...so yes, common sense would dictate that you should be able to argue that 2 of those 3 years have already been dealt with and sanctioned at a previous hearing, but unfortunately, as we're seeing, there is no common sense in these proceedings and that could easily fall of deaf ears.
The only slight crumb of comfort is that they do seems to be at least referring to the past judgements even if they aren't always accepting their findings, so hopefully that will give our legal team something to work with.
The bottom line though is that the 2nd charge is still a blank sheet of paper - we could still be docked 1 point or 100 points - there's nothing to stop the commission doing either as there is still no tariff in place so they will be making it up, just as the other 2 hearings have done so far.
Well, Forest's lawyers have had since November to analyse the findings of the initial hearing, and several weeks to analyse the appeal verdict and have clearly used that to their advantage in their own hearing.
Meanwhile, we had no precedent to lean on for either our case or the appeal, and we're now going into our 2nd charge this week with just hours to analyse this document and try to use whatever we can from it to argue our case...
They apparently had a "scale", which has fuck all to do with our circumstances, right?
....rather than all the hypothesizing on social media. You can find it here: Independent Commission’s full written reasons
Everton are mentioned 81 times in the 50 page document, and Sections 14.13 - 14.17 give the summary of why it's 4 points:
They breached by far more than us (nearly £35m compared to our £19.5m) and those 2 points they got back from mitigation were for "the early plea and the cooperation" and they imply that our harsher penalty "must have been for incorrect information"
Responses