6 + 2 Point Deductions

[John from Bootle]

At the pre-trial review on 4 October 2023 both parties were given permissionto amend their pleaded cases. In its Amended Answer Everton admitted ithad abandoned its claim to be entitled to many of the additional exclusionsthat it had advanced in its PSR calculation, and accepted that it had exceededthe PSR threshold.

Dont take my word for it, take Evertons.

Does this change the fact that there was a rule change though?

 

[ForeverEverton]

At the pre-trial review on 4 October 2023 both parties were given permissionto amend their pleaded cases. In its Amended Answer Everton admitted ithad abandoned its claim to be entitled to many of the additional exclusionsthat it had advanced in its PSR calculation, and accepted that it had exceededthe PSR threshold.

Dont take my word for it, take Evertons.

Everyone knows Everton are guilty but the punishment doesn`t fit the crime and with the ESL ruling gives us a much better chance of getting a fairer punishment due to the shambolic way the PL have conducted the whole case/commission.

 

[Iana]

His value after his arrest was ZERO.

For PSR calculations his value was £10m.
We could not use him or sell him once the FA suspended him so his actual value became nothing but we still had a £10m liability on our books.

It was not unreasonable to claim that as mitigation.

 

[Bigduke1234]

Morality has no player in a court of law.

We should have sued him.

Thats not my view, thats the legal view.

He was not charged, so what are you suing him for, being accused of a crime? Think legally that that falls over, otherwise let’s go all McCarthy on the current squad ….

 

[Goat]

Does this change the fact that there was a rule change though?

Mate the rules werent changed.

Everton changed the information they submitted.

Read the report and not The Daily Mail.


Everton submitted its audited accounts for FY 2021 to the Premier League on18 March 2022. On 31 March 2022 it submitted Form 3A setting out its PSRcalculations. The calculations sought to exclude new sums from the adjustedearnings before tax for the relevant period.

 

[Marius57]

Morality has no player in a court of law.

We should have sued him.

Thats not my view, thats the legal view.

I think we should have sued the FA if anything. They are the ones who suspended him, which is out of our hands.

 

[Goat]

For PSR calculations his value was £10m.
We could not use him or sell him once the FA suspended him so his actual value became nothing but we still had a £10m liability on our books.

It was not unreasonable to claim that as mitigation.

He was not charged, so what are you suing him for, being accused of a crime? Think legally that that falls over, otherwise let’s go all McCarthy on the current squad ….

You will need to ask Legal people.

Everton maintains that it is entitled to credit for not pursuing aneconomically viable claim against Player X. Despite the fact that it hadreceived advice from solicitors and from leading counsel that the claim couldbe pursued it chose not to bring proceedings.

 

[HowardsWay]

Everton maintains that it is entitled to credit for not pursuing aneconomically viable claim against Player X. Despite the fact that it hadreceived advice from solicitors and from leading counsel that the claim couldbe pursued it chose not to bring proceedings.

Let's face facts, it was a clear try on that not surprisingly held no water. If we had chosen to take legal action in the matter, we may have had somewhat of an argument as we could have said "see what the Court says." As it was, we made a business decision to effectively negate any money he may have owed us through his actions.

 

[Tipp blue]

Everyone knows Everton are guilty but the punishment doesn`t fit the crime and with the ESL ruling gives us a much better chance of getting a fairer punishment due to the shambolic way the PL have conducted the whole case/commission.

The ESL ruling gives us a decent opertunity to get 10 points back.. they can't have a rule without a known punishment.. this should form the basis of our argument they broke UEFA rules by giving us this punishment.
Getting off on a technicality will do me just fine.

 

[Iana]

You will need to ask Legal people.

Everton maintains that it is entitled to credit for not pursuing aneconomically viable claim against Player X. Despite the fact that it hadreceived advice from solicitors and from leading counsel that the claim couldbe pursued it chose not to bring proceedings.

There was no guarantee of recovering the monies in the timescale required,the player having the monies available to pay(the IC make specific reference to this) notwithstanding he had not been found guilty of anything but was under investigation.
In the hypothetical scenario that we had recovered up to £10m we would now be in court being pursued to return it.

 

[Goat]

There was no guarantee of recovering the monies in the timescale required,the player having the monies available to pay(the IC make specific reference to this) notwithstanding he had not been found guilty of anything but was under investigation.
In the hypothetical scenario that we had recovered up to £10m we would now be in court being pursued to return it.

Everton maintains that it is entitled to credit for not pursuing an economically viable claim against Player X. Despite the fact that it had received advice from solicitors and from leading counsel that the claim could be pursued it chose not to bring proceedings.

Let's face facts, it was a clear try on that not surprisingly held no water. If we had chosen to take legal action in the matter, we may have had somewhat of an argument as we could have said "see what the Court says." As it was, we made a business decision to effectively negate any money he may have owed us through his actions.

What he says.

 

[Moomin]

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

The guy from the Mail got it wrong.

Interest payments for loans on the new stadium are deductable and we will be able to do that with the loan from MSP.

But the loans we tried to claim for interest payments were classed as working capital in the records.

View attachment 240354

 

[daza_1973]

This thread is playing out like an episode of 'Crown court' from the late 70's - the one we all watched after pebble mill at one and before young doctors - when we were skiving off school ill.

 

[RD2910]

The way the points deduction was administered was unlawful.

See the extract below.... I did post this earlier. This is from the documentation of the ESL European Court ruling. In short sanctions should not be discretionary, which the independent commission sanction very much was. Then there is the part about transparent, objective, precise and non-discrimatory i.e. Premier League did not have a set of punishments only what they produced in house in August AFTER the referral which shouldn`t have stood as it was not voted in by members and was rightly disregarded by the commission. Although they came to the same conclusion....

That judgement is specific to what was happening in that case though; there's no way you can just transfer it across and decide straight away that the punishment here was incompatible with competition law. It would be a massive legal case in itself.

 

[NathDogg]

We should be fighting them for every single point the corrupt shower have taken from us.

The entire process and punishment was bent - end of.

We need to ramp up the noise again, it’s gone suspiciously quiet in the media, except really for Andy Burnham continuing to nail them with every tweet he’s putting out there about the way they have gone about it all.