I don’t believe the sanction being the same as that suggested by Masters is just a co-incidence. It is not a fair sanction for Everton overspending by 6.5m a season. Everton gained no sporting advantage over anyone because the money was wasted. Masters is not credible and nor was the process by which he got the job.I agree with Burnham to an extent. He said it is wrong to draw up punishment guidelines after the event, and then apply them retrospectively. The incompetent PL tried this with Everton, hence Burnham's complaint.
The commission disregarded the PL guidelines though, and applied what they thought was the correct punishment for Everton. It just so happens to be the same punishment recommended by the PL, and that has brought on a heap of additional trouble.
The PL should have just let the commission get on with their job, without interfering.
Burnham also said the proper way to draw up punishment guidelines is to have them discussed by all members clubs and to agree a fair set of guidelines with a vote. Again, another example of the incompetence of Masters and the PL. Masters' position is fast becoming untenable.
Probably a discrete question for Rooney that mate.Is that because she's lost all her teeth?
Maybe BUT, as the saying goes, justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done.In respect of Rosen, you have to trust that such a well respected KC isn't going to tarnish his own reputation by showing a bias when it comes to judging the evidence. There are highly experienced lawyers on both sides of the argument whose presence will demand a fair hearing and outcome.
In the Everton case, the PL and the commission both agreed that a sporting sanction was appropriate, because of the nature of the charges and the possible benefit Everton gained from their breaches of the rules.
The Bluemoon experts on our charges say that our charges give us minor financial advantages that would not have caused FFP breaches of the magnitude of Everton's, and should not lead to sporting sanctions.
that,Its.
The commission isn't set up to find us guilty of fraud. We only stand accused of breaking PL rules. That's the only thing commission will look at.
Are we being sent to the Sinai?“So let it be written, so let it be done” -:)
Transfer wise, have they overspent by 6.5m a season though!I don’t believe the sanction being the same as that suggested by Masters is just a co-incidence. It is not a fair sanction for Everton overspending by 6.5m a season. Everton gained no sporting advantage over anyone because the money was wasted. Masters is not credible and nor was the process by which he got the job.
I’m going to start ordering some seaweed takeaway. Some egg fried rice perhaps too if it has nutritional benefits.There still seems to be a misconception of what City have been accused of and how that is different to Everton. To recap, Everton were found guilty of breaking rules and were punished. City aren't accused of breaking rules, they are accused of circumventing processes to get around the rules. So what will be looked at is if City got an unfair advantage by using loopholes to comply with rules, that they basically 'massaged' these processes so they could comply. So that will take ages as it isn't a cut and dry 'Yes/No' Did City break known rules decision. Each charge would need to be examined to see if it was in the spirit of the rules, if there is a precedent for the way City applied their mechanisms and so on.
The way to look at it would be imagine doping in athletics and Everton and City are athletes. Everton have had a sample show that there are traces of nandrolone in their system. They've admitted it. They've got their penalty.
City have taken the same test and it is clear. However some investigators have said City have been eating an absolute shit ton of Wakame seaweed which has a naturally occurring source of a performance enhancing substance and City are saying they ate it because it contained antioxidants which have health advantages. They also say they've been up front about eating this seaweed for years and years and that they did this because it gave them a health improvement but in a natural, legally compliant way. They also say that they used an extensive network of medical experts to design this nutrition program based on seaweed, that all of the details of this program are readily available to inspect and that these medical experts have guaranteed that the program was fully legal even though it gave them an advantage.
Prosecutors are saying that City actually ate the seaweed for the performance enhancement substance but using the antioxidant argument to remain compliant. They'll therefore investigate in detail all the different medical programs to try and ascertain the intention behind the scheme. Problem with this is it is one man's word against the other.
What then will happen is the PL will say City are guilty, here's a 30 point penalty. City will then say 'fuck you, we took advice that our schemes were totally legal, you've know about these for fucking ages, we are suing you right back'. City will then unleash the legal forces of darkness and this will go on for absolute fucking AGES.
By the time it is concluded one way or the other the following things will have happened;
- Pep will have left long ago
- City will have won numerous additional trophies in this time
- Spurs will still have won fuck all
- United will once again be 'back this time, honest'
If anyone thinks this will be wrapped up within a couple of years they are sorely mistaken.
Or in 12/24 months time, the independent regulator is in place, skim reads the evidence, takes more independent advice and upon hearing the advice, drops the chargesBy the time it is concluded one
If anyone thinks this will be wrapped up within a couple of years they are sorely mistaken.
No .Assuming City are guilty then?