6 point deduction - confirmed

[urban fox]

So, the PL changed the rules because we showed up gaping holes in them. They then used the  changed rules to retrospectively charge us. Now they have appealed to get that punishment increased. This all smacks of a witch hunt.

I suspect our counter appeal will be firstly that the change in rules should not be allowed to be applied retrospectively and secondly that the PL are bang out of order simply trying to make an example of us for showing g up their rules in the first place

[wurmer]

4 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Yeah absolutely, I'm fed up of it too. But I've got absolutely no idea why people thought it was over and done with because we got a points deduction. Clubs always appeal. All clubs always appeal. Nobody ever goes "oh thanks for that points deduction, lovely, now lets move on."

 

The PSR / FFP rules are so stupidly and appalling written it would be daft to just take the ruling and not contest it at all. ESPECIALLY when we're the first club to be done by yet another new and revised bit of legislation that says the league we're not even currently in can impose points deductions and especially when those new rules came in AFTER the financial period in question.

 

There are millions of things to moan about the club for and we've got a thread for every single one of them, people can and should go and absolutely bitch and moan their hearts out. But this is about the one thing the club are currently doing right. I'd be angry if we WEREN'T appealing. NOT appealing would be unbelievably stupid.

 

People are entitled to their opinions.

 

Even if different from yours.

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

The club better have a cast iron case otherwise they are playing with fire, unless they are responding and pushing back on the PL trying to increase the penalty?

[Long Eaton Fox]

This has Dennis Praet vibes to it. Did we lodge our appeal 14 seconds before the expiry date which gave the PL time to press their button.

[VLC86]

1 minute ago, Long Eaton Fox said:

This has Dennis Praet vibes to it. Did we lodge our appeal 14 seconds before the expiry date which gave the PL time to press their button.

Why has that got Dennis Praet vibes?

[Foxdiamond]

3 minutes ago, Long Eaton Fox said:

This has Dennis Praet vibes to it. Did we lodge our appeal 14 seconds before the expiry date which gave the PL time to press their button.

Wrong player

[Tommy Fresh]

16 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

Slightly concerning you have been following the lives of murderers that closely to know that but I'll take the correction.

Yeah not as if there's been a lot of mainstream media about either is there 

[HybridFox]

4 minutes ago, VLC86 said:

Why has that got Dennis Praet vibes?

Praeting around with the fax machine 

[Number 6]

Don't see how it would make sense for any increase in penalty as it wouldn't really mean a fair appeals process was in place. You'd have to argue that the appeal was extremely frivolous, which will never happen given what is at stake and the complexity of the case.

 

Makes sense to appeal.

[drew]

9 minutes ago, urban fox said:

So, the PL changed the rules because we showed up gaping holes in them. They then used the  changed rules to retrospectively charge us. Now they have appealed to get that punishment increased. This all smacks of a witch hunt.

I suspect our counter appeal will be firstly that the change in rules should not be allowed to be applied retrospectively and secondly that the PL are bang out of order simply trying to make an example of us for showing g up their rules in the first place

Agree with this, our argument will likely be along these lines, you can't change rules then apply them mid cycle.
The EPL and EFL can change the rules whenever they like, but they should only be applied for the next cycle of measurement that they want the rules to apply to.

It's a bit embarrassing, but despite our clubs owners and board being complete clowns they may still have a case, which kinda makes the EPL and EFL look even worse.

[1963]

Can some explain how Man City have been found guilty and no punishment has been handed out. 

[Manwell Pablo]

1 minute ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Yeah not as if there's been a lot of mainstream media about either is there 

 

The two events I mentioned happened within about 13 months of each other, over 30 years ago. Knowing there was a tiny gap between the two event happening is not mainstream knowledge  

 

You either follow serial killer closely enough off the top of your head to be considered a bit strange to know that,

 

Or more likely you've gone fact checking on the internet to try and point out a tiny hole in a otherwise extremely tight argument because you wanted to try and discredit someone who has pulled your pants down in an online argument and have picked the flimsy's point you can find to do so, just because it's factually correct, without adding anything to the actual discussion in the process. 

 

Either way I would say I'm concerned about you but I really don't care.

 

Like I say I'll take the correction, Jeffry Darhma died before OJ was acquitted, sure that's valuable information we all need to keep at the forefront of our heads. And you can pull your pants up again.

[Tommy Fresh]

9 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

The two events I mentioned happened within about 13 months of each other, over 30 years ago. Knowing there was a tiny gap between the two event happening is not mainstream knowledge  

 

You either follow serial killer closely enough off the top of your head to be considered a bit strange to know that,

 

Or more likely you've gone fact checking on the internet to try and point out a tiny hole in a otherwise extremely tight argument because you wanted to try and discredit someone who has pulled your pants down in an online argument and have picked the flimsy's point you can find to do so, just because it's factually correct, without adding anything to the actual discussion in the process. 

