Match Day Thread MERSEYSIDE DERBY AWAY TO EVERTON !

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
InBiscanWeTrust said:
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
Click to expand...
Posted this in general thread but will repost it here

So FA have published what Slot supposedly said
While shaking the hand of referee Michael Oliver, the report alleges that Slot used abusive words towards Oliver.

Slot is alleged to have said to Oliver that he "[expletive] gave them everything" in relation to Everton. It also alleged that Slot said to Oliver that he hoped he was "proud of that performance."

Slot is also stated to have said "if we don't win the league, I'll [expletive] blame you" before shouting "a [expletive] disgrace" twice at Oliver.

There is no way he said all that before being red carded he said about 4 words to Oliver then he reached for his card
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zanjinho
Funny reading Everton’s comments.
admittedly that decoure didn’t act in a professional
manner but he was 20 yards away from the crowd.

Also say jones reaction was excessive and he should have allowed the officials to deal with it <laugh>
 
Is funny it talks about how the FA dispute Everton’s events and that decoure ran 20 yards towards lfc fans to celebrate. Jones obviously reacted so rightly both got 2nd yellows but interesting it states 2 other Everton players joined and instead of pull decoure away then joined in to make it 3v1 which caused it to escalate.

Surprised no action was therefor taken against those 2?
 
Bindiana said:
Posted this in general thread but will repost it here

So FA have published what Slot supposedly said
While shaking the hand of referee Michael Oliver, the report alleges that Slot used abusive words towards Oliver.

Slot is alleged to have said to Oliver that he "[expletive] gave them everything" in relation to Everton. It also alleged that Slot said to Oliver that he hoped he was "proud of that performance."

Slot is also stated to have said "if we don't win the league, I'll [expletive] blame you" before shouting "a [expletive] disgrace" twice at Oliver.

There is no way he said all that before being red carded he said about 4 words to Oliver then he reached for his card
Click to expand...

Yah the report says he said the first 2 things while shaking his hand which is when he got sent off. So that is what he was sent off for.

the following bits then happened afterwards when he went back to the referee having already been sent off so although not good, can’t be used as reason why was sent off.

is why it makes it a bit pathetic of a ref card tbh. Even when you watch he may have said it aggressively but want running around intimidating and shouting in his face, that you’d see klopp sometimes do. Was much more measured
 
InBiscanWeTrust said:
Funny reading Everton’s comments.
admittedly that decoure didn’t act in a professional
manner but he was 20 yards away from the crowd.

Also say jones reaction was excessive and he should have allowed the officials to deal with it <laugh>
Click to expand...

Jones' reaction was spot on but still can't do it so was rightly punished. No complaints with that decision
 
Thus Spake Zarathustra said:
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.

You must log in or register to see images
Click to expand...
Sports have always been allowed to operate in ways normal mercantile businesses wouldn't allowed after all leagues are in effect monopolies
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ivan Dobsky
Solid Air 2 said:
Sports have always been allowed to operate in ways normal mercantile businesses wouldn't allowed after all leagues are in effect monopolies
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer (or Tobes or Astro), so I don't know all the ins and outs. Still, I do remember when the railways were being privatised 30 years ago, and the legal and regulatory minefield it was to set up The Association Of Train Operating Companies (ATOC). Even though the government was steering all the acts of Parliament and so forth, there was still confusion and challenges relating to anti-competition and fair access issues that sit in over-arching anti-monopoly and fair trade laws. Tbh, it still ended up a bit of a hotchpotch, but as the franchises were given out on who was giving the biggest backhanders to the party in power at the time (and this carried on under Labour too - Google Bowker and Branson for details) they muddled through without much resistance apart from the unions and fringe newspapers.

