6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Goat]

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.

Morality has no player in a court of law.

We should have sued him.

Thats not my view, thats the legal view.

 

[hallamblue]

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.




But

Without trying to second guess, I think they're saying if we'd deliberately flouted p&s rules and could be proven to have done so we may have faced much more punitive sanctions such as expulsion from the Premier League, as happened to Swindon back in the day.

 

[MikeH72]

Morality has no player in a court of law.

We should have sued him.

Thats not my view, thats the legal view.

How could we have sued him? The P&S breach relates to the 2021/22 season, and the case was ongoing until this year. Even if we’d sued him after the charges were dropped, that money wouldn’t have made a difference to the 2021/22 books. Either playing him or selling him were the only two ways we could’ve avoided losing his value from the books that year.

 

[Goat]

How could we have sued him? The P&S breach relates to the 2021/22 season, and the case was ongoing until this year. Even if we’d sued him after the charges were dropped, that money wouldn’t have made a difference to the 2021/22 books. Either playing him or selling him were the only two ways we could’ve avoided losing his value from the books that year.

We sacked him.

I think claiming 10million for him was silly, you disagree, thats fine.

​

May all your thoughts be happy and true.

 

[Iana]

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.

Oh come on…he scored or assisted a goal in 1 out of every 3 games in the 4 seasons prior to his suspension.
If he had been available to Benitez and Lampard in that season we would not have been in a relegation battle and all the noise from Saints,Leeds and Burnley would not have happened which has forced the PL to get tough with Everton.

We might have still failed PSR by a small amount but as we would have been mid table in 21-22 then probably would have got a financial penalty instead.

 

[ForeverEverton]

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.




But

So if we are looking at the PL punishment matrix put forward, an undeliberate breach is 10 points with a deliberate breach being 10 points?!?

 

[John from Bootle]

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

But you dont think thats a fair ruling?

View attachment 240357

But wasn't it the Premier League who told us we couldn't register him as a squad member? Furthermore, because he wasn't charged with anything, doesn't that just make us liable to pay him whatever he was owed?

I've noticed Mendy is suing City because he got off with it. He will win.

I'd also like to add that it's 100% true that rules were changed. i can't find the relevant info, but I remember it well. The club said something was allowed, then a year later they were told it no longer was.

State of search engine results now means I'll probably never find it, but I 100% remember the statement being made.

 

[Goat]

But wasn't it the Premier League who told us we couldn't register him as a squad member?

Well then we should sue The Premier League.

 

[MikeH72]

We sacked him.

I think claiming 10million for him was silly, you disagree, thats fine.

​

May all your thoughts be happy and true.

We didn’t. His contract expired in 2022. God bless.

 

[hallamblue]

But wasn't it the Premier League who told us we couldn't register him as a squad member? Furthermore, because he wasn't charged with anything, doesn't that just make us liable to pay him whatever he was owed?

I've noticed Mendy is suing City because he got off with it. He will win.

I'd also like to add that it's 100% true that rules were changed. i can't find the relevant info, but I remember it well. The club said something was allowed, then a year later they were told it no longer was.

State of search engine results now means I'll probably never find it, but I 100% remember the statement being made.

I think rules changed from 1 year to the next about allowable expenses, but surely it's up to the club to keep up to date with what's allowed and what isn't, that's why you have administrative staff.

 

[Ring master]

But wasn't it the Premier League who told us we couldn't register him as a squad member? Furthermore, because he wasn't charged with anything, doesn't that just make us liable to pay him whatever he was owed?

I've noticed Mendy is suing City because he got off with it. He will win.

I'd also like to add that it's 100% true that rules were changed. i can't find the relevant info, but I remember it well. The club said something was allowed, then a year later they were told it no longer was.

State of search engine results now means I'll probably never find it, but I 100% remember the statement being made.

Exactly as i remember reading about it somewhere as well, to be fair - if the report was right or wrong, it was wrote in a report.

 

[Goat]

We didn’t. His contract expired in 2022. God bless.

I just read something that said we sacked him a month after The Premier League said we couldnt register him.

 

[MikeH72]

I just read something that said we sacked him a month after The Premier League said we couldnt register him.

So we wouldn’t sue him because of concerns around his mental health, but we would totally just sack him despite the fact he could’ve been proven innocent after like 2 months? What lol

 

[ForeverEverton]

I think rules changed from 1 year to the next about allowable expenses, but surely it's up to the club to keep up to date with what's allowed and what isn't, that's why you have administrative staff.

I agree but the issue is that the rule didn`t change at the start of the financial year it was sometime in the December after these costs had been attributed...

 

[John from Bootle]

Well then we should sue The Premier League.

Maybe. I will admit that I've not got 100% first hand evidence that the Prem told us we couldn't register him. It's just something I've read on here and heard in the real world.

I've not read any official statements to back it up, I'm just taking what I've heard as the truth, however naive that may be.