Points deductions

[Bladesman]

And so it begins. Guess the Everton Appeal outcome from self appointed punditry legal experts.

Jeff rants its a disgrace its taking so long to make a decision. It was only heard two weeks ago Jeff. 3 days of arguments and pleadings from leading counsel and then the 3 man panel required to review the evidence and come up with written reasons for the decision within 14 days was always a tight timescale. The original IC's written reasons were 41 pages long. Its likely the Appeal will be of similar volume.

Font of all knowledge on legal process Jordan believes there will be an increase in points if Everton fail because thats what happens if you appeal. Er no it doesn't Simon. Read EPL disciplinary rule 50 to understand how it all works and look back to previous FFP appeals before you spout your usual bollocks.

Jamie C says there's a feeling in football, meaning Everton supporting fans like himself and Andy Burnham MP, there will be a reduction. Well thats an informed opinion based on the fact its 50/50 whether there is a reduction or not.

More likely to jump on the bandwagon in the coming days. In the words of Thin Lizzy " don't believe a word" until the formal announcement is made.

Everton: Jeff Stelling hits out at Premier League in appeal rant

Jeff Stelling has hit out at the Premier League in a new Everton points-deduction appeal rant live on talkSPORT.

www.goodisonnews.com

Simon Jordan outlines Everton’s ‘bigger concern’ ahead of their appeal verdict

'There’s more coming...'

www.everton.news

Jamie Carragher has Everton theory that could see them get points back on appeal

Everton are expecting to discover the result of their appeal against a points deduction later this week, with Liverpool legend Jamie Carragher confident they will be successful

www.mirror.co.uk

Won't somebody please think of the Everton fans.

 

[Rochdaleblade]

You can be sure that when a club does go bust, these same pundits will be saying,"how can the authorities have let this happen?"

 

[Snowflake]

By way of an update the decision of the Independent Commission Appeal Panel(ICAP) is rumoured to be announced in the next 24-48 hours. In the Civil Court process parties are usually informed of a Judgement 48 hours before they are handed down to allow for the preparation of pleadings. The EPL's disciplinary process is designed along similar lines but it is not clear whether the same timeframe applies.

Everton appointed Laurence Rabinowitz KC dubbed the super silk and a leading expert on commercial litigation. Everton plead the original Independent Commission(IC) decision was disproportionate and unjust and that if a financial sporting sanction is to be applied it should be in the form of a transfer ban.

The EPL will rely on the IC's view that Sheffield Wednesday v The Football League set precedent for sporting sanctions in the form of points deductions in scenarios where there are breaches of financial rules. Everton will likely have counter argued there was no EPL sanction formula in place at the time they were charged last season in March and any now can not be applied retrospectively.

The EPL may argue the IC's decision to apply a 10 point deduction was not based on any formula. The IC whilst hearing submissions referring to the EPL Boards August 2024 draft sanctions matrix declined to consider them on the basis of rule 51.10 of the EPL's disciplinary process which empowers IC irrespective of any rule to consider the individual merits of a case. A catch all clause. Everton may argue despite the IC's intentions the points deduction of 10 looks suspiciously like the August 2024 formula of 6 points for an initial offence plus 1 additional point for each £5m of overspend. The IC found Everton overspent by £19m. Everton may also pursue the point about the lack of any written reasons as to how the figure of 10 was arrived at.

It has been suggested Everton will also raise arguments that a club should not be sanctioned twice in the same season for the same offence putting a marker down for Evertons second PSR breach hearing in April.

What will be the outcome? no one will know until the decision is announced although that will not stop the so called experts in the media speculating. It is difficult to give an informed opinion as the application of PSR sanctions is in its infancy. Precedent is confined to one case with possibly Birminghams EFL case being another authority.

The fact the EPL's disciplinary rules have a catch all clause contained in them that allows any IC to "Order as they see fit" means we are likely to see inconsistency that will be open to challenge. In any event the EPL rules allow for a further challenge to the appeal decision to be heard by one single arbitrator within a matter of days so this first sanction may not be concluded this week.

I know it’s not allowed, but it would be fun if you appeared for both parties !,

 

[Addison]

Premier League statement

www.premierleague.com

EPL Independent Appeals Commission (IAC) has reduced Everton Points deduction down to 6. Commissions findings are included in the EPL statement. Only 2 of Evertons nine pleadings were upheld but the IC felt the punishment of 10 points was too high a sanction when EPL rules provide for a deduction of 9 points for administration.

