6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Wat Tyler]

If they lose the appeal will that guilty verdict count against them?
Yes, in the sense that Everton’s defence against breaching PSR rules up to 2023 – stadium costs and the loss of commercial deals such as a £200m naming rights agreement with USM – would have been dismissed by two commissions before another convenes to hear the latest charge. Hence Everton’s anger at being charged again by the Premier League before the appeal process has run its course. Does Monday’s announcement prejudice the appeal?

How quickly is this likely to be resolved?
Under Premier League guidelines introduced in August – five months after Everton were initially charged with a single PSR breach – a resolution must be found before the end of the season in which a charge is brought. Everton have 14 days to reply to their latest charge and would ordinarily expect to discover their fate by early April, leaving time for an appeal. But Everton’s appeal against the 10-point deduction takes precedent and must be concluded before the second charge is heard. In Everton’s ideal scenario, the second charge never comes before a commission because the appeal against the first charge goes in their favour. The club is waiting to discover when the all-important appeal will take place.

 

[malfosse]

It is a different PSR period.

It would be similar to saying you can't do me for speeding today because you caught me yesterday.

The idea of a rolling three-year period is that it gives a club some leeway if they have big losses in one year. If you have one year with big losses you have two years to put it right. Instead of doing that the board tried to blag it and got caught.

No. It would be like putting 2 speeding cameras a metre apart and being done twice for speeding.

 

[arch stanton]

Anyone got a number for Prince Oumar?

he was at the stoke game, he may be reading this.

 

[Bluepablo]

Not quite, because you have an opportunity to sell a player (or let players on high wages go etc) to make a 25 profit to even out the £130m to £105m?

You could sell but if you thought you weren’t in breach, as we allegedly did, then you wouldn’t need to fix it.

But should we have known we were in breach. Seems the whole thing hasn’t been thought through in the rules so nobody knows for sure where they stand or what the penalties are.

 

[ToffeeTim]

We are being punished for building a stadium.

No one will ever be able to give me one logical, rational, sensible, coherent reason why that should be subject to sustainability rules.

These current financial rules are not fit for purpose. No football fan should support them in their current form.

 

[arch stanton]

No. It would be like putting 2 speeding cameras a metre apart and being done twice for speeding.

and changing the speed limit whilst you're approaching those cameras

 

[PeregrineT]

Basically, we sell a player in this transfer window for 20m then and we are completely compliant?

Nope, this is for the 22/23 accounts. By the time we got charged and the PL said we couldnt deduct the interest, those accounts were already closed(June 2023). So this new charge is something we LITERALLY couldnt do anything about once the PL made up their punishment in late 2023.

In otherwords, even if this was legit, we had 0 opportunity to do anything about it. The moment the PL issued their charge and then made up the punishment in August THEY knew they would double charge us for it and there was nothing we could do, even selling players would have no effect because it would only count for 23/24

 

[COYBL25]

No. It would be like putting 2 speeding cameras a metre apart and being done twice for speeding.

Stop confusing Matty please.

 

[Toffeeslam]

When is the appeal for the 1st so called breach going to be heard ?

Supposed to be this month isn’t it ?

 

[Joey66]

If it's in May the findings of today both us & Forest may start minus ten next season even if we go down ..or stay up!

 

[peteblue]

I think you’re supposed to even out the losses over the next years accounts.
Hence the rolling 3 year period.

That’s my understanding anyway.

It’s still complete bollocks like.

It’s £105M over a three year period……

 

[Goat]

If it's in May the findings of today both us & Forest may start minus ten next season even if we go down ..or stay up!

All sanctions will be applied this Season Joey.

 

[Bez2k2k]

Nope, this is for the 22/23 accounts. By the time we got charged and the PL said we couldnt deduct the interest, those accounts were already closed(June 2023). So this new charge is something we LITERALLY couldnt do anything about once the PL made up their punishment in late 2023.

In otherwords, even if this was legit, we had 0 opportunity to do anything about it. The moment the PL issued their charge and then made up the punishment in August THEY knew they would double charge us for it and there was nothing we could do, even selling players would have no effect because it would only count for 23/24

Yeah but that’s what I’m saying. We could argue that and say we couldn’t do anything as you told us to send in our accounts but the January window wasn’t even open yet.

 

[sbbefc]

You could sell but if you thought you weren’t in breach, as we allegedly did, then you wouldn’t need to fix it.

But should we have known we were in breach. Seems the whole thing hasn’t been thought through in the rules so nobody knows for sure where they stand or what the penalties are.

Yeah, it's a right mess. By all accounts the club were confident of no or little punishment back in Nov. Obviously once the 10points were handed out there was no room chance of us being able to rectify the situation.

 

[PITA]

Oh it's quite simple.
It's because it's historic.
And it's more complex.
And if that still doesn't make any sense, just keep repeating these two phrases until it does

But the thing is that even non-City fans peddle the same rubbish. There are a lot of Pavlov's dogs out there.