Premier League thread (17 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Wyken Sky Blue

Wyken Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Flying Fokker said:
Everton and Nottingham Forest expect to be told on Monday that they have breached the rules.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Everton and Nottingham Forest are braced for charges TODAY

TOM COLLOMOSSE AND LEWIS STEELE: Everton and Nottingham Forest are expecting to be informed that they have been charged with breaking Premier League spending rules on Monday.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
And yet Man City with a pending 115x charges are still getting away with things...

And Chelsea too!

Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk
 
Flying Fokker

Flying Fokker

Well-Known Member
Sheffield United have scored only 15 goals so far. It’s a step up for Hamer. He must be looking at our atmosphere at the moment and relishing the day he gets a chance to enjoy himself.
 
Terry Gibson's perm

Terry Gibson's perm

Well-Known Member
Are Everton in the shit they are in because they think they are a big club? They might be a big club support wise but success on the field is not something they have achieved in a long time.
 
Terry Gibson's perm

Terry Gibson's perm

Well-Known Member
Tommo1993 said:
Fanny.

Click to expand...


All this falling on the floor to waste time has gone to far now and it has gone all the way down to kids football. They need to put a clock on these keepers when the ball his held by them the fourth official presses a button and it goes onto the stadium clock after six seconds a direct free kick on the edge of the box is given. I reckon within a couple of weeks it’s gone away.
 
Nuskyblue

Nuskyblue

Well-Known Member
Terry Gibson's perm said:
Are Everton in the shit they are in because they think they are a big club? They might be a big club support wise but success on the field is not something they have achieved in a long time.
Click to expand...
I think they're in the shit because their owner thought it was just a case of chucking money at the thing without any particular plan.

I think they've been under special measures due to their recent issues so god knows how they've fallen foul of the regs if that is the case.

I'm confused how forest are there, aren't these things done over 3 years (I'm assuming in the Prem)?
 
ovduk78

ovduk78

Well-Known Member
Nuskyblue said:
I think they're in the shit because their owner thought it was just a case of chucking money at the thing without any particular plan.

I think they've been under special measures due to their recent issues so god knows how they've fallen foul of the regs if that is the case.

I'm confused how forest are there, aren't these things done over 3 years (I'm assuming in the Prem)?
Click to expand...
Forest over spent in the 1st year back up. If they had sold Johnson 2 months before they did they would be OK. Normally money spent on ground improvements/builds are excluded from whst was spent but the PL are refusing Everton's claim on money paid for new stadium as apparently it isn't obvious it was spent solely on the new stadium.
 
Nuskyblue

Nuskyblue

Well-Known Member
ovduk78 said:
Forest over spent in the 1st year back up. If they had sold Johnson 2 months before they did they would be OK. Normally money spent on ground improvements/builds are excluded from whst was spent but the PL are refusing Everton's claim on money paid for new stadium as apparently it isn't obvious it was spent solely on the new stadium.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I thought they did it over a 3 year period was all
(Something like a club is able to loose £105M over 3 years without penalty (which is mental)).

What Forest did the first season up was mental and it sounds like Everton are accounting creativity...
 
ovduk78

ovduk78

Well-Known Member
Nuskyblue said:
Fair enough, I thought they did it over a 3 year period was all
(Something like a club is able to loose £105M over 3 years without penalty (which is mental)).

What Forest did the first season up was mental and it sounds like Everton are accounting creativity...
Click to expand...
The way it works is that a club can be charged for the same year more than once as it can be in more than 1 3 year period and that is happening to Everton with this new charge. I'm not sure what the year is in question.
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
Nuskyblue said:
I think they're in the shit because their owner thought it was just a case of chucking money at the thing without any particular plan.

I think they've been under special measures due to their recent issues so god knows how they've fallen foul of the regs if that is the case.

I'm confused how forest are there, aren't these things done over 3 years (I'm assuming in the Prem)?
Click to expand...
Just that one payment for the transfer to Spurs being just too late due the time dea done apparently.players preference for spurs holding up the deal while the had one agreed.
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
Anyway sanctions, what good are when you're trying to maintain the status quo of the premier league, businesses according to one influencer on sky,
What have the governing bodies got to do with it?
 
Frostie

Frostie

Well-Known Member
Terry Gibson's perm said:
All this falling on the floor to waste time has gone to far now and it has gone all the way down to kids football. They need to put a clock on these keepers when the ball his held by them the fourth official presses a button and it goes onto the stadium clock after six seconds a direct free kick on the edge of the box is given. I reckon within a couple of weeks it’s gone away.
Click to expand...

The '6 second' Law is still in the Laws of the Game but referees are advised against enforcing it.
 
Frostie

Frostie

Well-Known Member
Terry Gibson's perm said:
I assumed it had gone, why do they not enforce it?
Click to expand...

Screenshot_20240116-220025.png

As above, still there but I know refs have been advised against enforcing it as it is felt that the punishment (a free kick inside the penalty area) is too severe.

In truth, 6 seconds really isn't very long, especially if there was a crowded penalty area after a set piece or similar & so advice is usually just to warn them. In my opinion, when it is clearly an act of timewasting though then fine, allow them 1 warning but then enforce when it is clear that they are massively exceeding it intentionally.
 
S

SBT

Well-Known Member
Frostie said:
I know refs have been advised against enforcing it as it is felt that the punishment (a free kick inside the penalty area) is too severe.
Click to expand...
I'm all for referees being allowed some flexibility, but straight up advising refs to ignore some laws because you personally disagree with the punishment is bizarre and clearly a sign of something going badly wrong higher up the chain of command.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 8 (members: 1, guests: 7)
Top