6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Neiler]

Net spend has not been the major issue for us, it's been our wage bill. For a good few seasons we had the highest wages to turnover ratio and at one point is was 93%

We have lived beyond our means and for a while Moshiri was pumping money into the accounts to prolong this.

That money has now dried up and we are back to loaning money based on future TV payments.

We can boycott sponsors and call the premier league corrupt but at the end of the day we only have ourselves to blame.

When we goto the appeal we need to change tact and drop all the excuses and stop playing the victim card or we could end up getting it increased to 12 points.

This will absolutely make a difference though mate, the PL main income driver is through commercialism and packaging a product for money if you damage that image you raise tension and more likely to get mitigation.

Not only that, if you disrupt other clubs it creates an internal pressure also.

 

[davek]

They can adjust the punishment either way. The stories from the other week even suggested the Premier League wanted a 12 point deduction.

That is why at the appeal we need to change tact and focus on the work we have done the previous seasons instead of offering up the " Dog ate my homework " excuses that got thrown out at the commision.

How can they increase the punishment? The liability is admitted to. Where have you seen this - that they can increase the punishment?

 

[ashwuk76]

Probably already been asked countless times but has anybody got an idea on how long the appeal will take?

They claim everything will before before season ends, some have said 12 weeks for appeal and count-appeal. But i will believe it when i see it.

Has to be dealt with this season though, it can't carry over.

 

[cahill 17]

These corrupt gets have been stung by the criticism over the points deduction, so, in addition to Northcroft and Joyce's planted pieces we'll likely see come more client journalists used by the PL this week in the run up to the United game, because they want to take the sting out of any corruption protests that'll embarrass them in front of a global audience.

Be ready for these articles, they will come.

I don’t think they care one bit about the criticism

 

[Saint Domingo]

These corrupt gets have been stung by the criticism over the points deduction, so, in addition to Northcroft and Joyce's planted pieces we'll likely see come more client journalists used by the PL this week in the run up to the United game, because they want to take the sting out of any corruption protests that'll embarrass them in front of a global audience.

Be ready for these articles, they will come.

That’s why fan protests need to focus on reputational damage for the PL rather than any all together now Everton won’t die stuff. The PL only care about the currency of their reputation, they need to be consistently and continuously embarrassed on the world stage as pay back for the damage to the Everton brand they have done worldwide.

 

[Neiler]

Probably already been asked countless times but has anybody got an idea on how long the appeal will take?

They changed the rules recently mate that all proceedings have to be finalised in the same sporting season as the charge, my guess will be in the Spring.

 

[degsy]

Our offense(s) were not Sports Related.

They were of a 'technical accountancy' nature related to Stadium Interest payments - we tried to claim for everything basically.

Moshiri being a crap accountant didn't get Leeds, Leicester and Burnley relegated - they did that themselves.
So for me they can sue all they want.

 

[PhilEFC]

I see all the usual helmets are twisting the knife this morning.

 

[Toffeepot]

The report said we DID gain a sporting advantage as we overspent, that is inferred BY the overspending.

It can also be inferred that we had a sporting disadvantage the last two years by trying to cooperate with the PL and getting our finances in order.
Two relegation battles due to limited spending relative to other clubs
The only advantage that can truly be inferred is one step closer to a larger capacity stadium, not a sporting advantage

 

[Jacko93]

Personally would've thought Profit & Sustainability meant to help clubs not fall into a financial mess - 'sustain' the ability to operate. It's not FFP.

In our case, we've spent 3 seasons trying to rectify poor financial mismanagement and no doubt when the set of accounts for 2022/23 go in we'll look to have made a profit. Wolves, Leicester were doing the same thing. Tightening the belts based on guidelines.

The league should step in when they feel like a club is steering beyond the parameters they've set and work with them to correct it. Something we thought we were doing with the league.

But as mentioned by pundits...the penalty they've eventually given will just make clubs not be forthcoming and honest to them knowing full well they won't get a fair hearing.

What I don't understand about the whole thing is that they are saying that we broke rules that are in place in order to make us sustainable, yet in the same paper say that our owner has so much money that a financial sanction wouldn't touch the sides. If our owner is so rich, does that not point to a level of sustainability?

I know what this means with the other clubs and that argument would effectively render it useless as a rule, but my point still stands.

 

[Lob]

Can people stop peddling the myth the report says we didnt gain a sporting advantage. Read the report instead of spouting nonsense. The report said we DID gain a sporting advantage as we overspent, that is inferred BY the overspending.

We are run by iditots doing idiot things and we got caught. Our so called "accountant" owner got caught doing dodgy accountant things. It didnt work. Do i think some of the mitigation should have been taken into account? Yes i do, its ludicrus that some of it wasn't. We are guilty, we admitted as such. What is harsh is the level of penalty and thats the only thing we can realisticly appeal on. Are other clubs doing the same thing? I don't doubt it, we are the first to be caught doing it (Another first!)

