6 + 2 Point Deductions

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
Cant find it now.

Which I realise is very convenient.
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.
John read it also!
 

Cant find it now.

Which I realise is very convenient.

John read it also!

Yeah I get not being able to register him while he was under investigation, but why would we sack him unless actually proven guilty? I’ve not seen anything anywhere to suggest that happened. The official Everton site claims his contract expired in June 2022.
 
Yeah I get not being able to register him while he was under investigation, but why would we sack him? I’ve not seen anything anywhere to suggest that happened. The official Everton site claims his contract expired in June 2022.
Clearly I read something not true.

But it doesnt alter my view that claiming 10m for him was silly and has no basis in a court of law.
 
Yeah I get not being able to register him while he was under investigation, but why would we sack him? I’ve not seen anything anywhere to suggest that happened. The official Everton site claims his contract expired in June 2022.

Dont think you can sack an employee for an accusation. In law like. Suspend? Sure.

But in football world, he became worthless as an accounting item.
 

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.

Maybe mate. I'm fully aware that ignorance of a law, or being unaware that something is illegal, is not a valid defence.

However, we're not talking conspiracy to commit murder here, or even a criminal offence. These are complex, technical, civil issues, and I'd suggest (maybe wrongly) that the onus is on those changing the rules to make sure all parties are fully aware of any changes.
 
Clearly I read something not true.

But it doesnt alter my view that claiming 10m for him was silly and has no basis in a court of law.
£10m was his approx book value so that’s probably why we claimed that figure.
His value as a player on the pitch or as a transfer fee would have been higher.
 
It was in the report from the commission.

The FA suspended him, not technically the PL.
Thank you.

Found it @MikeH72

Everton had signed Player X in 2017. Player X had proved to be a star playerfor the club. In July 2021 Player X was arrested. The FA suspended PlayerX from all football activity, making it impossible for him to perform hiscontractual duties. On 23 August 2021 Everton dismissed Player X. Evertonsought advice on the possibility of suing Player X for breach of contract butelected not to do so.
 

Thank you.

Found it @MikeH72

Everton had signed Player X in 2017. Player X had proved to be a star playerfor the club. In July 2021 Player X was arrested. The FA suspended PlayerX from all football activity, making it impossible for him to perform hiscontractual duties. On 23 August 2021 Everton dismissed Player X. Evertonsought advice on the possibility of suing Player X for breach of contract butelected not to do so.
I was just screenshotting it. Apparently we got legal counsel and could have sued but chose not to due to his emotional well being.

But one of the reasons why it wasnt accepted was because we didn’t have evidence of his emotional well being at that point. Which is mad by then to think we could just carry out a psychological assessment of a former employee.

IMG_2515.jpeg
 
It was a journalist from the Daily Mail who reported it.

I think he was wrong.

Nah, think it's you who got it wrong, though I stand to be corrected:

Everton were given the very distinct impression that the cost of interest on loans to build their Bramley Moore Dock Stadium would be excluded from sustainability considerations, just like City's. They argued that six other clubs had been able to keep them out of the financial calculation and that this was an investment in the long-term future of a club and its city.

The Premier League agreed. Last week's independent commission report, which ruled against Everton, relates precisely when - January 14, 2021 - in black and white, in points 26 and 27 of its findings.

Yet read on a further two pages, to points 33 and 34 of the report, and you see the picture changing. It relates how a call, in December 2022, from the Premier League to Katie Charles, Everton's director of legal services, informed the club that a subsequent stadium interest payment would count towards the losses.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top