6 + 2 Point Deductions

[hoppy]

The mitigations put forward were, at best, optimistic. The club knew it was in trouble - hence the backtracking and admission of guilt during the hearing. The best way forward here is to do a Forest - 'fair cop, but we had our reasons that aren't insane - deal with us properly'. Minor penalty, on we all go with our lives. Digging heals in, and throwing abuse at the PL, is hardly likely to make the PL want to be lenient. Especially after the special measures debacle when the PL were assured proposed signings wouldn't impact the clubs ability to meet FFP guidelines, then it did. Nobody likes getting lied to.

It feels like Everton are playing the man instead of the ball with this one. Its an admit your guilt and accept a moderate penalty or plead not guilty, get done anyway after a load of hassle and then you get slammed. 10 pts is too much - should be focussing on the severity of the sanction rather than the verdict, way better chance of a decent outcome that way. I believe the appeal is about the severity of the sanction rather than the verdict. is that right?

Yes to do with the severity of the punishment

And still no word from Moshiri

 

[Tony’s Carp]

The mitigations put forward were, at best, optimistic. The club knew it was in trouble - hence the backtracking and admission of guilt during the hearing. The best way forward here is to do a Forest - 'fair cop, but we had our reasons that aren't insane - deal with us properly'. Minor penalty, on we all go with our lives. Digging heals in, and throwing abuse at the PL, is hardly likely to make the PL want to be lenient. Especially after the special measures debacle when the PL were assured proposed signings wouldn't impact the clubs ability to meet FFP guidelines, then it did. Nobody likes getting lied to.

It feels like Everton are playing the man instead of the ball with this one. Its an admit your guilt and accept a moderate penalty or plead not guilty, get done anyway after a load of hassle and then you get slammed. 10 pts is too much - should be focussing on the severity of the sanction rather than the verdict, way better chance of a decent outcome that way. I believe the appeal is about the severity of the sanction rather than the verdict. is that right?

The club is appealing both the substance of the verdict and the sanction. This section of the club statement tells you we are contesting the IC’s conclusion as to our PSR figure. Any alterations to that figure on appeal may or may not take us under the limit for the period up to 21/22 but even if not could still be enough to take us under for 22/23.

 

[mccole]

This sanction has condemned us to a 10 point deduction PLUS a forced Transfer ban this window.

I know we haven't a pot but we haven't even looked at loan deals

 

[Goat]

I know we haven't a pot but we haven't even looked at loan deals

Of course we have mate.

 

[Jim Kirk]

Interesting article. Pretty old, but lays out the detail in easily digestible pieces.

https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/sticky-toffees-why-everton-were-docked-10-points/

 

[WestStandLower]

Interesting article. Pretty old, but lays out the detail in easily digestible pieces.

https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/sticky-toffees-why-everton-were-docked-10-points/

Difficult to argue with the summary.

For those that make arguments about the PL not allowing pre planning costs it will make uncomfortable reading but for those that think the sanction is draconian it does nothing to change my mind.

Above all though it shows how easily the IC brushed aside Evertons submission re mitigation

I would suggest that anyone who hasn’t read the full report read this summary

 

[msb]

We werent forced to enter the 2nd set of accounts, we could have made them not breach PSR, then only had 1 case to fight, now we basically have 2.

But we were told we had to have our accounts in by 31st December. Clearly then averaging the last 3 years would take us over, even if the 3rd year was within allowable scope.

Board absolutely culpable, no doubt, but I don’t see they had any option but to submit accounts. If the previous 2 years were so bad and had to be based on the PL’s calculation of losses, I think we had no chance of dressing current accounting year to escape a charge.

The basis of our case for the second charge will be double jeopardy, a well established tenet of English Law that you can’t be charged for the same offence twice.

 

[d0rk]

Interesting article. Pretty old, but lays out the detail in easily digestible pieces.

https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/sticky-toffees-why-everton-were-docked-10-points/

Good article that helps understand the issue.

Does anyone know if the clubs listed below actually proceeded with their compensation claims within the window allowed?

• As stated earlier, the Commission has the power to require Everton to pay compensation. In a hearing in March 2023, the Commission refused an application by a number of clubs (led by Leeds United but also including Nottingham Forest, Southampton, Leicester City and Burnley, all of whom – except for Nottingham Forest – were relegated during the Relevant Period) to be joined as parties to the hearing, but the Commission acknowledged those clubs had potential claims for compensation and stated that those clubs would have a period of 28 days from the Commission’s decision to make an application for compensation – that time period is now ticking and those clubs now have until mid-December to decide whether to pursue claims for compensation. It seems that Nottingham Forest may likely have little interest (or indeed unlikely have any losses to claim) as they retained their place in the Premier League, but the remaining clubs will almost certainly seek compensation on the basis that had the sanction been applied last season then they would have retained their place in the Premier League (together with the riches that come with that). The net effect of any successful compensation claims would be that Everton would be required to pay significant amounts of money to other clubs, amounts which at the very least may bring an end to the possible takeover of the club, but at worst could push the club into financial turmoil.

