6 + 2 Point Deductions

[nevsonlymate]

Because it was an alleged offence against a minor so safeguarding rules kick in.

Anthony for Manchester United

Innocent until proven guilty, not in Sig’s case. If he was told by the Premier League he cannot play, and was subsequently found either not guilty or charges dropped then surely Everton do have a case to say ‘he couldn’t play even though he hadn’t been convicted of any crime, this therefore left us in a vulnerable position in which we either kept on paying him/offered a new contract, as he couldn’t play we couldn’t offer him to other Premier League clubs, the only position it left us in was to release the player from his contract. This ultimately left us with no transfer fee from the player.’

Not sure if this has been answered but was it ourselves that took Siggi out of the team because of how serious the charges where or were we ordered to take him out?

 

[Simon Buttle]

and what happens if Moshiri cant or wont pay?

He is the majority shareholder and is only financially liable to lose the investment he has already put in i.e. his shares

Apparently the agreement 777 have is that any compo payments come off the share price.

 

[Bebeto]

We need to get a grip of these cowboy journalists going on national radio and spouting unchecked drivel.

State of this Draper here.

Not great in math that guy....talks of a potential 60 points punishment for city when they have over 100 cases of which many, according to reporters, are actually worse than everton. Its more like 1000 points if the same logic with the same level of severity was applied here by the league. So technically they could just be excluded altogether of the entire football professional pyramid and start from the conference league.

 

[PhilEFC]

I have included a screenshot of the rules. They were in place. It clearly states in the handbook that a club shall not enter another competition other than the below.

Why would the 6 clubs settle with the PL if they done nothing wrong?

View attachment 235956

Oof! I think you’ve blown his argument out of the water there mate.

 

[mahermi1]

Neither ourselves or your lot could be punished by the Football League as we weren't in it anymore.

The way he is making out it was just Everton no lad it was Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs and Man United as well. He just can't bring himself to blame anyone other than Everton.

 

[Gilbert..]

We were part of a 92-team Football League. The other 78 teams didn't vote for it. We did it for greed and self-interest.

If Moshiri had spent the money wisely and we were in the CL do you honestly believe he wouldn't have been in an ESL like a shot.

Then we get to posters whining about the top 6 dumping on us but quite happy to dump on the teams who have a case for compensation.

I wouldnt dispute the fact it was about money. But the football league set up needed to change as no other set up in the world had 4 full divisions to sustain.
Secondly, the clubs who voted for it never voted on a closed no relegation/promotion league. You're wide of the mark there in trying a comparison.

 

[HowardsWay]

That is the history of football. Everton have always bought success as have most big clubs. Blackburn under Jack Walker. They wouldn't have been able to do it these days. You're just glad of FFP because it means the rs are guaranteed to be in the top 6 every year for all time.

I'll ignore your last comment for the b/s it is.

Anyway, my contention is that FFP should have a sliding scale downwards every season so that clubs actually lose less money each season and within a few years become financially responsible. Every Premier league club should be responsible and be held responsible for at least breaking even each year. Personally, I'd have a points penalty for every club that didn't. You'd still have the wealthier clubs being the wealthy clubs but if that was brought in, then I think you'd level the playing field a lot more than has happened over the last decade or two.

 

[Wat Tyler]

 

[John from Bootle]

Not at all. It now depends how they apply penalties to others who break the rules. They've set a precedent and we'll see.

Righto. So what you're basically saying is, you're 'happy' for Everton to take a 10 point penalty, and you think it's deserved, but you won't be happy if Man City aren't treated accordingly.

And you're wondering why some people are calling you a kopite? lol

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

Not great in math that guy....talks of a potential 60 points punishment for city when they have over 100 cases of which many, according to reporters, are actually worse than everton. Its more like 1000 points if the same logic with the same level of severity was applied here by the league. So technically they could just be excluded altogether of the entire football professional pyramid and start from the conference league.

Yeah, City have been massively obstructive and elusive. We’ve been fully cooperative and admitted some guilt, but the report was still at pains to accuse us of not acting in good faith (which makes no sense at all when we cooperated). If your conduct has such a bit impact on the punishment, they have completely had it. We shall see.

 

[Bedfordblue]

So how do you control "provided the owner can afford it?"

What happens if they can't after appearing that they can?

And what then happens in cases like Chelsea where it is pretty clear the past owner and the new owner can afford it.
City is a similar case and then Newcastle?

Surely the rich get richer, win everything and take all the spoils. Great if you happen to support a club with those means, not so great if you get left behind.

There in lies the tricky bit that you would hope the league which earns billions of pounds and is a multibillion international industry would have the nous to sort out.
In very simplistic terms I would hope there would be a mechanism where an equivalent sum to any debt pile created by an owner could be held in escrow to ensure that debit is covered. In theory it might also dial back some of the spending too so where a clubs might be ‘comfortable’ dropping £500m to chase success, if they had to also tuck away another £500m, perhaps their true budget would be halved.
In terms of state owned clubs running away with things, ultimately City and NUFC in theory have unlimited funds, but the reality is they can only really hold 24 top players each, and of them some won’t be happy on the bench. Only have to look at that young lad who’s left city for Chelsea. Neither has stopped Arsenal being competitive lately either.
I also think I we weren’t trying to comply with P&S Mosh / Uzzy would have continued to plough money until they got it right to get some sort of success.

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

I hope Pinsents are on Twitter/X. Sounds like they need to pick up the phone as some of the mitigations they failed to justify to the PL were mind boggling.

 

[Bez2k2k]

Not sure if this has been answered but was it ourselves that took Siggi out of the team because of how serious the charges where or were we ordered to take him out?

We couldn’t play him, premier league said we wasn’t allowed.

 

[blaze]

So how do you control "provided the owner can afford it?"

What happens if they can't after appearing that they can?

And what then happens in cases like Chelsea where it is pretty clear the past owner and the new owner can afford it.
City is a similar case and then Newcastle?

Surely the rich get richer, win everything and take all the spoils. Great if you happen to support a club with those means, not so great if you get left behind.

The alternative is a cap on spending (transfers and wage cap) that isn't related to revenue/profits (everyone starts with a pre-agreed amount at the start of a season). None of those clubs who bring in the most revenue through their larger fanbase will ever agree to that - they want things to go back to when they could outspend everyone else, not a situation where anyone can come in and compete.

If the league is worried about clubs being left in huge amounts of debt from rich owners then they could bring in laws that any spending beyond an agreed amount must be put directly on their owners and not against the club itself, make it such that providing loans to the club that must be paid back cannot happen outside of infrastructure and money must be put into an independent pot in advance (covering multiple years) to cover the overspend in wages for players contracts so they can't just walk away and leave a club without any way of paying those players on big money contracts.

There's plenty of options, but the league don't want to implement anything that would go against the wishes of the richest clubs.

 

[hallamblue]

I'll ignore your last comment for the b/s it is.

Anyway, my contention is that FFP should have a sliding scale downwards every season so that clubs actually lose less money each season and within a few years become financially responsible. Every Premier league club should be responsible and be held responsible for at least breaking even each year. Personally, I'd have a points penalty for every club that didn't. You'd still have the wealthier clubs being the wealthy clubs but if that was brought in, then I think you'd level the playing field a lot more than has happened over the last decade or two.

Nope you'd just have Man United or the rs winning the league every year.