6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Tin-Tin]

Apparently the FA did suspend him

So the FA suspended him, meaning we couldnt use one of our record signings on the pitch to help us win games. Not that morally we should have but thats another argument.

So we couldnt use him, sell/loan him due to suspension. We also couldnt or wouldnt extend his contract to protect his value due to the legal proceedings. Then he left for nothing.

How is that not a factor?

 

[Yarrgh]

i’m going to the FA headquarters to sit on a chair and go on a hunger strike

Take some sandwiches, you'll be there a while.

 

[ashwuk76]

Need it overturned not reduced.

for a so called non legal hearing that judgment is exactly the way all high court judgments are written...

 

[kenada_blue]

You are confusing two different things. The accounts are a legal requirement and are audited. It is not false accounting because the accounts we have supplied to companies house will almost certainly be accurate.

We clearly did lie.

That's where I'm out with you buddy.

Been summarised by someone else on here...

Basically the league screwed the club with making us put the stadium costs in our P&S, we signed a special agreement that then handcuffed us for the future, then the accountant in Moshiri forgot how to do accounting and literally could have just avoided the issue by moving the numbers to the right boxes, or Kenwright could have sold Keane. In short we legitimately spent less than 105m on player costs and abided by the spirit of the rules, but we accounted for the stadium costs wrong in an attempt to manipulate lenders, and then tried to obfuscate.

No one is arguing Mosh didn't drop the ball. But we haven't fabricated finances. Which you think we have done.

So night to that.

"The Premier League has made it clear that it makes no allegation of dishonesty. We consider, therefore, that Everton did not consciously intend to circumvent the Rules"

 

[summerisle]

 

[gwladysnight]

This. For an enterprise the size of the PL not to have any structure in place is ridiculous. It means that 'members' were unregulated as per how City are stringing them along.

The way the rules were written it was probably expected that they would never need to deduct points for P&S breaching rules. The idea was that any initial breach would result in an agreement between the Premier League and the club involved. That agreement would mean no club would need to be dealt with by an Independent Commission.

If Moshiri had any sense then we could easily have avoided a breach. It was only when we supplied our accounts that it became clear that they needed sentencing guidelines.

 

[Tipp blue]

The point that bugs me the most is.

• Everton argue most of their losses are related to the stadium being built, and says that those losses are actually good business and will lead to increased profits in the long run. Commission says these losses should have been covered by investors.

These losses shouldn't even be taken into account. This is the one that we must target in an appeal, infrastructure had never been counted toward P&S there is absolutely no reason for it to be even mentioned in any report.
An anomaly arose which ment that stadium costs had to go into P&S accounts... AN ANOMALY... Jesus, we don't even need a good lawyer to get us out of this one.

 

[Tipp blue]

So the FA suspended him, meaning we couldnt use one of our record signings on the pitch to help us win games. Not that morally we should have but thats another argument.

So we couldnt use him, sell/loan him due to suspension. We also couldnt or wouldnt extend his contract to protect his value due to the legal proceedings. Then he left for nothing.

How is that not a factor?

And all charges against him were dropped.

 

[LinekersLegs]

So the FA suspended him, meaning we couldnt use one of our record signings on the pitch to help us win games. Not that morally we should have but thats another argument.

So we couldnt use him, sell/loan him due to suspension. We also couldnt or wouldnt extend his contract to protect his value due to the legal proceedings. Then he left for nothing.

How is that not a factor?

We’re not the only ones bemused!

 

[gwladysnight]

Yes I know that but to me it is very unclear what terms he was meant to have breached.

Similar to @magicjuan my assumption was that we told him not to report for his final season, ie dismissed him, but that we still paid him his contractual wage either as a bulk payment or in regular payments. That is where I also assumed the 10 million figure came in if we’d sued him for breach of contract - a claw back of salary (think he was on about 5milliom) and additional fees.

But that is all my speculation - you seemed to be stating things as fact and I wondered what your source was?

From the Mutu case.

Adrian Mutu has been ordered to pay his former club Chelsea a record 17m Euros (£14.3m) in compensation after losing his final appeal in a legal battle which has lasted more than five years, the Swiss Federal Court has announced.

Mutu was sacked by Chelsea in September 2004 after testing positive for cocaine. The Romania striker received a seven-month ban from football, but the London club took a firm stance and sacked him before then suing him to recover the money they paid to sign him.


The £10m would not be for wages we paid him but because the club lost out on his transfer value.

 

[Blue Willy]

They will soon reduce it to 6 points!

Give them 2 or 3 months!

 

[LinekersLegs]

From the Mutu case.

Adrian Mutu has been ordered to pay his former club Chelsea a record 17m Euros (£14.3m) in compensation after losing his final appeal in a legal battle which has lasted more than five years, the Swiss Federal Court has announced.

Mutu was sacked by Chelsea in September 2004 after testing positive for cocaine. The Romania striker received a seven-month ban from football, but the London club took a firm stance and sacked him before then suing him to recover the money they paid to sign him.


The £10m would not be for wages we paid him but because the club lost out on his transfer value.

But Mutu tested positive for cocaine which I assume was stipulated in his contract that he could not use therefore a breach of his contract. How does that relate Siggurdson - what breach did he do that we could dismiss him without pay?

 

[Bluerover]

Everton legal team should be aware.

Sufficient to quote that passage in the appeal to make the point of inconsistency.

 

[maccavennie]

They will soon reduce it to 6 points!

Give them 2 or 3 months!

Need to be reduced to 3 points, 4 points at an absolute max

 

[gwladysnight]

The point that bugs me the most is.

• Everton argue most of their losses are related to the stadium being built, and says that those losses are actually good business and will lead to increased profits in the long run. Commission says these losses should have been covered by investors.

These losses shouldn't even be taken into account. This is the one that we must target in an appeal, infrastructure had never been counted toward P&S there is absolutely no reason for it to be even mentioned in any report.

The stadium costs are permissible deductions that are not included in P&S calculations. The problem was we tried to claim the interest payable on the Metro and Rights media loans should also be a permissible deduction. Unfortunately, a quick search on companies house shows that the terms of the loan clearly state that they were not for the Stadium but for working capital.