6 + 2 Point Deductions

[MikeH72]

What if we got given a transfer ban for 2 seasons? would you class that as fair?

No, that’s ridiculous. 2 windows is pushing it.

A suspended punishment for such a minor offence I’d deem as fair.

 

[roydo]

We are just 2 lost souls swimming in the same fishbowl, year after year.

Wish we wernt here.

 

[Iana]

I thought we lied regarding the interest payments?

We said we paid interest when we didnt due to the loans being interest free from Moshiri?

The rules, as far as im aware, never changed.

From memory there are 2 points relating to the claimed interest allowances.

1. We have 2 sources of loan income from R&M and Moshiri which the club claims goes into a big pot for all expenditure(all cash is treated as fungible).We claimed interest on the R&M loan as an allowable expense to help PSR calculations. Unfortunately,the terms of the loan from R&M stated it was for working capital purposes not infrastructure hence not allowed by the IC.

2. We understood that the enabling costs for BMD would be allowable as investment in infrastructure but some costs were disallowed as planning permission had not yet been granted. I think this was communicated to the club in August 21.
The IC pointed out that infrastructure spends by other clubs during the same period were on established stadia and hence “probable”, whereas Everton’s were classed as “possible” due to the planning permission situation.

These are hardly the acts of grand larceny that the PL and IC are implying with their punishment.

This is before we get into Player X and the Ukraine war mitigations!!

 

[Armaghtoffee]

And we can count ourselves lucky that the commision rejected the Premier League's suggestion in August.

If they had that in the rulebook it would be harder to argue.

Exactly. That point feeds into my take from the other night re creating a precedent from our case. An end result of our case must be a transparent sanctions quotient. If we don’t get points back then the going rate is 5 points for every £10m over PSR and there is no chance the PL want that in place moving forward.

I’m very confident we will get points back on that basis.

 

[Tipp blue]

I did think we'd get some back, but every time the opposition fans sing about us cheating I think it lessens the chances as the Premier League know that other teams think we cheated and they're on safe ground.

Yea I'm sure the PL take note of what drunk football fans chant during a game.

 

[Iana]

There is no doubt the club has been run appallingly for many years but the complete rejection of our mitigations and a less than understanding approach to the interest allowances seems to point to another agenda at play.

 

[Tipp blue]

No, that’s ridiculous. 2 windows is pushing it.

A suspended punishment for such a minor offence I’d deem as fair.

First and minor offence should never have been given the harshest punishment in league history.. Administration is the most serious of financial breeches always has been but we got a more sever punishment for an overspend of less than 5 million a season over 4 years with other mitigating factors at play such as building a stadium and loss of sponsorship due to sanctions because of war.
As you say a suspended punishment would have been sufficient.

 

[Goat]

There is no doubt the club has been run appallingly for many years but the complete rejection of our mitigations and a less than understanding approach to the interest allowances seems to point to another agenda at play.

I dont know about that.

I read the ruling and to be honest, I agree with the Premier League rulings regards our mitigation, it was pie in the sky stuff.

 

[MikeH72]

I dont know about that.

I read the ruling and to be honest, I agree with the Premier League rulings regards our mitigation, it was pie in the sky stuff.

Which mitigation? The one where our highest paid player got himself arrested and suspended for being a creepy danger?

 

[Goat]

Which mitigation? The one where our highest paid player got himself arrested and suspended for being a creepy danger?

You mean the player that was never charged with any offences?

But you dont think thats a fair ruling?

 

[Moomin]

First and minor offence should never have been given the harshest punishment in league history.. Administration is the most serious of financial breeches always has been but we got a more sever punishment for an overspend of less than 5 million a season over 4 years with other mitigating factors at play such as building a stadium and loss of sponsorship due to sanctions because of war.
As you say a suspended punishment would have been sufficient.

We have lost sponsorship but it didn't affect the last set of accounts compared to the previous season. Seems we got paid in full, when the next set of accounts are published we should see a big drop in the Sponsorship number.

Good point about Administration, we shouldn't be punished worse than that.

 

[Iana]

I dont know about that.

I read the ruling and to be honest, I agree with the Premier League rulings regards our mitigation, it was pie in the sky stuff.

I agree with some of the rejections but Player X and the Ukraine aspects are decent ones and would have made us PSR compliant. They were proposed after the interest deductions were disallowed.
Rejecting them gave the PL the breach they were looking for their own political purposes.

 

[MikeH72]

You mean the player that was never charged with any offences?

But you dont think thats a fair ruling?

View attachment 240357

He was under investigation for the remainder of his contract at the time. In that time he could’ve been playing for us, scoring a few pens and putting in a few good corners and having us finisher higher up the table earning us more prize money? So no, I don’t think it’s fair to write that mitigation off. None of what happened was the club’s fault.

You’re probably gonna tell me we should’ve continued playing him because he was never found guilty (charges were dropped before it got to court, a la Greenwood), but that’s quite a terrible way to think to be honest.

Section 122 there makes no sense.

 

[Iana]

You mean the player that was never charged with any offences?

But you dont think thats a fair ruling?

View attachment 240357

We could not play him or sell him as he was suspended by the FA pending the outcome of the police investigation…we lost out in the 21-22 season.
His subsequent clearance was outside the 3 year time period that was being investigated by the PL.

 

[Goat]

I agree with some of the rejections but Player X and the Ukraine aspects are decent ones and would have made us PSR compliant. They were proposed after the interest deductions were disallowed.
Rejecting them gave the PL the breach they were looking for their own political purposes.

I dont think they wanted us to breach.


The 13 August 2021 agreement imposed certain obligations on Everton, oneof which was to obtain the Premier League’s approval of purchases of newplayers. The Premier League approved each such request but when doing socautioned Everton that it (the Premier League) was not managing Everton’sfinances, 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 playerpurchases in the face of such plain warnings was recklessness that constitutesan aggravating factor.

103. The Commission considers that it was unwise for Everton not to havecurtailed player purchases. It was aware of potential PSR difficulties butpressed ahead in the hope that it would make sales of players that wouldenable it to achieve PSR compliance. Events have proved that to be a poorjudgment.

104. At one level, disregard of the potential PSR difficulties can be said to increaseEverton’s culpability. But the Commission considers that there is a dangerof double counting. We have already made clear that our approach is to startby considering the extent by which the PSR threshold has been exceeded: thegreater the excess, the greater the culpability. We do not consider that thereasons for the PSR breach should aggravate that culpability unless they canbe said to constitute exceptional conduct. For example, a deliberate cynicalbreach of the PSR to achieve a sporting advantage might increase culpabilitybeyond that already arrived at by the extent of the breach. We do not thinkthat this is such a case. Everton may have taken unwise risks, but it did so inthe mistaken belief that it would achieve PSR compliance: it is not a case ofa deliberate breach.



Read that last sentence and then try and understand why it was 10 points.