6 + 2 Point Deductions

[MikeH72]

I see the clubs around us are whinging - thet we're very quiet when we got 1o points deducted. & Forest overspend is far greater than ours - & our next one is double jepody TBF all the clubs should be called innthis season as then prem have made this season a mockery

The clubs around us could do with taking a few minutes off from stomping their feet like toddlers, and think about what it is they’re actually wishing for. Then seriously reconsider if that is what they want.

 

[ToffeeTim]

I think another 2 points off is the most likely outcome and we should work off the assumption we will lose another couple of points.

 

[Fralahna]

If double jeopardy is to be treated as a major factor and we are below 35m loss for that years accounts, then there wouldn't be any deduction whatsoever so do one Joyce. Once a RS always a RS.

Are we below the 35m? A genuine question as I've seen a lot of numbers thrown about. If so, I agree, shouldn't be penalised if we are under.

 

[SwedishToffee]

Are we below the 35m? A genuine question as I've seen a lot of numbers thrown about. If so, I agree, shouldn't be penalised if we are under.

We don't know, the figures aren't public yet. There is some sleuthing going on in this thread but they are qualified guesses at best.

 

[JimmyK]

I think another 2 points off is the most likely outcome and we should work off the assumption we will lose another couple of points.

We have no idea what the most likely outcome is so working on an assumption pulled out of nowhere doesn't make sense we just have to get as many points as we can and hope that whatever happens we've got enough in the end anything theres no more to it.

 

[blulouie]

But there are in the EFL rules. And this is what the appeals commission have put in their report:

Erm....thats what I said Bill.

 

[Ring master]

Are we below the 35m? A genuine question as I've seen a lot of numbers thrown about. If so, I agree, shouldn't be penalised if we are under.

The only way we are surely over it, is something to do with the ground i would think, otherwise i dont even get how we have even got a 2nd charge. surely all the other little bits and pieces cant be as much as that

 

[Joey66]

I hope we send the same super silk to appeal any punishment 2nd time amound..

 

[Jacko93]

Exactly. We have only currently been accused of the 2nd breach because of the 3 year roll. Remove 2 years double jeopardy from that and there is no breach. Charges dropped etc.

As I read it, we have been charged by the PL on a 3 years rolling period, regardless of what has happened before. Within which, one year is (£55m) and one is (£10m). As I see it, the (£55m) will be capped at (£35m) so we are not double counted on that loss. The (£10m) will remain. Essentially, we have current losses in the 3 year period of (£45m) where we will be judged guilty if we have losses of £60m or or more.

We would stand to be charged with losses of £40m by the PL using their standard measurement, but if I am reading it right, we would only be found guilty with more than (£60m)

The Premier league have to judge their PRS period as whatever it is, regardless of what has gone before. It is only the IC who can apply mitigations.

I might be talking utter tripe though, so...

 

[Tin-Tin]

Another article about clubs pushing to relax the current rules, just in time for them to escape the same fate I assume, or to avoid having to sell to buy.

 

[Lob]

Are we below the 35m? A genuine question as I've seen a lot of numbers thrown about. If so, I agree, shouldn't be penalised if we are under.

Nobody knows for sure but if we go back to Everton's reaction after we were hit with the second charge. it certainly seems like it as they were absolutely bemused about having to put in accounts they knew would automatically be in breech because of the 3 year roll and called it double jeopardy right from the start. Here is the statement on the 15th January - https://www.evertonfc.com/news/3859000/club-statement

Everton Football Club acknowledges the Premier League’s decision to refer a breach of Profit & Sustainability rules (PSR) for the assessment period ending with the 2022/23 season to an independent Premier League commission.
This relates to a period which covers seasons 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23. It therefore includes financial periods (2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22) for which the Club has already received a 10-point sanction. The Club is currently appealing that sanction.
The Premier League does not have guidelines which prevent a club being sanctioned for alleged breaches in financial periods which have already been subject to punishment, unlike other governing bodies, including the EFL. As a result - and because of the Premier League’s new commitment to deal with such matters “in-season” - the Club is in a position where it has had no option but to submit a PSR calculation which remains subject to change, pending the outcome of the appeal.
The Club must now defend another Premier League complaint which includes the very same financial periods for which it has already been sanctioned, before that appeal has even been heard. The Club takes the view that this results from a clear deficiency in the Premier League’s rules.
Everton can assure its fans that it will continue to defend its position during the ongoing appeal and, should it be required to do so, at any future commission - and that the impact on supporters will be reflected as part of that process.

 

[Billy Dean]

Erm....thats what I said Bill.

Ah I didn't see that

 

[ToffeeTim]

Another article about clubs pushing to relax the current rules, just in time for them to escape the same fate I assume, or to avoid having to sell to buy.

Anyone who supported us getting the most absurd penalty in the history of the premier league, should be taken seriously if they are now asking for a rule change.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

I think another 2 points off is the most likely outcome and we should work off the assumption we will lose another couple of points.

The question I have is whether (with a lot of other stuff on their plate) the PL are really going to battle with us over the double counting issue.

They don’t have a double counting rule, so they could stand up and argue for a full sanction and make us make a full case around natural justice issues.

At the same time they could (but probably won’t) simply agree at some pre-hearing meeting that the EFL double counting measures are fair and reasonable and if that puts us clear of breach then it’s one less thing on their plate.

But that would require reasonable thinking.

 

[Bluepablo]

As I read it, we have been charged by the PL on a 3 years rolling period, regardless of what has happened before. Within which, one year is (£55m) and one is (£10m). As I see it, the (£55m) will be capped at (£35m) so we are not double counted on that loss. The (£10m) will remain. Essentially, we have current losses in the 3 year period of (£45m) where we will be judged guilty if we have losses of £60m or or more.

We would stand to be charged with losses of £40m by the PL using their standard measurement, but if I am reading it right, we would only be found guilty with more than (£60m)

The Premier league have to judge their PRS period as whatever it is, regardless of what has gone before. It is only the IC who can apply mitigations.

I might be talking utter tripe though, so...

This seems eminently sensible so I assume it won’t apply until we appeal again.