No reverting involved is there? It's a separate period. It won't change the first charge but that's rather irrelevant now.howard1334 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:13 pm We are not going to be able to revert now and argue guilt. That die has been cast. Doubt we win, unless on the double jeopardy point.
Financial Fairplay Investigation - 2025 Nobody in Breach
Re: Financial Fairplay Investigation - Charged again
-
Paddockoldie
- Posts: 1458
- Karma: 708
Re: Financial Fairplay Investigation - 4 Points Back
Think it went we hate city and united, but Everton we love youDeano Blue Boy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:16 pm I remember back in the day singing in school "we hate Nottingham forest, we hate Liverpool too, we hate all the others, but everton we love you"
-
howard1334
- Posts: 384
- Karma: 218
Re: Financial Fairplay Investigation - Charged again
It almost certainly doesn't matter that it's a separate period when two of the three years are the same. We've admitted we've breached already. Were not going to be able to contradict ourselves, unless there is something about the one year being swapped out that drastically alters the equation.
Re: Financial Fairplay Investigation - 4 Points Back
We hate Manchester unitedPaddockoldie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:26 pm Think it went we hate city and united, but Everton we love you
I don't remember anything about city, as back then city was in ligue 2 or somthing
Last edited by HANNU on Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Financial Fairplay Investigation - 4 Points Back
Was definitely Nottingham Forest.Paddockoldie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:26 pm Think it went we hate city and united, but Everton we love you
-
Bluebridge
- Posts: 1643
- Karma: 898
-
Bluedylan1
- Posts: 4203
- Karma: 4776
Re: Financial Fairplay Investigation - 4 Points Back
One thing we do know is that we're not going to get more than 6 pts for the second charge. We may get less with the double jeopardy thing, and if finances are continuing to trend in the right direction. We don't know the extent of our breach or Forest's breach.
But we have to assume it'll be 6 pts, worst case scenario. So our target has to be 7 points above 18th, unless Forest are the club in 18th.
It does look like the entire season is going to be decided by independent commissions for both our appeal of the 2nd charge and Forest's appeal of their charge, assuming that's what happens. Whatever these commissions decide will clearly save or relegate certain teams and the people making those decisions will clearly know the result of their decisions, which makes the entire process disreputable.
Say Luton get relegated because someone has decided our 2nd charge can be reduced from 6pts to 2 pts on appeal? How is that a remotely appropriate way to oversee a competition? Surely it opens a legal minefield?
But we have to assume it'll be 6 pts, worst case scenario. So our target has to be 7 points above 18th, unless Forest are the club in 18th.
It does look like the entire season is going to be decided by independent commissions for both our appeal of the 2nd charge and Forest's appeal of their charge, assuming that's what happens. Whatever these commissions decide will clearly save or relegate certain teams and the people making those decisions will clearly know the result of their decisions, which makes the entire process disreputable.
Say Luton get relegated because someone has decided our 2nd charge can be reduced from 6pts to 2 pts on appeal? How is that a remotely appropriate way to oversee a competition? Surely it opens a legal minefield?
Re: Financial Fairplay Investigation - 4 Points Back
I do remember the full name Manchester United was sung when I was younger, the song must have evolved over time but for me the tune makes no sense with the addition of city in it
Don't know what happened I ment to edit my last post but somehow quoted it
Last edited by HANNU on Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Bluebridge
- Posts: 1643
- Karma: 898
-
CannockPricey
- Posts: 1840
- Karma: 706
Re: Financial Fairplay Investigation - 4 Points Back
I am still unclear as to how a process that is assessed annually (on a 3 year rolling calendar admittedly) can be sanctioned twice in one season. How two different time frames can result in a punishment in the same season seems illogical to the point of unjustifiable.
I'm sure the PL will just muddle it through and never do it to another club ever again but I just can't understand it.
I'm sure the PL will just muddle it through and never do it to another club ever again but I just can't understand it.
In a world full of adversity, we must still dare to dream.
Re: Financial Fairplay Investigation - 4 Points Back
CannockPricey wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 6:37 pm I am still unclear as to how a process that is assessed annually (on a 3 year rolling calendar admittedly) can be sanctioned twice in one season. How two different time frames can result in a punishment in the same season seems illogical to the point of unjustifiable.
I'm sure the PL will just muddle it through and never do it to another club ever again but I just can't understand it.
I get what ur saying but in essence we got the first charge for the accounts ending 2 seasons ago and the 2nd charge is for last season
-
Bluedylan1
- Posts: 4203
- Karma: 4776
Re: Financial Fairplay Investigation - 4 Points Back
The Prem will say ''you should've had the first sanction last season, and that would've relegated you so stop moaning about it''.
Re: Financial Fairplay Investigation - 4 Points Back
I find the fact that both Forest and ourselves will be dealt with by two separate ‘independent commissions’ concerning. How does that possibly offer any consistency?