Palfy Posted January 20 Report Share Posted January 20 2 hours ago, Cornish Steve said: We differ on this. I do NOT accept that we broke rules - because those rules were changed after the fact, after we'd committed to building a new stadium, after we invested in the community affected by the move, after interest rates soared, and after we lost some funding due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Do correct me if I'm wrong on this point. So why did we plead guilty to braking the rules and why aren’t we appealing against the fact we’re found guilty and not just the severity of the punishment. Get your head out of the sand and face the facts we broke sustainability rules because of poor ownership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted January 20 Report Share Posted January 20 1 hour ago, Palfy said: So why did we plead guilty to braking the rules and why aren’t we appealing against the fact we’re found guilty and not just the severity of the punishment. Get your head out of the sand and face the facts we broke sustainability rules because of poor ownership. 1) The rules changed, and you can't undo a stadium project years after it's planned and begun. That's not about poor ownership. 2) We lost millions in funding when forced to break ties with Russian nationals. 3) As Mike mentioned, we lost millions because of the Gylfi fiasco, for which any reasonable body would make allowance. Things haven't been perfect, for sure, but it's a cop-out to only blame the owners and executives. If it were me, I would be challenging everything and not accepting guilt at all. We tried to play nice by keeping the league informed of our finances and abiding by their restrictions during transfer windows. Playing nice these days counts for squat. Formby and Matt 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 20 Report Share Posted January 20 48 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said: 1) The rules changed, and you can't undo a stadium project years after it's planned and begun. That's not about poor ownership. 2) We lost millions in funding when forced to break ties with Russian nationals. 3) As Mike mentioned, we lost millions because of the Gylfi fiasco, for which any reasonable body would make allowance. Things haven't been perfect, for sure, but it's a cop-out to only blame the owners and executives. If it were me, I would be challenging everything and not accepting guilt at all. We tried to play nice by keeping the league informed of our finances and abiding by their restrictions during transfer windows. Playing nice these days counts for squat. We were offered 50% of the money for the Stadium at 4.5% I believe by Liverpool City council, we never took their offer but have subsequently been borrowing millions in excess of 15%, let’s blame the PL for that. The owners claimed we have lost more than 200 million due to the Ukrainian war, yet 2 years later we haven’t found another sponsor for the Stadium or the training ground, let’s blame the PL for that. Gylfi was a signing forced on Walsh by the owners and his board 45 million and 140 grand a week he was just one of many poor signings made by Moshiri against the wishes of his D of F but let’s blame the PL for all that. We tried to play nice with the PL before the first charge bollocks, we were in communication with the PL because they warned us a year in advance that we were on track to break sustainability rules, then when we were charged the club said don’t worry we haven’t breached rules there’s no problem, then they go to the hearing and plead guilty to breaking the rules let’s blame the PL for that. Of course you would have fought every charge Steve that’s what I would expect from everyone who believed the club were telling the truth when they said they weren’t guilty and were going to fight it, but I would expect anyone with an ounce of common sense to give that one up especially when Moshiri went to the hearing and pleaded guilty before being found guilty, but you carry on living in the fantasy you’ve created for yourself that we are innocent, and I’ll in the reality that we were guilty as verbally verified by the club in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post duncanmckenzieismagic Posted January 21 Popular Post Report Share Posted January 21 Palfy we get it, you want to ignore the changing of the rules and all of the mitigating factors, as did the PL and the so called ‘independent’ panel However a lot of very intelligent and very qualified people believe this is grossly unfair and unjust so I do think people are right to be angry with how the PL have handled this Nobody needs to get there head out of the sand because everyone is in agreement that rules were broken and that Moshiri and co have been negligent in their duties and are 100% to blame for getting us into this mess But the irony is the years of profligacy are not in scope for these sanctions. Under Kevin Thellwell Everton have long been towing the party line and cutting their cloth accordingly. Over the past 5 years only Brighton have a lower net spend and the wage bill has been slashed. We have also been in constant dialogue with the PL over every deal we have made. These are all indicators of a club doing everything they can to play by the rules not a club flagrantly flouting them. The powers that be have even said they are satisfied that there was no deliberate breach and that no sporting advantage was gained yet in their infinite wisdom decided the greatest sporting sanction of the competitions history was an appropriate punishment and that it’s fair to charge us twice for the same set of accounts Now if you believe that is fair then fair enough you are entitled to your opinion but personally I think we have a case to get the entire case thrown out especially given the fact they are changing the rules again in the summer Romey 1878, MikeO, Matt and 3 others 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/everton-first-team-coach-closing-28484377 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 Matt and Romey 1878 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 StevO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 11 hours ago, Palfy said: So why did we plead guilty to braking the rules and why aren’t we appealing against the fact we’re found guilty and not just the severity of the punishment. Get your head out of the sand and face the facts we broke sustainability rules because of poor ownership. Because we've been too nice. We showed that we wanted to collaborate with the PL the whole time and be good boys during the takeover. Not