6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Jim Kirk]

Yep. At least bother reading the report, or the key points, if you're going to come onto the forum and give your view. Definitely don't then cry about it when you've made no attempt to educate yourself on the matter and then rightly get called on it.

I did, and the only part of the post that had anything to do with the hearing was that you tried to avoid an FFP charge by deducting some aspects of losses from the FFP framework rather than actually trying to cut costs to meet the threshold. Which is exactly the reason the commission held Everton accountable.

The other parts of the post had nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the what happens next aspect.

 

[Osamabindiesel]

They do say there was a sporting advantage.

Alex Iwobi counts as a sporting disadvantage imo

 

[PhilEFC]

I did, and the only part of the post that had anything to do with the hearing was that you tried to avoid an FFP charge by deducting some aspects of losses from the FFP framework rather than actually trying to cut costs to meet the threshold. Which is exactly the reason the commission held Everton accountable.

The other parts of the post had nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the what happens next aspect.

You obviously haven’t.

 

[pfim]

Jim with all due respect, and hopefully trying come across as civil, have you really read the report? Don’t believe what’s written by helmets like Matt Hughes.

They’ve basically done us by not taking into account our main sponsor being sanctioned because of a war (allegedly we should always take things like that into account), one of our players that couldn’t sell for obvious reasons, and for stadium loan interest which was allowed before we started building but suspiciously changed. We’ve worked with the Premier League who have moved the goalposts throughout.

They even don’t specifically say we had any sporting advantage. So a sporting sanction doesn’t fit the alleged breach.

This is not correct. The expenditures before they were given planning approval were not interest. They were costs related to the planning approval.

The interest they tried to charge to the project was for money borrowed against future revenues and other assets, not the stadium, and the club specifically stated in the loan documents that the funds would not be used for construction or player purchases.

I’m glad that the Guardian journalist wrote a piece that was favorable to us, but much of it is misleading or incorrect.

Again, what we should be angered about is that the punishment is completely out of line with the charge, the punishment is seemingly open-ended with clubs being able to claim against us, and that clubs like City and Chelsea can continue to defer their judgments even though what they are being charged with is far more nefarious. As well as the complete incompetence of the board and the owner.

Having said all that, 6.5 million for three years is peanuts and this whole thing is a tragic comedy.

The PL is so toothless and scared that they can’t even administer their own punishments. What a joke of an organization.

 

[Moomin]

No I didn’t add that because that was bollocks.

I think the majority of the excuses we said was the same and deep down we knew it.

 

[Lloydaldo11]

That's UEFA, nothing to do with the Premier League and we are safe from UEFA's reach as we don't play in Europe

True however a club would only have one set of accounts so regardless of the measures, if a club is posting £200m of losses over three years then regardless of the interpretation of the rules between UEFA and PL, they are still over the £105 threshold the prem have judged us on.

The reality is that it highlights the grossly obvious inequality in how our club has been treated by the authorities compared to others.

If I read right, Burnley and Leeds were the instigators baying for action yet a kangaroo court was confirmed with certain links to one of those clubs and others listed in those reports which have tarnished the global image of Everton Football Club

 

[Ruairi77]

As a leeds fan, I think I have 4 takes on this.

1 - The 10 pts mean very little this year. There are 3 terrible teams in the league, you'll stay up with 30 points probably. Can't see the penalty resulting in relegation.

2 - You broke FFP. You did so knowingly and then tried to cover it up with dodgy accounting. The penalty is fair enough - You got caught and lied about it. Suck it up.

3 - Your big problem isnt the 10 pts, its Burnley and Leicester. Leeds, Southampton etc.....have very small claims, which amount to a couple of million for being 'cheated' out of a place in the league, but neither resulted in a substantial impact. Burnley and Leicester however..........You could easily be looking at a couple of hundred million compensation and all the fun and games that come with that.

4 - This is for the 21-22 season. Your still not compliant with FFP today, so need to fix that pronto or you'll be proper hammered. As a result, there is an urgent need to sell players and reduce the wage bill - and forget about strengthening. I think this (and the 3rd point) are your main issues. The 10 pts won't mean a whole lot and is short term - a big compensation bill and a wage bill that is hugely out of kilter with your revenue are longer term problems that could bury you for a good long time.

