09-04-2024, 07:40 AM in response to #40344
They aren’t separate periods if they overlap
09-04-2024, 07:40 AM in response to #40344
They aren’t separate periods if they overlap
09-04-2024, 09:45 AM in response to #40387 Marked Ox Wrote: They are distinct separate periods hence why it was 2 charges, not 1. If it was the same period, the period would be one 4 year period, not two rolling 3 year periods. Isn’t it two rolling periods, which overlap - so the overspending in a particular year is in both? That certainly seems to be what the independent commission decided. 09-04-2024, 11:21 AM in response to #40389 Meerkat Wrote: Isn’t it two rolling periods, which overlap - so the overspending in a particular year is in both? I get the impression that overspending happened in more than one year iirc from the original charge. The Independent Commission have let Everton off using that as a pitiful excuse. But the rolling periods are separate (as per the separate charges) even if they share years otherwise they wouldn't be a rolling period. 09-04-2024, 12:00 PM in response to #40413 Marked Ox Wrote: I get the impression that overspending happened in more than one year iirc from the original charge. The Independent Commission have let Everton off using that as a pitiful excuse. But the rolling periods are separate (as per the separate charges) even if they share years otherwise they wouldn't be a rolling period. AIUI rolling years means… Period 1 = yr1 yr2 y3 Period 2 = yr2 yr3 y4 Therefore overspending in yr2 and yr3 would be in both periods, and giving punishment for both periods would mean the overspending in yr2 and yr3 would be punished twice. So reducing the P2 penalty to take that into consideration seems logical. 09-04-2024, 02:03 PM in response to #40415 Meerkat Wrote: AIUI rolling years means… Not really no, when Everton's owners were warned about their spending by their own finance team and breaking the PSR limits in advance but still decided to overspend anyway. Following your logic, Everton can just keep cheating again and again as the years of overspending will already have been taken into account and therefore the penalty will only ever be a minor slap on the wrist. If the 2nd penalty is to take account of the previous penalty, then get rid of the rolling period which creates separate charges covering some of the same years. Go to specific periods, not rolling. But the Disciplinary Boards throughout this process have undermined the rules they are supposed to implementing to the point Everton are going to get away with it again (only 8 points out of a possible 20 that could be deducted*) and instead indirectly punish clubs who have made sacrifices to be within the rules. *As a guide we got 5 points deducted for failure to register a crap footballer, Eddie Hutchinson, as you will likely remember 'Fax Machine' gate, in his 3rd season with us. 09-04-2024, 02:11 PM in response to #40436 09-04-2024, 03:29 PM in response to #40438 09-04-2024, 08:07 PM in response to #40436 Marked Ox Wrote: Not really no, when Everton's owners were warned about their spending by their own finance team and breaking the PSR limits in advance but still decided to overspend anyway. Following your logic, Everton can just keep cheating again and again as the years of overspending will already have been taken into account and therefore the penalty will only ever be a minor slap on the wrist. But you accept that you should only be penalised for a specific year once, right? 09-04-2024, 08:23 PM in response to #40482 |
|