sure why you're so animated about it, it's not a matter of head in the sand, althoygh maybe it is because you seem to being doing just that Its more a matter of looking at the whole picture. We already know that the owner and board put us at risk. However, they kept us within those limits based on the initial rules. The PL then changed the rules and, whilst signing off on our books, never once thought to tell us that those interests on construction loans dont count towards construction costs (which is fucking stupid) dismissed "daily events that all companies should plan for" like one of your biggest assets being falsely accused of paedophilia writing £30m off the books or war in Europe after 80 years of peace. You know, daily events in a company's life. Moshiri and Co have made stupid decisions, but we would be more comfortable if not for the PL moving goalposts and signing off on books and expenses they know would be questioned. Romey 1878, MikeO, Newty82 and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 15 hours ago, Cornish Steve said: True, but this is our reality. Money carries the most sway in today's league, so our goal this season must be to maximize it, and that means winning the most TV money that we can. Apologies to sound this beating drum too often, but we really must focus and not be distracted. Distracted by winning? Perish the thought... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patto Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 Not sure if this is right but I heard you have to accept that you have broke the rules before you can appeal against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 5 minutes ago, patto said: Not sure if this is right but I heard you have to accept that you have broke the rules before you can appeal against it. Or do what City do and just say "Nope" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patto Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 1 minute ago, Matt said: Or do what City do and just say "Nope" That seems to be the case Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formby Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 On 19/01/2024 at 20:07, Matt said: You don't punish a thief for stealing the same object twice at the same time, why should we be punished for accounts already penalised? I get the point, of course, but if there was a gap of several years between the thefts, he would be charged! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 2 minutes ago, Formby said: I get the point, of course, but if there was a gap of several years between the thefts, he would be charged! He'd be charged for multiple thefts, not the same theft twice which is whats happening to us. I assume anyway, @London Blue could probably save my analogy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 The thing that's giving me the most hope about the appeal is the fact that the super silk has taken on the case. He wouldn't do that if he didn't think there was a very good chance of winning as he can pick and choose the cases he takes on to ensure not having a loss on his record. Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 22 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said: The thing that's giving me the most hope about the appeal is the fact that the super silk has taken on the case. He wouldn't do that if he didn't think there was a very good chance of winning as he can pick and choose the cases he takes on to ensure not having a loss on his record. https://toffeeweb.com/season/23-24/news/44372.html Completely missed that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 9 minutes ago, Matt said: https://toffeeweb.com/season/23-24/news/44372.html Completely missed that It's all those dance recitals. Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Blue Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 3 hours ago, Matt said: He'd be charged for multiple thefts, not the same theft twice which is whats happening to us. I assume anyway, @London Blue could probably save my analogy 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. Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 7 hours ago, Matt said: He'd be charged for multiple thefts, not the same theft twice which is whats happening to us. I assume anyway, @London Blue could probably save my analogy He’s a PC mate they have very little knowledge of the law that’s why so many of them constantly break it. StevO, Matt and Newty82 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 3 hours ago, London Blue said: 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. This isn’t written law we are talking about it’s PL ruling that says if you go over 105 million of debt in any consecutive 3 years you are in breach of sustainability rules, please don’t get confused with statutory law that was passed in parliament it isn’t common law, it’s a PL ruling which when you read it it becomes self explanatory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 56 minutes ago, Palfy said: This isn’t written law we are talking about it’s PL ruling that says if you go over 105 million of debt in any consecutive 3 years you are in breach of sustainability rules, please don’t get confused with statutory law that was passed in parliament it isn’t common law, it’s a PL ruling which when you read it it becomes self explanatory. He was clarifying my analogy mate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 10 hours ago, Matt said: Because we've been too nice. We showed that we wanted to collaborate with the PL the whole time and be good boys during the takeover. Not sure why you're so animated about it, it's not a matter of head in the sand, althoygh maybe it is because you seem to being doing just that Its more a matter of looking at the whole picture. We already know that the owner and board put us at risk. However, they kept us within those limits based on the initial rules. The PL then changed the rules and, whilst signing off on our books, never once thought to tell us that those interests on construction loans dont count towards construction costs (which is fucking stupid) dismissed "daily events that all companies should plan for" like one of your biggest assets being falsely accused of paedophilia writing £30m off the books or war in Europe after 80 years of peace. You know, daily events in a company's life. Moshiri and Co have made stupid decisions, but we would be more comfortable if not for the PL moving goalposts and signing off on books and expenses they know would be questioned. Gylfi being accused of paedophilia never wrote 30 million off