Years ago it was said that the game would be run by the bean counters and now we have reached that stage where sporting issues arent resolved on the pitch they are resolved in commissions and in accounts. It a ridiculous situation that someone (our rich owner as they pointed out in the report) can't use his own money to pay debts if he wishes and get punished for not bieng able to. It's like HMRC give you a tax bill, you have the money but they refuse to accpet it and decide to send you to jail anyway because they can (very simplistic i know but its the same thing essentially)

Whilst i am confident this will be lowered on appeal, as a fanbase we need to be more together now than we have ever been, we can't control who runs and owns us but we CAN control the support we give the players every time they cross that white line.

We can do this and we WILL do this!

No it does not say that we gained a sporting advantage. It says that in the formula that they used, a sporting sanction of a 12 points deduction would be the starting point in all cases that may then be reduced pending the investigation and outcome. It also clearly says that no deliberate breach to gain a sporting advantage occurred. Quoting the relevant sections from the official report below - https://resources.premierleague.com...gue-v-Everton-FC-Decision-for-Publication.pdf

SANCTION PRINCIPLES – THE PREMIER LEAGUE’s
PROPOSED FORMULA
84. On 17 September 2018 the EFL approved sanctioning guidelines for breaches
of its P&S regime. Those guidelines presume that a sporting sanction in the
form of a points deduction is appropriate in all cases. The starting point is a
sanction of 12 points that is reduced (potentially to zero) to reflect the
quantum of the P&S breach and other mitigating factors. Reductions can be
made if the losses show an improving trend: increases can be made in the
event of aggravating features. Those guidelines, however, do not restrict a
Commission’s power to impose whatever sanction it considers appropriate.
It was recognised in
EFL v Birmingham City FC that the guidelines do not
have legal force and are not binding on a Commission: the Commission
retains its general power to impose any sanction permitted by the Rules. The
function of the guidelines is to stand as instructions to those presenting the
EFL’s case as to the sanctions that should be sought from the Commission.
The Commission is free to accept or reject the submissions according to what
is appropriate in the individual case.

104. At one level, disregard of the potential PSR difficulties can be said to increase
Everton’s culpability. But the Commission considers that there is a danger
of double counting. We have already made clear that our approach is to start
by considering the extent by which the PSR threshold has been exceeded: the
greater the excess, the greater the culpability. We do not consider that the
reasons for the PSR breach should aggravate that culpability unless they can
be said to constitute exceptional conduct. For example, a deliberate cynical
breach of the PSR to achieve a sporting advantage might increase culpability
beyond that already arrived at by the extent of the breach. We do not think
that this is such a case. Everton may have taken unwise risks, but it did so in
the mistaken belief that it would achieve PSR compliance: it is not a case of
a deliberate breach.

 

[RD2910]

So that's even worse. They state they can only infer a sporting advantage and cant find one.

Question: do you work for the PL by any chance?

Davek, 'infer' is not equatable to guess or estimate, a perfectly solid conclusion can be inferred from something. The report is definitively stating that a sporting advantage is inferred by the breach. They're not saying there might be one or might not be one, they're saying there is one. It is perfectly sensible to take from the report that the advantage is impossible to quantify, so that will be on our side when Burnley and Leeds come sniffing.

There's no use in the 'working for the premier league' suggestions, this is just what the report says. I fundamentally disagree with it, but I think it's definitely worth the fans being aware of what Everton are up against and not saying things that are clearly untrue.

 

[ashwuk76]

No it does not say that we gained a sporting advantage. It says that in the formula that they used, a sporting sanction of a 12 points deduction would be the starting point in all cases that may then be reduced pending the investigation and outcome. It also clearly says that no deliberate breach to gain a sporting advantage occurred. Quoting the relevant sections from the official report below - https://resources.premierleague.com...gue-v-Everton-FC-Decision-for-Publication.pdf

I never said it was a deliberate breach, but any overspend a sporting advantage is inferred by the very fact we over spent!

 

[RD2910]

No it does not say that we gained a sporting advantage. It says that in the formula that they used, a sporting sanction of a 12 points deduction would be the starting point in all cases that may then be reduced pending the investigation and outcome. It also clearly says that no deliberate breach to gain a sporting advantage occurred. Quoting the relevant sections from the official report below - https://resources.premierleague.com...gue-v-Everton-FC-Decision-for-Publication.pdf

Sorry mate, that's just bad reading.

 

[Lob]

I never said it was a deliberate breach, but any overspend a sporting advantage is inferred by the very fact we over spent!

I have literally copied and quoted the relevant sections of the report for you where it explains the high starting point and that Everton's breach was not considered deliberate to gain a sporting advantage. It is their in black and white.