The IAC rejected the EPL's draft sanction matrix of 6 points for an initial offence under PSR plus 1 point for every £5 million of overspend. So EPL may have to go back to the drawing board to get its proposed sanctions matrix in place.

Whilst disappointing that the trend of Appeals Commissions continues to be to reduce sanctions rather than maintain the status quo or increase the ruling does at least confirm the precedent that financial breaches will result in points deductions. Everton were arguing for a fine rather than points deductions.

Sheffield Wednesday v The Football League was referenced as precedent so there is good reason to assume that moving forward first breaches will accrue a points deduction of a minimum of 6. There was always a risk this reduction would happen as the original commission failed to set out its methodology in arriving at a figure of 10.

It will be interesting to see if the same precedent is applied to Florist in April and how Evertons second offence is viewed at the same time. One could argue a second offence carries more of a penalty but then the matter of whether two sanctions for the same offence in the same season are deemed appropriate under EPL rules has to be considered.

 

[Zeblades34]

If season weren't done already now it is

 

[scouseblade]

Premier League statement

www.premierleague.com

EPL Independent Appeals Commission (IAC) has reduced Everton Points deduction down to 6. Commissions findings are included in the EPL statement. Only 2 of Evertons nine pleadings were upheld but the IC felt the punishment of 10 points was too high a sanction when EPL rules provide for a deduction of 9 points for administration.

The IAC rejected the EPL's draft sanction matrix of 6 points for an initial offence under PSR plus 1 point for every £5 million of overspend. So EPL may have to go back to the drawing board to get its proposed sanctions matrix in place.

Whilst disappointing that the trend of Appeals Commissions continues to be to reduce sanctions rather than maintain the status quo or increase the ruling does at least confirm the precedent that financial breaches will result in points deductions. Everton were arguing for a fine rather than points deductions.

Sheffield Wednesday v The Football League was referenced as precedent so there is good reason to assume that moving forward first breaches will accrue a points deduction of a minimum of 6. There was always a risk this reduction would happen as the original commission failed to set out its methodology in arriving at a figure of 10.

It will be interesting to see if the same precedent is applied to Florist in April and how Evertons second offence is viewed at the same time. One could argue a second offence carries more of a penalty but then the matter of whether two sanctions for the same offence in the same season are deemed appropriate under EPL rules has to be considered.

Forest will received a -6 this season if found guilty. Everton will receive another -6 for next season (if still in PL?)
Man City laughing their bollocks off.

 

[Balham Blade]

Forest will received a -6 this season if found guilty. Everton will receive another -6 for next season (if still in PL?)
Man City laughing their bollocks off.

Any punishment handed down has to take effect this season. Everton looking at another -6 if found guilty again, not that it helps us.

 

[Champagneblade]

Punishments will be handed out in April and any appeals should be decided in May. And that's it. An appeal to CAS wouldn't change this.

First CAS must decide if it is willing to hear the case. If so, as I said before, I don't think CAS can order a club's re-instatement in the PL even if it finds in favour of the complainant. Imagine what a shitshow that would be.

We won our case after the Tevez affair and were awarded financial compensation. A potential CAS case will definitely not have any bearing on which teams are in which divisions for the 24/25 season. Proceedings will probably take at least a year.

However, I can see the PL not wanting to defend its decisions in CAS, and potentially be liable for compensation. If the punishments that the PL hands out don't relegate Everton or Forest the clubs will probably not take it to CAS. So I am guessing there will be some pressure to show leniency.

What will be interesting is what the relegated clubs do now.

So, if 6 points is final, then Leicester can make the claim that if you are looking at the most recent breaches now, then the 6 points should have been applied last season.

Therefore Leeds could say that they would have finished 18th and are due the difference between 19th and 18th, whereas Leicester…

 

[ChipButtyBlade]

Make it a proper detterent............25pts probably guarantee's relegation for the majority,then clubs will think twice...hopefully.

 

[Champagneblade]

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that part of the reason Leicester went down, arguably, is that they had to sell one or two players such as Fofana and my understanding was that was because they’d skirted near to FFP limits.

Imagine their reaction today when they realise Everton didn’t bother to respect that and ended up in the clear, by less than the 6 points they have been docked for their offence.

 

[Houston_Blade]

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that part of the reason Leicester went down, arguably, is that they had to sell one or two players such as Fofana and my understanding was that was because they’d skirted near to FFP limits.

