6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Sussex]

I have skimmed through the PL decision.

I am surprised how we folded each time a decision was agreed with the PL EXCEPT the PL wanted the outcome of this FFP case resolved before the end of last season. That was critical given how many points we ended up with. The commission said that the hearing and any appeal could not be concluded before the end of last season.

I wonder who decided to change our stance, from innocent to guilty, and how this was in the best interests of the club. Did they think by admitting guilt and by working closely with the PL our punishment would have been reduced?

For the above two paras, we were arguing against would was permitted into the calculation and what was not? Then to agree that we were over the £105m is baffling (regardless of whether it is our figure or theirs). If we were arguing at the start, continue and let the commission decide. Not concede like a mars bars in a deep fat fryer.

In para 9, it says once a club goes over the £105 million loss, the PL may impose budgetary and financial restrictions on the club and shall refer to an "independent commission". Did they impose any budgetary and financial restrictions on us? Well it turns out that any player we wanted to buy had to be approved by the PL. They agreed to us buying a playing but warned us each time to ensure we comply with PSR. The PL argue that it is up to us to comply even though the agreed the purchase of a player and being warned. So the PL have to be complicit in not ensuring us complying with PSR AND what is effing point of the PL having the power of budgetary and financial restrictions once a club goes over the £105m.

The PL did not have any guidelines to any team breaching PSR. So they look at another leagues guidelines and the outcome of the Sheff Wed V EFl case and adopted them. How the PL did not have guidelines is not our problem and we should be arguing that. They argue that because our owner is wealthy a financial penalty is not a sufficient penalty. Where is our owners wealth? In Russia? In Iran? Both countries have had sanctions imposed upon it by this countrys government. And we have an owner that is so wealthy, we are now going hand in cap and getting loans just to keep the lights on.

A lot of the anger is directed at the PL and quite rightly so. The 10 point deduction is huge and with a half decent legal team, we should be able to argue against the sized of it.

However, it does show how effing incompetent we have been run and continue to be run. brands coming up with a report to get rid of 8 players and getting 4 in. Financing a stadium project. A lot of the above falls at the owners/boards shoes.

Just make it stop.

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

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.

It's a take worthy of Kafka or Heller. We broke the rules designed to stop clubs spending beyond their means and going bankrupt, we are deemed to rich for a penalty and therefore face a point deduction and potential litigation which may result in us going bankrupt. Ignoring the primary course of the issue which is our making a long time investment which is designed to substantially increase our revenue and place us on a firmer financial footing in the long term.

 

[Exeter_Gently]

What has come out in the past few days?

Stuff

 

[davek]

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.

As per the report, Everton's appeal for mitigation was based on calling for that cash in 2022, so part of the period being assessed.

It was there for the PL Commission to allow if they had a mind to see things that way. They weren't.

 

[Dymak]

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Hicks and Gilette had their control of Liverpool Football Club forcibly removed from them because they were incapable of paying their debts and meeting their overheads; aka ADMINISTRATION! Yet there was no punishment whatsoever, and nobody ever mentions it.

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

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.

We were in a terrible position though because getting relegated would presumably put us in an even worse financial position. We had to sign players to maximise our revenue going forward. A business that is in financial difficulty still has to invest otherwise it will fold completely.

 

[davek]

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Hicks and Gilette had their control of Liverpool Football Club forcibly removed from them because they were incapable of paying their debts and meeting their overheads; aka ADMINISTRATION! Yet there was no punishment whatsoever, and nobody ever mentions it.

There's your answer mate.

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Hicks and Gilette had their control of Liverpool Football Club forcibly removed from them because they were incapable of paying their debts and meeting their overheads; aka ADMINISTRATION! Yet there was no punishment whatsoever, and nobody ever mentions it.

They didn't formally go into administration though but I think in reality they were insolvent. The relevant bank and the FA turned a blind eye because it is Liverpool.

 

[Moomin]

As per the report, Everton's appeal for mitigation was based on calling for that cash in 2022, so part of the period being assessed.

It was there for the PL Commission to allow if they had a mind to see things that way. They weren't.

The more worrying factor is we probably got paid the sponsorship for that season by USM at the start of the season.

We will know how bad it has hit our commercial numbers when the accounts are out next month.

 

[Saint Domingo]

The very existence of P&S rules is punishment enough for teams like us. They have stopped us competing. The only routes available for a team to break into the elite are to a) spend far more than your revenue and hope you break into the top 4 and stay there within three seasons, b) slowly and gradually build the team relying on outstanding player turnover over the long term

To this day no one has done option B, we had a go at option A and failed due to a mix of poor recruitment and also injuries. Newcastle and Villa are currently having a go at Option A. Both will not be successful unless the top 6 have a huge failure and they will be back to looking at options like selling their best players to come back into compliance, artificially inflating their sponsorship deals, or just trying to hide it from the prem and hope the regs go away

So if Villa don’t make it this year into the top 4, Emery is probably looking at transfer restrictions next year, just as Lopetegui was, just as Ancelotti was, even though all three clubs have owners who could continue to bankroll spending without an issue. Emery will go, players sold, and Villa are back to square one.