 

Either way I would say I'm concerned about you but I really don't care.

 

Like I say I'll take the correction, Jeffry Darhma died before OJ was acquitted, sure that's valuable information we all need to keep at the forefront of our heads. And you can pull your pants up again.

Firstly you didn't pull my pants down as you weren't arguing with me it was someone else so try again brother  you've perhaps been staring at the screen a little too long.

Not concerned about me but seem to have taken great offence to a simple point and have written a huge response, making fairly shitty remarks about me personally. 

 

P.s it's fairly mainstream knowledge when there's been very popular dramas about both in modern times

Edited 19 February by Tommy Fresh

[Terraloon]

My thoughts going back some weeks ago were that there would be 6 points but I voiced my concerns around three factors

 

1) The size of the breach

2) The failure to submit the end of year accounts

3) Failure to co operate 

 

Having read the ICs written reasons it’s pretty clear that the £20+ million excess  was viewed as significant ( which of course it was) . In terms of the next 2 charges against LC were proven with ease. Cities claim that they co operated was fanciful.

 

It is fact that to date no club has ever had their points deduction increased following their appeal but it’s not a rule that forbids such an increase but it’s a possibility.

It’s worth remembering that the charges were under the EFL rulebook where there are clear guidelines as to how many points should as a starting point  be deducted and taking those guidelines into account then the entry  points deduction should have been 12 points . The argument around improving numbers attracted a 1 point mitigation so based on the PLs take the points lost should be 11 but then their  argument would be that the failure to assist and failure to send in accounts should add to the points deducted.

 

The IC concluded that the points deduction guidelines should be adjusted to the  % excess over the upper limit of EFL allowable of  £39 m. If a clubs allowable was ( LC was £83m) in excess of £39m .
 

In those guidelines if the excess is over £15m then the entry point should be 12 points. Why I personally have concerns that this adjustment is potentially flawed is simply this that no where in the EFL or  come to that PL rules are they adjusted to %.Put another way if say a club with a 3 year turnover of £39 m exceeded the allowable sum by £39 million they would have the same starting points deduction as a club whose 3 year turnover was £130 m who exceeded by £39 million. 

 

. No where in the guidelines does it say the guidelines should be converted to % .
 

Add to that there was a allowance granted following the IC ruling was dispute as to what length the three accounting  ( periods)  should cover .Due to a step taken by LC  whereby they extend the accounting year 22/23 to  cover a 13 month period  an action that enabled them to avoid 22/23 charges The PL argued that the excess should  be measured over a 37 month period( 3 accounting years )  which in turn have been increased the excess by circa £3m  which in turn even using the ICs adapted sanctions chart would lead to extra points deduction 

 

I suspect that LC will repeat many if not all the arguments it put forward at the original hearing. I suspect that they will be unsuccessful.

 

As I keep saying it’s the PLs appeal that worries me.

 

I can see why the PL will argue that conversion to a % of excess against the staring point was flawed likewise not assessing over 3 accounting years even though they were 37 months is likewise flawed.

 

 

Edited 19 February by Terraloon

[Parafox]

12 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

The two events I mentioned happened within about 13 months of each other, over 30 years ago. Knowing there was a tiny gap between the two event happening is not mainstream knowledge  

 

You either follow serial killer closely enough off the top of your head to be considered a bit strange to know that,

 

Or more likely you've gone fact checking on the internet to try and point out a tiny hole in a otherwise extremely tight argument because you wanted to try and discredit someone who has pulled your pants down in an online argument and have picked the flimsy's point you can find to do so, just because it's factually correct, without adding anything to the actual discussion in the process. 

 

Either way I would say I'm concerned about you but I really don't care.

 

Like I say I'll take the correction, Jeffry Darhma died before OJ was acquitted, sure that's valuable information we all need to keep at the forefront of our heads. And you can pull your pants up again.

I've no idea what or who you're reacting to but that post is quite amusing.

[Lutterworth Fox]

1 hour ago, BigGibbo said:

Yay - more uncertainty to somehow further upset the applecart... if that's at all possible.

 

We're blatantly going into Blackburn Away not knowing if a win will keep us up or not, aren't we? 😆

I wouldn't worry about that too much, we'll be relegated long before then.