Imagine their reaction today when they realise Everton didn’t bother to respect that and ended up in the clear, by less than the 6 points they have been docked for their offence.

At least they’ve had a season smashing everyone in the Championship, they’d have been scrapping at the bottom of the PL again this season with just us, Burnley and Luton below them!

 

[Addison]

The usual media and ill informed local dignatories hysteria has followed since the IAC laid down its decision on Monday. All the ire seems to be directed at the EPL being corrupt and out to get a grand old club like Everton yet there is considerable ignorance about how the EPL disciplinary process works. Then you have the self appointed no mark experts commenting on what will happen next with their guesses at how many points will be deducted for the next Appeal and Florists.

King of talking bollocks Simon Jordan says its dreadful " the richest league in the world needs to turn to the poor sick man of football, the EFL and get some steer on how points should be deducted".

This just illustrates how pundits are completely clueless.

 

[CityInPeace]

Punishments will be handed out in April and any appeals should be decided in May. And that's it. An appeal to CAS wouldn't change this.

First CAS must decide if it is willing to hear the case. If so, as I said before, I don't think CAS can order a club's re-instatement in the PL even if it finds in favour of the complainant. Imagine what a shitshow that would be.

We won our case after the Tevez affair and were awarded financial compensation. A potential CAS case will definitely not have any bearing on which teams are in which divisions for the 24/25 season. Proceedings will probably take at least a year.

However, I can see the PL not wanting to defend its decisions in CAS, and potentially be liable for compensation. If the punishments that the PL hands out don't relegate Everton or Forest the clubs will probably not take it to CAS. So I am guessing there will be some pressure to show leniency.

The case can't go to CAS, must be heard in the English and Welsh system, most likely Arbitration or similar.

 

[CityInPeace]

What will be interesting is what the relegated clubs do now.

So, if 6 points is final, then Leicester can make the claim that if you are looking at the most recent breaches now, then the 6 points should have been applied last season.

Therefore Leeds could say that they would have finished 18th and are due the difference between 19th and 18th, whereas Leicester…

There is the Nottingham Forest factor to continue.

2 or 3 points and Leicester have a claim vs Everton probably.

Then Nottingham Forest, if they get docked enough points that could suddenly being Leicester and or Leeds into the equation. 2 with GD or 3 points without would keep Leicester up however or would have.

 

[mattbianco1]

There hasn’t been a decent Merseyside derby for yonks.

And there hasn't been a Sheffield Derby for yonks... long may that continue

 

[Addison]

Evertons appeal against their 10 point deduction was heard between 1-3 February. A decision to be made 14 days thereafter so expect an announcement some time around 17 February.

Thereafter dates for Florist and Evertons second offence have to be set and concluded by 5 April. Decisions on these to be no later than 12 April. 7 days to appeal thereafter and appeals/decisions to be concluded by 24 May, one week after the end of the season!

In summary we will know the outcome of Evertons first sanction shortly. That should be the end of the matter in line with EPL regulations but don't rule out a further appeal to the Court of Sports arbitration if Everton are not happy. There is no narrative available on the appeal pleadings over the 3 days so we do not know if the EPL have contested the appeal. If they have not it opens the door to a reduction of the original sanction of -10 points. Legal argument that the original decision failed to quantify on what basis the 10 points were calculated in the absence of a tariff table similar to the EFL process could also persuade the appeal body to downgrade the figure used. They would still have to provide reasons as to why they have come to that decision, preferably in written form.

What is clear is that pundits and media mouthpieces like Jordan have no legal grasp of the detail behind the sanctions applied. Any comment made as to the outcome is pure speculation and not worthy of consideration.

The process for applying further sanctions to Everton and Florist for the first time will take us beyond the end of the season. That may include additional new legal action by the relegated clubs dependant on the decisions affecting their EPL status.

Florists case was heard between 6-7 March, earlier than forecast. A decision is imminent and expected this coming week. 7 days to appeal has the possibility of Florists appeal outcome now being known before the end of the season

The allegations against Florist suggest a simple matter of overspend unlike Evertons first offence which included the complexities of apportioning new ground costs. For a promoted club like Florist the 3 year PSR period includes 2 years in the EFL which amounts to £13m for each year in the championship and 1 year at £35m. A total of £61m allowed over the 3 year period. Everton were allowed £105m (3 x 35m).

There is no information on the exact amount Florist have gone over the threshold. Evertons was set at £19.5 million by the original Independent Commission (IC) for which a sanction of 6 points deducted was ultimately applied.

