This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Everton points deduction reduced to 6 points
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Ginger Pubic Wig  Wickham de L'Ouest 26 Feb 24 5.39pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
I have no idea how you bring transparency to the process. These conversations get very complicated when you hear the grounds on which clubs appeal. I do feel sorry for Everton fans. It's a tedious way to support your football team, waiting on the whims of some bureaucrats in London. It's a rotten business that is for sure
If you want to live in a world full of kindness, respect and love, try to show these qualities. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| silvertop Portishead 26 Feb 24 5.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by RubinsCube
Seems to me there are so many aspects of this which lack transparency and consistency. Here are just some of them: 1. No transparency re when points should be deducted relative to the timing of the transgressions in FFP/FSR. Should it be the same season, or the following season, or every (current?) season the transgressions occur? For context, Everton transgressed in windows affecting last season. They would have been relegated last year with even a 3 point penalty. Last year Man City won the title by 5 points: a 6 point deduction as given to Everton today would have resulted in ramifications at the top of the table as well. 2. No transparency on what transgressions (or volume of transgressions) should result in 'x' amount of points deducted. Assuming all infractions committed by Man City/Everton/Forest are fungible (a good accountancy exams word there), how can the 115 supposed infractions by Citeh potentially lead to the same deduction as the 9 infractions or so by Everton, assuming these numbers are accurate (again there is no transparency over precisely how many infractions there have been in each case). 3. No transparency over how similar, or dissimilar, the transgressions by each club are. How can points deductions therefore be consistent club to club and season to season? 4. No transparency or reason why Everton have somehow been penalized, had their appeal heard, and been awarded back points, whilst Forest and City (and maybe others?) are still at first base. 5. No consistency between approaches at Premier League level and lower levels. For context, Luton got hammered for 30 points in 2014. 10 of these deducted points were for player transfer anomalies. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9309_Luton_Town_F.C._season). There was no right of appeal for the transfer related 10 point penalty. The full -30 point penalty kicked in at the start of the season. Where is the process? Where is the consistency? I'd be livid if I were a Leicester/Arsenal/Luton fan. I'd also be angry as an Everton fan looking at how Man City/Forest seem to be able to filibuster. Edited by RubinsCube (26 Feb 2024 5.08pm) You are not wrong in what the FA need to achieve, but a few points. Luton, Man City and Everton/Forest are/were charged under 3 separate sets of regulations with their own discrete rules so it is hardly surprising there is no consistency between their respective treatments. You are not comparing apples. Why Man City and Chelsea have not had their FFP issue determined by now is vexing and does not credit the FA. However, on Everton and Forest, which relates to accounting breaches rather than transfer irregularities, these are new rules where the FA is still finding its way. It needs to build up a set of precedents and fine tune its procedure so the clubs fully understand what they can and can't do, how to avoid it, and what the likely penalty and process will be if they flout the rules. This requires time and plenty of clubs trying to bend the rules.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| silvertop Portishead 26 Feb 24 5.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Uphill
After Luton's disgraceful 30 point deduction the 10 that Everton got didn't seem excessive to me so I think they have done well getting it cut by 4 points. The people that really suffer are the fans not the management. It's a terrible indictment that Man City who appear to most people to be major offenders that they are able to hire the best lawyers to constantly delay their hearing. I think it is possible they will eventually get hammered so hard that demotion to League Two is a possibility, as Rangers suffered a few years back, followed closely by Chelsea. If the rules are there what excuse is there to be lenient with offenders? Everton did not hold back on who they instructed. Top KC like Man City.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 26 Feb 24 5.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by RubinsCube
Seems to me there are so many aspects of this which lack transparency and consistency. Here are just some of them: 1. No transparency re when points should be deducted relative to the timing of the transgressions in FFP/FSR. Should it be the same season, or the following season, or every (current?) season the transgressions occur? For context, Everton transgressed in windows affecting last season. They would have been relegated last year with even a 3 point penalty. Last year Man City won the title by 5 points: a 6 point deduction as given to Everton today would have resulted in ramifications at the top of the table as well. 2. No transparency on what transgressions (or volume of transgressions) should result in 'x' amount of points deducted. Assuming all infractions committed by Man City/Everton/Forest are fungible (a good accountancy exams word there), how can the 115 supposed infractions by Citeh potentially lead to the same deduction as the 9 infractions or so by Everton, assuming these numbers are accurate (again there is no transparency over precisely how many infractions there have been in each case). 3. No transparency over how similar, or dissimilar, the transgressions by each club are. How can points deductions therefore be consistent club to club and season to season? 4. No transparency or reason why Everton have somehow been penalized, had their appeal heard, and been awarded back points, whilst Forest and City (and maybe others?) are still at first base. 5. No consistency between approaches at Premier League level and lower levels. For context, Luton got hammered for 30 points in 2014. 10 of these deducted points were for player transfer anomalies. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9309_Luton_Town_F.C._season). There was no right of appeal for the transfer related 10 point penalty. The full -30 point penalty kicked in at the start of the season. Where is the process? Where is the consistency? I'd be livid if I were a Leicester/Arsenal/Luton fan. I'd also be angry as an Everton fan looking at how Man City/Forest seem to be able to filibuster. Edited by RubinsCube (26 Feb 2024 5.08pm) Excellent post. I think fans would be a lot happier if they understood how penalties are calculated and when they apply. I am not even certain that if found guilty Everton and Forest's punishment will apply this season? As for Man City, will they take away trophies? Edited by Badger11 (26 Feb 2024 5.47pm)
