Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

6 + 2 Point Deductions

HalfTimeSayers said:
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).
Click to expand...
I thought it was noticeable the day after, they were all journos mind, not a single 'football' person agreed wih our treament.
 
Walken said:
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.

news.liverpool.ac.uk

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

Everton's ten point deduction explained
news.liverpool.ac.uk news.liverpool.ac.uk
Click to expand...

It's unforgivable if people are doing that at this point.
 
Sussex said:
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.
Click to expand...
The trouble is that the lack of guidelines actually could make the appeal harder. Given no guidance, the appeal simply can’t rejudge the case and punishment, there has to be a rationale why it was wrong. I think the best case is that it’s a bigger punishment than going into administration. Which is surely a bigger advantage?
 
Jim Kirk said:
You should represent Everton at the next appeal hearing. Countering an allegation of over spend during the last 3 years with the argument that Everton are massive and have won more 1st division titles than some other teams - and if someone is over 50 or so they might even remember a couple - is bound to sway them to reduce any sanctions and immediately reject compensation claims.

And its 4 runner up spots in div2, a runner up in the 3rd tier and a Johnstone Paint Trophy 3rd place - get your insults right.
Click to expand...
You will always be known as Dirty Leeds.
 

HalfTimeSayers said:
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).
Click to expand...
Who are these people?

Also, I don't think anyone is arguing or ever has that a punishment is unwarranted given the admitted transgression. So yes, that part 'is fine'. It's the severity that isn't and there is almost universal acceptance of that.
 
HalfTimeSayers said:
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).
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any increase in people saying its fine. If anything it is still accelerating in disgust against the premier league and sympathy towards Everton.
 
davek said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh Dave, cave it in man.

It was a general point of saying that total fee is the difference. That's it. One Michael Keane or one Ben Godfrey.

Not saying it's not a travesty that Everton got 10 points. But this insistence that Everton are innocent is way wide of the mark. We were idiots. Unfortunately, the PL needed an example and have got one. But they picked on the wrong club.
 

Goodisongang said:
Well you've just dismissed your original point though, the PL can't keep for 30 years giving out slaps on the wrist, then one day go EXTREME and think it's gonna be OK.

If they has come out with a suspended points deduction, 1 window
/year transfer ban or even a small 3 points deduction,.this would have been a lot worse than others received but I think it generally would have been accepted.

Breaking the rules or not, the punishment was ridiculous
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the punishment wasn't ridiculous.

It's the Commission who chose it. Because of the PL's inability to have guidelines in place, the Commission had quite literally any option open to it. It could have chucked Everton out of the league entirely, if it had wished - though of course with no legal basis.

UEFA and PL have nothing to do with each other but similarly with EFL and PL, yet the Commission chose to use an EFL case (Sheff Wed) as the precedent to base their punishment off. That is about as much as they explain, as they don't show how they did their working out.

My entire point was, the difference in all of this could have been avoided by getting rid of Keane when we needed to or, not signing Godfrey. That's the difference. For all the cryarsing about players on huge wages etc, it boils down to buying tosh and not selling it on quickly enough as being the easiest way to avoid this.

Again, that's not me suggesting the punishment was fair.
 
Jacko93 said:
But you are missing my point entirely. Financial advantage can be quantified, by way of simply counting money, sporting advantage cannot. Thete are far too many factors in sporting advantage to make any assumption of outcome. There is a broad alignment with the richest clubs finishing in the higher positions, and in most seasons the position a team finishes is within 2 or 3 places of the "wage league", but you cannot make assumption of outcome based upon that because it is not linear. This is why any attempt to sue Everton will fail in my opinion, as you cant say, Everton spent £19.5m more than us, so gained 4 points at 1 point per £5m, as we could have conceivably spent £30m extra and lost 5 points that we would have had without spending it. There is simply no way to quantify it because it largely comes down to the human condition. Why did we survive relegation? In my eyes it was the actions of the fans dragging the team through it, that was our sporting advantage, you cant sue us for that.
Click to expand...
Not missing your point, just arguing you can have both together. I agree that any attempt to sue will fail. That said, I do think the PL will pay hush money to some of the teams claiming to be affected.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top