Yes 100%Reckon this is all being done with a view to the City charges. Something like 'look we've shown we take these breaches seriously, but Manchester City have shown us (brown envelope shaped) evidence to prove their innocence'
I think they are aware that people won't buy that. With every charge and punishment other teams get, they are making it more difficult for themselves not to punish City when the time comes.Reckon this is all being done with a view to the City charges. Something like 'look we've shown we take these breaches seriously, but Manchester City have shown us (brown envelope shaped) evidence to prove their innocence'
1 point behind Luton with better fixtures. Probably not.Thats them fecked then
Yes!Is it true that their defence was holding out on selling Johnson so they could get more money
That would be quite funnyi assume they gave them 4 to set precedent to then give Everton another 4 so it rounds back to Everton having a 10 point deduction.
Exactly, instead of focussing on what caused the problem, point to another transfer outside of the required window.Yes!
It's so laughable!
Ignore the £250 million spent on 40+ players and just concentrate on the one transfer we delayed to get more money for!
Well yeah, it's a much more complicated case with 115 charges, and City is actually fighting the charges. Of course it's going to take a lot longer to litigate.And yet City still haven’t had so much as a finger wag at them
For comparison, how many charges were there for Everton and Forest?Well yeah, it's a much more complicated case with 115 charges, and City is actually fighting the charges. Of course it's going to take a lot longer to litigate.
Next time I go to a restaurant and they give me the bill, I'll tell them to wait a month so that I have more money then!Exactly, instead of focussing on what caused the problem, point to another transfer outside of the required window.
Not particularly outlandish, that's what credit cards are for.Next time I go to a restaurant and they give me the bill, I'll tell them to wait a month so that I have more money then!
I believe it was 2 for Everton and 1 for Forest but I could be wrong. My understanding is that both clubs admitted to breaching PSR but tried to get off on extenuating circumstances.For comparison, how many charges were there for Everton and Forest?
Because they're making it up as they go along to stave off the independent regulator (and are doing an awful job at it). That should be obviousWell then...
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...rules-breach-profitability-and-sustainability
I thought they might get 6 too, will be interesting to read why they've been docked only 4 compared to our 6!
People will buy it the same way they bought City's exoneration/letting off by CAS. Most will move on, some will insist City are cheats. There's no outcome of this that will have a section of fans going, "well that's me proven wrong"I think they are aware that people won't buy that. With every charge and punishment other teams get, they are making it more difficult for themselves not to punish City when the time comes.
Well, quite, but I will enjoy hearing them try to explain it.Because they're making it up as they go along to stave off the independent regulator (and are doing an awful job at it). That should be obvious
This is way more high-profile, with a lot more people talking about 115 charges than however many charges CAS had against them.Because they're making it up as they go along to stave off the independent regulator (and are doing an awful job at it). That should be obvious
People will buy it the same way they bought City's exoneration/letting off by CAS. Most will move on, some will insist City are cheats. There's no outcome of this that will have a section of fans going, "well that's me proven wrong"
The charges were exactly the same, with the same circumstances? (genuinely asking)Well, quite, but I will enjoy hearing them try to explain it.
Well then...
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...rules-breach-profitability-and-sustainability
I thought they might get 6 too, will be interesting to read why they've been docked only 4 compared to our 6!
Shame they should have committed 115 breaches, would have gotten away then
According to the explanation from the Commission, Forest had bigger breaches, but both theirs and Everton's were considered equally significant. Therefore, Forest was lined up to get the same 6-point deduction as Everton. What saved them was both their early guilty plea as well as them providing correct information in cooperation with the Commission.The charges were exactly the same, with the same circumstances? (genuinely asking)
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
City haven't gotten away with anything though. Their cases are ongoing.Shame they should have committed 115 breaches, would have gotten away then
Well according to a City fan on the BBC site, he can't understand why people are pointing at City when these deductions are for losing money and City are making a profit. Totally oblivious to the fact that the City charges relate to the completely crooked way in which they achieved that profit and ignoring the fact that when your owner funnels money to you through a third party it is not a profit it is financial doping.What’s going on with the city charged? Everton and forest cases weren’t known about as long as city’s. It’s taking this long that I can only guess there getting a lot worse punishment. Or not.
The charges were exactly the same, with the same circumstances? (genuinely asking)
In the appeal though they said we did actually in good faith and didn't supply anything with intention to deceive or whatever so it's all a bit of a mess and tit for tat because there is no general rule in place and instead it's being decided by different independent commissions. It's an awful fecking process and if the PL were trying to show that can deal with this stuff without a regulator then all they've done is more damage to their cause.According to the explanation from the Commission, Forest had bigger breaches, but both theirs and Everton's were considered equally significant. Therefore, Forest was lined up to get the same 6-point deduction as Everton. What saved them was both their early guilty plea as well as them providing correct information in cooperation with the Commission.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The PL, however, wanted more points deducted from Forest given their larger breaches.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yeah, the application of these processes is murky, and the inconsistency will only make it more difficult to accept these rulings.In the appeal though they said we did actually in good faith and didn't supply anything with intention to deceive or whatever so it's all a bit of a mess and tit for tat because there is no general rule in place and instead it's being decided by different independent commissions. It's an awful fecking process and if the PL were trying to show that can deal with this stuff without a regulator then all they've done is more damage to their cause.
I mean... that's what happens in life no? If you break the law, depending on the judge/jury you get, you might get a different sentence depending on the circumstances.In the appeal though they said we did actually in good faith and didn't supply anything with intention to deceive or whatever so it's all a bit of a mess and tit for tat because there is no general rule in place and instead it's being decided by different independent commissions. It's an awful fecking process and if the PL were trying to show that can deal with this stuff without a regulator then all they've done is more damage to their cause.
Stan Collymore is a regular studio guest/pundit on Canal+ Football in France - I still haven't worked out why - especially as he doesn't speak French and they have to translate everything he says, which is usually nonsense.Unsure if I heard Stan Collymore correctly, in that he has sympathy for Man City bending the rules to get a seat at the top table, whilst talking about this on Talksport