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| RubinsCube Wimbledon 26 Feb 24 7.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by silvertop
You are not wrong in what the FA need to achieve, but a few points. Luton, Man City and Everton/Forest are/were charged under 3 separate sets of regulations with their own discrete rules so it is hardly surprising there is no consistency between their respective treatments. You are not comparing apples. Why Man City and Chelsea have not had their FFP issue determined by now is vexing and does not credit the FA. However, on Everton and Forest, which relates to accounting breaches rather than transfer irregularities, these are new rules where the FA is still finding its way. It needs to build up a set of precedents and fine tune its procedure so the clubs fully understand what they can and can't do, how to avoid it, and what the likely penalty and process will be if they flout the rules. This requires time and plenty of clubs trying to bend the rules. That is a very fair point. At the same time, there is a lot of rhetoric around "this being a unique situation" which is "without precedent". I call BS (no, not BFS. A Freudian slip, perhaps) on that. If you want to look through the narrow prism of the prevailing regulations in place at the time, then sure, this set of charges on Everton is unique. But the inference there has been no previous example of clubs engaging in fiscal mismanagement - specifically spending more on players and agents than they can responsibly afford - is disingenuous at best. I would also argue there is an intersect between accounting breaches and transfer irregularities: the accounting breaches would understate losses and enable certain transfers to be considered/undertaken which would not be possible with true and fair balance sheets and cash flow statements. Edited by RubinsCube (26 Feb 2024 7.37pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| RubinsCube Wimbledon 26 Feb 24 7.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Excellent post. I think fans would be a lot happier if they understood how penalties are calculated and when they apply. I am not even certain that if found guilty Everton and Forest's punishment will apply this season? As for Man City, will they take away trophies? Edited by Badger11 (26 Feb 2024 5.47pm) Exactly right. According to the BBC (https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/68273436): "That case must be heard by 8 April, however, any appeal could take that process to 24 May, the week after the season has concluded." Does this mean that if it gets to early April and Everton win a few games in March they take a punt and decline to appeal? Conversely, if they have a poor March and are less than five points above the drop zone, do they appeal to delay the proceedings until after the end of the season? Essentially, it seems to give them the power to take a hit either this season or next season. An unrelated question but it also springs to mind: do clubs who delay points deductions this way - assuming they can - still get the same Premier League revenue each year? It would be worth delaying any and all hearings to preserve another season in the top flight. A total mess. Edited by RubinsCube (26 Feb 2024 7.38pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| stancummins 26 Feb 24 7.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
So the new cases have to be heard by 8th April that means anytime between now and then, i would imagine now the appeal decision has been announced it will be sooner rather than later
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Davepalace707 Northumberland 27 Feb 24 7.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Arriving at six points as an “acceptable” deduction makes it more likely Forest will get the same next week. That puts them on 18 points and a healthy ten point gap to us.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Painter Croydon 27 Feb 24 8.12am |
|
|---|---|
|
It’s all a fiasco, no clear rules and punishment, it’s made up as they go. The offences occurred last year, but Leicester went down, as no penalty given Everton then, is that fair?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
eagleman13  On The Road To Hell & Alicante 27 Feb 24 8.21am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by stancummins
So the new cases have to be heard by 8th April that means anytime between now and then, i would imagine now the appeal decision has been announced it will be sooner rather than later Forest's hearing is next Thursday(BBC sport)
This operation, will make the 'Charge Of The Light Brigade' seem like a simple military exercise. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Nicholas91  The Democratic Republic of Kent 27 Feb 24 8.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Painter
It’s all a fiasco, no clear rules and punishment, it’s made up as they go. The offences occurred last year, but Leicester went down, as no penalty given Everton then, is that fair? I'd argue not. There is too much of a 'make it up as you go along' feel to it alongside the seeming disparity in decisions and action taken against the obvious, big club perpetrators and the smaller, perhaps more easily punished ones. I'm probably right at the end of the queue for any persons to afford sympathy or provide a defence for fans of other PL clubs however the line 'feels like a punishment for fans' is apt in my book. There's enough in-season drama, heartache and despair without the looming and incoherent prospect of points deductions hanging. Takes away from the playing and competition of the sport/league, the whole purpose.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| silvertop Portishead 27 Feb 24 9.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by RubinsCube
That is a very fair point. At the same time, there is a lot of rhetoric around "this being a unique situation" which is "without precedent". I call BS (no, not BFS. A Freudian slip, perhaps) on that. If you want to look through the narrow prism of the prevailing regulations in place at the time, then sure, this set of charges on Everton is unique. But the inference there has been no previous example of clubs engaging in fiscal mismanagement - specifically spending more on players and agents than they can responsibly afford - is disingenuous at best. I would also argue there is an intersect between accounting breaches and transfer irregularities: the accounting breaches would understate losses and enable certain transfers to be considered/undertaken which would not be possible with true and fair balance sheets and cash flow statements. Edited by RubinsCube (26 Feb 2024 7.37pm) That is fair but I do not know enough about the rules and the criteria applied to say whether you can import procedure, principles and sanctions from one set of rules to another to help out. What will really build a solid book of rules is years of clubs breaking them and developing a healthy body of precedents. That is, precisely what the rules are designed to deter. Until then, they are all finding their way in relative darkness.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.