6 + 2 Point Deductions

Tipp blue said:
Everton could and should have sold more players? The PL argued that to be sustainable that we could and should have sold more players, HELLO we stayed up on the last day if we sold more players we'd 100% have gotten relegated, their arguments are mental.
View attachment 251959
Click to expand...
Again,one the Ukraine thing, this is the same as Everton saying, well we thought was was going to sell player x, but we never.

Arguing we could have sold players doesn’t actually guarantee we WOULD have sold players. Was their expectation that we just took any old sum for players, same as what Forest are arguing with Johnson.

I hope Everton appeal this point and say no enquiries were made officially for any players. We couldn’t sell players if nobody was interested.
 

jinkyali said:
I'm interpreting that the PL are actually saying we have gone over in the first case by an additional 16m and thus our overspend was in fact 35m and they are basically looking at retrospective action.
Click to expand...
But they by their own accord can’t research it in time. I thought today was the deadline, fancy saying ‘yeah we couldn’t get it done so we will look at it another time’. I hope Everton say there isn’t a rule for that so it’s just all null and void the future one.
 
Wat Tyler said:
Am I being unrealistically optimistic by expecting no points deduction off this? It’s a possible £6m extra breach from an accounting period we have just been deducted points already for.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s an extra £6m breach. We have capitalised £19m of interest in 22/23 alone, and it looks like they are going after that as well. Would up this latest breach to Forest levels. We have restated prior year accounts to capitalise (much less) interest in those periods. That’s where we’ve effectively changed the numbers we got done for last time.

But they will still argue the £19m for this last year, it’s not an inconsequential issue, which is why it’s madness they have deferred the decision. Very likely because they know, as said above, they would be calling into question an external auditors opinion, which would start and end in court. Very aggressive. They can challenge our PSR calculation. Seems bold to challenge our audited statutory accounts.
 

Bez2k2k said:
But they by their own accord can’t research it in time. I thought today was the deadline, fancy saying ‘yeah we couldn’t get it done so we will look at it another time’. I hope Everton say there isn’t a rule for that so it’s just all null and void the future one.
Click to expand...

Its in the 2nd case.
The IC has essentially said it nerds to be looked at separately.

Everyone stating its 6.5m when if you read the case it's actually 16.3m they are contesting.
 
Bez2k2k said:
Again,one the Ukraine thing, this is the same as Everton saying, well we thought was was going to sell player x, but we never.

Arguing we could have sold players doesn’t actually guarantee we WOULD have sold players. Was their expectation that we just took any old sum for players, same as what Forest are arguing with Johnson.

I hope Everton appeal this point and say no enquiries were made officially for any players. We couldn’t sell players if nobody was interested.
Click to expand...
Could have sold Onana for 16.5 million, we'd have had plenty of takers and we'd have become compliant, but the PL shouldn't expect teams to take massively lowball amounts for the best players to comply with these rules, or maybe the plan is to allow the big 5 and Spurs hoover up all the talent while the rest have to take low sums for top talent.
 
HalfTimeSayers said:
I don’t think it’s an extra £6m breach. We have capitalised £19m of interest in 22/23 alone, and it looks like they are going after that as well. Would up this latest breach to Forest levels. We have restated prior year accounts to capitalise (much less) interest in those periods. That’s where we’ve effectively changed the numbers we got done for last time.

But they will still argue the £19m for this last year, it’s not an inconsequential issue, which is why it’s madness they have deferred the decision. Very likely because they know, as said above, they would be calling into question an external auditors opinion, which would start and end in court. Very aggressive. They can challenge our PSR calculation. Seems bold to challenge our audited statutory accounts.
Click to expand...
Should take to the courts

That's the only way this ends.
 


Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top