6 + 2 Point Deductions

[pfim]

I know that it's quite sad, but I've just been looking over this again, because, in my opinion to disregard this as a mitigating factor is one of the worst

"The Commission considers there to be a number of difficulties with Everton’s argument. First, as a matter of principle we do not see why this should stand 36 as mitigation. Everton asserts that it suffered a loss as a consequence of a business decision that it made: we do not see that that can stand as mitigation. Second, although there was evidence of the player’s psychological state in the immediate aftermath of his arrest, there was no evidence of his psychological state when the decision not to pursue the claim was taken. Third, the value of £10 million that Everton puts on the foregone claim is speculative. The claim may have faced difficulties, and there is no evidence that Player X would have been able to meet whatever judgment might have been obtained."

Firstly, there is no evidence that Player X's psychological state had improved, so it should therefore be judged on the latest available factual data, which they themselves say is evidenced.

Secondly, to disregard it based upon 'he may not have been able to pay it anyway' goes in no way to alter the value of any ruling. Any finding in a court of law, and subsequent punishment should be done so by application of a judges consideration as to what is a return that equalises the loss felt. If a judge had ordered a fine of £10m to Everton, then that is the adjudged cost to us of the actions of Player X. We don't have to have that back in our bank before the loss becomes reality. I hope we have sought a Judge/counsels advice on potential returns as part of any non-realised case.

It's the wrong argument though. any award probably doesn't happen in FYE 2022, and EFC can't predict the outcome of a court action that would have been contested.

The better argument is that the PL unjustly suspended one of our most important players for something he was not convicted of, which either affected our league standing or made the asset unsellable.

 

[davek]

I know that it's quite sad, but I've just been looking over this again, because, in my opinion to disregard this as a mitigating factor is one of the worst

"The Commission considers there to be a number of difficulties with Everton’s argument. First, as a matter of principle we do not see why this should stand 36 as mitigation. Everton asserts that it suffered a loss as a consequence of a business decision that it made: we do not see that that can stand as mitigation. Second, although there was evidence of the player’s psychological state in the immediate aftermath of his arrest, there was no evidence of his psychological state when the decision not to pursue the claim was taken. Third, the value of £10 million that Everton puts on the foregone claim is speculative. The claim may have faced difficulties, and there is no evidence that Player X would have been able to meet whatever judgment might have been obtained."

Firstly, there is no evidence that Player X's psychological state had improved, so it should therefore be judged on the latest available factual data, which they themselves say is evidenced.

Secondly, to disregard it based upon 'he may not have been able to pay it anyway' goes in no way to alter the value of any ruling. Any finding in a court of law, and subsequent punishment should be done so by application of a judges consideration as to what is a return that equalises the loss felt. If a judge had ordered a fine of £10m to Everton, then that is the adjudged cost to us of the actions of Player X. We don't have to have that back in our bank before the loss becomes reality. I hope we have sought a Judge/counsels advice on potential returns as part of any non-realised case.

The PL are qualified to determine the psychological state of a football player are they?

FFS, any court of law would laugh their utter bollocks out of the court room and award maximum damages to the appellants.

 

[mahermi1]

I can only assume the delay for the city case is because its more complex. But haven't they been investigating them for over 5 years??

Also Uefa found them guilty of breaching FFP quite a few years ago with 30m fine. The investigations cover the same period I think. Why has it taken the PL so long when another jurisdiction has already found them guilty and punished them several years ago??

A £30m fine is no good as they have a rich owner mate..

 

[Ring master]

I can only assume the delay for the city case is because its more complex. But haven't they been investigating them for over 5 years??

Also Uefa found them guilty of breaching FFP quite a few years ago with 30m fine. The investigations cover the same period I think. Why has it taken the PL so long when another jurisdiction has already found them guilty and punished them several years ago??

Some of the Charges City supposedly have against them are the same thing, over and over, season after season. Which if true and proved makes it worst, whatever it is. Plus if City are proved Guilty, they should be hit harder as well, for not even co-operating like we did

 

[BlueandBald]

The commission said we should have sued him for the money back...

We should sue the FA for banning a player, that turned out to be innocent. Where is their accountability in this?

 

[BlueandBald]

Didn't Everton and the Premier League come out and say that we've been working with eachother and they'd given us the green light to make signings? If the club have got proof of that, surely that puts the Premier league in another contradictory position. It's like asking your employer for time off to attend courses to improve, then later down the line once a few employees start grumbling about it, the employer makes you redundant over attendance.

 

[ChrisPW75]

Some of the Charges City supposedly have against them are the same thing, over and over, season after season. Which if true and proved makes it worst, whatever it is. Plus if City are proved Guilty, they should be hit harder as well, for not even co-operating like we did

Yes, as i understand it, their alleged breaches are far more serious hence City trying all they can to play smoke and mirrors and add years of delay into it.

 

[ChrisPW75]

A £30m fine is no good as they have a rich owner mate..

Yes of course. its nothing to them.

 

[roydo]

Didn't Everton and the Premier League come out and say that we've been working with eachother and they'd given us the green light to make signings? If the club have got proof of that, surely that puts the Premier league in another contradictory position. It's like asking your employer for time off to attend courses to improve, then later down the line once a few employees start grumbling about it, the employer makes you redundant over attendance.

We did, to a point. But they warned us we were very close to a limit, then Moshiri ignored them.

 

[WestStandLower]

When I read this I thought 'you haven't got a clue' and I was right.

View attachment 237044

Back in the 80s and indeed still in most sports homegrown meant developed through a clubs academy

UEFA & indeed the PL now define it from any clubs within the “ Home Federation “ from a UEFA perspective you then have club trained to factor in.

So yes I do have a clue

 

[Goat]

Didn't Everton and the Premier League come out and say that we've been working with eachother and they'd given us the green light to make signings? If the club have got proof of that, surely that puts the Premier league in another contradictory position. It's like asking your employer for time off to attend courses to improve, then later down the line once a few employees start grumbling about it, the employer makes you redundant over attendance.

We did, to a point. But they warned us we were very close to a limit, then Moshiri ignored them.

Yep, seems to be they said "Dont spend anything else or you will breach", then we went and spent.

 

[Saint Domingo]

The PL are qualified to determine the psychological state of a football player are they?

FFS, any court of law would laugh their utter bollocks out of the court room and award maximum damages to the appellants.

They’re judge jury and executioner. How convenient that there is no option to appeal to CAS in premier league matters only their ‘independent’ appeals panel.

Regardless of the outcome of all of this Everton should be readying a legal team to sue the premier league in a court of law for damages incurred to the clubs brand on a global scale .

 

[Goat]

They’re judge jury and executioner. How convenient that there is no option to appeal to CAS in premier league matters only their ‘independent’ appeals panel.

Regardless of the outcome of all of this Everton should be readying a legal team to sue the premier league in a court of law for damages incurred to the clubs brand on a global scale .

If we were innocent we might have a chance.

 

[roydo]

Yep, seems to be they said "Dont spend anything else or you will breach", then we went and spent.

Goes round in circles this. We admitted breaching limits. But we are appealing the severity of the points, and some stuff that was ignored in mitigation.

 

[tellmema]

Best case scenario zero points plus add ons- transfer ban?
Worst case scenario - 10 points.
No one knows, its all guess work.

Transfer ban when we anyway haven't got a pot to urinate in.... Ain't so bad

Question for me is, would it still force us to sell. That's bad, or would be.