no "this player took them over the threshold" because deals are spread across multiple different payments, some perfomance based, and amortised across contract length, so the question is did players signed in that period, who all contributed to them going other the threshold,  contribute to their survival, and the answer is unequivocally yes.

[Qwerty]

40 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

But how do you know we would have stayed up? 
The only real way to prove it would be to be able to show actual evidence that Everton stayed up as a direct result of the players they signed above the threshold allowed, how do you prove that? 
 

The vast majority of Evertons signings were awful and you could easily argue made them a worse team when you factor in how gutless they were week in week out, the only way to categorically state we would have stayed up would be to be able to pinpoint exactly why the players they signed were the reason they stayed up. I’m not sure that’s possible. 

This is true, but in addition to signings, Everton were able to keep players on big salaries who might otherwise have moved on, given Everton’s poor performance in the last couple of seasons.  So it’s not just about the new signings, it’s about keeping the good players that they had.  I bet Pickford talked about going and was persuaded to stay £££££.  
One of the reasons we got relegated was lack of signings/keeping good players.  I reckon just one extra player might have given us an extra 2 points, and that was all we needed to stay up. 

[StevieH]

Sky sports saying leicester considering suing Everton.

[fox in the sox]

1 minute ago, The Doctor said:

Simple. They signed Doucoure during the time period they're being cited for. He scored the winner on the last day to keep them up. There's no "this player took them over the threshold" because deals are spread across multiple different payments, some perfomance based, and amortised across contract length, so the question is did players signed in that period, who all contributed to them going other the threshold,  contribute to their survival, and the answer is unequivocally yes.

A youngster could have scored that goal if they had not signed Doucoure. We will never know for certain how many points they would have got. What is certain is that with the 10 point deduction put in place at the end of last season they would have gone down and we would have stayed up. The fact that we were rubbish is irrelevant.

[cityfanlee23]

2 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Simple. They signed Doucoure during the time period they're being cited for. He scored the winner on the last day to keep them up. There's no "this player took them over the threshold" because deals are spread across multiple different payments, some perfomance based, and amortised across contract length, so the question is did players signed in that period, who all contributed to them going other the threshold,  contribute to their survival, and the answer is unequivocally yes.

And I agree with this assessment, the issue is how do you legally equate correlation and causation. 
 

With Tevez it was easy because of the way the deal was signed but with doucoure it’s less black and white

[fox in the sox]

 

2 minutes ago, Qwerty said:

This is true, but in addition to signings, Everton were able to keep players on big salaries who might otherwise have moved on, given Everton’s poor performance in the last couple of seasons.  So it’s not just about the new signings, it’s about keeping the good players that they had.  I bet Pickford talked about going and was persuaded to stay £££££.  
One of the reasons we got relegated was lack of signings/keeping good players.  I reckon just one extra player might have given us an extra 2 points, and that was all we needed to stay up. 

The fact that we were obviously trying to get our house in order from the start of last season makes the situation even worse.

[cityfanlee23]

1 minute ago, Qwerty said:

This is true, but in addition to signings, Everton were able to keep players on big salaries who might otherwise have moved on, given Everton’s poor performance in the last couple of seasons.  So it’s not just about the new signings, it’s about keeping the good players that they had.  I bet Pickford talked about going and was persuaded to stay £££££.  
One of the reasons we got relegated was lack of signings/keeping good players.  I reckon just one extra player might have given us an extra 2 points, and that was all we needed to stay up. 

You could be right on that as the margins are so fine, and I think that’s one of the main reasons we will end up with compensation because of how fine those margins are. 
 

I guess the point I’m making across this entire debate is correlation and causation. 
going by the points per game, if we had signed Dean Smith a few weeks earlier we would also have stayed up, the problem is how do you prove that he would have won or drawn those extra games? On a similar line of reasoning it’s very difficult to categorically prove that signing doucoure was the reason they stayed up, because there are plenty of occasions where doucoure actually cost them points. 
 

Legally it’s a bit of a minefield but I think ultimately our case is stronger given how tight it was and will likely result in some form of compensation, but I wouldn’t be too sure about it. 

