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

Are other clubs allowed to make submissions to hearings regarding other clubs?

Are we sure about the answer to this? I.E there is a source that confirms either way?

I ask, because I’d like to think we could have a say in why that Brennan Johnson excuse is utter BS!
 
Bkk Andy said:
How have we lost >40m? We've been living on dry bread and stale water. Is this the interest on loans that's so problematic? I'm starting to think that the problems are significantly deeper than paying crap players superstar salaries.
Click to expand...
22-23 we have to remember - the playing side we made big efforts and should be in the black on that.

But to have breached, there has to have been a circa £40m (at least) loss.
 
Dymak said:
Are other clubs allowed to make submissions to hearings regarding other clubs?

Are we sure about the answer to this? I.E there is a source that confirms either way?

I ask, because I’d like to think we could have a say in why that Brennan Johnson excuse is utter BS!
Click to expand...
Nope - shame, as it really is a ridiculous defence

Although it genuinely was more 'profitable and sustainable' for Forest, they blatantly ignored the rules to do it, and they played him for three mathces, in which they gained three points total, so there's a quantifiable sporting advantage.
 

BlueToff said:
Nope - shame, as it really is a ridiculous defence

Although it genuinely was more 'profitable and sustainable' for Forest, they blatantly ignored the rules to do it, and they played him for three mathces, in which they gained three points total, so there's a quantifiable sporting advantage.
Click to expand...

What if he got injured in any one of those three games that he played in, then he wouldn't have been able to be sold at all.
 
Dymak said:
What if he got injured in any one of those three games that he played in, then he wouldn't have been able to be sold at all.
Click to expand...
I thought this, but doesn’t that mean they accepted that the 3 points was more important than the punishment?
 
magicjuan said:
What 'mitigations' were considered? They were all dismissed. Only 'good faith and intent' were considered at the appeal (which were excuses to legitimise the 4 point return).
The PL have de facto set a framework, unintentionally imho, of 3 points per £10m, which puts Forest at a huge risk.
They can't allow mitigating circumstances for Forest so have backed themselves into a very dodgy corner. If challenged by either team legally, bearing in mind timescale towards season end, they will open to challenges from the entire league.
Click to expand...
I found this in the Echo, of all places last week, that Everton had a stadium naming deal with USM agreement.
It was disallowed because it was found that Moshiri hadn't signed the contract and that in fact the contract hadn't even been drawn up, yet. The amount of the investment? 200,000,000 pounds.
 
Jeff Jones said:
I found this in the Echo, of all places last week, that Everton had a stadium naming deal with USM agreement.
It was disallowed because it was found that Moshiri hadn't signed the contract and that in fact the contract hadn't even been drawn up, yet. The amount of the investment? 200,000,000 pounds.
Click to expand...
I've just suggested a figure of 200,000,000, for the stadium naming rights.

I don't know who was wrong, me or the Echo, but I've seen 20 million in another post Still a lot of money and it would've covered the 19.5 loss.
 
Jeff Jones said:
I found this in the Echo, of all places last week, that Everton had a stadium naming deal with USM agreement.
It was disallowed because it was found that Moshiri hadn't signed the contract and that in fact the contract hadn't even been drawn up, yet. The amount of the investment? 200,000,000 pounds.
Click to expand...
The agreement with USM was for £10 million pa. It was due to start in 25/26.

Everton’s argument was that they were in negotiation with USM to advance the start of that deal to the 21/22 year but had to pull those negotiations due to Russian invasion. That point of mitigation was dismissed because there was no contract inplace.
 

WestStandLower said:
The agreement with USM was for £10 million pa. It was due to start in 25/26.

Everton’s argument was that they were in negotiation with USM to advance the start of that deal to the 21/22 year but had to pull those negotiations due to Russian invasion. That point of mitigation was dismissed because there was no contract inplace.
Click to expand...

There’s no way you are this interested in another football club every day.
 
BlueToff said:
No chat that I'm aware of - I wish I was!

All I can figure out from reading the report is that EFC must have recorded a loss of at least £40m in FY22-23.

After add-backs were added on, EFC lost £55m in 19-21 (averaged out), £10m in 21-22, so that equates to £65m over those two years, so essentially there was a £40m margin to play with for 22-23.

It sounds like a lot, especially since we made efforts on the playing side, but the USM/Megafon sponsorship of FF/Goodison/the women's team was supposedly (according to someone at the club) 'around £20m' - though that same person then told someone else it was closer to £30m!

I think they'll almost certainly look to use the USM/Megafon stuff as mitigation in this case. They only used the stadium naming rights deal in the 21-22 case, and I suspect that's because the money for the other sponsorships (FF etc) had been paid up front at the start of the year, so it was already accounted for by the time the sponsorship was suspended in March 2022. But, that's me guessing, and I have no idea if that would even be successful.

I fully expect another deduction, which is why results like yesterday are even more frustrating. But we'll see - perhaps we only are over by a few mil. But if that was the case I actually don't know if the PL would have called it in given all the hassle with the first charge.
Click to expand...
The womans team is potentially losing us up to £30 million a year... Wtf


I couldn't name one player or any of their results this season. I don't even know what league they play in.
I follow Everton not any random variant of a sport just because they attach my clubs name to it, like that failed basketball attempt about 15 years ago.
If we are hemorrhaging money what is the point of pissing it down the drain chasing a doomed failing commercial enterprise.
 
Dan Tanner said:
The womans team is potentially losing us up to £30 million a year... Wtf


I couldn't name one player or any of their results this season. I don't even know what league they play in.
I follow Everton not any random variant of a sport just because they attach my clubs name to it, like that failed basketball attempt about 15 years ago.
If we are hemorrhaging money what is the point of pissing it down the drain chasing a doomed failing commercial enterprise.
Click to expand...
Let’s not go full Joey Barton because our Accountant owner is incompetent
 
DanB90 said:
Like that “Villa Fan” who had a strangely keen interest in football finances and not much else.
Click to expand...
Why is so strange that supporters of other clubs are interested what’s going on in football wider ?

I am 100% open where my loyalties lie in terms of football matches but my interest in football is far wider than the narrow tribal view that many take.

If my postings were taking the mick or I was posting facts that couldn’t be substantiated then fair enough I open myself up ridicule but the debate re FFP and punishments is far wider than just Everton.

What is the problem that you have ? Is it the tone of my postings, The fact that I am a Chelsea supporter? Or the simple fact that this is solely an Everton issue and no one else is allowed an opinion ?
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top