Financial Fairplay Investigation - 2025 Nobody in Breach

[eyesalwaysblue]

The rules will be changed to ensure the punishment will be financial or a transfer ban. City will not be deducted points. The guy has even stated their breaches are not like ours, but couldn't say anymore...

You'd think in a fair world City will still be tried and punished under the same rules and potential sanctions as us and Forest, the statement you mentioned did stick out when the slimy get made it.

[Granite]

Punishing City affects the PL “product”, which is why it won’t happen. And not a chance they’ll ever compromise their “Agueroooooo” moment.

[Paddockoldie]

You'd think in a fair world City will still be tried and punished under the same rules and potential sanctions as us and Forest, the statement you mentioned did stick out when the slimy get made it.

Ah, there's your first error sadly. A fair world. Those days left long ago... follow the money

[sam of the south]

Ah, there's your first error sadly. A fair world. Those days left long ago... follow the money

Those days never existed

[Audrey Horne]

Lampard chatting shit saying Kenwright was Mr Everton and it was hard cos he couldn’t go to games.

Fed up of fans being made out to be monsters constantly!!

[Bluedylan1]

Lampard can fuck off. The only reason he hasn't got a relegation on his record is the fans, and he's another enabler of the people that destroyed the club. Nasty little Tory.

[Shogun]

Has the appeal date for the original deduction been set/made public yet?

You'd assume that outcome would present some sort of barometer of what the second punishment would be. I don't know how much we've exceeded P&S nonsense for the second charge but I'm assuming it's by a smaller margin than the first three year period that we were charged with. If it is reduced to 6 points (random figure) then surely that's the maximum that the second punishment would be?

Also, on reflection, then I don't see how we're going to avoid a second points deduction. Our excuse seems to be that it is unfair to punish based on the same season being over the limit but it's an accumulation of a three year period, that is obviously different from the first three year period, so I can't see how that is a valid argument?

[brap2]

Has the appeal date for the original deduction been set/made public yet?

You'd assume that outcome would present some sort of barometer of what the second punishment would be. I don't know how much we've exceeded P&S nonsense for the second charge but I'm assuming it's by a smaller margin than the first three year period that we were charged with. If it is reduced to 6 points (random figure) then surely that's the maximum that the second punishment would be?

Also, on reflection, then I don't see how we're going to avoid a second points deduction. Our excuse seems to be that it is unfair to punish based on the same season being over the limit but it's an accumulation of a three year period, that is obviously different from the first three year period, so I can't see how that is a valid argument?

Last I heard was that it would begin to be heard this month?

Also heard it would be "heard" which I'm reading as "completed by" Feb.

Spoke to someone who works veeeeeery tentatively with the club who said people he knows expects reduction to 6 with another 6 for the next one. But he's not ITK or anything just a fella.

I don't really understand the 'double jeopardy' argument whatsoever as it's literally the point of rolling period, what are going to do just say ok crack on see you in another 3 years, surely the prem aren't going to go 'oh yeah fair', they literally created this rule for this reason.

However, the IC can take into account the context of the first punishment, the trend of improving financial results and the other weirdness around stadium loan stuff if there's any basis in any of that, as part of its final judgement for charge 2.

[Goaljira]

Has the appeal date for the original deduction been set/made public yet?

You'd assume that outcome would present some sort of barometer of what the second punishment would be. I don't know how much we've exceeded P&S nonsense for the second charge but I'm assuming it's by a smaller margin than the first three year period that we were charged with. If it is reduced to 6 points (random figure) then surely that's the maximum that the second punishment would be?

Also, on reflection, then I don't see how we're going to avoid a second points deduction. Our excuse seems to be that it is unfair to punish based on the same season being over the limit but it's an accumulation of a three year period, that is obviously different from the first three year period, so I can't see how that is a valid argument?

Depends on the level of the breach, and what steps we've taken to mitigate further losses I guess. If its only a couple of £m over and we can argue over timings or something, then maybe we get away with it. If its the same as before or worse, and we try to use the same arguments already thrown out then we'll get the same or worse.

I can also see them give some back on the first appeal to set the precedent to charge the second one by reducing our wiggle room on that appeal.

[Shogun]

The only other thing I can think they'd take into account (beyond attempts to improve the financial situation as brap says) with regards to the second charge is that I read the EFL doesn't punish clubs again for a second charge in overlapping periods. I might be mistaken with that though. It's hard to have trust in the premier league process though because it feels like they're making it up as they go along rather than having any set out framework detailing these things.

The reason I asked about how much we're over for the second rolling period charge is because if it's say £2m or something then you'd assume that would be a lesser deduction than 10 points for £19.5m. I could definitely see them trying to marry up the two deductions in order to avoid an appeal that wouldn't be completed until after the season has ended (which is ridiculous, btw).

[Goaljira]

The only other thing I can think they'd take into account (beyond attempts to improve the financial situation as brap says) with regards to the second charge is that I read the EFL doesn't punish clubs again for a second charge in overlapping periods. I might be mistaken with that though. It's hard to have trust in the premier league process though because it feels like they're making it up as they go along rather than having any set out framework detailing these things.

The reason I asked about how much we're over for the second rolling period charge is because if it's say £2m or something then you'd assume that would be a lesser deduction than 10 points for £19.5m. I could definitely see them trying to marry up the two deductions in order to avoid an appeal that wouldn't be completed until after the season has ended (which is ridiculous, btw).

I doubt the accounts will be made public until the end of March like normal.

[Cozzie]

I think if there is any rumors of it being reduced to 6 is true, I'd like to think the club would at least try and argue that it should he suspended until next season providing we get our house in order, which for the last few seasons we have been doing.

Mainly lobbied against the fact the rules are changing in August and the fact they also changed the rules mid season so that we had to submit our books on the 31st December as apposed to the usual 30th June, meaning original 2nd charge, what ever that is, would have applied the following season based on the original ruling.

That will never happen I don't think but I'd like to think they'd at least take that into account.

Also it's gonna be significant to see what Forest punishment is, as theirs is slightly different to ours in the fact that I believe its based on one season in the Champ and 2 in the PL? Could be anything but it could impact our appeal based on what they receive too.

Can't wait till all this blows over

[Blueomar]

Last I heard was that it would begin to be heard this month?

Also heard it would be "heard" which I'm reading as "completed by" Feb.

Spoke to someone who works veeeeeery tentatively with the club who said people he knows expects reduction to 6 with another 6 for the next one. But he's not ITK or anything just a fella.

I don't really understand the 'double jeopardy' argument whatsoever as it's literally the point of rolling period, what are going to do just say ok crack on see you in another 3 years, surely the prem aren't going to go 'oh yeah fair', they literally created this rule for this reason.

However, the IC can take into account the context of the first punishment, the trend of improving financial results and the other weirdness around stadium loan stuff if there's any basis in any of that, as part of its final judgement for charge 2.

Yet, we've been punished for actions in 2/3 years in the new charge, seems to me that anything more than additional 3 points would be extremely harsh.

[777Kidnappings]

I think that is the point. That the while idea of a rolling period means there's double jeopardy.

It's like being allowed to carry out zero muggings a year on a 3 year rolling period. The mugging you did in year 3 would see you punished in year 3 year 4 and year 5. The whole idea of it is clearly not far. The whole process is flawed

[brap2]

I dunno, less convinced.