Its pointless discussing or arguing over it, whichever way you look at it we have been well and truely shafted. This would not have happened to any other club under the same circumstances. Im not normally a conspiracy theorist but this feels like a big fat consipracy to me.
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.
NorthernBlue
Player Valuation: £30m
The big money clubs won’t get found guilty of any ffp breaches. Be all kicked into the long grass. These type of punishments will only apply to low hanging fruit clubs like us.
gwladysnight
Player Valuation: £10m
The commission called it being less than frank and stated that we failed to act in the utmost good faith. It then used it as an aggravating factor.
I've absolutely no idea how the Premier League unpick this particular knot. As you say, the potential for 'interesting' precedents being set is obvious.
I may be wrong but weren't these rules put in place after West Ham had to pay Sheffield Utd a small fortune to avoid being taken to court after the Tevez debacle? So not FFP specific? PL didn't want clubs taking each other to court and it instead made everyone sign up to to a dispute and compensation mechanism that they controlled, taking CAS and the UK courts out the equation.
Either way, the PL have a hell of a mess to resolve.
HalfTimeSayers
Player Valuation: £30m
We admitted the lower breach probably in October after lots of our attempted mitigations were thrown out. Our initial stance in March would have been full compliance. Otherwise why would player X and all the other nonsense in the report be mentioned. They wouldn’t be argued as mitigations if they had already been included/deducted from our claimed losses. Admittedly, some of them were fanciful at best, certainly unquantifiable , and we dug the hole in the first place years ago, so we are culpable. But not sure what the agenda has become in here. The strongest arguments now seem to be “we deserve it.” Can’t ignore the fact the report disappears up its own arse in contradictions
Rita_Poon
Player Valuation: £90m
Remember this?
Who lost points or gained an advantage and who was punished thereafter? You know, for the veracity and clear moral standards the game is renown for?
Premier League: Goal line technology fails at Aston Villa
The Premier League returned after a three month break. Here are some of the key moments from the first few matches.
www.bbc.co.uk
Who lost points or gained an advantage and who was punished thereafter? You know, for the veracity and clear moral standards the game is renown for?
gwladysnight
Player Valuation: £10m
Whether something is permissible or not is black and white. As you say we made fanciful deductions that were thrown out. It was only after we admitted our guilt that our claimed deductions became attempts at mitigation.
But that's not lying. If it was lying, the premier league would have said so and it would have been a more serious aggravating factor.
I think we should have done more with the war in Ukraine. We should have said that overnight we had to change the stadium and finch farm and BOTH lost sponsorship and further sponsorship. Once the invasion happened it then became near impossible to contact/communicate/get something set in stone to agree to the future sponsorship.
Essentially overnight our sponsorship died and therefore the war in Ukraine was a relevant point for mitigation. This was generating 10m per year. The commission put this down to ‘something which businesses have to deal with in everyday life’. I wonder how the Premier League would deal with it if Barclays folded overnight.
I think we should have made a bigger deal with this point. It wasn’t Evertons fault a war broke out, it wasn’t Evertons fault that we had Russian sponsorship and it certainly isn’t Evertons fault that a commission deems this as not relevant to an over spend.
Essentially overnight our sponsorship died and therefore the war in Ukraine was a relevant point for mitigation. This was generating 10m per year. The commission put this down to ‘something which businesses have to deal with in everyday life’. I wonder how the Premier League would deal with it if Barclays folded overnight.
I think we should have made a bigger deal with this point. It wasn’t Evertons fault a war broke out, it wasn’t Evertons fault that we had Russian sponsorship and it certainly isn’t Evertons fault that a commission deems this as not relevant to an over spend.
Saint Domingo
Player Valuation: £90m
Imagine an argument that says if Chelsea and City hadn’t have breached P&S clubs below them might have finished higher therefore increasing their prize money via league placing and thus maybe bringing themselves closer to compliance with P&S regulations.
gwladysnight
Player Valuation: £10m
The premier league accused us of misleading them. They would not claim dishonesty or call it lying because that is much harder to prove. In the same way, when they charge a player with using racist language they make it clear that they are not calling the player a racist.
It is about using precise legal definitions that do not allow recourse to legal action.
This occurred to me as well as a SoLIciTOr. The Tevez case worries me though, and that the commission chair in our case said he thought the case for compensation was arguable.
gwladysnight
Player Valuation: £10m
That is why companies have a range of sponsors and a range of revenue streams. The idea is to protect yourself from unforeseen circumstances. We didn't do that because the USM sponsorships were not genuine. They were just a way of Usmanov pumping money into the club.
Companies sponsor high-profile sports teams to improve brand recognition. USM was a holding company that gained absolutely nothing from sponsoring Everton.
It is very telling that Arsenal's board did everything they could to prevent Usmanov-Moshiri from gaining a seat on the board and refused to sell their shares to them. We turned a blind eye and paid the price.