This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Sansbup
In my view, all judgements in these cases should be applied in the summer before the next season. So either they relegate a team, or deduct points this should be applied to the coming season before it starts. No mid-season points deductions. This would be much fairer for everyone.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Make it a criminal offence with the Chairman taking the rap. Apply Texas border sanctions viz. 6 months in the clink for first offence , 10 years for second. That should sort it
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Davepalace707
They will only have lost if they get relegated this season. One of them won’t be and there’s a chance neither will be. They both overspent last season and stayed up by four or fewer points. You could argue they’ve already won as without spending they’d have been relegated. Four or six point deductions is not an adequate deterrent and other teams will gamble on spending to stay up. Fair point, but what do you do? Make the penalty relegation?
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Forest have appealed their points deduction. Bearing in mind that they were let off 2 points for co-operating I hope the appeal takes back those 2 points for not accepting the verdict.
One more point |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Surprised to read that they are appealing against the 4 point deduction - I kind of understood it as a 3 point deduction for falling foul of the regulations, plus 3 points for the value of the overspend (£34.5 million) reduced by 2 points for co operation = I cant believe that they have found new evidence in such a short period of time so they must be arguing that the original process / outcome was flawed in some way- It will be interesting to see the outcome.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Dubai Eagle
Surprised to read that they are appealing against the 4 point deduction - I kind of understood it as a 3 point deduction for falling foul of the regulations, plus 3 points for the value of the overspend (£34.5 million) reduced by 2 points for co operation = I cant believe that they have found new evidence in such a short period of time so they must be arguing that the original process / outcome was flawed in some way- It will be interesting to see the outcome. Beat me to it although I think your post is better.
One more point |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Clearly we were typing at the same time, lol Originally posted by Badger11
Forest have appealed their points deduction. Bearing in mind that they were let off 2 points for co-operating I hope the appeal takes back those 2 points for not accepting the verdict.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Maybe they are going to argue that Forest & Everton are being treated differently to Man City ? & there should be a commonality of how each case is viewed / treated & judged including timelines (in that respect I think most reasonable even minded people would probably agree) I read that the Man City hearing dates have been agreed but its not been made public & its not going to be until 2025 (presumably thats one of the reasons why its not been made public, because for sure its not a level playing field for everyone else) Originally posted by Dubai Eagle
Surprised to read that they are appealing against the 4 point deduction - I kind of understood it as a 3 point deduction for falling foul of the regulations, plus 3 points for the value of the overspend (£34.5 million) reduced by 2 points for co operation = I cant believe that they have found new evidence in such a short period of time so they must be arguing that the original process / outcome was flawed in some way- It will be interesting to see the outcome.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Dubai Eagle
Surprised to read that they are appealing against the 4 point deduction - I kind of understood it as a 3 point deduction for falling foul of the regulations, plus 3 points for the value of the overspend (£34.5 million) reduced by 2 points for co operation = I cant believe that they have found new evidence in such a short period of time so they must be arguing that the original process / outcome was flawed in some way- It will be interesting to see the outcome.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
A grin of rapt adoration fell on my face on perusing the comments by Darragh MacAnthony and I agree with the general thrust of his preferred solution.I found myself nodding like a donkey.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Dubai Eagle
Surprised to read that they are appealing against the 4 point deduction - I kind of understood it as a 3 point deduction for falling foul of the regulations, plus 3 points for the value of the overspend (£34.5 million) reduced by 2 points for co operation = I cant believe that they have found new evidence in such a short period of time so they must be arguing that the original process / outcome was flawed in some way- It will be interesting to see the outcome. Well they just threw that out the window.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Willo
A grin of rapt adoration fell on my face on perusing the comments by Darragh MacAnthony and I agree with the general thrust of his preferred solution.I found myself nodding like a donkey.
Quality idea.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.