the books he remained an Everton player until his 5 year contract expired in 22, we could have played him it was the clubs choice not to. The PL do not sign off the accounts of any team clubs sign off their own accounts. Yes the war in Ukraine cost us our Russian benefactors money, he sponsored the training ground and took an option on the naming rights for the new stadium, 2 years later we haven’t replaced him on either, if we got just 25% of what he was reportedly paying we wouldn’t have been in breach, so why didn’t we look to replace USM and why haven’t we as yet when we are so desperate for funds. So because we are so nice we admitted to been guilty on the day of the hearing when in fact we weren’t guilty because we wanted to appear as nice, I won’t try and get my head round that theory I value my sanity to much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 19 minutes ago, Matt said: He was clarifying my analogy mate Well he seemed to get a company ruling confused with criminal law Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Blue Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 2 hours ago, Palfy said: This isn’t written law we are talking about it’s PL ruling that says if you go over 105 million of debt in any consecutive 3 years you are in breach of sustainability rules, please don’t get confused with statutory law that was passed in parliament it isn’t common law, it’s a PL ruling which when you read it it becomes self explanatory. 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. StevO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post London Blue Posted January 21 Popular Post Report Share Posted January 21 2 hours ago, Palfy said: He’s a PC mate they have very little knowledge of the law that’s why so many of them constantly break it. Palfy, Matt, StevO and 3 others 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 4 minutes ago, London Blue said: 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. They are 2 separate 3 year cycles there is nothing to say that any 3 year cycle can not include years that have already been in a previous 3 year cycle. Now we can ask for leniency based on that we can prove we tried everything in our power to stay within the permitted limits. But on the first account we pleaded guilty at the hearing after previously telling supporters they had nothing to answer for. We are appealing the severity of the sentence not that we were innocent, I agree with the majority of the country that the 10 point deduction was excessive and on that basis I believe we will win our appeal and get a points deduction on the 10 points. Criminal law is black and white there are no grey area’s and if there were any grey areas then the CPS wouldn’t authorise a criminal charge. The spirit of the law is unquantifiable as is natural justice they are both an emotive ideologies, innocent until proven guilty is the basis of criminal justice, if you go to court and plead guilty to your charges that’s your admission of guilt and you will be sentenced accordingly, you could then appeal the severity of your sentence and your appeal will be only allowed if 3 sitting judges agree that the sentence you received was not justified, but if they stand by the original sentence you will not get an opportunity for your appeal. If you plead not guilty but are found guilty you can only appeal if you have new evidence which might help your case, that new evidence will be looked at by sitting judges and if they agree your new evidence is admissible and relevant to your defence they will allow an appeal, if they don’t believe your new evidence would change the outcome they will dismiss your appeal. If you wish to split hairs you can be punished for the same crime twice, rapist who have been found guilty of rape and sentenced to say 12 years have on appeal from the prosecution lawyers been taken back to court and been sentenced for a longer period for the same charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Blue Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 1 hour ago, Palfy said: They are 2 separate 3 year cycles there is nothing to say that any 3 year cycle can not include years that have already been in a previous 3 year cycle. Now we can ask for leniency based on that we can prove we tried everything in our power to stay within the permitted limits. But on the first account we pleaded guilty at the hearing after previously telling supporters they had nothing to answer for. We are appealing the severity of the sentence not that we were innocent, I agree with the majority of the country that the 10 point deduction was excessive and on that basis I believe we will win our appeal and get a points deduction on the 10 points. Criminal law is black and white there are no grey area’s and if there were any grey areas then the CPS wouldn’t authorise a criminal charge. The spirit of the law is unquantifiable as is natural justice they are both an emotive ideologies, innocent until proven guilty is the basis of criminal justice, if you go to court and plead guilty to your charges that’s your admission of guilt and you will be sentenced accordingly, you could then appeal the severity of your sentence and your appeal will be only allowed if 3 sitting judges agree that the sentence you received was not justified, but if they stand by the original sentence you will not get an opportunity for your appeal. If you plead not guilty but are found guilty you can only appeal if you have new evidence which might help your case, that new evidence will be looked at by sitting judges and if they agree your new evidence is admissible and relevant to your defence they will allow an appeal, if they don’t believe your new evidence would change the outcome they will dismiss your appeal. If you wish to split hairs you can be punished for the same crime twice, rapist who have been found guilty of rape and sentenced to say 12 years have on appeal from the prosecution lawyers been taken back to court and been sentenced for a longer period for the same charge. 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? Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formby Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 8 hours ago, London Blue said: 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. Just so I've got this right: If I was to pinch my neighbour's new lawnmower and get done for it, I would serve my sentence for the rotten theft. Then, in three years' time, I pinch the self-same lawnmower, I can't be punished for it? Is that really the law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.