Popular Post Les-TA-Jon Posted 30 January Popular Post Posted 30 January 25 minutes ago, Spudulike said: From ChatGPT... 7 minutes ago, Spudulike said: Some more from ChatGPT... We can't really trust much of the so called pundits and journalists on this saga, much less ChatGPT... 6
urban.spaceman Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 24 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said: We can't really trust much of the so called pundits and journalists on this saga, much less ChatGPT... How about https://twatgpt.co.uk? 2
urban.spaceman Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 5 hours ago, ClaphamFox said: The statement above is from January last year, when the arbitration proceedings were ongoing. The PL charged us for 23/24 in May when the arbitration panel concluded that the PL did have jurisdiction for that period. In a statement in response to the charges in May, the club accepted the PL had jurisdiction for 23/24. However, accepting the PL's jurisdiction for that period is not quite the same as accepting the retrospective application of the rule change. Could we be arguing that although the PL has jurisdiction for 2023/24, it should not be allowed to charge us under EFL rules for this period because the rule change that allows this was not introduced until April 2025? This would be consistent with what Kieran Maguire has been heavily hinting at. It should be. It's a bit like being fined/given points by the police for speeding at 40mph in a 30mph zone back in 2025 when they only changed the speed limit down to 30 in 2026. The Premier League's case against us cannot be taken seriously, especially by their own words or logic. 5 hours ago, ClaphamFox said: Whether it's this or something else, I think it's safe to say that our case is turning out to be more complicated than previous cases. Last weekend various media outlets were suggesting that the announcement was imminent and the club was expecting to be docked 9-10 points. Yet it's now Friday and we've heard nothing, so clearly the source for this rumour was jumping the gun—or making it up. It wouldn't surprise me if we still haven't heard by this time next week either. None of the media outlets or pundits actually know anything. That doesn't stop them from reporting false information or just speculation though. Gotta get them clicks. 4
urban.spaceman Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 3 hours ago, Spudulike said: So on the face of it does seem like the dispute is all about timing. Timing, jurisdictional overreach and selective enforcement. Really though it comes down to, who has the best argument? So far, consistently, that's been us. 1
Nolucklcfc Posted 30 January Posted 30 January Getting ridiculous now, thought it was going to be this week?
UniFox21 Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said: None of the media outlets or pundits actually know anything. That doesn't stop them from reporting false information or just speculation though. Gotta get them clicks. The void of information is just letting the media outlets fill it with absolute crap. No one knows anything, this is a novel situation, the leagues probably don't know how this is going to turn out. 1
Spudulike Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 5 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said: We can't really trust much of the so called pundits and journalists on this saga, much less ChatGPT... Just as well the West Midlands Police Chief Constable didn't use it then. 4
Terraloon Posted 30 January Posted 30 January (edited) 8 hours ago, ClaphamFox said: The statement above is from January last year, when the arbitration proceedings were ongoing. The PL charged us for 23/24 in May when the arbitration panel concluded that the PL did have jurisdiction for that period. In a statement in response to the charges in May, the club accepted the PL had jurisdiction for 23/24. However, accepting the PL's jurisdiction for that period is not quite the same as accepting the retrospective application of the rule change. Could we be arguing that although the PL has jurisdiction for 2023/24, it should not be allowed to charge us under EFL rules for this period because the rule change that allows this was not introduced until April 2025? This would be consistent with what Kieran Maguire has been heavily hinting at. Whether it's this or something else, I think it's safe to say that our case is turning out to be more complicated than previous cases. Last weekend various media outlets were suggesting that the announcement was imminent and the club was expecting to be docked 9-10 points. Yet it's now Friday and we've heard nothing, so clearly the source for this rumour was jumping the gun—or making it up. It wouldn't surprise me if we still haven't heard by this time next week either. Contained both in the EFL and the PL there lies the option for investigations commenced in either the PL or the EFL to , following agreement between the two organisations, be transferred between them but only when those investigations involve a club either been promoted or relegated. The second Arbitration award makes mention of PL rule E83 in the 24/25 rule book and also how that rule had been E77 in the 23/24 rule book and further back it was rule E73 in 22/23. In essence there always has been the ability for a rule breech allegation to be transferred but only if the matter is in train before clubs move leagues The question asked at the arbitration wasn’t” Could an investigation be transferred from the EFL to the PL “? The question being asked was “Did the EFL commence an investigation before LC membership transferred to the PL “? The arbitration panel ruling was that as correspondence from internal EFL bodies to LC had indeed been issued that correspondence did indeed constitute an investigation having been started. So yes it the PL who had jurisdiction to carry on the matter and as we know the PL ultimately charged but for me the key point is the charges laid against LC who were at that point a PL club were in accord with the rules and regulations of the EFL Had LC been charged under the PL rules for the 23/24 them I think there would be very good grounds to argue that as the” offence” happened before the rule change any punishment could not be handed down to a club plying its trade in the EFL. As I have pointed out on a couple of occasions the second and third charge are under the PL rules and the question for me is did those offences happen before or after the rule change .irrespective I simply can’t see that a points deduction for either of these charges Edited 30 January by Terraloon 4
Popular Post Aleksz Posted 30 January Popular Post Posted 30 January Was convinced it was going to be this week, is getting silly now. 5
urban.spaceman Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 1 hour ago, Spudulike said: Just as well the West Midlands Police Chief Constable didn't use it then. Side note but I wonder if they saw the letters COP in Copilot and thought it was a genuine tool for police work?! 1
Foxes96 Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 35 minutes ago, Terraloon said: Contained both in the EFL and the PL there lies the option for investigations commenced in either the PL or the EFL to , following agreement between the two organisations, be transferred between them but only when those investigations involve a club either been promoted or relegated. The second Arbitration award makes mention of PL rule E83 in the 24/25 rule book and also how that rule had been E77 in the 23/24 rule book and further back it was rule E73 in 22/23. In essence there always has been the ability for a rule breech allegation to be transferred but only if the matter is in train before clubs move leagues The question asked at the arbitration wasn’t” Could an investigation be transferred from the EFL to the PL “? The question being asked was “Did the EFL commence an investigation before LC membership transferred to the PL “? The arbitration panel ruling was that as correspondence from internal EFL bodies to LC had indeed been issued that correspondence did indeed constitute an investigation having been started. So yes it the PL who had jurisdiction to carry on the matter and as we know the PL ultimately charged but for me the key point is the charges laid against LC who were at that point a PL club were in accord with the rules and regulations of the EFL Had LC been charged under the PL rules for the 23/24 them I think there would be very good grounds to argue that as the” offence” happened before the rule change any punishment could not be handed down to a club plying its trade in the EFL. As I have pointed out on a couple of occasions the second and third charge are under the PL rules and the question for me is did those offences happen before or after the rule change .irrespective I simply can’t see that a points deduction for either of these charges You seem more clued up than most. What’s your predictions overall in terms of likely deduction? < 3pts, 3 - 6pts, > 6pts etc?
