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

I'm surprised people are writing off any of the bottom clubs at this point in the season, there's a long long way to go and we've seen in the last couple of seasons in the relegation battle some teams really pick up and others from mid table get caught up in it. It's a long old season, we should not be writing off even Luton.
 

marnie said:
Evening Babe. I can see you've had your power nap. Toast Toppers are on the go.......... Bacon and mushroom........... Your Favorite xxxx See you downstairs in ten.... MR Grumpy Pants xxx
Click to expand...
As I say, I wish I could join in with the fun. But we;ve just been handed a death sentence and I don't really feel like laughing about it.

Maybe you and others are the one's acting oddly? Think about it: your club gets thrown to the bottom of the PL and you think its time for levity.

Sorry, not me. I recognise a disaster when I see one.

When/if Utd beat us at Goodison maybe the penny will drop that we've just been killed off by the PL.
 
blue to the bone said:
OK mate . Let's aim for 78 if we are going to be properly ambitious.
Aiming doesn't matter. We need more points then 3 more teams ideally.
In the last 10 seasons the number of times 40 was required was zero .
I hope we get 50 more
For me 30 more keeps us up. Probably less
Click to expand...
That's fine, but I'll tell you now that Dyche will have consistently aimed at that 40 point mark like Moyes used to. That'll have been the aim this season, definite safety.

Will we need it? Almost certainly not, but that's not the point. You set a target and then when crunch time comes you reassess.

If Everton can get 10 wins then I think they'll be fine. That will mean winning 14 games over the course of the season, of course, which while not impossible has not been the case for Everton in three years.
 
Bez2k2k said:
There are so many statements in the document that are just baffling to me:

‘Similarly, the argument that the invasion of Ukraine caused stadium construction costs to increase, and made it harder for Everton to secure the senior debt that it was seeking, constitute mitigating features that cannot stand. Again, it is no more than the type of event that businesses have to contend with as part of their daily life.’

This is basically saying, tough to Everton that a war broke out and ruined your future and present sponsorship deals, I hope they showed them pictures of Everton having to remove USM and MegaFon from Goodison and Finch Farm the next day. I also find the statement a bit silly as it’s basically saying wars happen all time and it’s a part of every businesses daily life, this is inherently untrue.

‘Everton had signed Player X in 2017. Player X had proved to be a star player for the club. In July 2021 Player X was arrested. The FA suspended Player X from all football activity, making it impossible for him to perform his contractual duties. On 23 August 2021 Everton dismissed Player X. Everton sought advice on the possibility of suing Player X for breach of contract but elected not to do so.’

Again, this is a horrible statement which is putting money ahead of someone’s mental health. From what we all have heard as rumours this player basically lost his marriage and career overnight. Now, this statement says as we could no longer play him, nor really get a transfer fee, we should have sued him. What a disgrace. Imagine if Everton would have sued and the player would have taken his own life, imagine the media frenzy that would have caused. By their reckoning, that’s what we should have done. I agree with the club on this but I also think anything to do with the player after his arrest should have been written off, transfer fee, wages, etc. That is not the employers fault, it’s the employees. However, the duty of care shown by Everton not to sue is commendable.

‘On 14 January 2021 the Premier League produced a report to its board on Everton's expenditure. It noted that while Everton was forecast to breach the PSR maximum permitted loss of £105 million it would not do so if the stadium expenditure were to be excluded. It contrasted Everton's position with that of six other clubs who had been able to capitalise expenditure on stadium development, principally because their developments could be considered probable at an early stage of the respective projects.’

Again, other clubs have been allowed not to include their new stadium costs in their P&S costs. We were not. This was to do with the ‘probable’ go ahead for the other stadiums but not ours because of the heritage side of the site itself. However once the stadium was given the go ahead surly we should be allowed to include these costs as it’s now had the green light. Surly some common sense here and some back dating takes us back under the threshold.



There are paragraphs after paragraphs which upon reading it all tonight makes me think we simply were never going to win. However a lot of it doesn’t make sense. That 105m will be boosted to 150m per year in the near future as put simply 105m is a joke when any half decent player is now about 30m.
Click to expand...
They didn't say Everton should have sued him. They said even if we did sue him it is doubtful we could have recouped the £10m. So it was ridiculous to try and claim the £10m.


This from an athletic piece and shows how ludicrous our defence was.

A pre-trial hearing in October saw Everton accept they had exceeded the PSR threshold for the first time but that the breach was, in their mind, £7.9million. The Premier League countered that by arguing the losses were £124.5m and not the £120.8m it had first calculated.

Everton had four areas where they initially attempted to justify the figures submitted.

The first took things back to the new stadium, where Everton argued that £14.5million could be excluded, primarily “in respect of interest incurred on inter-company loans used to fund” the overhaul of the Bramley-Moore Dock site.

They also focused on the four per cent transfer levy paid by all English clubs, money collected to fund a footballers’ pension scheme — with any surplus going to the Professional Game Youth Fund.

Everton tried unsuccessfully to argue £7.6million should fall into youth development expenditure and could be excluded from their PSR calculation. The Premier League said that was both “unprecedented and wrong in principle”.

The third point came back to Player X, who Everton said they had decided not to pursue for what they believed would be a £10million employment claim.

Lastly, Everton tried to claim £43.9million should be excluded from calculations due to the impact of Covid-19 in the summer window of 2020. They said Player Y, another individual given anonymity, could not be sold for big money as they had planned.

The Premier League countered. It said Everton’s PSR breaches were down to overspending on players and that “misleading information” on stadium financing costs had been submitted. It also argued Everton had taken the decision not to sell Player Y.

And so back to Everton. Their fresh focus was then trained on just two aspects; the transfer levy and pre-planning stadium interest costs of £4.1million. Including those, they argued, would mean PSR losses of £112.9m.

The Premier League maintained its position on its interpretation of the transfer levy. “It points to the fact that historically neither Everton nor any other club has sought to make a deduction from the PSR calculation in this way,” detail the written reasons. And, importantly, the commission sided with the Premier League.

The pre-planning stadium interest figures were less straightforward.

Everton argued that “any interest attributable to expenditure on the stadium should be excluded from its PSR calculation”, taking us back to the Premier League’s agreement made in August 2021 mentioned above.

The Premier League instead stressed that pre-planning interest charges had not been incurred “in respect of the stadium” but from “interest-free loans made by Mr Moshiri”. Although Everton argued otherwise, saying all the money had effectively gone into one large pot, the Premier League added that commercial loans taken from Metro Bank PLC and Rights & Media Funding Ltd had been for working capital and not the stadium build.
 

TheWinslowBoy said:
"Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that no person be held guilty of any criminal law that did not exist at the time of offence nor suffer any penalty heavier than what existed at the time of offence."

Obviously it's not criminal law, it's the rules of a private organisation (the EPL) that we've voluntarily subjected ourselves to.

But it gives you an idea of how this kind of thing is viewed.
Click to expand...
If they'd found us guilty last season we'd have been relegated.
The rules have been made more specific to make judgements easier and finally bring the PL in line with the EFL who've been regulating properly for a few years now.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top