[Craig]

1 minute ago, Terraloon said:

My thoughts going back some weeks ago were that there would be 6 points but I voiced my concerns around three factors

 

1) The size of the breach

2) The failure to submit the end of year accounts

3) Failure to co operate 

 

Having read the ICs written reasons it’s pretty clear that the £20+ million excess  was viewed as significant ( which of course it was) . In terms of the next 2 charges against LC were proven with ease. Cities claim that they co operated was fanciful.

 

It is fact that to date no club has ever had their points deduction increased following their appeal but it’s not a rule that forbids such an increase but it’s a possibility.

It’s worth remembering that the charges were under the EFL rulebook where there are clear guidelines as to how many points should as a starting point  be deducted and taking those guidelines into account then the entry  points deduction should have been 12 points . The argument around improving numbers attracted a 1 point mitigation so based on the PLs take the points lost should be 11 but then their  argument would be that the failure to assist and failure to send in accounts should add to the points deduction over the starting point..

 

The IC concluded that the points deduction guidelines should be adjusted to the  % excess over the upper limit of EFL allowable of  £39 m. If a clubs allowable was ( LC was £83m) in excess of £39m .
 

In those guidelines if the excess is over £15m then the entry point should be 12 points. Why I personally have concerns that this adjustment is potentially flawed is simply this that no where in the EFL or  come to that PL rules are they adjusted to %.Put another way if say a club with a 3 year turnover of £39 m exceeded the allowable sum by £39 million they would have the same starting points deduction as a club whose 3 year turnover was £130 m who exceeded by £39 million. 

 

. No where in the guidelines does it say the guidelines should be converted to % .
 

Add to that there was a allowance granted following the IC ruling was dispute as to what length the three accounting  ( periods)  should cover .Due to a step taken by LC  whereby they extend the accounting year 22/23 to  cover a 13 month period  an action that enabled them to avoid 22/23 charges The PL argued that the excess should  be measured over a 37 month period( 3 accounting years )  which in turn have been increased the excess by circa £3m  which in turn even using the ICs adapted sanctions chart would lead to extra points deduction 

 

I suspect that LC will repeat many if not all the arguments it put forward at the original hearing. I suspect that they will be unsuccessful.

 

As I keep saying it’s the PLs appeal that worries me.

 

I can see why the PL will argue that conversion to a % of excess against the staring point was flawed likewise not assessing over 3 accounting years even though they were 37 months is likewise flawed.

 

 

My understanding is that they are not appealing against the six points that were deducted, but that there was no sanction for us submitting accounts late. I've seen some journalists saying that they are hoping for one extra point for this. 

[DennisNedry]

It'd be funny if, on appeal, the deduction was increased. 

[The Year Of The Fox]

Feel like if an appeal was ‘always’ going to happen, they’d have hit the appeal button before even leaving the tribunal 

 

Unless of course we’re just slow to act (again)

[Salieri]

1 minute ago, DennisNedry said:

It'd be funny if, on appeal, the deduction was increased. 

Yeah that’d be fvcking hilarious 🤨

[jammie82uk]

9 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

I can see why the PL will argue that conversion to a % of excess against the staring point was flawed likewise not assessing over 3 accounting years even though they were 37 months is likewise flawed.

 

The premier league are not arguing that, the only thing they are appealing about is the lack of punishment for failing to provide the accounts on time 

 

Edited 19 February by jammie82uk

[wardyfox86]

5 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Feel like if an appeal was ‘always’ going to happen, they’d have hit the appeal button before even leaving the tribunal 

 

Unless of course we’re just slow to act (again)

Of course not. An appeal has to have substance to it, they have to build a appeal. 

 

It's not just "I object" 

[Pita]

26 minutes ago, 1963 said:

Can some explain how Man City have been found guilty and no punishment has been handed out. 

Money they got lots it talks 

[LCFCJohn]

14 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Feel like if an appeal was ‘always’ going to happen, they’d have hit the appeal button before even leaving the tribunal 

 

Unless of course we’re just slow to act (again)

Maybe the panic has set in since we dropped into the relegation zone?

[Ric Flair]

6 hours ago, Terraloon said:

The appeal by the PL worries me. 

 

They the PL are arguing that to not punish the two proven  offences 1) Failure to Supply accounts & 2) Failing to co operate could be used as  a precedent going forward 

 

I have to admit I was surprised that the IC allowed mitigation but didn’t see failure to co operate as an aggravating factor which my guess is that is the main point of their appeal. Make no mistake the PL will be arguing for over 6 points and LC appealing was inevitable but having read the written reasons I can’t see the clubs appeal being successful.

 

The PL are asking for an additional point for the kate submission. Find that hard to believe will be successful but a fine might follow on the grounds of it setting a precedent if it continues to be thrown out.