6 + 2 Point Deductions

[pfim]

The loan document can say whatever it wants but once that cash hits Everton’s account and is mixed in it’s not distinguishable from the cash Moshiri was putting in. It’s more a point that the rules are nonsense because it seems we could have exactly the same balance sheet position but be penalised because an interest bearing loan is for working capital and an interest free shareholder loan is for the stadium build rather than vice versa (admittedly I don’t know how the stadium ownership/financing is structured). Seems completely arbitrary.

The cash is indistinguishable. The interest is not. Unfortunately it comes from the working capital loans. If someone had the foresight I would think they could have negotiated that into the loan and we would have been much better off.

 

[Jacko93]

Then why do posters talk about the top 6 and why we can't compete with them? Surely they only have a financial and not a sporting advantage.

We all know the truth a financial advantage = a sporting advantage.

Piss poor management of the club may well reduce the sporting advantage but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Financial advantage doesn't automatically mean sporting advantage, that just simply isn't true. Financial advantage simply means that you can increase your chance of being successful in gaining a sporting advantage. Again, a reason why sporting advantage is so difficult to quantify and why the other clubs looking to sue will be unlikely to be successful.

Take Liverpool, they bought Nunes for a price that the vast majority of clubs in the league couldn't afford to pay, giving him and others wages they could only dream of offering. They had the financial advantage to be able to do that. I'm not sure many would argue that in that first season he added a huge sporting advantage. You certainly couldn't quantify any sporting advantage that he gave Liverpool. He was outscored by players far below his value. The financial advantage is that Liverpool could take that risk. If Everton took that risk, at that price, we'd have been dead and buried 12 months ago. That's what a financial advantage gives you.

 

[AndyRJ]

Financial advantage doesn't automatically mean sporting advantage, that just simply isn't true. Financial advantage simply means that you can increase your chance of being successful in gaining a sporting advantage. Again, a reason why sporting advantage is so difficult to quantify and why the other clubs looking to sue will be unlikely to be successful.

Take Liverpool, they bought Nunes for a price that the vast majority of clubs in the league couldn't afford to pay, giving him and others wages they could only dream of offering. They had the financial advantage to be able to do that. I'm not sure many would argue that in that first season he added a huge sporting advantage. You certainly couldn't quantify any sporting advantage that he gave Liverpool. He was outscored by players far below his value. The financial advantage is that Liverpool could take that risk. If Everton took that risk, at that price, we'd have been dead and buried 12 months ago. That's what a financial advantage gives you.

This is why it is ridiculous handing out a severe sporting sanction for a financial transgression. Particularly one where it is impossible to rationally determine whether there was a sporting advantage or that the club were trying to obtain one.

The conclusion by the commission that we must have received a sporting advantage due to overspending is farcical in my opinion.

The PSR rules (allegedly) aren't there to stop clubs from trying to obtain a sporting advantage over their peers, they are to protect clubs from going bust. So why hit us with a points deduction that could, quite possibly, relegate us and send the club into administration?

 

[CalBuckeye_Rob]

The sporting advantage concept makes no sense in a world where they allow the big revenue clubs to spend way more than the small revenue clubs. Not sure why in the top league in any country there should be any limits. If rich people want to lose money chasing a title, let them. In lower leagues it makes more sense to allow fair competition for promotion. But how do you expect the bottom tier teams to compete with the top teams if they can't spend close to the same money by rule.

 

[HowardsWay]

Financial advantage doesn't automatically mean sporting advantage, that just simply isn't true. Financial advantage simply means that you can increase your chance of being successful in gaining a sporting advantage. Again, a reason why sporting advantage is so difficult to quantify and why the other clubs looking to sue will be unlikely to be successful.

Take Liverpool, they bought Nunes for a price that the vast majority of clubs in the league couldn't afford to pay, giving him and others wages they could only dream of offering. They had the financial advantage to be able to do that. I'm not sure many would argue that in that first season he added a huge sporting advantage. You certainly couldn't quantify any sporting advantage that he gave Liverpool. He was outscored by players far below his value. The financial advantage is that Liverpool could take that risk. If Everton took that risk, at that price, we'd have been dead and buried 12 months ago. That's what a financial advantage gives you.

