Everton fined a further 2 points

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 19 minutes ago
why are you dragging up what happened to Spurs in the 80s.


I hope you are disgusted with your owners because regardless of what others have done, and especially Spurs about 35 years ago, you club has been run by clowns and financially mismanaged. Take your punishment.

You may be the first to be hit hard in a new era of financial regulation but someone had to be. Get over it and trust that anyone else is such clear breach will get the same justice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Because PL clubs financial affairs have always been a bit murky,.

It's one thing to note the mismanagement, it's another to do an entire moral rant about clubs cheating.

I have no dislike over City even if they have bent the system. I don't consider it cheating. Modern day sports clubs are about money, but you still can't just use it to buy success.

comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 19 minutes ago
why are you dragging up what happened to Spurs in the 80s.


I hope you are disgusted with your owners because regardless of what others have done, and especially Spurs about 35 years ago, you club has been run by clowns and financially mismanaged. Take your punishment.

You may be the first to be hit hard in a new era of financial regulation but someone had to be. Get over it and trust that anyone else is such clear breach will get the same justice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Because PL clubs financial affairs have always been a bit murky,.

It's one thing to note the mismanagement, it's another to do an entire moral rant about clubs cheating.

I have no dislike over City even if they have bent the system. I don't consider it cheating. Modern day sports clubs are about money, but you still can't just use it to buy success.



----------------------------------------------------------------------

You're sounding like Boris now....because no one is perfect we cannot be critical?

And to drag up Spurs guilt from the 80's, for which we were punished in accordance with the rules of the day.

No one is judging Everton fans, its your owners behaviour which, even if they hadnt been busted by the PL, represent very bad management of your club.

Other teams have and will get their comeuppance and I truly look forward to that day.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago

----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not a fact, it's an accusation levelled with no supporting evidence as it stands.

If it's all cut and dried, why are the PL so afraid to commit to a hearing 14 months after they made the charges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No supporting evidence. I guess they just felt like accusing them of being in breach of this for the sake of it:

In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs


Why is fraud difficult to prove?


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Corruption is, by nature, concealed as the parties involved will seek to use evasive means to ensure that they leave no trail of their wrong doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It’s also very difficult when the corruption is alleged to have happened at a completely different company to the one being accused.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And almost impossible when the accused has such phenomenal wealth that the reach and extent of their influence is vast.

You can be critical all you want Devon.

I can also point out that docking us points while wealthier teams are able to get around the rules is a total farce

I can also point out that PL clubs are generally underhand in their operating manner. They cannot be anything other given the sums of money involved. I am well within my rights to refer to spurs as an example of one such club.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago

----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not a fact, it's an accusation levelled with no supporting evidence as it stands.

If it's all cut and dried, why are the PL so afraid to commit to a hearing 14 months after they made the charges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No supporting evidence. I guess they just felt like accusing them of being in breach of this for the sake of it:

In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs


Why is fraud difficult to prove?


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Corruption is, by nature, concealed as the parties involved will seek to use evasive means to ensure that they leave no trail of their wrong doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It’s also very difficult when the corruption is alleged to have happened at a completely different company to the one being accused.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And almost impossible when the accused has such phenomenal wealth that the reach and extent of their influence is vast.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume you're talking about Joe Lewis?

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 16 seconds ago
Oh here he is.

If I found proof you were cheating on your partner, and tried to bribe you, then I would be guilty of blackmail. But that doesnt mean you were not cheating

IN many cases, such evidence is inadmissible, but that does not necessarily undermine its accuracy or authenticity.
----------------------------------------------------------------
So (to continue the anaolgy) there were photos of my alleged infidelty that were blatently compromising but had been obviously photoshopped, that would make me automatically guilty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No because photoshopping them doesn't change context, it changes meaning absolutely.

So a photo of you kissing someone might just be a snap shop of a friendly kiss hello or goodbye...and it this lacks the context which photographs of moments immediately before and after would explain - that it was a quick kiss.

If there was no kiss but it was photoshopped to show a kiss that would be equivalent to changing the words within the emails, and that did not happen.

As said, City witnesses accepted the content but contended the context and the selective reproduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, the emails were treated as if they were genuine as they didn’t change the context.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought one of the emails was 14 pages long but only 3 pages were highlighted by UEFA which skewed the context.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly. The content was correct and accepted as legitimate, albeit not the complete record and thus not the full context.

The context was given by the City witnesses.

