Financial Fairplay Investigation - Further 2 points deducted.

[Trowel]

Here's an article with a full list of what's planned, including a plane over the Etihad. Some of the flags are on the 1878's Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/The1878s
https://twitter.com/MsiDouglas/status/1727018950570234230

[Shogun]

Nice to see that the Prem clubs have voted that clubs can continue to loan players from other clubs under the same ownership in foreign countries.

All fair and above board. Nothing to see here.

Who does that benefit outside of Man City, Newcastle and Chelsea?

Yeah off the top of my head, they are the three in question. Maybe some of the others are looking at multi club ownership.

They got 7 votes in their favour, so I would assume that's the normal Big 6 plus Newcastle.

As Escla says, could be us tbf.

[Bluedylan1]

As Escla says, could be us tbf.

Could be. Doesn't make it right, like. Trafficking players.

As I said on the other thread, Newcastle's owners also own the 4 biggest clubs in Saudi now, so they basically get their pick of some of the big money mercenaries that have moved there each season for a few cheeky loans.

Bent as fuck.

[Escalator]

It’s the true definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. We are appealing to the exact same panel that imposed the ten point deduction and expecting a different outcome, panel includes the same KC that said the other clubs have a potential claim for compensation. I’m also sure that the panel will be delighted to see the banners and placards accusing them of being complicit in the PL corruption.

[Bluedylan1]

Just listening to a few podcasts related to football and business, and a general summation (from my POV) is that we have three main areas for appeal -

1) The initial defence/mitigation proposed by Everton wasn't very strong, and could be made much stronger.
2) The numerous issues with the way the Prem and the commission has carried out this process.
and 3) The nature of the punishment, how seemingly ''made up'' it is, and how disproportionate it is.

I don't know enough about law to know which of those approaches is our strongest case for appeal, or whether it's even worth hitting them with all three. Maybe others can advise there?

[Escalator]

Just listening to a few podcasts related to football and business, and a general summation (from my POV) is that we have three main areas for appeal -

1) The initial defence/mitigation proposed by Everton wasn't very strong, and could be made much stronger.
2) The numerous issues with the way the Prem and the commission has carried out this process.
and 3) The nature of the punishment, how seemingly ''made up'' it is, and how disproportionate it is.

I don't know enough about law to know which of those approaches is our strongest case for appeal, or whether it's even worth hitting them with all three. Maybe others can advise there?

Re point 1) I can’t imagine that the CEO and Finance Director refusing to attend has helped our case (or maybe it did ?)
Not sure about point 2) re point 3) I believe that as in a court of law when a case comes to trial the “sentencing guidelines”
are well established before any judgement is reached, you know whether you’re going to get a custodial sentence or not etc.
You can’t just find someone guilty then make up a sentence, I think we have a strong case here.

[blueToffee]

I would think it'd be either a case of hoping if a new person is looking at these mitigating factors maybe they'd take a more lenient view on some of those? I mean also how weird is it that the PL apparently took 9 months to get back to us on some of mitigating factors we submitted which would've changed how we saw our own accounting/finances and then call us out for not following their rules.

Or, as mentioned the fact that they seemingly had no framework for enforcement of these rules, did I read correctly that they came up with these punishment guidelines relatively recently?

[Escalator]

I would think it'd be either a case of hoping if a new person is looking at these mitigating factors maybe they'd take a more lenient view on some of those? I mean also how weird is it that the PL apparently took 9 months to get back to us on some of mitigating factors we submitted which would've changed how we saw our own accounting/finances and then call us out for not following their rules.

Or, as mentioned the fact that they seemingly had no framework for enforcement these rules, did I read correctly that they came up with these punishment guidelines relatively recently?

But from what I have read there is no new person looking at the appeal, we are asking the same people to admit they got it wrong ?

[Bluedylan1]

Or, as mentioned the fact that they seemingly had no framework for enforcement these rules, did I read correctly that they came up with these punishment guidelines relatively recently?

They came up with the punishment guidelines in August this year, after they were already prosecuting the case.

So they effectively tried someone for a crime, and mid way through the trial, they made up a completely arbitrary punishment for that crime.

Surely stuff like that can't stand up under appeal?

[blueToffee]

Or, as mentioned the fact that they seemingly had no framework for enforcement these rules, did I read correctly that they came up with these punishment guidelines relatively recently?

They came up with the punishment guidelines in August this year, after they were already prosecuting the case.

So they effectively tried someone for a crime, and mid way through the trial, they made up a completely arbitrary punishment for that crime.

Surely stuff like that can't stand up under appeal?

You would hope that would be a genuine grounds for complaint. As it is ridiculous.

[Escalator]

Or, as mentioned the fact that they seemingly had no framework for enforcement these rules, did I read correctly that they came up with these punishment guidelines relatively recently?

They came up with the punishment guidelines in August this year, after they were already prosecuting the case.

So they effectively tried someone for a crime, and mid way through the trial, they made up a completely arbitrary punishment for that crime.

Surely stuff like that can't stand up under appeal?

I agree with your last sentence and if we were appealing to a different panel you would stand a good chance of winning the appeal but when you are appealing to the same people that saw nothing wrong with that first time round I’m not so sure.

[777Kidnappings]

Nice to see that the Prem clubs have voted that clubs can continue to loan players from other clubs under the same ownership in foreign countries.

All fair and above board. Nothing to see here.

Who does that benefit outside of Man City, Newcastle and Chelsea?

We might have voted for it. With 777 incoming it might be a big thing for us too

[blueToffee]

I would think it'd be either a case of hoping if a new person is looking at these mitigating factors maybe they'd take a more lenient view on some of those? I mean also how weird is it that the PL apparently took 9 months to get back to us on some of mitigating factors we submitted which would've changed how we saw our own accounting/finances and then call us out for not following their rules.

Or, as mentioned the fact that they seemingly had no framework for enforcement these rules, did I read correctly that they came up with these punishment guidelines relatively recently?

But from what I have read there is no new person looking at the appeal, we are asking the same people to admit they got it wrong ?

Really? Good lord, that's insane if so. The whole point of an appeal would be to get a second opinion, usually of someone with even more experience...not have the same person give the same opinion or try and change their minds by asking really nicely this time. That'd be kinda nuts. The court of appeal isn't just the same people in a different building.

[777Kidnappings]

Think it was said recently (when Chelsea were spending) that they have decided that breaching ffp and getting a fine was just the cost of doing business.... which goes to the point that no one had any clue about the framework of punishments

[superpull]

Or, as mentioned the fact that they seemingly had no framework for enforcement these rules, did I read correctly that they came up with these punishment guidelines relatively recently?

They came up with the punishment guidelines in August this year, after they were already prosecuting the case.

So they effectively tried someone for a crime, and mid way through the trial, they made up a completely arbitrary punishment for that crime.

Surely stuff like that can't stand up under appeal?

That will go a long way to explain why the independent panel went out of their way to say they were specifically ignoring the PLs sentencing guidelines as it would invalidate the powers of the panel.
And then, coincidentally, plumped for the exact same points deduction as the PL had recommended. But without specifying how they came to it.