So basically if you’re not in the top 6 you have to be perfect to have even a chance of getting into the elite with these rules in place.

If you are one of the scab six you can spend what you want whenever you want however many times you want buoyed by massive commercial revenues gained over previous decades when they could spend without restriction to get their place at the top of the game.

Maybe we should just all be like a Palace or Fulham instead, just have no ambition, stay in your lane in the PL and sell your top players now and then to keep the books healthy. What’s the point?!

We’re not guilty of anything, the rules are corrupt ones designed to keep the scab six at the top, and we’ve been more than punished enough by them already.

 

[Walken]

As per the report, Everton's appeal for mitigation was based on calling for that cash in 2022, so part of the period being assessed.

It was there for the PL Commission to allow if they had a mind to see things that way. They weren't.

It also runs into losing funding for the stadium and naming rights also, ignore the trolls mate. Some posters might find it funny to prey on peoples genuine fears that a significant part of their life might be destroyed alomg with huge investment in a much needed area and essential charity work not to mention the social aspect of Everton FC that will literally be a lifeline for many. It risible behaviour.

Everton's ten point deduction explained - University of Liverpool News

Everton's ten point deduction explained

news.liverpool.ac.uk

 

[davek]

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, the PL wanted to have their cake and eat it too: informal control of the club but never formally - so they could answer for their meddling in the future.

 

[Marius57]

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.

That’s the point Carragher was trying to make. That they have failed in their duty to stop us considering we were having to run everything by them.

Which considering the report states something along the lines of how we went ahead in the chance that it would turn out positively, is hardly like we have been criminal masterminds.

We just banked on finishing higher than 16th. If we had managed to finish 10th that season, (which considering we finished 10th and 12th the seasons before was expected) we would have won a further 13/14m.

Add in having to sack Benitez who had led us to 16th, it just didn’t work out and there is your 20m deficit.

It’s poor planning, but not worth 10 points.

 

[davek]

The very existence of P&S rules is punishment enough for teams like us. They have stopped us competing. The only routes available for a team to break into the elite are to a) spend far more than your revenue and hope you break into the top 4 and stay there within three seasons, b) slowly and gradually build the team relying on outstanding player turnover over the long term

To this day no one has done option B, we had a go at option A and failed due to a mix of poor recruitment and also injuries. Newcastle and Villa are currently having a go at Option A. Both will not be successful unless the top 6 have a huge failure and they will be back to looking at options like selling their best players to come back into compliance, artificially inflating their sponsorship deals, or just trying to hide it from the prem and hope the regs go away

So if Villa don’t make it this year into the top 4, Emery is probably looking at transfer restrictions next year, just as Lopetegui was, just as Ancelotti was, even though all three clubs have owners who could continue to bankroll spending without an issue. Emery will go, players sold, and Villa are back to square one.

So basically if you’re not in the top 6 you have to be perfect to have even a chance of getting into the elite with these rules in place.

If you are one of the scab six you can spend what you want whenever you want however many times you want buoyed by massive commercial revenues gained over previous decades when they could spend without restriction to get their place at the top of the game.

Maybe we should just all be like a Palace or Fulham instead, just have no ambition, stay in your lane in the PL and sell your top players now and then to keep the books healthy. What’s the point?!

We’re not guilty of anything, the rules are corrupt ones designed to keep the scab six at the top, and we’ve been more than punished enough by them already.

Under Moyes we attempted to do this (but juggling debts in tandem made it an impossible task). We did that for well over a decade and smashed our heads continually on the glass ceiling. Hence the relief when we got a big spender like Moshiri...for a while at least.

We've tried to do it every which way and been frustrated. The ONLY way is to get a financial backer so huge that they can smash through the barrier both competitive and administratively. City did it; Newcastle are in the process of doing so.

Our failure was to get in that type of cash that we could sideline the PL and intimidate them. Anything short of that leaves you vulnerable.

That scenario leads to people - as @Drico stated yesterday - wishing for any sort of regime to back this club in future in order that we can fend off hostile forces.

The current situation underlines our weakness and we never want to be this weak again.

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

Today seems to mark the end of the “sympathy” for the size of the deduction. A noticeable increase in people being wheeled out to say it’s fine, if not lenient, and these stories pushed to the front of suggested news. Will get worse as other managers have pre match pressers (which you can’t blame them for at all, as long as they are squeaky clean).