6 + 2 Point Deductions

[kenada_blue]

Wednesday were given 12 points because they put the sale of their ground into the 17-18 accounts despite not selling the ground until a year later. The reason why it was reduced to 6 points was because Sheff Wed argued that the points deduction should have happened a year earlier.

If we did that we would be arguing that we should have been relegated last season.

Point being. Appealed. Got reduced. Rick

And UEFA let your boys off the hook due to the stadium issues not too long back

 

[Bez2k2k]

Jim, it’s good to see other supporters on here, and I always liked Leeds back in the 70’s tbh. However you know you are a small club who had a little bit of success, a bit like Leicester, and I can understand your frustration. Not everyone can sue us because over the period teams went down purely because they were crap, and you know this. We will put the 10 points behind us and end up mid table, you know this. Meanwhile you will still be in old money, a second division team who got above themselves for a short period but still didn’t reach anything we ever did. So I hope life treats you and your team well, I hope you don’t behave like some loser club who has to resort to legal means to overcome your lack of football ability and I wish you well for the future in whatever lower level league you exist. All the best, Pete……

Leeds are not a small club by any means.

Bores me when people talk about who’s the bigger club etc etc. Everyone will always say their own club and then back it up with attendances and history. Always end up the same argument. Any club in the Premier League and the Championship are big clubs.

 

[stamullenblue]

The premiership should offer a 30 days amnesty for all teams to own up to any financial wrongdoing . Start then with a clean slate and a crystal clear set of rules and penalties for breaking the said rules . Then give us our 10 points back and let everyone else including city off . sounds mad but good get of jail plan for the premier league .

 

[davek]

But they have already stated within their own report that the sporting advantage cannot be quantified.

If somebody proves that it can be quantified, which they would have to do to prove they were effected, then it would bring into question the validity of the first ruling and strengthen our case. The can't just turn up and say that they should be given £Xm because they replayed the games on FM without the players we bought. I mean, we could then claim everything back from the FA on having player X banned by exactly the same process. We were only in a relegation battle because the FA banned our star player from playing, and PL PSR stopped us from replacing him.

The inability to quantify sporting advantage will also likely be behind the sanctions structure that was mentioned in the ruling, which they say they never used, but the whole structure is based upon monetary value, not sporting advantage. The only mention of sporting advantage, was an inferred one, not a quantifiable one.

You are of course correct in what you state there. But there's an arbitrariness to the whole business that I half suspect they'll judge in any complainants favour.

This stinks to high heaven of a huge set up. This is not about sporting advantages gained or otherwise we're on the receiving end here, this is a political hatchet job on two fronts:

1/ the much alluded government oversight and the determination to avoid that

2/ the fact Everton were mixed up with an oligarch. Beyond question the PL and its stooge Commission are sending out a barely disguised message to other clubs that turning to sources of capital that don't fit the geo-political preferences of the west will be severely hammered. Saudi = ok; Russia/China = not ok. They're policing their part of the economy in line with all that.

I fear that we'll be THE exemplar for this crackdown.

Nertheless, we need to resist it and fight our corner against all odds and against forces way more powerful than us.

 

[LinekersLegs]

10 pts doesn't feel excessive. We got 15 pts, Birmingham and Derby both got 12 recently. 10 isn't a number that feels out of whack against those incidents.

Compensation is a finger in the air, it could be anything or nothing. Forget the other 3 clubs - small claims for lost prize money etc....Burnley and Leicester have legitimate issues and can argue it cost them real money. 50m each after accounting for parachute payments for their share of the TV pool, plus premier league prize money for the 22-23 season as a starter, plus any sponsorship and commercial income that was reduced as a result of relegation. They are reporting to be pursuing claims around 100m each for those reasons. It hasn't happened yet so there isn't any evidence for it, but its not a fantasy scenario either. The same commission is due to hear the claims of the litigating clubs and that commission has already said it feels that there are grounds to pursue those claims.

I agree that penalties shouldn't force a club into administration. Most genuine football fans (forget the 'go wobble your head' internet morons) don't want to see Everton put out to grass over this. They just want accountability to be enforced across the board, and not just for teams down the football pyramid.

Are the incidents are similar scale though? For instance I thought Derby got 12 points for entering administration? And you got 15 points for not exiting administration correctly?

As I understand it the EFL has at least a formula you can see so there are clear guidelines which provide some measure of predictability as to the severity of sanction which may be imposed in the event of breach - our panel had no such guidelines in advance and it isn't at all clear the ones they used for us will ever be used again.

 

[peteblue]

Leeds are not a small club by any means.

Bores me when people talk about who’s the bigger club etc etc. Everyone will always say their own club and then back it up with attendances and history. Always end up the same argument. Any club in the Premier League and the Championship are big clubs.

Of course mate and their 3 titles confirm this, together with the 4 second division titles and 1 runner up spot in the old division 2……

 

[Sheedy's right knee.]

It doesn't involve something being categorically proven it is based on the balance of probabilities.

