The NSNO Everton Forums

Jamokachi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 1:45 am Not picking on you Cozzie, but this is flawed thinking. We'd have gotten 4th if we won more games. City signing players does not immediately mean they would have had worse results. Sure, they improved their squad but not to the detriment of our results.

In the land of the blind the 1 eyed man is king

Jamokachi wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 1:45 am Not picking on you Cozzie, but this is flawed thinking. We'd have gotten 4th if we won more games. City signing players does not immediately mean they would have had worse results. Sure, they improved their squad but not to the detriment of our results.

Oh yeah, get what you're saying. Just felt appropriate to point out we got a mention incase anyone skim read it.

It wouldn't have made any difference like, think what the tweet was implying was had they had an appropriate points deduction/potential expulsion for said seasons everyone would have moved up a place or won the league etc.

Still wouldn't have happened regardless though as I don't believe anything severe will happen to City, nor would it have had this come to light earlier.

I see City's hearing starts on Monday. Don't suspect anything major will happen to them.

Gash wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:06 pm I see City's hearing starts on Monday. Don't suspect anything major will happen to them.

It'll drag. They'll see to that.

But yeah. A little hand on the wrist and that's your lot.

So its now 130 charges apparently.

It's rumoured they've won their case about fair market value for sponsorships. If they have then ffp is done anyway

777Kidnappings wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 7:16 am It's rumoured they've won their case about fair market value for sponsorships. If they have then ffp is done* anyway

*done for top clubs with expensive lawyers

They’ll just go even harder at the lesser clubs to make it look like they’re still in control

777Kidnappings wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 7:16 am It's rumoured they've won their case about fair market value for sponsorships. If they have then ffp is done anyway

After they approved of Chelsea selling hotels to themselves, I think it was kinda toast anyhow...at least for some.

Cereal Killer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 7:31 am *done for top clubs with expensive lawyers

They’ll just go even harder at the lesser clubs to make it look like they’re still in control

Nah, I'm pretty sure ever club in the league could afford the best lawyers, what this is about is teams sticking up for themselves, not rolling over and having their tummy tickled and told to go on their way, like we did.
You can go over the morals of where we were, but our issues were impacted by others rules, and City have just blown them out of the water. We should now sue the premier League for loss of earnings based on our league position last year

I see city won their case today anyone surprised in the slightest

Kerryblueboy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:53 pm I see city won their case today anyone surprised in the slightest

I don't know much about this specific case, but we're listed as witness for them rather than against, it might be that them winning benefits us in this instance.

Kerryblueboy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:53 pm I see city won their case today anyone surprised in the slightest

The 115 charges haven’t been heard yet

130 charges

Kerryblueboy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:53 pm I see city won their case today anyone surprised in the slightest

Wasn't this just the sponsorship case and not the 130 charges?

Cozzie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:33 pm Wasn't this just the sponsorship case and not the 130 charges?

Aren't they linked though. Mitigation for all the other charges is this illegal rule?? Also if you now don't need fair market value isn't ffp dead