Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

6 + 2 Point Deductions

The section about Gylfi makes for interesting reading
  • Everton alleged that they had suffered a loss as result of Player X’s termination following his arrest and that they were entitled to sue him for £10m, but decided not to do so due to Player X’s psychological state. The Commission rejected this ground on the basis that those losses were the sort of event that occurs in management of football clubs (similar to injury or loss of form) and was not something that could be relied upon in mitigation.
Really? Do we factor in the possibility of players being completely ostracized from the club and the country due to unfounded allegations?

Is that the same as 'loss of form'?
 
navidson said:
The section about Gylfi makes for interesting reading
  • Everton alleged that they had suffered a loss as result of Player X’s termination following his arrest and that they were entitled to sue him for £10m, but decided not to do so due to Player X’s psychological state. The Commission rejected this ground on the basis that those losses were the sort of event that occurs in management of football clubs (similar to injury or loss of form) and was not something that could be relied upon in mitigation.
Really? Do we factor in the possibility of players being completely ostracized from the club and the country due to unfounded allegations?

Is that the same as 'loss of form'?
Click to expand...
Name the last player to be sacked and sued by his club? I can only think of Adrian mutu at Chelsea.
 
navidson said:
The section about Gylfi makes for interesting reading
  • Everton alleged that they had suffered a loss as result of Player X’s termination following his arrest and that they were entitled to sue him for £10m, but decided not to do so due to Player X’s psychological state. The Commission rejected this ground on the basis that those losses were the sort of event that occurs in management of football clubs (similar to injury or loss of form) and was not something that could be relied upon in mitigation.
Really? Do we factor in the possibility of players being completely ostracized from the club and the country due to unfounded allegations?

Is that the same as 'loss of form'?
Click to expand...
Yes, I mean we could now use Mendy as an example from City. He has been found innocent and is now suing city I believe for lost wages.
 

navidson said:
The section about Gylfi makes for interesting reading
  • Everton alleged that they had suffered a loss as result of Player X’s termination following his arrest and that they were entitled to sue him for £10m, but decided not to do so due to Player X’s psychological state. The Commission rejected this ground on the basis that those losses were the sort of event that occurs in management of football clubs (similar to injury or loss of form) and was not something that could be relied upon in mitigation.
Really? Do we factor in the possibility of players being completely ostracized from the club and the country due to unfounded allegations?

Is that the same as 'loss of form'?
Click to expand...

I am sure as well that it says he was suspended by the FA. Others have been allowed to play like Adam Johnson
 

Attachments

  • 1706520705002.webp
    1706520705002.webp
    11.8 KB · Views: 23
navidson said:
The section about Gylfi makes for interesting reading
  • Everton alleged that they had suffered a loss as result of Player X’s termination following his arrest and that they were entitled to sue him for £10m, but decided not to do so due to Player X’s psychological state. The Commission rejected this ground on the basis that those losses were the sort of event that occurs in management of football clubs (similar to injury or loss of form) and was not something that could be relied upon in mitigation.
Really? Do we factor in the possibility of players being completely ostracized from the club and the country due to unfounded allegations?

Is that the same as 'loss of form'?
Click to expand...
The important points regarding Player X.
1. He was suspended by the FA first and unable to play because of that.
2. It was only then that we considered whether we could pursue him through the courts for £10m…the club made the right decision not to.
3. His suspension meant we could not sell him or play him and his book value was £10m hence the mitigation claim because he would be included in the PSR calculations.
4. In addition, in his previous 4 seasons with Everton he had scored or assisted in 30% of Everton’s goals and our average league position when he played was 4-5 places higher which is also worth circa £10m in place money.

The IC were particularly tin eared when it came to Player Xs mitigation claim.
 

We’re Everton ran and mismanaged by a shambolic owner, chairman and sycophantic board of directors?

We’re the PL and our illustrious owner, chairman and board working closely together on our spending to mitigate and limit issues?

Did Everton fans try to protest and raise the mismanagement of our club by these people and were vilified by our own chairman and the wider media with slander and lies?

Should the owner and people running Everton have been punished?

Did the pl change some significant elements around loan repayments etc during the process which triggered a breach after managing these issues closely with Everton, along with any transfers?

Was the process and punishment handed out to Everton for these breaches unjustified, unfair, rushed and illogical, and made in an attempt to stave off independent regulation of the PL?

If you’re answering anything other than yes to the above, I’ve a bridge to sell you.

59 days post our appeal and we are no closer to knowing our fate in regards to the initial points deduction, with another potential points deduction hanging over us resulting from the same broken, illogical P&S rules that they’ve already hit us with that simply aren’t fit for purpose.

To allow this issue to pollute the league whilst important matches are being played is just mind boggling, and it affects the entire league, not just Everton.

It’s negligence and agenda driven from the PL, especially when you consider the actions of other clubs in the league, but as we all know, there are different rules for “small” clubs versus the “big” ones.

I never thought I would be grateful for government support or involvement in any way - just shows what a total mess this whole situation is.
 
Iana said:
The important points regarding Player X.
1. He was suspended by the FA first and unable to play because of that.
2. It was only then that we considered whether we could pursue him through the courts for £10m…the club made the right decision not to.
3. His suspension meant we could not sell him or play him and his book value was £10m hence the mitigation claim because he would be included in the PSR calculations.
4. In addition, in his previous 4 seasons with Everton he had scored or assisted in 30% of Everton’s goals and our average league position when he played was 4-5 places higher which is also worth circa £10m in place money.

The IC were particularly tin eared when it came to Player Xs mitigation claim.
Click to expand...
I don't think the FA suspended him, we did. We could have played him but chose not to. It still cost us big-time & should have been taken into account by these corrupt idiots tho.
 
DanB90 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hold on read my posts from day one on this I have always supported the argument that the punishment is too harsh.

Before I even commented on the ICs written reasons.I read the report and what I was suggesting earlier it that the linked article was worth reading for those who hadn’t read the official report

Edit. Huge apologies I have just re read my earlier posting. I was trying to say, but clearly didn’t, that the sanction was drocanian but the guilty verdict if you like I haven’t changed my mind on.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top