Florist are trying to pursue an Everton argument that failed. Namely that if a player had been sold at a certain time during the relevant period they would not have breached PSR. In this instance the cut off date was June and said player Johnston was sold to Spurs in September. Everton were referring to Richarlison for which there were no bids at the time.

Brentford had bid £30m for Jonhston within the relevant period but it was rejected. He eventually went for £48m. We do not know if the £30m would have been sufficient to avoid sanctions. If it was that weakens pleadings on this point. If it wasn't it could be pleaded a price was being sought to remain within the £35m threshold. Its a mute point but unlikely to gain traction as the relevant period beginning and end dates are binding on all clubs.

Its been suggested Florist may plead they were in contact with the EPL during the relevant period and they were only in breach of PSR for 3 months. Thats like arguing can I change the tax year to end in June instead of April. It shouldn't matter whether you are in breach for 3 months or 3 years, rules are rules.

Nick De Marco KC who successfully got our neighbours points deduction reduced on appeal acts for Florist. He will use his knowledge of Sheffield Wednesday v The Football League to ultimately plead the EFL points deduction matrix, referenced by Evertons Independent Appeals Commission, allows for deductions lower than 6 points. That will be his fall back position after he has made an attempt to suggest comparable with Everton's case this is a minor offence and a fine should apply. That is unlikely to succeed as the case he advocated on namely our friends in S6 set the precedent of points deductions being the appropriate form of sanction for sporting advantages of this nature.

The EPL will plead any first offence if found to be in breach of PSR should have a minimum of 6 points applied in line with Everton and their own matrix.

It is unwise to try to pre empt the outcome. That won't stop the so called media experts from printing a sea of diatribe this week. The IC in line with EPL rules applies legal principle based on the evidence available to them. It can not be assumed Florist will receive the same sanctions as Everton, each case is treated on its own merits. I do believe from the outside looking in the precedent has been set for points deductions and there is a possibility that the EFL matrix that applies deductions below 6 will be considered in any decision.

Knowing how the legal process works it is best to expect the unexpected when not in possession of the full facts.

 

[Addison]

Florists case was heard between 6-7 March, earlier than forecast. A decision is imminent and expected this coming week. 7 days to appeal has the possibility of Florists appeal outcome now being known before the end of the season

The allegations against Florist suggest a simple matter of overspend unlike Evertons first offence which included the complexities of apportioning new ground costs. For a promoted club like Florist the 3 year PSR period includes 2 years in the EFL which amounts to £13m for each year in the championship and 1 year at £35m. A total of £61m allowed over the 3 year period. Everton were allowed £105m (3 x 35m).

There is no information on the exact amount Florist have gone over the threshold. Evertons was set at £19.5 million by the original Independent Commission (IC) for which a sanction of 6 points deducted was ultimately applied.

Florist are trying to pursue an Everton argument that failed. Namely that if a player had been sold at a certain time during the relevant period they would not have breached PSR. In this instance the cut off date was June and said player Johnston was sold to Spurs in September. Everton were referring to Richarlison for which there were no bids at the time.

Brentford had bid £30m for Jonhston within the relevant period but it was rejected. He eventually went for £48m. We do not know if the £30m would have been sufficient to avoid sanctions. If it was that weakens pleadings on this point. If it wasn't it could be pleaded a price was being sought to remain within the £35m threshold. Its a mute point but unlikely to gain traction as the relevant period beginning and end dates are binding on all clubs.

Its been suggested Florist may plead they were in contact with the EPL during the relevant period and they were only in breach of PSR for 3 months. Thats like arguing can I change the tax year to end in June instead of April. It shouldn't matter whether you are in breach for 3 months or 3 years, rules are rules.

Nick De Marco KC who successfully got our neighbours points deduction reduced on appeal acts for Florist. He will use his knowledge of Sheffield Wednesday v The Football League to ultimately plead the EFL points deduction matrix, referenced by Evertons Independent Appeals Commission, allows for deductions lower than 6 points. That will be his fall back position after he has made an attempt to suggest comparable with Everton's case this is a minor offence and a fine should apply. That is unlikely to succeed as the case he advocated on namely our friends in S6 set the precedent of points deductions being the appropriate form of sanction for sporting advantages of this nature.

The EPL will plead any first offence if found to be in breach of PSR should have a minimum of 6 points applied in line with Everton and their own matrix.

