"Slot has been charged with allegedly acting in an improper manner and/or using insulting and/or abusive words and/or behaviour towards both the match referee and an assistant referee after the 2-2 draw." And/or is doing a lot of legwork here, without actually confirming what Slot has done.
Tell you what, I was in the sauna last week and was watching the old dears (I say that and most of them are younger than me now) doing some sort of aquafit thing for an hour. Looked ****ing brutal.
They know that punishing Slot for sarcastically shaking Oliver's hand and saying 'Great game' is ****ing ridiculous, and that's what they were originally doing yesterday before they pulled it off the website. So they've had to go back and look for something else, and they're reeling out what he said to the lino, something the likes of which are said at the end of every contentious game. We're getting into Suarez territory here over how they're jiggling this investigation around. regardless, the Prem will do what they always do when a ref has a mare - they'll make it all about how the PGMOL are the victims.
They relate to 2021 to 2024 so should be after the period the charges relate to and therefore unrelated. In principle, at least.
Hugely significant, and God knows what's going through FSG's heads because it's the end of sustainability rules stopping countries pumping unlimited cash into teams (yes, well in Munse), but as it is it doesn't relate to the 115 charges because they were for before 2021. Pity Astro and Tobes aren't here anymore to do their Philidelphia lawyer turns, but we'll have to wait and say what MITO's take on it is.
Imo the only acceptable response to this is an absolutle thumping of Everton at anfield. If your team is not capable of absolutely going for thst for the full 93mins (refs won't add on time for us) then they are wewk kneed imo.
Going off Slots comments yesterday, I suspect we're not even going to challenge the charge. Whenever the PGMOL ****s up - Oliver in particular - they always make themselves the sinned-against party. They did it over the Pickford/Virgil kung fu attack, they did it over the Darren England watching the golf instead of the screen VAR fiasco, they did it over Coote's expose (who didn't see the cosy story about being gay coming?) and now this is all about poor Oliver's hurty feelings. They're an organised crime operation.
Sort of. This is a problem with an Association of any kind: we were reminded after the Suarez kangaroo court that we agreed to the process as part of being in the Premier League, even if we didn't vote for it (we did, in this case). In theory, you can go to the CAS (as City did over their UEFA charges), but in practice when it comes to tribunals, disciplinary charges, and so forth you've signed a waiver to say you won't. This is different - City are claiming that legally the 16 clubs cannot impose their will on the remaining 4 because what they are trying to do breaks anti-competition laws that sit above any regulations the premier league can make. So, basically, the prem ****ed up as they should have legally made their rules watertight, or not made them at all. Interesting. Next question is whether Forest, Everton, and Leicester can sue them for the penalities and sanctions that have been applied to them. I expect that if City are successful in suing the prem, then Newcastle will be next in line saying that they too have been deprived potential deals, and Forest thereafter. please log in to view this image
So we have the official rational for Slots red card now. he allegedly said referee had given them ****ing everything and the referee was proud of the performance. Red card for that seems massively over the top. Then again this is the same ref that failed to send a keeper off for almost taking a guys ear off with a studs to the head kick 2 days ago