 

[hallamblue]

But we were told we had to have our accounts in by 31st December. Clearly then averaging the last 3 years would take us over, even if the 3rd year was within allowable scope.

Board absolutely culpable, no doubt, but I don’t see they had any option but to submit accounts. If the previous 2 years were so bad and had to be based on the PL’s calculation of losses, I think we had no chance of dressing current accounting year to escape a charge.

The basis of our case for the second charge will be double jeopardy, a well established tenet of English Law that you can’t be charged for the same offence twice.

It's not actually the same offence as such. It's 2 separate 3 year periods that contain 2 of the same years. I still think if we're guilty then the 2nd punishment should be much lower, given we didn't know we'd breached the first time until after the June 30th deadline.

 

[d0rk]

It's not actually the same offence as such. It's 2 separate 3 year periods that contain 2 of the same years. I still think if we're guilty then the 2nd punishment should be much lower, given we didn't know we'd breached the first time until after the June 30th deadline.

Not sure the PL/commission sees that in the same way. According to them, we knew interest payments couldn't be counted towards expenditure before we submitted accounts, but then tried to claim them as expenditure anyway.

Secondly, the commission also pointed out that whilst we did co-operate with investigations, we did not act in good faith.

• Everton believed they could have treated some of the interest charges as capital expenditure which would have reduced the loss (but had not done so). The Commission rejected this argument as it had already been decided that the interest could not be excluded and as such could not be relied upon in mitigation.
• Everton believed they had cooperated fully and proactively with the Premier League. The Commission rejected this ground of mitigation on the basis that whilst Everton had engaged extensively with the Premier League, information provided by Everton had not been wholly straightforward, some of their claims were novel, some were abandoned shortly before the hearing and the Commission had previously found that Everton’s conduct had not been in utmost good faith. As such, there was no mitigation of Everton’s culpability.

 

[Bez2k2k]

Difficult to argue with the summary.

For those that make arguments about the PL not allowing pre planning costs it will make uncomfortable reading but for those that think the sanction is draconian it does nothing to change my mind.

Above all though it shows how easily the IC brushed aside Evertons submission re mitigation

I would suggest that anyone who hasn’t read the full report read this summary

I’ve just read all of it and if anything it made me think we deserved to be punished.

 

[jazzy]

But we were told we had to have our accounts in by 31st December. Clearly then averaging the last 3 years would take us over, even if the 3rd year was within allowable scope.

Board absolutely culpable, no doubt, but I don’t see they had any option but to submit accounts. If the previous 2 years were so bad and had to be based on the PL’s calculation of losses, I think we had no chance of dressing current accounting year to escape a charge.

The basis of our case for the second charge will be double jeopardy, a well established tenet of English Law that you can’t be charged for the same offence twice.

Well actually you can be charged with the same offence twice ( if found not guilty or the charge is withdrawn ).

You cannot however be CONVICTED of the same charge twice.

 

[DanB90]

Interesting that the last post yesterday was from a Leeds fan and first post in here this morning was a Chelsea fan.
Both laying the boot in.

“HAVE YOU READ THE REPORT?!!”

No lads. Since we’ve been punished nobody has bothered to read the report in this thread and we rely on fans of other clubs to come on and tell us why being issued the harshest sporting sanction in PL history is fair and just.

 

[Dixieslaces]

I’ve just read all of it and if anything it made me think we deserved to be punished.

Its very stark reading!

Doesn't paint us in a good light and in reality is probably a true reflection of how much we attempted to bend the rules, in mitigation it doesn't really give a formulaic rationale for the size of the point deduction and I'm hoping this is where the PL and Commission fall down.

I have to say tho, despite all my protestations and assertions that we don't warrant a penalty of this magnitude, we are getting a deduction I reckon, I think they will double down now.

Truly truly gutting that the rules designed to protect a club will possibly ruin one!

 

[ToffeeTim]

Difficult to argue with the summary.

For those that make arguments about the PL not allowing pre planning costs it will make uncomfortable reading but for those that think the sanction is draconian it does nothing to change my mind.

Above all though it shows how easily the IC brushed aside Evertons submission re mitigation

I would suggest that anyone who hasn’t read the full report read this summary

Of course it's draconian. It's the biggest penalty in top flight English football history. It's a heavier penalty than you receive for actually going into administration.

Why on earth would anyone not believe it's draconian? Objectively, and impartially speaking, no one can seriously claim a technical accounting breach by a club building a new stadium but struggling with finances, deserves the worst penalty ever handed out

I read the report. I found the way some of the mitigations were dealt with totally bizarre. Yes I am biased because I am an Evertonian, but I would have exactly the same opinion on any other club in this position because it's nothing to do with football, and clearly Everton are being used as an example.