Costanillas
First Team Squad
Depressingly, yes, it's the only way I can see the Man City case going. It smacks of small and medium-sized businesses getting prosecuted by the tax authorities while the richest get sweetheart deals.
-
All - as you will understand, the forum is exceptionally busy at this time. The admins and moderators simply don't have time to read every post in every thread. Could you PLEASE use the "Report" option below a post to flag any content that you feel we need to be aware of. We'll review everything reported as a priority and deal with it accordingly. Thank you.
Financial Fair Play (FFP)
- Thread starter Hawkeye1947
- Start date
PlayedOnGrass
First Team Squad
Although I do agree with you.
Don't forget the points deducted are points which were earned for results on the pitch.
Still what is done is done.
Let's make it a cracking atmosphere on Saturday - I hope that we all pull together including Forza Garibaldi with an inspiring display - and do whatever is necessary (win/draw) to secure our safety so we can celebrate with a few beers after the game.
Robertson
Geoff Thomas
Had a skim of the report and honestly CBA to read it all properly. This made me laugh though:
In other words, don’t ever hope for any consistency or try and appeal against precedent in the future, we absolutely reserve the right to continue to make this up as we go along
.
In other words, don’t ever hope for any consistency or try and appeal against precedent in the future, we absolutely reserve the right to continue to make this up as we go along
.
Notcher
Stuart Pearce
In other words, f**k off and don't burden us with appeals, facts won't be tolerated under any circumstances no matter how legitimate.Had a skim of the report and honestly CBA to read it all properly. This made me laugh though:
View attachment 39036
In other words, don’t ever hope for any consistency or try and appeal against precedent in the future, we absolutely reserve the right to continue to make this up as we go along.
.
Quite frankly that statement is f**king scandalous and undermines the legitimacy of any appeal process.
PynchonForest
John Robertson
Gee, our points reduction wasn't overturned. I am very surprised.
GOBIAS
Ian Bowyer
I wonder where talk of us getting 1 or 2 back came from.
Mr. Blonde
Jack Burkitt
Sorry but that's utter horse shitHad a skim of the report and honestly CBA to read it all properly. This made me laugh though:
View attachment 39036
In other words, don’t ever hope for any consistency or try and appeal against precedent in the future, we absolutely reserve the right to continue to make this up as we go along
Our entire system of case law and judicial precedent is based around comparing the facts of the relevant case to established case law, our judicial system literally wouldn't be able to function without it
JohnnyCarey
Viv Anderson
I never believed we were right to appeal. It just prolonged the uncertainty while having very little chance of success. It does seem that Forest were extremely naive in not finding ways to "legally" cook the books, but the undeniable fact is that we admitted a breach of the rules and were always going to get done for it. We offered ourselves as convenient fall guys for the PL to show it was regulating itself. The owner and the board should take responsibility for that.
Someone’s arse, would be my guess.
Look, it’s absolutely clear these rules favour the wealthier clubs, but they always have, and that’s the price of admission to the Premier League; yes, you can join the party and get your 120m quid from television, but three of you are going to get relegated.
And if you try and hang on to your better players for as long as possible to get more money for them in the end when you inevitably have to sell, tough.
We don’t care, because you’re not one of the Manchester clubs, Liverpool, the Arsenal, Chelsea, or (giggle) Spurs.
Redemption
One less gobshite...
I guess that Nic de Marco on the list.
ARedChester
First Team Squad
This in isltself should prompt an automatic investigation. Quite wrong howitzer happened, irrespective of the club.
We do need to show more howizembition
Notcher
Stuart Pearce
They tried to navigate that by then stating that these appeals are not rooted in parliamentary written laws and should not be treated as such. It's completely f*ckwittery which just allows the goalposts to be shifted whether by design or not. If there's no framework or benchmarks for anything then it's completely open to unfair treatment and/or vastly different interpretations.
It's astonishing that these individuals are supposed to be upheld some of our most intellectually based people in law and governance.
Last edited:
ARedChester
First Team Squad
And that is exactly what the 2nd Everton hearing did. Referenced the Forest case to come up with the 2 point conclusion - fcuking bizarre.Had a skim of the report and honestly CBA to read it all properly. This made me laugh though:
View attachment 39036
In other words, don’t ever hope for any consistency or try and appeal against precedent in the future, we absolutely reserve the right to continue to make this up as we go along
Shearstone
Misses the champ
I know things can get heated when stuff doesn't go our way but the panel was overseen by Lord Dyson, literally a former supreme justice. Now what's an 80 year old bloke with his pedigree looking at a bloody football ruling, I don't know but I can't see how you can question the quality of the panel and it's findings.
Arsebishop Desmond TwoTwo
Touching Cloth
Lord Dyson, eh?
Guess we just have to suck it up. These decisions aren't made in a vacuum.
Wes' Organ
Biggles
Fortunately, everyone loves being told off by a stranger on the Internet.
Shearstone
Misses the champ
It's an appeal so new evidence couldn't have been submitted anyway
Notcher
Stuart Pearce
I don't think people are questioning the findings as such but the closing statements are utterly bizarre and should be readdressed.
Some of the criticisms of the Decision have involved a minute examination of the words used by the Commission. Decisions such as these should not be subjected to microscopic forensic examination and interpreted as if they were statutes which have been drafted by Parliamentary Counsel. Allegations of infelicities of language or errors which are not material to the ultimate decision add to the complexity and costs of proceedings and are rarely likely to lead to a successful challenge of a decision.
Does anyone know what this means?
Does anyone know what this means?
MC Plantpot
First Team Squad
Got to change the rules to get Newcastle at the table too.
Notcher
Stuart Pearce
They're effectively saying that anything that an initial commission says shouldn't be held up to the same standards as it would in a court of law.
Where was it leaked? All weekend it was suggested Forest would get points back which is not what happened
apondaway
Viv Anderson
Wishful thinking across the board. Once Forest won it was set in stone there was no chance points would be given back, IMO.