6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Jacko93]

No thats a misunderstanding. Any breach of PSR is considered a sporting advantage but this is a technical point really. They've clearly stated the do not believe Everton gained a sporting advantage.

Not quiet how I read it tbh. I read it as we never set out with the intention of gaining a sporting advantage, but due to the fact that any PSR infraction is to be considered gaining a sporting infraction, then it has to be said that we did. That, and the fact they think Moshiri is too rich, was the leading factor in the 10 point deduction.

The only thing they have been clear on is that we didn't set off to intentionally break PSR, and that with the insistence of a sporting sanction, that we did.

Now, if this is the punishment for not intending to break PSR, but doing so by accident, then heaven forbid what happens to clubs who are though to have intentionally done so. 20 points per infraction? Either that or absolutely nothing.

 

[degsy]

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

Short version;
If we hadn't 'Cheated' by spending millions on players that 'sent' Leeds, Leicester and Burnley down then we wouldn't have gone over by £19.5M and thus been guilty of breaking the Regs.

There must be some sort of Double Jeopardy thing in there somewhere.

That said; If they want to 'Do' you they will find or interpretate a technicality to hang their case on.

<<<<That banner under my Avatar has been there for a long time now

 

[ToffeeTim]

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.

You've mentioned getting the penalty increased a few times now but what is your basis for saying that. I've never seen a points deduction increased on appeal at any time in the past. I don't think it's a potential outcome at all.

 

[ashwuk76]

Again, that is just explaining the formula and criteria they used for transparency as a starting point which they will do in every single case no matter what it is. Doesn't change the fact that they very clearly state in section 104 that in Everton's case, no deliberate breach to gain a sporting advantage occurred.

Right so you are trying to dey depsite me pointing out the section where they explicitly say a sporting advantage is inferred and that's why a points deduction is the only appropriate punishment why we didn't get a fine?

I never once said it was a deliberate breach. But we got a points deduction exactly because of the Sheffiled Wednesdsy decision. If they didn't think we got a sporting advantage they would have given us a fine... and the aggrevating factors would only have pushed the fine higher.

 

[Jokerdan]

All this mayhem over what is, seemingly, a sub-£20m 'overspend' and which fell on the back of COVID, sanctions and our new stadium build and which, by itself, will probably kick start regeneration of a run down area of Liverpool creating thousands of new jobs and opportunities.

I really struggle to understand how the PL and independent commission can come up with a finding which warrants us being docked ten points for such a paltry overspend when they know we will, undoubtedly, seek to appeal the decision and which, in turn, will lead to - as someone has already said - the creation and opening of a Pandora's Box when other clubs are eventually brought into the fray...if there is to be any transparency and consistency in the course the PL have now set out on.

A lesser penalty and we would probably gone away quietly but ten points makes it worth our while appealing the decision of this charade of a commission.

 

[Jacko93]

Again, that is just explaining the formula and criteria they used for transparency as a starting point which they will do in every single case no matter what it is. Doesn't change the fact that they very clearly state in section 104 that in Everton's case, no deliberate breach to gain a sporting advantage occurred.

Deliberate, no? Did we gain one, Yes.

In their opinion.

 

[ashwuk76]

Context absolutely needs to be considered when looking at mitigation. The point on an inferred sporting advantage is a technical point, but when a key part of the mitigation put forward relates to building a stadium, and how it was financed, then I do find it very difficult to accept there was a sporting advantage.

From what I read in the report this stadium interest stuff was due to the fact we claimed the loans were for the stadium and do the interest shouldn't count towards the PSR. The commission asked for evidence of this which we couldn't produce so they decided that the loans were part of normal business and thus are part of the PSR calculation.

 

[Wat Tyler]

It’s insane that we’ve been punished more than if we had went into administration.

 

[ToffeeTim]

From what I read in the report this stadium interest stuff was due to the fact we claimed the loans were for the stadium and do the interest shouldn't count towards the PSR. The commission asked for evidence of this which we couldn't produce so they decided that the loans were part of normal business and thus are part of the PSR calculation.

My reading of that point was there was a debate regarding at what point interest on the loans for the stadium could be capitalised - if capatilised, the costs would go to the balance sheet and not through the profit and loss. Which presumably would have meant less losses through the P&L.

 

[Walken]

Sorry for the talksport content, but here is david dein and keiran maguire on the matter with slightly different views but both disagreeing with the severity of the punishment.

Anyone with any sporting background seems of the opinion the sentance is too strong, in fact the only people with it seem to be anti-scouse daily mail journos, kopites and the usual weak minded trolls on here.

 

[ashwuk76]

My reading of that point was there a debate at what point interest on the loans could be capitalised - if capatilised, the costs would go to the balance sheet and not through the profit and loss.

But if we proved the loans were for infrastructure then surely they would have accepted they were not part of PSR. Although I know there was some rule change about infrastructure that I admit I haven't fully read. So you are probably right.

 

[mightymoyes]

who is going to be on the appeals panel?
surely they actually have to be independent this time?
that last panel was the opposite of independent.

 

[jinkyali]

The PL didn't put Everton in that situation.
Whilst we can all agree that the punishment is ridiculously harsh and almost certainly won't be applied elsewhere it is in reality Evertons initial wreckless and profligate spending on crap footballers that had very little resale value which together with the decision to build a new stadium has put ourselves in this position.

Yeh I get that.

 

[Lob]

Right so you are trying to dey depsite me pointing out the section where they explicitly say a sporting advantage is inferred and that's why a points deduction is the only appropriate punishment why we didn't get a fine?

I never once said it was a deliberate breach. But we got a points deduction exactly because of the Sheffiled Wednesdsy decision. If they didn't think we got a sporting advantage they would have given us a fine... and the aggrevating factors would only have pushed the fine higher.

No i am trying to say that you are just misunderstanding what is written. Every case is considered a 12 point sporting breach at the start as per the criteria and formula you are quoting from. In Everton's specific case, they found no evidence of a deliberate breach to gain a sporting advantage (which is really important for the future) but then used their stated criteria as the punishment which is always going to be you get hung drawn and quartered no matter what.

 

[dublinbluenose]

The commission said that the reason we are getting a points deduction is because the owner is too wealthy for a fine to be the punishment.