What you are suggesting is that athletes shouldn't be punished for taking performance-enhancing drugs because the advantage they give an athlete can't be quantified. Pretending we didn't gain an advantage because we spent the money badly would be like an PED athlete claiming the drugs didn't matter because they didn't train properly.

The truth is we could have easily gotten within P&S limits but we chose not to because we wanted to stay up.

Oh it’s you again. Everton biggest fan.

 

[RD2910]

So we should be dealing out severe punishment and paying out compensation on opinion then rather than proof? Glad we cleared that one up.

The facts are the commission are suggesting that there was a sporting advantage on the basis of the overspend but have absolutely no way of proving it or what it would have been. Spending money does not equal results on the pitch.

You've heard of judicial opinions though, right? Opinions that become legal precedents that have effects on things. You can't really answer them with 'well, that's just your opinion'.

I think we agree here, the punishment is needlessly harsh, and any suggestion of advantages from the spending is far too complex just to be inferred from the fact of the breach. I think the idea of any compensation being handed out to any other team because of this is absolutely outrageous. All I'm saying is Everton fans should understand what the report says so they are able to argue against it in a meaningful way. Which as far as I'm concerned you have done in your post.

 

[Jamo Martinez]

What they're saying is... 'Well, you spent too much money so you must have had a sporting advantage over the other teams in the league (even though there are countless examples of teams spending too much money and getting worse) but we've got no way of proving that so here's a 10 point deduction'.

Because we did actually get worse over the period of the breach.

Due to the disastrous signings we have made it's akin to deciding to try PEDs to gain an advantage and giving the players heroin.

 

[AndyRJ]

Because we did actually get worse over the period of the breach.

Due to the disastrous signings we have made it's akin to deciding to try PEDs to gain an advantage and giving the players heroin.

This is one of the things that makes me laugh. For years we've had pundits and fans saying we've wasted a fortune and gone backwards on the pitch but according to the 'legal experts' we actually had a 'Sporting Advantage' over everyone else! Who knew!? Pity no-one told the players/managers!

 

[the golden visionary]

Reading this thread is equally as funny/frustrating as being on the other end of the phone as me ma tries to set the clock on her oven.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Are the incidents are similar scale though? For instance I thought Derby got 12 points for entering administration? And you got 15 points for not exiting administration correctly?

As I understand it the EFL has at least a formula you can see so there are clear guidelines which provide some measure of predictability as to the severity of sanction which may be imposed in the event of breach - our panel had no such guidelines in advance and it isn't at all clear the ones they used for us will ever be used again.

It irritates me so much that even the PLs suggested formula should make it 9 points. 19.5m is not 20m. 19.9999999999m is not 20m. In “every 5 million” terms it’s 3 lots of 5m.

So not only have they not accepted any clear formula they’ve just popped on an extra point above what the PL’s formula suggests for no real reason at all.

 

[davek]

Are the incidents are similar scale though? For instance I thought Derby got 12 points for entering administration? And you got 15 points for not exiting administration correctly?

As I understand it the EFL has at least a formula you can see so there are clear guidelines which provide some measure of predictability as to the severity of sanction which may be imposed in the event of breach - our panel had no such guidelines in advance and it isn't at all clear the ones they used for us will ever be used again.

Again I'll use the word arbitrary for the umpteenth time. This is where the club have a strong case:

The Athletic has since been told the aforementioned sanction framework was only meant to be used for Everton’s case. It is understood no such league-wide sanction policy is in the pipeline at the moment and that such a change would need to be communicated to clubs formally and via the handbook. Everton were unaware of the league’s recommendation both at the time of their referral and approaching the pre-trial review in early October.

It is possible that one potential avenue in the appeal would be for Everton to look at the lack of a formulaic basis for any sanction, with arguments of proportionality stemming from there.

Either way, the absence of any direct precedent for such a breach has already proven problematic in this case. It may well do again as all parties gear up for the appeal.

Bottom line though is that right ad wrong are being sidelined so far and this is all about might over right...and I have zero faith that will change for Everton. We truly are the Goldilocks option many argued we would be.

 

[AndyRJ]

It irritates me so much that even the PLs suggested formula should make it 9 points. 19.5m is not 20m. 19.9999999999m is not 20m. In “every 5 million” terms it’s 3 lots of 5m.

So not only have they not accepted any clear formula they’ve just popped on an extra point above what the PL’s formula suggests for no real reason at all.

The thing that kills me about the Premier Leagues sanction is that they clearly made it up to fit our overspend of £20m. It's farcical!

A sanction invented for us and us alone which will never find its way into the rule book.

Almost as farcical as then ignoring said sanction and then handing down 10 points without any justification whatsoever.

 

[helpimonfire]

The premiership should offer a 30 days amnesty for all teams to own up to any financial wrongdoing . Start then with a clean slate and a crystal clear set of rules and penalties for breaking the said rules . Then give us our 10 points back and let everyone else including city off . sounds mad but good get of jail plan for the premier league .

RS would need longer than 30 days to own up to all the underhand dealings. Oh wait, they are effikal