6 + 2 Point Deductions

[HalfTimeSayers]

Our owner was deemed to rich for a fine because we fell short of rules to make sure clubs don't go bust.
Make any of this make sense.

We are responsible for our own stupidity, but lots of it makes no sense.

Another example is that we were forced (not informally as most people thought) to have all player purchases authorised by the PL to stop us breaching the limit. They didn’t block a single purchase, which to me infers (a word used a lot by those who keep pointing out we deserve everything we get) that they were happy with our interest accounting, happy with our Player X issue, happy with our excuse about loss of Russian linked income.

If we were forced to have expenditure authorised, yes it’s still our ability to comply, but surely the PL were well informed about how we were claiming compliance, using the mitigations above, or how could they possibly decide whether buying another player would be an issue? And yet they ticked everything off and warned us it was our responsibility to comply. What was the point? Each time we went to them with a proposed purchase, they would have asked how that affected our P&S position. On paper we were miles over, so in order to possibly let us buy anyone, they MUST have been aware of our mitigations, and at that point accepted them. They had to be or they would have blocked every single one as on paper we were over by £100m plus.

TLDR - PL to authorise new player purchases to help ensure compliance. Approved every single one. Said we breached . Thanks lads.

 

[Jacko93]

We are responsible for our own stupidity, but lots of it makes no sense.

Another example is that we were forced (not informally as most people thought) to have all player purchases authorised by the PL to stop us breaching the limit. They didn’t block a single purchase, which to me infers (a word used a lot by those who keep pointing out we deserve everything we get) that they were happy with our interest accounting, happy with our Player X issue, happy with our excuse about loss of Russian linked income.

If we were forced to have expenditure authorised, yes it’s still our ability to comply, but surely the PL were well informed about how we were claiming compliance, using the mitigations above, or how could they possibly decide whether buying another player would be an issue? And yet they ticked everything off and warned us it was our responsibility to comply. What was the point? Each time we went to them with a proposed purchase, they would have asked how that affected our P&S position. On paper we were miles over, so in order to possibly let us buy anyone, they MUST have been aware of our mitigations, and at that point accepted them. They had to be or they would have blocked every single one as on paper we were over by £100m plus.

TLDR - PL to authorise new player purchases to help ensure compliance. Approved every single one. Said we breached . Thanks lads.

Just out of interest, would they have blocked a deal that brought in a player that was highly sought after by certain other clubs?

 

[Sheedy's right knee.]

Another one for the helmet list.

With fans like him who needs enemies. He would have us extuinguished and written out of history never to be spoken of.

 

[b-rad]

We are responsible for our own stupidity, but lots of it makes no sense.

Another example is that we were forced (not informally as most people thought) to have all player purchases authorised by the PL to stop us breaching the limit. They didn’t block a single purchase, which to me infers (a word used a lot by those who keep pointing out we deserve everything we get) that they were happy with our interest accounting, happy with our Player X issue, happy with our excuse about loss of Russian linked income.

If we were forced to have expenditure authorised, yes it’s still our ability to comply, but surely the PL were well informed about how we were claiming compliance, using the mitigations above, or how could they possibly decide whether buying another player would be an issue? And yet they ticked everything off and warned us it was our responsibility to comply. What was the point? Each time we went to them with a proposed purchase, they would have asked how that affected our P&S position. On paper we were miles over, so in order to possibly let us buy anyone, they MUST have been aware of our mitigations, and at that point accepted them. They had to be or they would have blocked every single one as on paper we were over by £100m plus.

TLDR - PL to authorise new player purchases to help ensure compliance. Approved every single one. Said we breached . Thanks lads.

This isn't quite true. The report said:
"102. The 13 August 2021 agreement imposed certain obligations on Everton, one of which was to obtain the Premier League’s approval of purchases of new players. The Premier League approved each such request but when doing so cautioned Everton that it (the Premier League) was not managing Everton’s finances, and that it was for Everton to ensure that it complied with the PSR. The Premier League asserts that for Everton to have persisted in player purchases in the face of such plain warnings was recklessness that constitutes an aggravating factor."

So, although they had to approve every purchase, they did so with a 'caution' that it was still for Everton to make sure we were within P&S rules.
Which begs the question...what was the point of needing to get approval anyway? Sounds like they would have approved a £120m purchase of Bellingham, but warned us to still be careful.

It's like me telling my kids that they need to ask for approval on any purchase before spending their pocket money. I say yes to everything, but then get mad when they are now £20m in debt.

We have been badly run and created a mess. Sounds like the PL's involvement was to just muddy the waters further.

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

Just out of interest, would they have blocked a deal that brought in a player that was highly sought after by certain other clubs?

They let us buy Onana who Moyes thought he had in the bag I guess. It was correct we had our spending monitored.

I don’t think it will have been as sinister as them disagreeing with mitigations in front of the commission that they had previously told us were ok. I imagine they just half arsed our applications for player spending and barely even looked at anything because they were all too busy on “things to do in Qatar” websites.

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

This isn't quite true. The report said:
"102. The 13 August 2021 agreement imposed certain obligations on Everton, one of which was to obtain the Premier League’s approval of purchases of new players. The Premier League approved each such request but when doing so cautioned Everton that it (the Premier League) was not managing Everton’s finances, and that it was for Everton to ensure that it complied with the PSR. The Premier League asserts that for Everton to have persisted in player purchases in the face of such plain warnings was recklessness that constitutes an aggravating factor."