You put forward a decent argument but why can't it be both at the same time? I think it's a grey area. Team X has more financial pull so therefore, in theory, they are able to compete for the best players. That, in theory is a sporting advantage and a financial advantage. I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

Fact is, it is sport and there's clubs at at every level throughout the league that would have claim to both financial and sporting advantage over others. For example, those teams that get relegated clearly have an advantage over others as they get relegation payments that other teams in the Championship don't.

Then we could look at the Wrexham example. They clearly have more financial muscle than say Notts County. Notts County are putting up a brave fight of competing with them though but I'd still say that Wrexham had a sporting and financial advantage over them and possible most teams in their league.

 

[Toffeepot]

You put forward a decent argument but why can't it be both at the same time? I think it's a grey area. Team X has more financial pull so therefore, in theory, they are able to compete for the best players. That, in theory is a sporting advantage and a financial advantage. I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

Fact is, it is sport and there's clubs at at every level throughout the league that would have claim to both financial and sporting advantage over others. For example, those teams that get relegated clearly have an advantage over others as they get relegation payments that other teams in the Championship don't.

Then we could look at the Wrexham example. They clearly have more financial muscle than say Notts County. Notts County are putting up a brave fight of competing with them though but I'd still say that Wrexham had a sporting and financial advantage over them and possible most teams in their league.

If they don't compete for the best players and buy less than they've sold(such as Everton for the last three seasons) then by your own logic there is no sporting advantage

 

[GoldenToffee]

This will run for years yet, and we won't know whether our punishment - changed or not - was anywhere near fair until City, Chelsea and whoever else get theirs.

City need to be having their titles stripped and kicked out of the league at minimum. Obviously that won't happen, so it's already safe to say we've been incredibly harshly treated.

The fact they're allowed to continue building their wealth and success and setting themselves up for generations to come with this having already lingered for years is sickening.

 

[Blackwell Livermore]

If not anything else, it seems to prove that we're not paranoid conspiracy theorists. There really does appear to be an agenda against us.

 

[Bwana]

we want the points back
we want the points back

And as per custom, there needs to be interest. Let's see, 10 points loaned out, daily rate around 7%. Well heck, top of the league by Christmas!

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

This is

The cash is indistinguishable. The interest is not. Unfortunately it comes from the working capital loans. If someone had the foresight I would think they could have negotiated that into the loan and we would have been much better off.

But the point I am making is the rules seem wrong if the wording in a loan agreement results in us being in breach of a rule which is designed to manage our economic health when the wording has zero impact on our economic health. One could argue we borrowed a working capital loan because the cash we would have otherwise used to fund that working capital is being used on the stadium and the interest on that loan is therefore at least indirectly attributable to the stadium spend. It's all completely arbitrary from an accounting/financial health perspective.

 

[Exeter_Gently]

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.

Excellent

 

[Exeter_Gently]

If not anything else, it seems to prove that we're not paranoid conspiracy theorists. There really does appear to be an agenda against us.

100 percent

 

[Moomin]

View attachment 236209

I've read the full article and that snapshot really needs to be read in the full context.

The premier league came up with that framework in August but the commision rejected it as according to rule w.51.10 of the league’s handbook, “the commission has power to sanction as it sees fit”.

If the Premier league ignored the commision and went ahead and put it in the handbook in August we would be having a different conversation today. As back in August we still claimed we were innocent.

 

[DanB90]

You've said some bizare things on here since you decided come out of the closet. But performance enhancing drugs in an individual sport comparison is up there as one of your worst.

He was comparing the piss taking of Kopites in the witch hunt thread to Nazi propaganda at one point.

I’d ignore most of his opinions tbh.

 

[Tipp blue]

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.

Weren't leciester fined for breaking P&S the year they were promoted .. it could be argued that if they hadn't broken the rules then they wouldn't have even been in the PL.. Derby county came 3rd in the championship that year that's 10 years ago now Derby never got into the PL, using the 100 million these teams are talking about losing then Derby could be in for a billion from leciester. See how ridiculous this all gets..