It really isn’t. You are just salty that people have pointed out the major issues in your half-baked suggestion

With many, many changes to the laws. Also this argument is a fallacy.

Candles worked for centuries but we still shouldn’t go back to them.

You literally had a woman’s CL game last week without VAR where Chelsea conceded a penalty for a foul clearly outside the area and then were denied a winner for an offside that was onside.

There were no questions about these calls - they were flat out wrong. VAR gets far fewer calls flat out wrong.

Not particularly many

With blackjack! And hookers!

So you want to remove the punishment for a red card, and make it much harder to get a red card?

So a team could start with Vinnie Jones who targets a key opposition player, and then when gets carded for it just subs on Haaland…

So you want to remove the punishment for a red card, and make it much harder to get a red card?

So a team could start with Vinnie Jones who targets a key opposition player, and then when gets carded for it just subs on Haaland…

It’s a civil suit. They just have to show that it is more likely than not that Everton overspending in players would have had an impact

For spending too much on players, thus breaching regulations, which helped keep them up at other teams expense.

The overspending is just that your losses were higher than the agreed amount. So the stadium may have had an some impact but the majority of the impact was from players.

Are they the same as the PL rules or different? If they are different then you can’t really compare the impact.

I’m just reporting that the claim it was solely or mainly due to stadium funding doesn’t appear to be the case based on the independent panel.

having FFP rules doesn’t preven financial issues, see Derby County

Derby haven’t been in the PL since the rules were brought in, so how can they have had any impact on Derby?

Our overspending was entirely related to the new stadium being built and the independent commission’s ruling even states we gained ‘no competitive advantage’ from it

According to the Financial Times

“However, the commission concluded that Everton’s losses were largely due to overspending on players, which it described as “unwise” given the clear risk of exceeding permitted losses and repeated warnings from the Premier League.”

Which seems to dispute your claim above.

https://www.ft.com/content/7a527cb2-02fd-411a-a196-f8ae67a4d080

But today goals are called back that 100% never be called back when I played for 40 years

This is not even close to being true. The current offside law is the most lenient it has even been for attackers.

I grew up with “even is on”

No you didn’t. In fact, 40 years ago meant that even was explicitly considered offside. Even was considered offside from 1863 until 1990.

no advantage to the attacker then you’re anti football.

Define advantage to the attacker, and then consider why this has never been part of the offside law.

Also, feet are smaller and much harder to see for a linesman who could be 50 metres away, and 0kayers could both be wearing the exact same pair of identical yellow Nike boots which would make it almost impossible.

Right now it goes against everything I grew up playing g and officiating which was “even” is onside

Well this is just patently untrue.

For a start, “even” is still onside now. Secondly, “even” being onside only became a thing in 1990. So actually most people will have grown up playing at a time when even was offside and it always had been for almost 150 years before 1990.

They did get sued. They settled out of court.

And Arsenal are a member of the Premier League, therefore can be sanctioned. Sky sports are not.