NFFC Financial Talk

[Little Red Rooster]

Does anyone know if at the appeal we are allowed to argue our case again? Or is it simply a matter of a committee looking at  the original evidence and verdict again with no input from us?

You would assume so. I find it extraordinary that the initial hearing was done on an online meeting,that is very professional…

Was it really, I didn't realise that. I find that completely unacceptable. I also think that the same panel should hear all the cases so we get a consistent approach, if it goes to appeal then anew panel have a look, but it definitely should be in person not over zoom or whatever they call it

[DR Forest]

Does anyone know if at the appeal we are allowed to argue our case again? Or is it simply a matter of a committee looking at  the original evidence and verdict again with no input from us?

Appeals are generally based on whether the rules were applied correctly and not new evidence.
We admitted our breach so we are ‘guilty’ and now arguing about whether the sentence is appropriate.

Assuming Borson is right, and the PL has ‘moved the goalposts’ (ring any bells?) and not applied the principles equally to Forest as they did Fulham and Bournemouth, then it would appear to be most likely a separate court action based on new evidence.

If we get a reduced penalty in the current appeal anyway, the promotion bonuses issue may not make a difference in terms of points as we were still in breach; however, if we get £20m added back to our rolling FFP limit, it might mean we don’t have to sell Murillo. Just speculating but this can of worms gets more complex by the day. 

And it will ramp up another notch when the Everton news is announced.

[Username]

Does anyone know if at the appeal we are allowed to argue our case again? Or is it simply a matter of a committee looking at  the original evidence and verdict again with no input from us?

You would assume so. I find it extraordinary that the initial hearing was done on an online meeting,that is very professional…

It’s not unprofessional at all. 

An increasing amount of civil Court cases are being dealt with in the same manner.

[DR Forest]

Does anyone know if at the appeal we are allowed to argue our case again? Or is it simply a matter of a committee looking at  the original evidence and verdict again with no input from us?

You would assume so. I find it extraordinary that the initial hearing was done on an online meeting,that is very professional…

It’s not unprofessional at all. 

An increasing amount of civil Court cases are being dealt with in the same manner.

Indeed
dumbing down the court process and reducing access to justice.
It’s hard not to draw a parallel here given the size of the quantum in the case.

[DeesideRed]

I certainly wouldn't want to be arguing a case over a screen. You feel far more effective in person (whether that's true or not)

[Paplane]

I certainly wouldn't want to be arguing a case over a screen. You feel far more effective in person (whether that's true or not)

Its the way of the world now. For me, teams meetings are incredibly frustrating and remove personal accountability to some extent. But I'm old school.

[The reds]

Hopefully Everton get hit hard even though I think it is wrong.

[Chicago]

According to Ornstein Everton are only getting a 2 point reduction which for a second breach is an absolute joke. We got 4 for sneezing.


Still think this isn't a stacked deck?


Chicago: Having a mardy.

[Red Dog]

2 points it is...breaking news on bbc. We best get 2 points back then!

[Marco Polo]

that makes no sense - I thought it was 3 points for a breach?

[McDurban]

It's a farce.

[oh no]

+3 point penalty as a starting point
+2 point for size of the breach
-2 reduction for double jeopardy
-1 reduction for cooperation

even though their past 3 year losses are bigger than forests total 3 year spend lol

why even bother selling players, having brennan in our team this year would have won us 2pts, as will keeping mgw and murillo next year