6 + 2 Point Deductions

[formerly manx toffee]

Oh goodness no. Essentially we’ve already been punished for 2 or the 3 year monitoring period. So, you’d expect 2 points as a scaled punishment. But it’s likely that we’ve missed hitting the target by a smaller number and the figures are heading in the right direction, so those would be mitigating factors.
One point is most likely in my opinion. (Or maybe even a non points punishment if we’re lucky.)

Feel like I should save this !!
I think that so long as we are well below 19.5m over then we get 2. 6x33%. I am just worried that we are above 19.5m and therefore have aggravating factors

Effectively the only thing that was overturned in the appeal was not using precedent from EFL. They have precedent now. All our other 7 points were dismissed (or meaningless)

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Are we expecting to be a similar amount over the second time as the first ? If so we might expect the same result, so 6 points deduction. This may be reduced by 2/3rds as we have felt pain on two years of the three already but may be increased due to an aggravating factor of being done twice.

Would be really helpful to know how far we are over. Hopefully less than 19.5m

I did hear Bobble say on his podcast this is breach is considered "much less serious" than the first, although how he knows or what it means in financial terms I don't know, so pinch of salt on that.

 

[formerly manx toffee]

I did hear Bobble say on his podcast this is breach is considered "much less serious" than the first, although how he knows or what it means in financial terms I don't know, so pinch of salt on that.

Truly hope that is true but we are owned by what must be the worst accountant ever. Plus more interest being paid

 

[MikeH72]

I did hear Bobble say on his podcast this is breach is considered "much less serious" than the first, although how he knows or what it means in financial terms I don't know, so pinch of salt on that.

He doesn’t get much wrong to be fair to him.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

He doesn’t get much wrong to be fair to him.

What he says is usually accurate, but he does get the official line out of the club so who knows if what he's getting is true. Heard a lot from him about how confident the club were before the first hearing, which I'm sure is what he'd been told, but turned out to be nonsense, because they were more or less admitting guilt all along. That's the reason I'm slightly dubious of any optimistic shouts he has about charge two.

 

[Neiler]

I did hear Bobble say on his podcast this is breach is considered "much less serious" than the first, although how he knows or what it means in financial terms I don't know, so pinch of salt on that.

To be honest not sure we took the first charge very seriously either and that didn’t work out great mate.

 

[formerly manx toffee]

What he says is usually accurate, but he does get the official line out of the club so who knows if what he's getting is true. Heard a lot from him about how confident the club were before the first hearing, which I'm sure is what he'd been told, but turned out to be nonsense, because they were more or less admitting guilt all along. That's the reason I'm slightly dubious of any optimistic shouts he has about charge two.

Me too. I am not confident that we are better than 19.5m for a start

 

[Jacko93]

Feel like I should save this !!
I think that so long as we are well below 19.5m over then we get 2. 6x33%. I am just worried that we are above 19.5m and therefore have aggravating factors

Effectively the only thing that was overturned in the appeal was not using precedent from EFL. They have precedent now. All our other 7 points were dismissed (or meaningless)

Tbf, If we're going down this route, they should judge on 1/3 of £19.5m.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Me too. I am not confident that we are better than 19.5m for a start

Given the wiggle room we seemed to have (40m) our adjusted loss would have to go from 10m in 21/22 to 60m+ be more than 19.5m over. That probably equates to 80m+ of statutory loss. I don't know how we would've sleepwalked to such a terrible figure without even seeming to do anything about it before the year end.

Although I guess if anyone's capable it's good old Everton.

 

[Jacko93]

Given the wiggle room we seemed to have (40m) our adjusted loss would have to go from 10m in 21/22 to 60m+ be more than 19.5m over. That probably equates to 80m+ of statutory loss. I don't know how we would've sleepwalked to such a terrible figure without even seeming to do anything about it before the year end.

Although I guess if anyone's capable it's good old Everton.

We'd only have to be £6.5m over for it to potentially be an aggravating factor if they don't consider the previous 2 years in the cycle.

 

[formerly manx toffee]

Given the wiggle room we seemed to have (40m) our adjusted loss would have to go from 10m in 21/22 to 60m+ be more than 19.5m over. That probably equates to 80m+ of statutory loss. I don't know how we would've sleepwalked to such a terrible figure without even seeming to do anything about it before the year end.

Although I guess if anyone's capable it's good old Everton.

Don’t we need a loss smaller than the year falling out of the calculation ? We have more interest and I am not sure about amortisation of cost for players

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Don’t we need a loss smaller than the year falling out of the calculation ? We have more interest and I am not sure about amortisation of cost for players

Yeah, from memory it was about 58m falling off so 38m or less would've been fine, and obviously anything more than 58m makes it worse. I was surprised enough we couldn't get under 38m but would be very surprised if we'd got over 58m based on the underlying numbers from the year before.

Something doesn't really add up TBH, if we needed to get under 38m there should've been a way to do that, even if we needed a quick sale before June 30. The theory I've put up on here already is that we genuinely didn't think we were breaching and subsequent adjustments made by the Independent Commission put us over. How that would be treated I don't know.

 

[formerly manx toffee]

Yeah, from memory it was about 58m falling off so 38m or less would've been fine, and obviously anything more than 58m makes it worse. I was surprised enough we couldn't get under 38m but would be very surprised if we'd got over 58m based on the underlying numbers from the year before.

Something doesn't really add up TBH, if we needed to get under 38m there should've been a way to do that, even if we needed a quick sale before June 30. The theory I've put up on here already is that we genuinely didn't think we were breaching and subsequent adjustments made by the Independent Commission put us over. How that would be treated I don't know.

I think you are right. We were called for the first event after the closure of accounts for the second

 

[arch stanton]

Anyone remember when we used to talk about how good players were and scoring goals, and winning and shizzle?

 

[sd_1992]

Don’t we need a loss smaller than the year falling out of the calculation ? We have more interest and I am not sure about amortisation of cost for players

We were granted a lot of mitigations on the year that dropped out that we probably won’t be granted for last year.

So I don’t think it is that simple and is probably why we have been done again.