|
Post by Porrohman on Feb 26, 2024 21:02:51 GMT 1
10 points is excessive and vindictive but 6 is fair, why? Someone explain please. Were Readings 16 points worth of deductions for exceeding financial limits by a lower amount than Everton vindictive and unfair? This is the full tweet Absolutely right that #EFC points deduction reduced from 10 to 6. Many within the game were expecting 6 points originally. Everton had a case to answer on PSR but interest payments on stadium should have been allowable. 10 points was clearly excessive, vindictive, inconsistent. You get only 9 points for insolvency. Delays in hearing Manchester City’s charges (they deny wrongdoing) simply revealed the PL as weak and too slow-moving. FFP/PSR is needed but punishments have to be fair. 6 points is fair. It still sends a message that balancing books matters. It also shows the importance of fans’ powerful and justified response from Gwladys Street terraces to mayoral offices, highlighting the iniquity of the original judgement. @everton in their statement say they understand that the appeal board deemed the original deduction “inappropriate” and the club is “also particularly pleased with the appeal board’s decision to overturn the original commission’s finding that the Club failed to act in utmost good faith. That decision, along with reducing the points deduction, was an incredibly important point of principle for the club on appeal”. Everton still have another case to answer, but this sensible verdict from the appeal board gives them hope of a more even-handed judgement.
|
|
|
Post by markthehorn on Feb 26, 2024 21:51:42 GMT 1
Their main argument seemed to be that the 10 point deduction is more than a team going into administration would get .
|
|
|
Post by townarentbest on Feb 26, 2024 23:48:45 GMT 1
Their main argument seemed to be that the 10 point deduction is more than a team going into administration would get . So it’s just a subjective opinion. Id suggest that intentionally breaking the rules and cheating over a protracted 3 year period with no evidence of even trying to bring in financial restraint or rebalancing monies by selling players, during a period where they were in relegation dog fights, so had a big advantage over clubs who stuck to the rules and got relegated is a WORSE transgression than a club simply being unable to operate financially and seeking the protection of administration whilst appealing for buyers who can restructure and turn things around. The penalty should be HIGHER for intentionally cheating.
|
|
|
Post by utttrooper on Feb 27, 2024 0:20:02 GMT 1
Their main argument seemed to be that the 10 point deduction is more than a team going into administration would get . So it’s just a subjective opinion. Id suggest that intentionally breaking the rules and cheating over a protracted 3 year period with no evidence of even trying to bring in financial restraint or rebalancing monies by selling players, during a period where they were in relegation dog fights, so had a big advantage over clubs who stuck to the rules and got relegated is a WORSE transgression than a club simply being unable to operate financially and seeking the protection of administration whilst appealing for buyers who can restructure and turn things around. The penalty should be HIGHER for intentionally cheating. I'd agree with you if they had spent vast amounts of money on transfer fees in the period accounted for like the cheating, whiny twats from Weat Bridgford. Most of the money spent has been on the construction of their new stadium which will benefit the local community and is part of the country's Euro 2028 bid. Also inflation will have had a massive impact on the cost of the construction of the stadium which should also be accounted for imo.
|
|