If we do get a penalty tomorrow, we can probably expect the lawsuits from Leicester, Leeds and Southampton to follow shortly after.
-
Any old billionaire can afford to litigate as much as they like.
-
And ordinary people, and their societal organizations can't.
That's entirely the point/plan.
-
On the radio into work this morn had Talkshite on saying us and the Evs will find out this morn and said “Forest are expecting to be charged”
-
To be fair, a fine would be a very stupid punishment for over-spending.
-
If so, that will demonstrate something else stupidly not addressed by the latest version of the rules.
I will accept lawsuits where clubs cheat (e.g. false discourses, illegal payments etc), but simple failure to operate within the guidelines.. for which a regulation and penalty regime exists, should not be grounds to sue, and all clubs should sign up to that. Suing for breaching FFP is functionally no different to suing a club who fouls and timewaste’s their way to a critical final day result.
-
My ITK news, in the words of one of SSC's team who has worked with him since the England U17 days:
"Was an amzing 2 years but was time for a change. We are happy with what we achieved."
-
I suspect sympathy for us may be limited by the fact we were ready to sign up to sue Everton if we'd gone down last season.
-
There was talk of this when Everton got points deducted last time. But nothing has transpired.
-
I'd have no qualms about being punished if City and Chelsea were first against the wall but this is bollocks, as it was with Everton. You can't a) have a rule that is only enforced if you break it a bit, not a lot and b) have a reset with a new set of rules so you can crack on prosecuting ahead of the previous cases. It's a quick grab of low hanging to fruit to be seen to be doing. I'm not entirely sure corrupt is the line I'd be going with, I'd suggest it's just weak. This premier league thing is a shitshow.
-
Well indeed. I don’t begrudge anyone playing the game by the rules set out. It’s an issue the authorities should have sorted. Tightening up timescales to get deductions done in the season of reporting is good, but obviously leaves alive the issue of clubs being punished in the season after the breach… and, thus, the lawsuits.
Of course, the breach is a three season thing.. so as well as three clubs from last season suing us… what about Sheffield United, Huddersfield and Middlesbrough joining in? It’s all very stupid which is why clubs should be prevented from taking these actions.
-
It really is shit. I'm off down the park with Tricky. I'll being the tinnies and you can bring the sausage rolls.
-
No. The breach occurs in the season in which profit and sustainability rules are broken. Those rules take into account a three year accounting period and allowable losses. There is no suggestion that we breached them before the last accounting period. So there is no grounds for claim prior to that period. The new rules may (should) include competition rules that any restitution be applied by the governing bodies. As such any action would be restricted to a failure to apply the rules on their part.
This may be bad news for the nottinum florists. Rules are rules, and the governance must be applied.
-
Ooh, I almost decided you were right. But no.
You can generally pinpoint a binary thing like a breach down to the minute if you want.. but this is a three year reporting period and our breach will be for three years’ spending. The reality is that it is a cumulative thing. Any camel will tell you.. all the straws matter.
The penalty we get now doesn’t care which years the losses came in. One year of batshit mental spending/losses can put a club in beach three times even if other years are fine (not a terribly likely scenario due to contracts etc, but a feasible one) so you cannot, in all three years, say that the last one is the relevant year when people who feel disadvantaged can get all litigious.
-
Again. No. There was no breach in the previous accounting period, which included the first two accounting periods. The breach (if it is indeed so) occurred in the final accounting period.
That losses are allowed to be amortised over multiple periods, does not materially affect when the contravention occurs. It just means that the rules allow for excess individual losses when balanced over a wider period. The point at which those allowable amortized losses are breached is the contravention of the rules. Not a retrospective view that a failure to have sufficient headroom for current period losses contributed to it.
Getting angry, and confronting someone, isn't a breach of the rules. That comes when you actually punch them in the face. That's the offence, even if prior behavior led to it that is not actionable.
-
P.S. allowable losses are circa £5 million a year. Then there is an allowable figure that stretches to a very substantial amount, for which owners are mandated certain behavior. Failure to meet these requirements, or to exceed the threshold at which restorative action is allowed, mandates action at the governance level.
We, and Everton if it is indeed so, have not marginally overspent. We have massively overspent beyond the limits that restorative action is allowed under the rules.