It is unwise to try to pre empt the outcome. That won't stop the so called media experts from printing a sea of diatribe this week. The IC in line with EPL rules applies legal principle based on the evidence available to them. It can not be assumed Florist will receive the same sanctions as Everton, each case is treated on its own merits. I do believe from the outside looking in the precedent has been set for points deductions and there is a possibility that the EFL matrix that applies deductions below 6 will be considered in any decision.

Knowing how the legal process works it is best to expect the unexpected when not in possession of the full facts.

TalkSPORT journalist has just explained what punishment he thinks Nottingham Forest will get

Interesting comments...🤔

www.nottinghamforest.news

And so it begins. Alex Crook of Talk sport says he's spoken to people close to the process apparently each case is done on a case by case basis. He could have read my post above or consulted the EPL disciplinary rules and it would have told him the same.

In ground breaking news Florist may or may not have a points deduction!.

Interesting observations on Florist fans forum. They believe a lot of the arguments will be centred around the sale of Johnson. One points out the only game he played in this season was against the Blades and suggests it should be just a 3 point deduction. That won't be considered by the IC as no transfer had taken place and it was outside the relevant period. Unless the old dear who presided over the Tevez case is Chairman and puts right the wrong from 16/17 years ago by saying its not fair on the Sheffield United fans and awards us the 3 points. That would only happen if Carlsberg managed the EPL disciplinary process.

 

[ancientblade]

really hope forest get at least a 6 point deduction especially after the way their fans behaved against us at the city ground and at the lane wouldnt it be sweet to send them down in our penultamate home game against em i think that could be one game when the lane is rocking again

 

[Chezzy Blades]

Guardian reporting Forest have been deducted 4 points, leaving them 1 behind Luton with 9 games remaining.

 

[Addison]

Independent Commission decision is not on the EPL web site yet. It seems De Marco has succeeded with his fall back position of a lesser offence than Everton and referencing the EFL sanctions matrix where penalties can be lower than 6 points. Florist will appeal but will the EPL also? We'll only know the full extent when the decision is published.

 

[Silent Blade]

Independent Commission decision is not on the EPL web site yet. It seems De Marco has succeeded with his fall back position of a lesser offence than Everton and referencing the EFL sanctions matrix where penalties can be lower than 6 points. Florist will appeal but will the EPL also. We'll only know the full extent when the decision is published.

My bet is that Forest will appeal so that it will drag on until May and then they will withdraw the appeal when Luton, Burnley and us are mathematically relegated

 

[Addison]

My bet is that Forest will appeal so that it will drag on until May and then they will withdraw the appeal when Luton, Burnley and us are mathematically relegated

Once the appeal is in Silent it is likely to be heard unless a costs argument is put forward by both parties and accepted by the Appeals panel. Looking at the EFL P and S sanctions guidelines a breach of between £2-4m has a deduction of 4 points allocated. Rumours surfacing that Florist were in breach by only £4m. 3 points are deducted for breaches below £2m.

If the Independent Commission have based their sanctions decision in line with EFL guidelines then that would seem to limit Florists grounds for appeal. Of course thats speculation until we see the published decision in full.

 

[Champagneblade]

really hope forest get at least a 6 point deduction especially after the way their fans behaved against us at the city ground and at the lane wouldnt it be sweet to send them down in our penultamate home game against em i think that could be one game when the lane is rocking again

What happens to that other point you raise? Should have had to lay behind closed doors. Apart from teo of our players getting nicked I don’t recall them getting anything their way.

 

[Champagneblade]

Once the appeal is in Silent it is likely to be heard unless a costs argument is put forward by both parties and accepted by the Appeals panel. Looking at the EFL P and S sanctions guidelines a breach of between £2-4m has a deduction of 4 points allocated. Rumours surfacing that Florist were in breach by only £4m. 3 points are deducted for breaches below £2m.

If the Independent Commission have based their sanctions decision in line with EFL guidelines then that would seem to limit Florists grounds for appeal. Of course thats speculation until we see the published decision in full.

What I read said Forest breached by 30m+, Everton by 19.5m.

Why do you get points for cooperation? You should get what’s coming to you and if you don’t cooperate you get more.

What a whitewash.

https://x.com/martynziegler/status/1769745706456412636?s=46&t=lW8hgRc1mTtA1LXHsKs0lQ

 

[Addison]

What I read said Forest breached by 30m+, Everton by 19.5m.

https://x.com/martynziegler/status/1769745706456412636?s=46&t=lW8hgRc1mTtA1LXHsKs0lQ

Yes your correct teach me to speculate based on rumour before reading the detailed Decision which I am on with now. Florist were in breach by £34.5m

 

[Addison]

Have now skim read the decision observations to follow.