Dahnsouff Posted 30 January Posted 30 January Could we be delaying the final announcement? It could make sense, as the later it gets the case for points deduction must get weaker as it reduces our ability to react or manoeuvre. A second relegation against that backdrop would put both the EPL and the EFL in a tough position legality (I imagine)
ClaphamFox Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 14 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said: Could we be delaying the final announcement? It could make sense, as the later it gets the case for points deduction must get weaker as it reduces our ability to react or manoeuvre. A second relegation against that backdrop would put both the EPL and the EFL in a tough position legality (I imagine) No. The announcement isn’t ours to make. 3
StanSP Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 3 hours ago, Nolucklcfc said: Getting ridiculous now, thought it was going to be this week? Why?
Dahnsouff Posted 30 January Posted 30 January (edited) 5 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said: No. The announcement isn’t ours to make. No, I meant the announcement won't be made until it is agreed, and we aren't just waiting for the sentence without involvement. Assumed there would be behind closed door discussions going with regards to this charge. Just wondered if we could be slowing the process down a little, but probably not. Edited 30 January by Dahnsouff
StanSP Posted 30 January Posted 30 January Just now, Dahnsouff said: No, I meant the announcement won't be made is agreed, and we aren't just waiting for the sentence without involvement. Assumed there would be behind closed door discussions going with regards to this charge. Just wondered if we could be slowing the process down a little, but probably not. I don't think, in this day and age, things can be kept secret like that. So many leaks and rumours fly about and there doesn't seem to be anything of substance.
foxfanazer Posted 30 January Posted 30 January Deserve everything coming our way. Don't know why people are in such a flap about it. Such incompetence should and will be punished
cat lady Posted 30 January Posted 30 January I wish they would just get on with it, so we know where we stand
Dahnsouff Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 2 minutes ago, StanSP said: I don't think, in this day and age, things can be kept secret like that. So many leaks and rumours fly about and there doesn't seem to be anything of substance. Fair enough, just thought we might hear some noise rather than tabloid fiction by now. Not sure how much longer we need to wait unto any punishment can be adjudged to have impacted our ability to react though.
Dahnsouff Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 1 minute ago, foxfanazer said: Deserve everything coming our way. Don't know why people are in such a flap about it. Such incompetence should and will be punished Do not dispute that, but PSR is meant to be preventative not punitive. 1
ClaphamFox Posted 30 January Posted 30 January Just now, Dahnsouff said: Fair enough, just thought we might hear some noise rather than tabloid fiction by now. Not sure how much longer we need to wait unto any punishment can be adjudged to have impacted our ability to react though. React how? Everton were given one of their deductions in April, a month before the end of the season.
Dahnsouff Posted 30 January Posted 30 January (edited) 1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said: React how? Everton were given one of their deductions in April, a month before the end of the season. Cut your cloth accordingly for example. Everton got an initial 10pts in November no? Later reduced on appeal. Edited 30 January by Dahnsouff
Terraloon Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 47 minutes ago, Foxes96 said: You seem more clued up than most. What’s your predictions overall in terms of likely deduction? < 3pts, 3 - 6pts, > 6pts etc? It’s difficult to guess because I still have something in the back of my mind that there might still be a twist in this matter. Every thing I read points to me concluding that the PL and the EFL did get there Ducks in a row but you can never predict how a panel will be swayed often on just one piece of evidence. So a few ifs. If the panel rule against LC. And agree that a sanction can indeed be imposed If the excess over the 3 years is north of £15 million If the other two charges are proven ( meaning no mitigation) but likely seen as aggravating factors. Then my guess would be 6 points. The club will then face a dilemma 1) Is there a likelihood that either a play off or automatic promotion is a realistic possibility in 25/26. ? 2) Is there a real possibility of a relegation. ? If the answer to 1 is a no and yes to 2) Then the club probably would do all they can to try and delay sanctions being imposed till next season . That would have to be by appealing and trying to drag the process out for as long as possible. If the answer to 1 is yes and no to 2 ) Then as above. However if the answer is no to 1 and no to 2 Then it would make far morse sense to write 24/25 off. 2
foxfanazer Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 49 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said: Do not dispute that, but PSR is meant to be preventative not punitive. Surely there has to be consequences if it isn't adhered to else what's the point? 1
Sly Posted 30 January Posted 30 January 52 minutes ago, foxfanazer said: Deserve everything coming our way. Don't know why people are in such a flap about it. Such incompetence should and will be punished PSR is still a joke of a rule. 1
Recommended Posts