PhilEFC
Player Valuation: £35m
Penalty to Liverpool.VAR still checking...
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.
Penalty to Liverpool.VAR still checking...
We admitted to breaking the rules. That is the very definition of being bang to rights. The only point of disagreement was how much we had breached PSR by.
Why is that so hard to understand? We did it, admitted we did it and we got punished for it.
I know what the role of an FD is regardless of whether it is a football club or not. Any FD who authorises payments without knowing what they are for needs to be struck off(and that includes Everton as well) and should not be sitting on an alleged independent commission dealing with this case.His only involvement in the Tevez case was blowing the whistle on Duxbury and Shear. You seem to have a strange idea of the role and responsibility of a financial Director at a Premier League club.
A very intelligent and reasoned response.Yeah cos you are a complete Wankspangle. Is that reasonable............ I think so.
Yeah cos you are a complete Wankspangle. Is that reasonable............ I think so.
Wankspangle and mewling quim on the same night.Watch you don't fall of that high horse, you mewling quim..
Much love to @sapie for that one.Wankspangle and mewling quim on the same night.
Magnificent
. . . and both very apt in this instance.Wankspangle and mewling quim on the same night.
Magnificent
If no one replied to him he would be irrelevant. It's a simple solutionWhy are you so against the club you ferret?
He wasn't involved in the transfers. It was deputy Chief exec Scott Duxbury and Club solicitor Graham Shear who hid the existence of offshore companies holding the thirty-party rights over Tevez and Mascherano.
Financial Directors are not involved in transfers they oversee the business side of a football club, so there is no evidence that he didn't do his job properly.
You also said Everton fans need to stop playing the victims. Not your finest comment.
Davek or Gwladysnight?If no one replied to him he would be irrelevant. It's a simple solution
IGNORE
Although a club's target is that adjusted earnings before tax should not show a loss, the Rules provide a degree of latitude. A loss of up to £15 million is largely forgiven. The only consequence is that the Premier League will determine whether in T+1 (the following year) the club will be able to discharge its obligations under Rule E15.9. Greater consequences arise if the loss exceeds £15 million but is less than £105 million. In that event, the club is required to provide the Premier League forecasting to the end of T+2 (the year after the following year), as well as to satisfy the Premier League of its ability to provide evidence of Secure Funding.
So the club decided not to sell the players as they weren’t worth as much as they originally thought .. But that wasn’t seen as any reason to further breach the P&S target of zero.
- Conscious of the PSR challenges that it faced Everton had planned to sell a number of its players in the summer 2020 transfer window. Mr Brands had placed values on eight of the players who had been targeted for sale, producing a total sale value in excess of £80 million. In the event sales did not take place as projected. Everton argues that that failure was caused by the impact of Covid, which depressed the market, preventing it from making sales at the expected prices.
So, the question remains, why wasn’t something done about it?In October 2019 Everton engaged the Premier League in discussions about what it considered to be the capitalisation anomaly. The Premier League at that stage declined to permit the stadium expenditure to be excluded from the PSR calculation. Everton continued to address its concerns about the PSR calculation. On 20 February 2020 Ms Barrett-Baxendale wrote to the Premier League requesting that Everton's reporting perimeter should be changed to exclude Everton Stadium Development Ltd.