 

[Addison]

Summary of written Independent Commission(IC) Decision;

Florists case

1. The lower PSR threshold of £61m due to being in the EFL 2 out of the 3 year relevant period whereas Evertons was £105m is unfair.
2. They were disadvantaged, in a unique position as the only EPL member in season 22/23 not previously in the EPL for a number of years or had the advantage of Parachute Payments.
3. PSR was only breached because they failed to sell Johnson within the relevant period. The sale occurred in August. This was a "near miss" of the June 2024 deadline The near miss principle espoused in Sheffield Wednesday v The Football League should be applied. S6 were awarded a sanction of 12 points reduced down by 50% to 6 as EFL should have taken into account the sale of the stadium occurred only 3 weeks after a deadline. Florist plead consequently any sanction should be discounted by 50%.
4. They obtained no sporting advantage.
5. They had a good record in dealing with FFP and had made a number of sales in the 2024 JTW.
6. They had co-operated with the EPL from day one when they knew they would be in breach.

The EPL's response

1. Florist should have taken the rules as they find them like any other club. It can't say the rules are detrimental to themselves and at the same time ask the IC to treat them more leniently than any other club.
2. There were 10 other clubs over the last 12 years who were in the same position as Florist. They were not unique.
3. The EPL noted Florists very substantial player acquisition during 22/23 season. Net transfer spending of £78m was only surpassed by Chelsea. SWFC's sale of the stadium was an agreed process over a period of time. Florist had ample opportunity to sell Johnson between 2022 and 2024 to meet PSR but they chose maximising transfer value over compliance
4. Florist were aware of sailing close to the PSR wind in December 2022 but continued to invest heavily in player sales in JTW 2023. By exceeding PSR thresholds they achieved a sporting advantage over other clubs who complied.
5. Number of sales in JTW 2024 is not within relevant period.
6. Co-operation was acknowledged.

The IC

5 of the 6 mitigations were dismissed finding only on the co-operation point. The statement "Florist went through the whole of the 22/23 season with a squad it couldn't afford" is damming. Florists assertion that the IC had wide ranging powers that would allow for a fine failed.

IC usefully set out how breaches may be categorised in future. Minor which may not occur a fine, Substantial which this case fell into requiring points deduction and Major which could ultimately lead to expulsion from the League. Man City take note.

EPL relied on the EFL's sanctions guidelines with a minimum starting point of 3 points. They argued Florists was a more serious breach than Evertons (£19.5m compared to £34.5m). Evertons received an additional 3 points on top of the minimum resulting in a figure of 6. EPL asked for 8, 3 minimum plus 5 for Florist to reflect the higher excess. Unfortunately thats where they should have stopped but they agreed co-operation merited a discount of 2 leading to the same recommended sanction as Everton of - 6.

I will always argue in favour of sound written legal principle based on evidence irrespective of the outcome. All the IC's to date have got to this point satisfying that requirement and then floundered when it comes to applying the appropriate amount of points to be deducted. Unfortunately it has happened again.

After stating earlier "the bigger the breach the bigger the sanction" and dismissing 5 out of 6 mitigations they have turned full circle and gone down a blind alley. They assert Evertons breach due to providing misleading information was more serious whilst Florist cooperated. Although Florist had a higher financial excess they can not apportion more than - 6 points less the 2 for co-operation. IMO they have applied a double discount and it will be open to challenge. It should be incumbent on the EPL to seek the restoration of the 2 points as Florist will be going for a reduction of at least 1 in their appeal. You can't reduce by 2 for not providing misleading information and then a further 2 for co-operation if you accept the EPL's calculation of 8. Furthermore De Marco advocating that Everton deliberately delayed their original hearing implying avoiding sanctions last season has gone down like a lead balloon in Merseyside.

Sad to say this inconsistency only adds fuel to the part time experts in the media and adds weight to the argument the EPL should amend its Rule 50 to incorporate a set sanctions matrix and remove the discretion of the IC's to act as they see fit.

Florist come across as the teachers pet offended that they have been accused of doing something wrong and prepared to rubbish their fellow EPL members if it means they gain an advantage. I suspect the other 19 members won't be unhappy if they leave the Club this season.