- Jul 17, 2008
- 5,442
- 22,079
On the grounds that scouse whining is hurting the populations ears...What grounds have they reduced it on?
On the grounds that scouse whining is hurting the populations ears...What grounds have they reduced it on?
It's all here: https://resources.premierleague.com...and-Premier-League-appeal-decision-260224.pdfThey explained clearly how they came up with the ten points initially - linked with how much the financial overstep was etc.
How are they going to explain the reduction, other than 'we bottled it'?
Probably 4 points...they still have the second charge to come which will be more points
After reading the appeal board's reasoning behind giving a 6-point deduction in this case, I think they'll probably get another 6 points for the 2nd breach (unless the size of the breach is much less than the previous £20m, in which case it could be 3 points).they still have the second charge to come which will be more points
Rather staggered to see Brentford down there fighting for safety with Forest. I suppose it just shows I haven't been paying attention.View attachment 138190
Brentford need to start winning - hopefully beating European Champions West Ham at the London Circus tonight
If only because of Maupay.I hope Brentford go daaaahn.
Not sure how much their overspend was for the second charge. Anyone know? But on the basis of the fine for £20m overspend in the first three years year then it should be proportional to the first fine. I think Everton's argument is that they should not receive a punishment for the same offence twice, as the overspend apparently rolls into the next three year period. If it was a year on year comparison I might have some sympathy but for a rolling three yearly I do not. You have time to rectify the deficit in the following year by reducing your spending and increasing income eg wages and player sales. That was the point of bringing in this rule. Unfortunately I think we all know the outcome and the fudges and bullshit excuses that will spill out of the Premier League.After reading the appeal board's reasoning behind giving a 6-point deduction in this case, I think they'll probably get another 6 points for the 2nd breach (unless the size of the breach is much less than the previous £20m, in which case it could be 3 points).
There's several I'd like to go down.I hope Brentford go daaaahn.
Burnley and Sheff U don't deserve to be in the league at all.There's several I'd like to go down.
There's nothing in the public realm yet on their 2023 loss figure, but it must be at least £40m for them to have breached again.Not sure how much their overspend was for the second charge. Anyone know? But on the basis of the fine for £20m overspend in the first three years year then it should be proportional to the first fine. I think Everton's argument is that they should not receive a punishment for the same offence twice, as the overspend apparently rolls into the next three year period. If it was a year on year comparison I might have some sympathy but for a rolling three yearly I do not. You have time to rectify the deficit in the following year by reducing your spending and increasing income eg wages and player sales. That was the point of bringing in this rule. Unfortunately I think we all know the outcome and the fudges and bullshit excuses that will spill out of the Premier League.