superpull wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 3:39 pm
They got 3 for the breach, we got 6. (that is the "extra 3" that their IC mentioned initially that I couldnt make sense of at the time).
We got +4 based on the "every £5m over" line. (even though we didnt hit the 4th £5m and it means 0-£5m is counted, which means it was 7 points for a breach). Our mitigation was thrown out as we were acting in bad faith.
They got +3 based on severity (not linked to a per £ punishment) and a minus 2 for cooperating.
So, our appeal/this new IC has changed the following rules:
- 3 points to start
- severity is no longer linked to £5m
- We cooperate and you get 2 knocked off
So it all depends on what our overspend is, doesnt it:
Less and it is 2 (3 plus 1 minus 2) or 3 points (3 plus 2 mins 2).
Same then it is 4.
More and it is up to 7 points (9 max minus 2 for cooperating).
Our appeal is over and ICAS cant help as we all agree we were guilty. We can't appeal the appeal.
Apparently admitting guilt is just submitting accounts that show you've breached PSR.
So just by submitting your accounts you're automatically admitting your guilt apparently, which means no club could ever go to ICAS because this is apparently the interpretation of admitting guilt.
Not sure exactly whether we admitted it outside of submitting our accounts or not, but either way the moment you submit accounts showing a breach you're classed as admitting guilt.
AjaxAndy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 3:48 pm
Apparently admitting guilt is just submitting accounts that show you've breached PSR.
So just by submitting your accounts you're automatically admitting your guilt apparently, which means no club could ever go to ICAS because this is apparently the interpretation of admitting guilt.
Not sure exactly whether we admitted it outside of submitting our accounts or not, but either way the moment you submit accounts showing a breach you're classed as admitting guilt.
So why wouldn’t you go out now and just spend a couple of billion if you are Newcastle, knowing that you will only get a max 8 point deduction? Is that not worth it for assembling a dream team who could easily make up those points? They have essentially said that if 9 points is for insolvency, which is the worst charge, then it can’t be more than that.
However, the rules seem to change from panel to panel, and that’s all down to the PLs inadequate rule book.
The system is completely wrong and flawed. The independent panels and appeals boards have even admitted that they have no solid guidance in order to make these decisions.
I don’t care about Forest apart from how it affects us. They have leveraged off of our case and have benefitted from us being the guinea pigs.
Just have to hope and pray that our sweet silk can fight our corner well enough against this second set of charges so that it doesn’t severely impact us in terms of points.
The frustrating thing is the way they continued to spend etc, but isn't seen as an aggravating factor. When you consider our 10 point starting position the biggest crime is actually +1 for incorrect info +4 for acting in bad faith. 5 for the breach 5 for our behaviour, with 4 taken off.
I think a lot of people are giving the club a very very easy ride on this. We all know the way it's been counted, communicated, handled has been baffling, but the club knew the rules, agreed to the rules, voted for the rules, and through a mix of incompetence and complete and utter snidery have completely fucked us.
It's nice to make your own narrative about how the points deductions were decided but there's nothing in the report about 2 points for scale of breach, so I don't know why you'd give the IC an easy time of things when they've literally not mentioned it in the final report. Especially when you consider they stated 6 points should be a minimum for breaking PSR rules, so an original 5 points doesn't make sense.
Absolutely nobody is defending the club, so I don't understand what you want people to be doing? The board that caused it are gone and Moshiri is desperately trying to jump ship. It's not like we've been celebrating these cunts for the last 12 months.
Shogun wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 11:01 pm
It's nice to make your own narrative about how the points deductions were decided but there's nothing in the report about 2 points for scale of breach, so I don't know why you'd give the IC an easy time of things when they've literally not mentioned it in the final report. Especially when you consider they stated 6 points should be a minimum for breaking PSR rules, so an original 5 points doesn't make sense.
Absolutely nobody is defending the club, so I don't understand what you want people to be doing? The board that caused it are gone and Moshiri is desperately trying to jump ship. It's not like we've been celebrating these cunts for the last 12 months.