Bit like me saying "Oh yes i wrote that text that id kill my GF, but the context was a jokey text to a good mate and of course i didnt mean it" and then my mate gives evidence "no, of course he didnt mean it, he's a top man, wouldnt hurt a fly"

Still doesnt mean i didnt do it. Just that i'm not going to admit it and my mate will back me up
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It’s not quite that though, given the context we provided showed there were completely different people involved to people who assumed were too.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago

----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not a fact, it's an accusation levelled with no supporting evidence as it stands.

If it's all cut and dried, why are the PL so afraid to commit to a hearing 14 months after they made the charges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No supporting evidence. I guess they just felt like accusing them of being in breach of this for the sake of it:

In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs


Why is fraud difficult to prove?


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Corruption is, by nature, concealed as the parties involved will seek to use evasive means to ensure that they leave no trail of their wrong doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It’s also very difficult when the corruption is alleged to have happened at a completely different company to the one being accused.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And almost impossible when the accused has such phenomenal wealth that the reach and extent of their influence is vast.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume you're talking about Joe Lewis?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

His wealth is pocket change to your lot.

And he has been rightly punished.

Justice served.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 59 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 16 seconds ago
Oh here he is.

If I found proof you were cheating on your partner, and tried to bribe you, then I would be guilty of blackmail. But that doesnt mean you were not cheating

IN many cases, such evidence is inadmissible, but that does not necessarily undermine its accuracy or authenticity.
----------------------------------------------------------------
So (to continue the anaolgy) there were photos of my alleged infidelty that were blatently compromising but had been obviously photoshopped, that would make me automatically guilty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No because photoshopping them doesn't change context, it changes meaning absolutely.

So a photo of you kissing someone might just be a snap shop of a friendly kiss hello or goodbye...and it this lacks the context which photographs of moments immediately before and after would explain - that it was a quick kiss.

If there was no kiss but it was photoshopped to show a kiss that would be equivalent to changing the words within the emails, and that did not happen.

As said, City witnesses accepted the content but contended the context and the selective reproduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, the emails were treated as if they were genuine as they didn’t change the context.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought one of the emails was 14 pages long but only 3 pages were highlighted by UEFA which skewed the context.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly. The content was correct and accepted as legitimate, albeit not the complete record and thus not the full context.

The context was given by the City witnesses.

Bit like me saying "Oh yes i wrote that text that id kill my GF, but the context was a jokey text to a good mate and of course i didnt mean it" and then my mate gives evidence "no, of course he didnt mean it, he's a top man, wouldnt hurt a fly"

Still doesnt mean i didnt do it. Just that i'm not going to admit it and my mate will back me up
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s where the accounting evidence also comes in though. As in, can you show that the girlfriend is actually even dead…?

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 20 hours, 14 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 59 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 16 seconds ago
Oh here he is.

If I found proof you were cheating on your partner, and tried to bribe you, then I would be guilty of blackmail. But that doesnt mean you were not cheating

IN many cases, such evidence is inadmissible, but that does not necessarily undermine its accuracy or authenticity.
----------------------------------------------------------------
So (to continue the anaolgy) there were photos of my alleged infidelty that were blatently compromising but had been obviously photoshopped, that would make me automatically guilty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No because photoshopping them doesn't change context, it changes meaning absolutely.

So a photo of you kissing someone might just be a snap shop of a friendly kiss hello or goodbye...and it this lacks the context which photographs of moments immediately before and after would explain - that it was a quick kiss.

If there was no kiss but it was photoshopped to show a kiss that would be equivalent to changing the words within the emails, and that did not happen.

As said, City witnesses accepted the content but contended the context and the selective reproduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, the emails were treated as if they were genuine as they didn’t change the context.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought one of the emails was 14 pages long but only 3 pages were highlighted by UEFA which skewed the context.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly. The content was correct and accepted as legitimate, albeit not the complete record and thus not the full context.

The context was given by the City witnesses.

Bit like me saying "Oh yes i wrote that text that id kill my GF, but the context was a jokey text to a good mate and of course i didnt mean it" and then my mate gives evidence "no, of course he didnt mean it, he's a top man, wouldnt hurt a fly"

Still doesnt mean i didnt do it. Just that i'm not going to admit it and my mate will back me up
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s where the accounting evidence also comes in though. As in, can you show that the girlfriend is actually even dead…?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well indeed. No one has seen her for a bit so it looks bad. But they just need to find her body, which they never will because i am so powerful and wealthy i have loyal very well paid associates who will make problems like this go away.

Not sure how long we can keep this analogy going but I’ll try! She’s never actually been seen, there’s a hint she may exist being discussed by people that aren’t the spouse, so the birth certificate is in doubt as much as the body.