Leicester feud with Premier League over spending rules could spill into next year

Log in to stop seeing adverts
This page may contain links to companies such as eBay and Amazon. As an affiliate of these sites I may earn commission if you click the link and make a purchase

SilverFox said:
You can’t impose a harder sanction next time. It’s like me being sued for a parking fine, the fine being dismissed, and you then seeking to double up on the fine when I park again. It wouldn’t fly. Being mad you lost isn’t a reason to impose a harder sanction.
Click to expand...

A more polite way of saying the notion of extra punishment being "complete bollocks".
 
Joe_Fox said:
A more polite way of saying the notion of extra punishment being "complete bollocks".
Click to expand...

It isn't bollocks at all. I'm not just inventing it.

In both cases last season, cooperation, an early plea and acting in 'good faith' were specifically cited by the appeal boards as reasons why the points deductions were not higher.

In Forest's case, they clearly stated that this was worth two points (-4 instead of -6). In Everton's case the number was not specified but it was stated repeatedly as being the most effective argument they had in their appeal (-10 to -6).
 
As I said a while ago, this is beyond my pay grade as a supporter. It’s worse during an international break too, as there isn’t any LCFC footballing incompetence to fret over. Roll on next weekend.
 
Brown Nose said:
It isn't bollocks at all. I'm not just inventing it.

In both cases last season, cooperation, an early plea and acting in 'good faith' were specifically cited by the appeal boards as reasons why the points deductions were not higher.

In Forest's case, they clearly stated that this was worth two points (-4 instead of -6). In Everton's case the number was not specified but it was stated repeatedly as being the most effective argument they had in their appeal (-10 to -6).
Click to expand...
But the 6 points for Forest didn’t include an extra punishment though, did it? They got it reduced to four for ‘’good behaviour’’. We haven’t behaved good so won’t get it reduced, but that isn’t extra punishment.
 
We also never missed any deadlines or submissions, it's just that we challenged their jurisdiction which was successfully appealed so we actually complied with everything - Everton actually lied in one of their hearings and still got some points back so there would have been a very good chance we would have done too, seeing as we did comply and adhered to their rules to the letter, as proven by the appeal result.

Then there is the fact that we cannot be charged for 22/23 again, and the outcome/process of that charge can in no way influence any future charge.

Therefore, it is complete bollocks.
 
Since we haven't been charged in relation to the 3 year period ending last season how can we be accused of not co-operating?
 
Brown Nose said:
It isn't bollocks at all. I'm not just inventing it.

In both cases last season, cooperation, an early plea and acting in 'good faith' were specifically cited by the appeal boards as reasons why the points deductions were not higher.

In Forest's case, they clearly stated that this was worth two points (-4 instead of -6). In Everton's case the number was not specified but it was stated repeatedly as being the most effective argument they had in their appeal (-10 to -6).
Click to expand...

Sorry BN, but it absolutely is bollocks.
 
We complied in every way TO THE LETTER of the rules. The rules were flawed and it has been proven so.

There is **** all the EPL or EFL can do to try and trump of fresh allegations to “teach us a lesson,” we have complied and they ****ed up.

Whatever “smarting” they feel is their problem and not LCFC”s or its lawyers.

I am certain the football authorities will not try anything in the future that is fully substantiated and water tight. To be made to look incompetent once is unfortunate, to be proven to be incompetent twice is unforgivable.

Take a look at what has just happed to Everton in relation to the PL trying to fleece them on legal fees relating to the points deductions? They really are looking ****ing stupid at the moment.
 
As pleased as I am with the result, my concern is that if our £500 an hour barrister can find errors/loopholes in the rules, then the team of £5000 an hour barristers for Man City will drive a coach and horses through the rules for their 100+ violations.
Ours was a minor infringement in comparison to the catalogue of cheating by Man City. What sort of crap is it when they suggest scrapping points deductions and replacing the punishment with a fine, which the poorer clubs cannot afford!
 
Brown Nose said:
It isn't bollocks at all. I'm not just inventing it.

In both cases last season, cooperation, an early plea and acting in 'good faith' were specifically cited by the appeal boards as reasons why the points deductions were not higher.

In Forest's case, they clearly stated that this was worth two points (-4 instead of -6). In Everton's case the number was not specified but it was stated repeatedly as being the most effective argument they had in their appeal (-10 to -6).
Click to expand...
Just read what you've written. Really, really read it.

Then apply our case to it.

I think you'll find that you don't think what you thought you thought in the first place.....
 
popillius said:
Just read what you've written. Really, really read it.

Then apply our case to it.

I think you'll find that you don't think what you thought you thought in the first place.....
Click to expand...
I.e. Complete bollocks.
BN, don't take this personally. I think you're one of the better posters on here but I think you have to own this one and just admit you're way off.
 
Anyway, can we sue the Prem League for mental anguish and the like?
 
popillius said:
Just read what you've written. Really, really read it.

Then apply our case to it.

I think you'll find that you don't think what you thought you thought in the first place.....
Click to expand...
I think you think he thought he thought something he didn’t think, but I think he also thinks you think he thinks something you thought he thought. Think that over.
 
Blue Maniac said:
I think you think he thought he thought something he didn’t think, but I think he also thinks you think he thinks something you thought he thought. Think that over.
Click to expand...
A rather polite and excessive way of saying the BN pile on has gone to far when the biggest spouter of bollocks has jumped on the bandwagon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1536
2Chelsea1634
3Arsenal1733
4Nottm F1731
5Aston Villa1728
6Manchester C  1727
7Newcastle1726
8Bournemouth1625
9Brighton1725
10Fulham1624
11Tottenham 1623
12Brentford1723
13Manchester U1622
14West Ham1720
15Palace1716
16Everton1515
17Leicester1614
18Ipswich1712
19Wolves169
20Southampton165

Latest posts

Back
Top