6 + 2 Point Deductions

[blue to the bone]

Ah yes i forgot about that elephant in the room.

Harsh on @Goat that

 

[CrimsonToffee]

Except that

1. This is their first offence and is a year year set of figures rather than the 3 year period that we had

2. Usually a 2nd offense is treated more harshly

It was our first offense too, though. I didn't mean their punishment would be harsher than our punishment #1 + a potential punishment #2 put together, just that their punishment #1 should be harsher than our punishment #1, because from all indications, their breach is likely to be substantially higher than ours.

 

[ToffeeTim]

So that line about them reviewing on a case by case basis and one not impacting the other can now be rendered meaningless then?

I don't think they can seriously keep us this idea of every panel being able to come to their own decision. If a completely different decision is made for a similar situation, then everyone will correctly say it's unfair. People would see the process as laughable, and not just Everton fans either. The wider public would start seeing it too.

I think they will use this verdict as a precedent moving forward. The appeals panel basically said the 10 points had no precedent whatsoever, so they looked at the EFL. So by that logic, we now also have a PL precedent.

 

[DuncanPatterson]

Everton punishment reduced from ten points to six after appeal - BBC:

That's Numberwang!

 

[matty1878]

Ask the people saying Forest will get leathered. Not me.

Personally think they'll get judged on what they PL have learnt from our case, not what they did on it

yearh i mean it was on par with ours

 

[Tony’s Carp]

I don't understand either. The Appeals Board clearly said that the vast majority of our losses during the 3-year period came in years 1 and 2. The loss for year 3 was comparatively minor, which is what we tried to argue as mitigation: that we were trending in the right direction and had sorted the systemic problems out. The Board acknowledged that it was at least somewhat true, but essentially said that one year doesn't make a trend, so they wouldn't really take that into significant account.

But what that all means is that when year 1 drops off, how are we even in breach a second time? We sold Gordon, Kean, etc. and didn't have much of an incoming spend. How could we possibly have lost enough money last year to even get charged a second time?

It looks like the appeal panel are saying our trend is again positive into 2023. So it is hard to understand what has happenned to be in breach again. High interest payments is my only guess, but I don't know.

View attachment 247292

View attachment 247293

They also decided to leave our improving situation out of account when making their decision..... I find the approach to the mitigations pretty baffling to be honest. Just seem to have rejected everything out of hand.

I don't understand what is happening, based on the figures in their report we could post an adjusted loss of 40m last year and still be within the number.

The 21/22 number was only 10m adjusted down from a 45m loss, so the 22/23 loss would have to be massive to reach an adjusted number of 40m plus. So how is that compatible with the appeal board saying FY23 shows an upturn?

 

[toffee-L]

If rules forbid double punishment, surely that’s the end of our deduction this season?

Fingers crossed, although if the next season in the rolling period shows an increase in the amount over the PSR allowance, then who knows?

They’re making it up as they go along, and each commission will have different interpretations - so it’s impossible to say for sure.

 

[ToffeeTim]

I don't understand what is happening, based on the figures in their report we could post an adjusted loss of 40m last year and still be within the number.

The 21/22 number was only 10m adjusted down from a 45m loss, so the 22/23 loss would have to be massive to reach an adjusted number of 40m plus. So how is that compatible with the appeal board saying FY23 shows an upturn?

Yeah I don't really understand it. Unless they mean simply an upturn in the average yearly loss over the 3 years 2021 - 2023, but still above £105m total. But again that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[WestStandLower]

I know people are keen on the double jeopardy argument but it doesn't hold water. Every year we have to be compliant over a three year period. That means that wherever we are in a financial year we have to tailor our finances to ensure that we are complaint within that season. We were not in breach in the two years before 2022 as the breach is not based on a single year.

The Appeal board made it clear that
a) we knew that the PSR calculations we gave were wrong and accordingly we knew that we were £20 million over. Rabinowitz described it as a "pitch".
b) the minimum points deduction for the breach was 6 points.

Our losses for PSR appear to be £55 million and £10 million. That means that our losses for 2023 season would have to be less than £40 million. Clearly the Premier League do not think that this is the case.

We are therefore at risk of a further 6 points although this penalty and a) above will be aggravating features.

Lets hope therefore that

1) We are not in breach.
2) It is small.
3) That we are at least 6-9 above the relegation zone at the end of the season.

The suggestion in the early written reasons is that the 22/23 trend was upwards.

The PS losses on the face of it need to be below £40 million and just by a simple calculation it looks that circa £35 million seems to be the ball park that Everton claim as allowable so I think the statutory losses must be over £75 million.

So that means either a decrease in income or increases in expenses of around £30 million

Interest on the two non stadium loans will in line with the interest rate increase. Player trading will be less also there won’t be any COVID allowances .

 

[jazzy]

It was our first offense too, though. I didn't mean their punishment would be harsher than our punishment #1 + a potential punishment #2 put together, just that their punishment #1 should be harsher than our punishment #1, because from all indications, their breach is likely to be substantially higher than ours.

Sorry I misunderstood your point. I thought you were making a direct comparison on their potential sanction and ours on the 2nd charge.

If I'm a Forest fan I think I'd be miffed that newly promoted teams are not judged for PSR purposes on 3 years sets of accounts

 

[CrimsonToffee]

I don't understand what is happening, based on the figures in their report we could post an adjusted loss of 40m last year and still be within the number.

The 21/22 number was only 10m adjusted down from a 45m loss, so the 22/23 loss would have to be massive to reach an adjusted number of 40m plus. So how is that compatible with the appeal board saying FY23 shows an upturn?

I'm honestly baffled too. Because you're right, it looks like the Appeals Board was saying that FY23 was even better than FY22, which was already far better than FY20 or FY21. So where's the second breach? We should be well under.

The only thing I can even think of is if there's some sort of misunderstood semantics going on here, and by "upturn" they mean increase in losses rather than increase in profits?

 

[mikel_88]

Has the second case had a date i kno forest hqve had one set

 

[Dwight K Schrute]

My prediction after ploughing through the document (don't work in law and could have this horribly wrong) is that us and Forest will both end up with - 8 points.

Us - breach one (-6), breach 2 (-2).

Forest- 8. Unless there's something about Forest no-one knows, it would seem unlikely that they would have theirs reduced as per the findings of ours. Nor would it exceed 8 points as the commission found that a penalty for a PSR breach should NOT exceed the penalty for administration - 9 points.

This presumes that the findings of our appeal will now form the legal precedent moving forward.

 

[mikel_88]

Sorry I misunderstood your point. I thought you were making a direct comparison on their potential sanction and ours on the 2nd charge.

If I'm a Forest fan I think I'd be miffed that newly promoted teams are not judged for PSR purposes on 3 years sets of accounts

Think it should be aacounted for when going up the leagues to give a more accurate look, should be set figures but i am sure forest have overspent the years in the chanpionship aswell. So cant feel sorry for them at all, have waited right untill the end to cut costs aswell unlike us with the second charge we have cut back heavily

 

[Deulofeumygod]

We have helped them start a system. In the future, no one will get more than 8 points deducted regardless of number over /type of breach because in this appeal they have said they can’t give 9 because it’s the same as administration. Everton get 6 as the Guinea pigs. Corrupt.