Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I was given to understand that Everton & Forest pleaded guilty whereas Man City pleaded not guilty, so have to have a hearing?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Everton deduction reduced to 6 points [Update 8/4: ...and another 2 points]
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
doogie004
Well-known member
This whole premier league is just so corrupt from top to bottom
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,321
Guaranteed they'll change the rules so that Chelsea and Man City get a massive-but-payable fine instead of the massive points deduction/relegation that they so richly deserve. EPL is a fixed cartel
Good analysis and conclusion
I wonder what fans of The Other 14 can do by way of protest when this inevitably happens.
Absolutely stinks doesn't it.
In its written reasons the independent commission accepted the club's arguments for mitigation in relation to the fact the club has:
I would assume, if it's not clearly stated in the reasons, that the 'already been deducted points' argument is in relation to the argument that with a rolling 3 year cycle, two of the years considered for this points deduction were also in the the previous cycle (rather than 'you've been deducted points once and you're ignoring that and still failing, so we won't bother punishing you too much')
- Already been deducted points this season
- Loss of club revenue because of the suspension of a sponsorship deal with Russian company USM
- An early admission of guilt
I would assume, if it's not clearly stated in the reasons, that the 'already been deducted points' argument is in relation to the argument that with a rolling 3 year cycle, two of the years considered for this points deduction were also in the the previous cycle (rather than 'you've been deducted points once and you're ignoring that and still failing, so we won't bother punishing you too much')
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 10,704
I think in our rush to cynically highlight the disparity in the various cases and punishments (or current lack thereof), we're ignoring an important fact - with the deductions now confirmed, we can look at the fixtures and see with Sheffield United, luton, brentford and forest to play, they still have a good chance of finishing above palace.
- Apr 19, 2018
- 1,874
I knew a bloke who was fined and given points for two speeding offences in the same stretch of motorway one night and tried (and failed) to argue it was a single offence, because he'd been consistently going 90 non-stop between the two sets of cameras rather than speeding twice. That's better than a declining scale of punishment as seems to have happened with Everton, because a declining system reduces the risk for anyone who is yet to be punished because it means their cumulative cheating can be argued to deserve a lesser punishment than the sum of all the parts.
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
I can see the logic in the two point additional deduction, in the Criminal Justice system it’s common to adjourn sentencing if there are similar offences in the pipeline then sentence “in totality”.
If Everton (and forest) don’t get relegated it makes a mockery of the penalties, given that neither were competing for a European place.
It would be like stealing a £1000 watch, getting fined £500 and being allowed to keep the watch.
City and Chelsea need punishments so severe the whole of the football world is shocked to the core.
If Everton (and forest) don’t get relegated it makes a mockery of the penalties, given that neither were competing for a European place.
It would be like stealing a £1000 watch, getting fined £500 and being allowed to keep the watch.
City and Chelsea need punishments so severe the whole of the football world is shocked to the core.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
People who keep bleating on about Chelsea not getting clobbered is getting tedious. Their recent billion-quid splurge is relatively recent, whilst the FFP rules of £105m losses spans over 3 years.
Rest assured Chelsea's reckoning is very much in the post, just not quite yet due to accounting periods. So in the meantime, stop mithering on about it.
Rest assured Chelsea's reckoning is very much in the post, just not quite yet due to accounting periods. So in the meantime, stop mithering on about it.
I'm not sure that's the same thing, personally. The first camera covers one area of the road, the second, presumably, covers another area. There's no way to know if they reduced their speed between cameras into a single offence or maintained speed in one incident. If it avoids a second or harsher punishment, of course you'd say you kept a constant speed, so the law has to work to account for that. Whereas with football finance on a three year cycle, we know for a fact when infringements are maintained or are separate.
It's also worth noting this is a 'special' year in that two lots of three year cycles were considered this year. That won't be the case going forward.
Affy
Silent Assassin
Whilst I think there should be punishment for breaking the rules, and points deductions will hit hardest, I do have some sympathy as the points being deducted are seemingly arbitrary.
If the total acceptable loss over 3 years is £105m then why not have a published scale of penalties No argument, no random plucking of numbers and perhaps a more incentivised reason to stay in the limits.
For example;
Losses of £105m-£109.9m - 1 point
£110m-£114.9m - 2 points
£115m - £119.9m - 3 points
and so on
If the total acceptable loss over 3 years is £105m then why not have a published scale of penalties No argument, no random plucking of numbers and perhaps a more incentivised reason to stay in the limits.
For example;
Losses of £105m-£109.9m - 1 point
£110m-£114.9m - 2 points
£115m - £119.9m - 3 points
and so on
Hotchilidog
Well-known member
- Jan 24, 2009
- 8,719
I agree. It seems ridiculous that this not already the case.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
This is the other thing. Where are the EPL supposed to start ?Premier League reveal latest machine designed to determine accurate points deduction...
FFP has been in place for donkeys years, but everyone became totally complacent with it because the worst you'd ever get is a fine. Now, finally, the consequences of breaching FFP are actually baring some teeth with points deductions. And everyone has started shitting themselves.
This is an unprecedented process. So now they have started setting the precedents, and clubs can begin to get used to seeing the likely points tariff if they choose to break the rules and overspend. So its not an "exact science" and never could be, as every club has different circumstances, and will have all its lawyers lined up giving a large pack of varying excuses for them breaking the rules.
Tough shit. Stay within the rules and you won't have to worry will you. This is not before time.
A mex eyecan
Well-known member
- Nov 3, 2011
- 3,324
Why haven't they come up with a slidding penalty for each £x million. As example 10m = 1 point, 20m = 2 point etc and onwards up to say 100m equalling 10 points, thereafter a further 1 point deducted for every 5 million with no cap.
If they are repeat offenders then the following season they start with negative points equal to what they were deducted the season before.
If club wants to opt for a fine instead it could only be done if the shareholders were fined personally and identical amount as the club itself was fined. The fine? well why not set that at as being the same amount as they overspent.
Make it so unpalatable that they maybe put off making the sin in the first place.
Oh, and no appeals and no ’mitigating’ circumstances.
If they are repeat offenders then the following season they start with negative points equal to what they were deducted the season before.
If club wants to opt for a fine instead it could only be done if the shareholders were fined personally and identical amount as the club itself was fined. The fine? well why not set that at as being the same amount as they overspent.
Make it so unpalatable that they maybe put off making the sin in the first place.
Oh, and no appeals and no ’mitigating’ circumstances.