Today's Football

[Michael5482]

It's been a good run but 12 day break for tin pot internationals, think I'll down tools on the football until the international break is over.

[Kai]

It's been a good run but 12 day break for tin pot internationals, think I'll down tools on the football until the international break is over.

Ye looks crap, good time to catch up on some deepwork

[greenmark]

2nd half of the United/Liverpool game was a shocker. Said to the missus that Liverpool were way too comfortable and trying to walk the ball in for a 3rd goal, nobody having the balls to take a shot. No complaints though, United were fair winners and should be credited for not capitulating and taking their chances when they came. Just have to settle for a treble now, Klopps last game being the Europa final in Dublin

What struck me was United were more motivated than Ive seen them for yonks.
Makes you wonder what is going there when they can flip from dire to like a predator.

But yep, Europa League final in Dublin. That's gotta be a great experience. Win or lose.

[Euler]

Forest deducted four points

[greenmark]

Forest deducted four points

The Guardian have reported that. Zilch about it on the BBC. The BBC football hacks are evidently still in the pub.

[harryefc84]

Make a mistake with no sporting advantage = 10 points, reduced to 6.

Deliberately not sell a player knowing you will brake the rules = 4 points, reduced to....

[greenmark]

Make a mistake with no sporting advantage = 10 points, reduced to 6.

Deliberately not sell a player knowing you will brake the rules = 4 points, reduced to....

Or break the rules (alledgedly) 115 times and it gets kicked into the lon grass cos it's so flipping complex and City have contracted a top KC to construct their defence.
Plus, imagine the fall out if City are found guilty. Retrospective penalties impacting 10 years of results? It's the football establishment baulking at the prospect of discrediting one the leading lights of their league and by implication the EPL product. It's all quite seedy. And don't forget Chelsea either, dodgy dealing there is under scrutiny too.

[harryefc84]

City's breaches sound like they are on another level. IF found guilty, the sheer volume of them plus the actual severity they must surely see them drop down to non league.

I still cant comprehend how Everton can get one punishment 19.5mil (for building a stadium) = 10 points, reduced to 6 on appeal
yet Forrest overspend by 34.5million get 4 points which could yet be reduced.
Larger losses, higher percentage of what they were allowed and actually gained a sporting advantage.

oh and they'll change the rules after this.

[jamesedwards]

The constant ad nauseam comparisons to Man City in media and elsewhere are nothing short of delusory. The case is totally different.

Everton and Notts Forest have overspent and have breached predetermined loss limits. They are guilty of breaking the rules by their own admission in the publication of their own accounts.

Man City have not breached predetermined loss limits based on their publicised accounts. They have been charged with 115 potential breaches of accounting that may have reduced losses publicised between 2009 and 2018. Because these are just suspected breaches they must be proved before guilt can be determined and punishment can be meted out.

[greenmark]

The constant ad nauseam comparisons to Man City in media and elsewhere are nothing short of delusory. The case is totally different.

Everton and Notts Forest have overspent and have breached predetermined loss limits. They are guilty of breaking the rules by their own admission in the publication of their own accounts.

Man City have not breached predetermined loss limits based on their publicised accounts. They have been charged with 115 potential breaches of accounting that may have reduced losses publicised between 2009 and 2018. Because these are just suspected breaches they must be proved before guilt can be determined and punishment can be meted out.

A bit like "whoops, yeah we did do that. Sorry!" as opposed to "no we will not provide info that might incriminate us - talk to the hand!". As I said City's case is a real PR nightmare for the EPL. Let them off without due process and the EPL's Fair Play is blown out of the water. Find City guilty and the EPL product is tarnished.

[jamesedwards]

The constant ad nauseam comparisons to Man City in media and elsewhere are nothing short of delusory. The case is totally different.

Everton and Notts Forest have overspent and have breached predetermined loss limits. They are guilty of breaking the rules by their own admission in the publication of their own accounts.

Man City have not breached predetermined loss limits based on their publicised accounts. They have been charged with 115 potential breaches of accounting that may have reduced losses publicised between 2009 and 2018. Because these are just suspected breaches they must be proved before guilt can be determined and punishment can be meted out.

A bit like "whoops, yeah we did do that. Sorry!" as opposed to "no we will not provide info that might incriminate us - talk to the hand!". As I said City's case is a real PR nightmare for the EPL. Let them off without due process and the EPL's Fair Play is blown out of the water. Find City guilty and the EPL product is tarnished.

Not really. Forest and Everton have breached FFP loss limits, whereas Man City have not.

