Damo_1878
Don't care. Not bothered.
It they had a problem with it, why did they not highlight it? And why were they telling clubs we had passed?
They didn't for this year
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It they had a problem with it, why did they not highlight it? And why were they telling clubs we had passed?
I always love these threads as it reveals how many accountants, sports lawyers and financial regulators there are amongst our fanbase. It's also amazing to me that the venn diagram of football tactics experts, transfer specialists and financial regulators overlap almost perfectly.
Or, maybe, just maybe, none of us have a scooby and all of these tense discussions are just droplets of urine in the breeze.
Clearly, we have been run very poorly, clearly there will be some sort of consequence, but I'll guarantee not a soul on here knows what it'll be.
We asked them to remove 180million for covid mate.
No other club even used half of that.
We broke the rules.Just repeating what I heard mate. I havnt a clue how stuff like BMD, USM, Covid were presented to the PL. We aint squeaky clean, not by a long shot, and we will have to go to our room and think about what we did, at least.
There are lots of self-evident truths in sport that, when tested at CAS or some other relevant court, turn out to be more opaque than at first glance.You don’t have to be an accountant or a sports lawyer to know that losing £372m over a three year period is against the rules, it’s very simple actually.
After interest and taxation, the Club recorded a loss for the year of £120.9m (2019/20: loss of £139.8m). When adding back the crystallised financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the underlying financial loss for the year was £106.1m (2019/20: loss of £72.5m). The financial impact directly attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic is not considered to be part of the underlying reported loss because it is non-recurring in nature. In future financial periods we expect a return to the usual operating model. Therefore, in order to retain comparability, it is necessary to calculate an underlying loss before tax which excludes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
How dare they come for us, we have done nothing wrong.
Our accounts would be found in the fiction aisle of Waterstones.
The club put a lot more emphasis on Covid's impact to finances than other clubs, and that's where other clubs are looking at it and saying that was an advantage taken by us. But it's hard to see what more they could have done to comply with the PL subsequently.That sounds like a decision to be made post season and an appeal that would push any punishment out post transfer window so Everton could sort themselves out which should be possible as they back to a 3 year period of normal wheeling and dealing with regards to transfers.
I would guess at transfer embargo for a year if any break of the rules took place. Maybe down to the winter window on appeal. If the PL chose a fine as an option, then Everton might take it on the chin.
I could also envisage a suspended points reduction if the P&S rules are broken within a certain period as this puts points reduction on the cards for City in the future.
Then again, I would not be surprised if we were only breaking the spirit of the rules and assigning things to permitted write downs. I think that would be far trickier to enforce and maybe we'd see a greater clarification on what P&S is not allowed to encompass and an increase in the amounts you can spend which would be suitable for quite a few PL teams.
There's something a foot here and I'm not sure it's all about us now. But damp straight we've got to go all out to robustly defend ourselves and make the PL's concerns look frivolous and unwarranted.
THISYou don’t have to be an accountant or a sports lawyer to know that losing £372m over a three year period is against the rules, it’s very simple actually.
Chico?No idea mate. But I do know that some time ago, Simon Jordan, (yeah, I know), after slamming the club/accounts, did change his tune after being put right on Twitter by "2 Evertonians" who "Knew their numbers" explained how the write offs were justified to the PL.
Reckon we can guess who one of those two was.
THIS
ALWAYS THIS
I got a D in GCSE maths and even I can see that 372m is a higher number than 105m.
You dont need to go to Harvard.
No team has ever accepted the punishment they get as everyone appeals it and it always gets reduced.We broke the rules.
We should accept whatever punishment comes our way.
But, if we appoint the right legal team, it shouldnt be the punishment we deserve.
Or are these teams asking for the FFP rules to be enforced that all clubs signed up for, therefore proving that the rules aren’t just in place to protect the big 6.I think its partially true. They would have probably sent them off and got them passed. I suspect they have come under pressure from teams, and may be panicking.
This is hypothetical, but it is worth considering, would teams have a conflict of interest in wanting Everton to be punished?
I think we valued that loss at £80m! We couldn’t sell that value in any normal season….that’s been our problem. So cheekyThe one I always remember is we supposedly claimed loss of income from not being able to sell players for market value during COVID. If that's true, then the likes of Man City could have claimed loss of income for about a billion quid. It's farcical stuff.