1- the ten points might not mean relegation but it's a huge difference in prize money dictated by where we finish. Also safety is far from a given.
2- This, I'm not so sure about, the report says we co-operated and had no intention to actively breach rules.
3- What happens if City are relegated, Can we then sue them for the hundreds of millions Leicester are to sue us for, given that we'd be 16th and theyd be 17th? It's a load of nonsense that would tear the league apart.
4- We've been in compliance with FFP re player trading for years. We are working with the PL to stay within range. The infraction was stadium related, not player. Thelwell should be able to pick up bargains and loans. Frankly we cant/couldnt be trusted with gobs of cash. Havent spent anything really in the last 5 years.

 

[Goat]

True however a club would only have one set of accounts so regardless of the measures, if a club is posting £200m of losses over three years then regardless of the interpretation of the rules between UEFA and PL, they are still over the £105 threshold the prem have judged us on.

The reality is that it highlights the grossly obvious inequality in how our club has been treated by the authorities compared to others.

If I read right, Burnley and Leeds were the instigators baying for action yet a kangaroo court was confirmed with certain links to one of those clubs and others listed in those reports which have tarnished the global image of Everton Football Club

Well no mate, mainly cos UEFAs FFP rules and the Premier League P&S rules are similar, but very different.

How different im not sure, but no club has ever breached The Premier League P&S rules before.

 

[Simon Buttle]

Are we the baddies?

Only in a sense that we have made an utter pigs ear of things and should literally be the dictionary definition of how not to run a football club, but we all knew that and have done for ages. This just seems like pointing the finger and making a show of things for no real reason.

 

[RD2910]

Alex Iwobi counts as a sporting disadvantage imo

I agree. So did Morgan Schneiderlin, Fabian Delph, Theo Walcott, Jean-Phillipe Gbamin etc etc etc etc. I completely disagree that a sporting advantage can simply be inferred from the fact of the breach.

However, the report says it is. That's a fact.

 

[RD2910]

It says there is an 'inferred' sporting advantage purely on the basis we spent/ lost too much money. It also states that it cannot be quantified. Big difference.

That's what inferred means.

 

[perth_blue]

Disappointed with that

Wouldn't it make sense that we don't agree with that, due to potential new owners also owning various other clubs from other leagues?

 

[Walken]

Wouldn't it make sense that we don't agree with that, due to potential new owners also owning various other clubs from other leagues?

From a self preservation view probably, the integrity of the game is worse for it though and I'd rather it didn't happen.

 

[Rob17896]

This is not correct. The expenditures before they were given planning approval were not interest. They were costs related to the planning approval.

The interest they tried to charge to the project was for money borrowed against future revenues and other assets, not the stadium, and the club specifically stated in the loan documents that the funds would not be used for construction or player purchases.

I’m glad that the Guardian journalist wrote a piece that was favorable to us, but much of it is misleading or incorrect.

Again, what we should be angered about is that the punishment is completely out of line with the charge, the punishment is seemingly open-ended with clubs being able to claim against us, and that clubs like City and Chelsea can continue to defer their judgments even though what they are being charged with is far more nefarious. As well as the complete incompetence of the board and the owner.

Having said all that, 6.5 million for three years is peanuts and this whole thing is a tragic comedy.

The PL is so toothless and scared that they can’t even administer their own punishments. What a joke of an organization.

I suspect a Guardian journalist to be more accurate than most. The reality of this mess is very simple:-
We have been run in an abysmal fashion. Any business will not run if it never makes any money.
The PL are terrified of a government regulator, it needs one because it is as corrupt as it gets. You can't trust from the CEO to a linesman.
Everton are no longer in the top tier but big enough to attract attention. The perfect show trial.
This whole mess is the culmination of the game being sold to Murdoch. Nothing can be straight ever again after that. Who agreed to form the PL...Everton!

 

[lieneverton]

From a self preservation view probably, the integrity of the game is worse for it though and I'd rather it didn't happen.

Agreed, but as mentioned due to reasons of necessity, its one of the less egregious things we've done.