So, although they had to approve every purchase, they did so with a 'caution' that it was still for Everton to make sure we were within P&S rules.
Which begs the question...what was the point of needing to get approval anyway? Sounds like they would have approved a £120m purchase of Bellingham, but warned us to still be careful.

It's like me telling my kids that they need to ask for approval on any purchase before spending their pocket money. I say yes to everything, but then get mad when they are now £20m in debt.

We have been badly run and created a mess. Sounds like the PL's involvement was to just muddy the waters further.

Yes, that’s my point. It is our responsibility, and we are pathetic at most things. But as the Mail like to point out, we lost 3 times the allowable limit. On paper we should have bough zero players, and yet we had mitigations. Hence there must have been discussions about these mitigations otherwise they would have (as it turns out now, quite rightly) blocked at least one player.

Still entirely our fault if we were relying on the PL to stop us jumping off the cliff. Thats true.

 

[davek]

As much as we can all rightfully get angry at the Premier League....

This issue genuinely probably boils down to Everton just not selling Michael Keane (Player Y) in 2020; or, when it was clear we weren't selling him, not spending £20m on Ben Godfrey.

Your choice to highlight a player not being sold is as arbitrary as the PL choosing to see a war in eastern Europe as something the club should have anticpated and prepared for years in advance of it happening if we were relying on sponsorship from a certain individual.

It's 'kin preposterous.

Whichever way you want to cut this it's a travesty of justice.

 

[b-rad]

Yes, that’s my point. It is our responsibility, and we are pathetic at most things. But as the Mail like to point out, we lost 3 times the allowable limit. On paper we should have bough zero players, and yet we had mitigations. Hence there must have been discussions about these mitigations otherwise they would have (as it turns out now, quite rightly) blocked at least one player.

I guess the PL's argument is that the whole P&S position is more than just transfers in. Each one is approved, but it's up to us to balance the books in some other way - e.g. with sales, reducing costs elsewhere.
I don't believe we would have gone to the PL and said "We'd like to buy Ben Godfrey, and although it will push us over the threshold, that's because we've lost the USM money coming in". The PL wouldn't have agreed/disagreed at that point. They would have just said "ok, but make sure you don't go over the £105m limit"

The question is whether they actually blocked any potential transfers. If not, it was a pointless exercise.

 

[NathDogg]

I want the corrupt premier league and their not independent at all panel to explain why being 19.5 million overspent during a 3 year period which entailed a global pandemic, the building of a 3/4 of a billion pound stadium bringing thousands of new jobs to the area, the loss of very significant 300 million pound incoming investment due to a war and the club being completely open and helpful about everything....is deemed by them to be the worst offence that has ever happened in the history of the premier league and needs the most severe ever punishment.

The statement above alone shows that they are completely corrupt and we should be at war with them until they are regulated by a competent body. Even if we get some points back we shouldn't let up until there is massive change in the organisation because it will just happen again to us or someone else who is not in their small group of prosperous untouchables.

Crazy that the new panel will also be handpicked by the PL and they also hold the key to our new potential owners.

We might as well call them what they are - A Cartel.

 

[neil999]

Prob oversimplified...but instead of ffp why not just have a set transfer spending limit,easy to understand and to not overspend

 

[bcblue1878]

Lol this is coming from someone who supports a club that had one of the most corrupt managers an d players in the history of football and the 60s and 70s.

Followed by O'Leary as a manager, and Ridsdale as a Chairman - the man who borrowed £60m+ against "future gate receipts" at a time when £60m was worth a lot more than it is today!
Ridsdale then went on and nearly liquidated Barnsley, Cardiff, and Plymouth while they were under his control!

 

[Moomin]

Your choice to highlight a player not being sold is as arbitrary as the PL choosing to see a war in eastern Europe as something the club should have anticpated and prepared for years in advance of it happening if we were relying on sponsorship from a certain individual.

It's 'kin preposterous.

Whichever way you want to cut this it's a travesty of justice.

If anything the Ukraine war effect on the accounts in dispute would be minimal as the seasons in dispute are from 2018 upto June in 2022.

If anything they are going to effect us from the 22/23 season onwards and them figures are not out yet.

 

[Moomin]

Prob oversimplified...but instead of ffp why not just have a set transfer spending limit,easy to understand and to not overspend

What if we sign players on frees but pay them massive wages beyond our means?

 

[b-rad]

Prob oversimplified...but instead of ffp why not just have a set transfer spending limit,easy to understand and to not overspend

Because the PL "brand" will get left behind if teams are not able to compete with overseas clubs for signing star players.
They aren't going to implement a rule which in theory works to "sustain" clubs, but in doing so doesn't let the PL grab as much as cash as possible.

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

Look we're going back years for West Ham - which was settled out of court (but was a c*** up). Liverpool broken UEFA's FFP but were let off due to stadium costs - that's inconsistency with what precedent the Commission chose to follow. I do think they'd like to punish City but they probably know they don't have a chance.

I'm not suggesting Everton haven't been hard done by with the level of punishment, and I think the Commission's report is full of holes that surely the lawyers will pick apart on appeal. But it's not like our fans have been happy with the profilgate spending, is it?

We've been unhappy with the value for money rather than the amount spent I think you will find.