London Blue

Looked in the first half and saw they were 3 - 0 up and was like "Fuck", various swear words aimed at Bournemouth. Looked again at full time and was like a win amazing. Then felt bad for swearing at Bournemouth, then remembered that Solanke plays for them and called him a cunt, because he is. In all seriousness if we can get a result in the next match it would be huge. COYB please lets get back to being able to cheer Everton winning, pretty please.

As long as his last name is not Young.

COYB!!

Garner has consistently been our best midfielder this season. Dropping him would be a mistake.

I hope its a "Save face" thing rather than any illness to Woy.

What amazing work they do.

Three reasons: 1) Incomitance. 2) To set up the charges against City. 3) To flex in in front of Parliament.

Agreed. I would imagine if the league were to offer an amnesty, draw up new rules and give us out 10 points back, (maybe tell refs and VAR to actually award us penalties) then we would also draw a line under this and move on. Still, fuck the premier league. We should get Blue T - shirts with F*ck the Premier League made up for fans to wear at games, maybe with the PL lion locked up in St Ruperts Tower. I would pay for that.

Maybe, but that would depend on being able to prove the PL either acted in bad faith or substantial mismanagement which affected the city. That would need for a court to rule on the ethacasy and management of the PL, which would be legally very complicated. My knowledge of civil or commercial law is nowhere near my criminal law knowledge, maybe TT has a legal expert in its membership?

I don't know, I'm not sure what the grounds would be as the Premier League is a private company made up of its members the clubs. The clubs and the league make the rules, and there is no contract between the Premier League and the fans. I imagine Everton certainly could, as could other clubs, affected but that would be very very messy and expensive due to legal fees.

Yep

Judges are very independent (although they operate within certain boundaries) a Judge would almost certainly publicly criticise the prosecution, investigators and write a damming letter to the secretary of state responsible for the authorities, requesting a review into how this shit show got started.

I can't see how we don't get our 10 points back, and an amnesty for clubs, given the impending change in rules. They have accepted the current rules are unworkable and have to change. The only thing that makes our club look well run is the Premier League.

We need a win. Coyb

And I'm Palfy and can write thousands of words and not use a single paragraph....Yay...

What @Matt and @duncanmckenzieismagic said.

The Premier League changed the goalposts as to what could be written off. So according to the new rules we are overspent. Therefore are appealing the punishment and saying we were ok until the PL moved the goalposts and here are other mitigating factors.

I wouldn't play Keane. I'd play Godfrey and Tarks.

The grey area for Everton is what counted towards the debt, in this case the interest payments on the loan for the stadium, which is a grey area.

Nope, that is two instances of the same offence of theft separated by 3 years. With Everton the 2 of the 3 years in the new offense were punished in the 1st hearing, so in essence they are being punished twice for those 2 years. You would also as others have said look at the new year which would be compliant by itself as the club is on a downwards trajectory in terms of debt levels.

Mate there are soooooo many legally grey areas in criminal law, I could compile a book that would be so heavy it would stun a team of oxen in their tracks. For example for theft, arguably the most simple of crimes the offence is "The dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it". Key word are property, another, dishonest, and permanently. For the offence to be complete all elements of the crime have to be completed or present. So lets a shoplifter goes into a supermarket and puts some expensive product into their bag not the basket or trolley, which is seen by staff, security detain the person and the Police are called. Has this person committed theft? Spoiler alert No. They have not, they have not left the store so we lack the permanent element of the crime, the product is still in the owners venue. Second they have not passed the payment point, ie, the tills so arguably we lack the dishonestly element because they could in theory still pay for it. Now I know this seems mad but I have been to court many times and had many discussions with DPS who say this the law. (Yes any legal bods out their you could arrest under criminal attempts act for attempting to steal, the act says it has to be "more than merely preparatory" and again until they leave the store you could argue they are still preparing to commit the crime of theft. Now lets take the case of someone who does their shopping, has an item in their hands, their phone rings, they put the item in their pocket as they get their phone out. They have the call forget they have the item in their pocket, walk out the store without paying, technically theft? Nope, the theft was by carelessness not dishonesty. What if the person who takes the item has mental health issues that prevents them from making rational decisions, and has forgot their medication or had an episode, theft? Uh Uh again no dishonesty. Then there are the defenses of "Honest held belief they were entitled to it", "thought the owner would not mind in the circumstances". These are just the ones I can be arsed to type while watching the American football. Now that's just basic theft, for violent crimes there are many, many more. Lastly there is the greyest of grey areas "Not in the public interest to prosecute" which covers pretty much everything from a pensioner who threw a stone at a rat in his garden, missed and hit his neighbours car window (technically criminal damage through recklessness) to a foreign tourist who has a lock-knife on them as they always carry one back home in say the states, and dis not know the UK law was different. (yes technically ignorance is no defence, but is it worth going to the expense of trying someone for a crime that was committed in ignorance with no intent to cause harm to people or property who is leaving the country in a few days?) Definitely lastly is the caution, depending on the seriousness of the offence if the person committing the offence shows genuine remorse, and has not got recent relevant convictions within a certain time frame, then they can be given a caution so no trial, no sentence. Grey, its a fucking pea souper. PS: have you considered using paragraphs?

Premier League rules have to have a legal framework, based on what is called "Natural Justice", in essence the "Spirit" of the law. Key principles of this include, presumed innocent until proven guilty, not being punished for the same crime twice, punishment must fit the crime and consistency in application of the law, i.e. precedent. There are many others. The premier league have failed these 4 principles and so I would argue that the judgement is unfair, and the appeal will be successful, at least in part.

You called You can't be punished for the same crime twice. The clearest analogy I can think of is a thief, who admits to stealing. Then they work with authorities to pay the money back, and asks for other offences they have committed to be taken into consideration. They also commit to getting help to prevent offending again. This would all be mitigation in sentencing which would in law lead to a reduced sentence.

I think the appeal will show this. Under the current random collection of letters that make up todays rules, if clubs in the league spending continues then you could have 6 or more clubs being deducted points. Then to add to it they will more than likely be deducted points in the following season. They have admitted to writing the rules on the fly, any set of rules and their interpretation and application has to be consistent. Clearly is not at the moment, I expect this to come out in the appeal. Hope and reality and all that.