The accusation is that they used underhand accounting manipulation to stay under limit, which they deny. This needs to be proved before guilt can be determined.

Incidentally none of these rules existed when the rest of the Premiership juggernauts splashed the cash to buy their success. They created them to try and prevent others from competing.

[greenmark]

The constant ad nauseam comparisons to Man City in media and elsewhere are nothing short of delusory. The case is totally different.

Everton and Notts Forest have overspent and have breached predetermined loss limits. They are guilty of breaking the rules by their own admission in the publication of their own accounts.

Man City have not breached predetermined loss limits based on their publicised accounts. They have been charged with 115 potential breaches of accounting that may have reduced losses publicised between 2009 and 2018. Because these are just suspected breaches they must be proved before guilt can be determined and punishment can be meted out.

A bit like "whoops, yeah we did do that. Sorry!" as opposed to "no we will not provide info that might incriminate us - talk to the hand!". As I said City's case is a real PR nightmare for the EPL. Let them off without due process and the EPL's Fair Play is blown out of the water. Find City guilty and the EPL product is tarnished.

Not really. Forest and Everton have breached FFP loss limits, whereas Man City have not.

The accusation is that they used underhand accounting manipulation to stay under limit, which they deny. This needs to be proved before guilt can be determined.

Incidentally none of these rules existed when the rest of the Premiership juggernauts splashed the cash to buy their success. They created them to try and prevent others from competing.

A lot of the accusations against city are around refusal to provide info that they are obliged to. They are playing a game of chicken with the EPL.
All they need to do is provide the info that the EPL require and the charges would fall away. The reluctance to provide the info suggests they are as guilty as a puppy next to a pile of poo.

[harryefc84]

The constant ad nauseam comparisons to Man City in media and elsewhere are nothing short of delusory. The case is totally different.

Everton and Notts Forest have overspent and have breached predetermined loss limits. They are guilty of breaking the rules by their own admission in the publication of their own accounts.

Man City have not breached predetermined loss limits based on their publicised accounts. They have been charged with 115 potential breaches of accounting that may have reduced losses publicised between 2009 and 2018. Because these are just suspected breaches they must be proved before guilt can be determined and punishment can be meted out.

That's why I've not really gone into man city's case, I agree its totally different. IF proven then they will be gone for a good while, but that's a BIG IF and not really relevant.

Its a lot easier to compare forest and Everton's. Forests was deliberate, gained a sporting advantage and more severe, nearly double. Yet they get a smaller punishment, it doesn't make sense.

[jamesedwards]

A bit like "whoops, yeah we did do that. Sorry!" as opposed to "no we will not provide info that might incriminate us - talk to the hand!". As I said City's case is a real PR nightmare for the EPL. Let them off without due process and the EPL's Fair Play is blown out of the water. Find City guilty and the EPL product is tarnished.

Not really. Forest and Everton have breached FFP loss limits, whereas Man City have not.

The accusation is that they used underhand accounting manipulation to stay under limit, which they deny. This needs to be proved before guilt can be determined.

Incidentally none of these rules existed when the rest of the Premiership juggernauts splashed the cash to buy their success. They created them to try and prevent others from competing.

A lot of the accusations against city are around refusal to provide info that they are obliged to. They are playing a game of chicken with the EPL.
All they need to do is provide the info that the EPL require and the charges would fall away. The reluctance to provide the info suggests they are as guilty as a puppy next to a pile of poo.

Capture 38.PNG

[jamesedwards]

The constant ad nauseam comparisons to Man City in media and elsewhere are nothing short of delusory. The case is totally different.

Everton and Notts Forest have overspent and have breached predetermined loss limits. They are guilty of breaking the rules by their own admission in the publication of their own accounts.

Man City have not breached predetermined loss limits based on their publicised accounts. They have been charged with 115 potential breaches of accounting that may have reduced losses publicised between 2009 and 2018. Because these are just suspected breaches they must be proved before guilt can be determined and punishment can be meted out.

That's why I've not really gone into man city's case, I agree its totally different. IF proven then they will be gone for a good while, but that's a BIG IF and not really relevant.

Its a lot easier to compare forest and Everton's. Forests was deliberate, gained a sporting advantage and more severe, nearly double. Yet they get a smaller punishment, it doesn't make sense.

Everton actually lost £370m over the three-year period in question. They tried to tuck £250m of it into the covid impact bucket. Notts Forest losses were only around £100m, but they had a lower limit of £61m because they were in the Championship for some of those years.