I suspect this is what went on in the Prem (up until City) in that nobody dares challenge the rules as they're desperate to be in the club. City are, it would seem, as big, if not bigger (in terms of financial and legal backing anyway) than the Prem and even UEFA - they're quite prepared to bring the whole temple down around everyone rather than take their punishment. The question is, has the Prem overreached itself trying to placate Utd, Liverpool, and Arsenal (the legacy clubs, if you like), to stop another Abramovich happening? I suspect this won't be resolved for a decade at least, and thus any punishment of City will end up like Trump's open-and-shut legal cases against him that will just be appealed until they dissipate away.
 
Solid Air 2 said:
Sports have always been allowed to operate in ways normal mercantile businesses wouldn't allowed after all leagues are in effect monopolies
Click to expand...

To be honest that’s slowly changing though as city showed by proving that league rules go against normal competition laws when it comes to sponsorship etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ivan Dobsky
Thus Spake Zarathustra said:
I'm not a lawyer (or Tobes or Astro), so I don't know all the ins and outs. Still, I do remember when the railways were being privatised 30 years ago, and the legal and regulatory minefield it was to set up The Association Of Train Operating Companies (ATOC). Even though the government was steering all the acts of Parliament and so forth, there was still confusion and challenges relating to anti-competition and fair access issues that sit in over-arching anti-monopoly and fair trade laws. Tbh, it still ended up a bit of a hotchpotch, but as the franchises were given out on who was giving the biggest backhanders to the party in power at the time (and this carried on under Labour too - Google Bowker and Branson for details) they muddled through without much resistance apart from the unions and fringe newspapers.

I suspect this is what went on in the Prem (up until City) in that nobody dares challenge the rules as they're desperate to be in the club. City are, it would seem, as big, if not bigger (in terms of financial and legal backing anyway) than the Prem and even UEFA - they're quite prepared to bring the whole temple down around everyone rather than take their punishment. The question is, has the Prem overreached itself trying to placate Utd, Liverpool, and Arsenal (the legacy clubs, if you like), to stop another Abramovich happening? I suspect this won't be resolved for a decade at least, and thus any punishment of City will end up like Trump's open-and-shut legal cases against him that will just be appealed until they dissipate away.
Click to expand...
don't forget it was Uefa who won their case .
 
Thus Spake Zarathustra said:
Did they? I'll be ****ed - I thought City took them to the CIS and won? :huh:
Click to expand...

CAS threw out a few bits because they were time barred against uefas own rule book however they were guilty of others as city had to pay a fine plus could only 22(ish) instead of 25 players for next years CL campaign
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ivan Dobsky
Solid Air 2 said:
No Cas upheld the UEFA case but as City had dragged it out so long they were outside their own time limit for punishment. So guilty but no punishment though CAS did fine City ,£2m iirc, for obstructing the work of the court .
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. They never got the transfer ban and CL exclusion Uefa had wanted though. :emoticon-0108-speec
 
Thus Spake Zarathustra said:
I stand corrected. They never got the transfer ban and CL exclusion Uefa had wanted though. :emoticon-0108-speec
Click to expand...
thats why the PL should have charged them pretty much straight after that case as so many of the infringements were applicable in both FFP systems and if City won their case here it promptly goes to CAS where following their previous judgement the PL case would likely have been successful for at least many of the charges .
Why they waited so long is beyond me .
 
Solid Air 2 said:
you can't call one case a precedent since other cases have no time limit .
Click to expand...

Sure I can. 2mil for obstruction when the vast majority of the number of charges are for the same is a very clear precedent.

The time past since the breaches of whichever rules presents a massive issue that the Premier league walked away from with Everton after their first appeal.

Everton breached higher than the year they got the original 10, points and only were given 2 to try get the thing over with.

The punishment will be meaningless.
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
Sure I can. 2mil for obstruction when the vast majority of the number of charges are for the same is a very clear precedent.

The time past since the breaches of whichever rules presents a massive issue that the Premier league walked away from with Everton after their first appeal.

Everton breached higher than the year they got the original 10, points and only were given 2 to try get the thing over with.

The punishment will be meaningless.
Click to expand...
you are getting confused between PL and uefa rules
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back