[cityfanlee23]

Just now, fox in the sox said:

 

The fact that we were obviously trying to get our house in order from the start of last season makes the situation even worse.

Actually this a really strong point that I’d not thought of, we actively avoided spending money to stay within the legal limits, Everton obviously didn’t. 

[HybridFox]

Sue Brendan! 

[Fear Of The Fox]

20 minutes ago, egg_fried_rice said:

What do you make of our chances of success in our legal action against Everton? It would set a remarkable precedent.

 

If we're in for (a combined) £300m, what will the pot be for those clubs suing Man City if/when they get pinged? Would that not arguably be open to all 19 clubs who finished below them in the league in their title winning years? What about progress in European competitions?

 

Feels like this is a big can of worms and I'm not sure if the FA, PL et al have the mettle for it.

As it stands the case of Everton is interestingly more complex than Man City's regarding a potential compensation. Don't forget that Everton didn't, judging by results, benefit heavily on the pitch side of things. Yes they avoided relegation but their lawyers will claim it was by a small margin meaning the team was still not good enough. The court will rule a certain amount of compensation for all teams involved and this possibly will be set by arbitration. 

Man City case is more clear to me. They'll either get relegated or have a bigger deduction of points by the end of the season. Probably the latter. There's no way imo they take away any trophies/titles. Man City will be forced to compensate mainly Liverpool. If the case was in my hands and a I was a judge I would go with a -18 points from next season. Staight relegation of Man City as a disciplinary action will have an impact on Championship. 

[hackenbacker]

2 minutes ago, HybridFox said:

Sue Brendan

Who is Sue Brendan and what does she have to do with all this?

[Sol thewall Bamba]

1 hour ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

 

 

This bloke is painfully unfunny. Like genuinely uncomfortable to watch. 

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, ramboacdc said:

Been confirmed we have applied for compensation:

 

Relegated clubs have applied for compensation

The chair of the commission, David Phillips KC, also referenced applications for financial compensation from current Premier League clubs Burnley and Nottingham Forest and last season's relegated sides, Leicester City, Leeds United and Southampton.

Phillips said he was "satisfied that the applicant clubs have potential claims for compensation" - but noted the commission holds no "inherent jurisdiction" and it is instead "the role of the Premier League to bring and prosecute complaints".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/67447647?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=6557715a25a3f53728286219%26Relegated clubs have applied for compensation%262023-11-17T14%3A01%3A10.429Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:f3f33599-93fb-46e6-82bf-22bf9b03c926&pinned_post_asset_id=6557715a25a3f53728286219&pinned_post_type=share

What are Forest playing it? 

[Dan LCFC]

1 hour ago, gw_leics772 said:

A good year for a token gesture punishment, or is that just me being cynical?

I don't know how people can't be cynical when we see the nonsense the Premier League serves up, seemingly getting worse year upon year. Becomes increasingly apparent VAR is used to manufacture 'entertainment' as well.

[Fear Of The Fox]

1 minute ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

This bloke is painfully unfunny. Like genuinely uncomfortable to watch. 

He generally is indeed but I found some of his  one liners on this case genuinely spot on. 

[Ric Flair]

2 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

What are Forest playing it? 

Hahahahahahaaaa I know they think the whole world revolves around their success at the end of the 1970's but this is something else.

[Lesterlad]

Regardless of if Everton should have been deducted 10 point’s last season and we would have stayed up. 
 

We would have stayed up if the prat in charge had picked Soyunchu and Iverson every week and Maddison had scored that penalty. 
 

FFP should not have been an issue it was our fault we went down 

[Spudulike]

5 minutes ago, Lesterlad said:

Regardless of if Everton should have been deducted 10 point’s last season and we would have stayed up. 
 

We would have stayed up if the prat in charge had picked Soyunchu and Iverson every week and Maddison had scored that penalty. 
 

FFP should not have been an issue it was our fault we went down 

But FFP was an issue. The points deduction should've been applied last season. It will have little effect on this season.