I agree with most of that, but there are some people who seemingly know a bit more about it (not including Stefan the City bloke that appears on talksport) that suggest that 3 was actually the opening level for breach and that the highlighted bit in our appeal case of '6 points' that many are referring to was actually taken out of context. It seems plausible if the likes of Keiran McGuire, the Esk etc are seeming to say this.
How the PL came out with 12 points on that basis is obviously still baffling, amongst other things.
I still however disagree with way the Independent Commissions have assessed and either accepted or ignored the mitigating factors in both cases and come to their decisions.
How Forest have effectively gone 'stuff it, let's go for it' and missed by miles, whereas we've effectively (and likely knowingly) fallen foul but then still tried to ultimately right it.
Last edited by Cods on Wed Mar 20, 2024 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Shogun wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 11:01 pm
It's nice to make your own narrative about how the points deductions were decided but there's nothing in the report about 2 points for scale of breach, so I don't know why you'd give the IC an easy time of things when they've literally not mentioned it in the final report. Especially when you consider they stated 6 points should be a minimum for breaking PSR rules, so an original 5 points doesn't make sense.
Absolutely nobody is defending the club, so I don't understand what you want people to be doing? The board that caused it are gone and Moshiri is desperately trying to jump ship. It's not like we've been celebrating these cunts for the last 12 months.
You're not wrong like, they're all gone. Who the hell do I want out, Chong? What's the point. Screaming into the void really.
Cods wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2024 11:58 pm
I agree with most of that, but there are some people who seemingly know a bit more about it (not including Stefan the City bloke that appears on talksport) that suggest that 3 was actually the opening level for breach and that the highlighted bit in our appeal case of '6 points' that many are referring to was actually taken out of context. It seems plausible if the likes of Keiran McGuire, the Esk etc are seeming to say this.
How the PL came out with 12 points on that basis is obviously still baffling, amongst other things.
I still however disagree with way the Independent Commissions have assessed and either accepted or ignored the mitigating factors in both cases and come to their decisions.
How Forest have effectively gone 'stuff it, let's go for it' and missed by miles, whereas we've effectively (and likely knowingly) fallen foul but then still tried to ultimately right it.
Not only did they specify 6 for a breach in the original case, our appeal didn't dispute that (just awarded us leniency points to make sure we were safely under 9), but Nottingham Forests panel specifically called out the fact the opening point is 3 points *and they don't know why we were given 3 more as an addition and wouldn't be commenting further on that*
superpull wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 7:27 am
Not only did they specify 6 for a breach in the original case, our appeal didn't dispute that (just awarded us leniency points to make sure we were safely under 9), but Nottingham Forests panel specifically called out the fact the opening point is 3 points *and they don't know why we were given 3 more as an addition and wouldn't be commenting further on that*
Not sure if I've misunderstood, but think we might be talking at cross purposes. I was referring to our IC appeal, that relative to Forest's judgement, where soonafter it had been jumped on pretty fiercely (understandably) by some of ours that "as we'd copped an initial 6 points base for breaching, that that should be a precedent and Forest", as seen in a highlighted extract of text from the hearing that had been shared extensively.
Apparently there wasn't such a precedent set, and that there were actually extenuating circumstances that came into our penalty. I don't agree with how they came up with the remaining points either, just that it seemed interesting that some on our side that seem to know a fair bit about it, had conceded a 6 point precedent wasn't actually correct.
Turning more and more away from this victim mentality we've got in the fanbase over the charges I have to say. How can the FAB demand anything, whats it got to do with you?
Actually think history might end up judging this PSR stuff quite well as long as the prem are brave enough to stick to their guns.
The victors write history. No doubt history will look kindly on it. The same 3 or 4 clubs will probably win 95% of the domestic trophies, have huge fanbase and their ex players will dominate the media even more than they do now. They'll tell us how wonderful it all is while previously successful clubs won't win a domestic trophy in 50 or even 100 years. It will be magical
