Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

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.

Financial Fair Play investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
catcherintherye said:
I'm really sorry mate, but this is just weaselling around with terms.

Are you seriously saying a regulator, who's job it is to uphold their rules, does not bother to do any scrutiny on accounts? If so, this is surely gross negligence?

It is also worth saying, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any of the accounts on that page have not been passed.

The 2021/22 have been. This is a point of order.

So if you feel the earlier accounts are not being accepted now (some years later) then feel free to share.

I'm not really sure the basis of your argument, which is essentially " we dont know what the regulator thinks, as the regulator doesnt bother to regulate and scrutinise what's put to them" resolves any of the questions either. It just opens up a whole set of new questions.

My view, is they had to fulfil their duty as a regulator, looked at the accounts, and found nothing wrong with the. Occams razor theory.
Click to expand...
I think you are missing the point. The rules say the accounts need to be submitted by a certain date in March. The club is compliant once they submit the accounts. Then, over time, the accounts can be looked at in detail. Just look at the Man City charges, they relate to every year since 2009, so there were 13 sets of accounts submitted to the FA and it is only now that they have scrutinised them and they are saying that they are non-compliant. The accounts Everton or any other club submitted over the last number of years does not mean the club has had their accounts approved as correct. There is a lot of work required to audit and approve accounts. I have no idea how many staff they have and what their budget is to allocate resources to examine the accounts submitted but I am guessing a lot of the staff were busy over the last few years investigating 13 years of Man City accounts and building their case against them.
 
Swartzy said:
It's a sad state of affairs when you look at these sort of facts/figures, forget ffp for a minute. And look at the future sustainability of the Premier league/football in general.
What becomes the point in it, when clubs know they will never get the chance of competing properly in the league. What a life for a young fan, better off going and supporting your local non league team.

If a certain group of clubs can never be challenged financially off the field the same will always play out on the field.

The sol meaning of the word 'competition' becomes irrelevant.
Because you can't ever realistically become competitive with that certain set of clubs.

FFP/Profit + Sustainability might help a keep a club afloat but you will only ever be treading water.

( Sorry for the ramble but this thread and graphs/figures just drains you )
Click to expand...

Imagine if FFP was used in other "competitive" sports as it is in football based on its principle of favouring the clubs already at the top of the pile:

Boxing - the boxer with the largest following based on past success is allowed to throw illegal hits but is immune from any points deduction.

Running - the runner with the most historical success starts the race a few meters ahead of the other runners.

Tennis - the player with the most grand slams starts the match 1 set up.

Its criminal yet us footie fans just accept it and snarl at any club outside the elite who dares try go for glory.
 

ForeverBlue92 said:
Imagine if FFP was used in other "competitive" sports as it is in football:

Boxing - the boxer with the largest following based on past success is allowed to throw illegal hits but is immune from any points deduction.

Running - the runner with the most historical success starts the race a few meters ahead of the other runners.

Tennis - the player with the most grand slams starts the match 1 set up.

Its criminal yet us footie fans just accept it and snarl at any club outside the elite who dares try go for glory.
Click to expand...

well what else can we do? i’m all ears as of the rest of the prem is….
 
Tommy Chong said:
Well, the first the regulator will look at is the audit report to see if the auditors picked up any discrepancies.

That carries a lot of weight, but you also have to take into account that the regulator will be looking for different things in the accounts as opposed to what a normal auditor would be looking for.It
Click to expand...
It is highly unlikely a club will submit accounts that auditors have identified discrepancies in, if they do they are pleading guilty at the time of submission. Also, the auditor is employed by and paid by the club, they will take the club's advice as to their accounting practices and their interpretation of said. Auditors will accept Everton's allocation of Covid losses even if they disagree with them as long as the interpretation is stated in the accounts. Other than blatant fraudulent accounting, the problem for clubs, and not just Everton, most clubs that get charged with FFP is when the FA disagrees with the interpretations made. This disagreement will always take place after the accounts have been submitted and accepted
 
ForeverBlue92 said:
Imagine if FFP was used in other "competitive" sports as it is in football based on its principle of favouring the clubs already at the top of the pile:

Boxing - the boxer with the largest following based on past success is allowed to throw illegal hits but is immune from any points deduction.

Running - the runner with the most historical success starts the race a few meters ahead of the other runners.

Tennis - the player with the most grand slams starts the match 1 set up.

Its criminal yet us footie fans just accept it and snarl at any club outside the elite who dares try go for glory.
Click to expand...
Don't all sports favour the stronger athlete or team? Isn't that what seeding is for? You don't get the number 1 seed playing the number 2 seed in Wimbledon, they are in different halves of the draw and can only meet in the final. But FFP and P&S are there to stop club owners from putting the club's viability at risk. That is why the clubs voted to implement FFP.
 
I think there are many factors at play here not just about a club "overspending" and being put on the naughty step.

I've never liked these rules , whichever you chose to name them P&S or FFP.
If a club wants to better itself with an owner that is will willing to spend to compete at the higher level of football then so be it as long as that isn't lumbered onto the club as debt.

As of yet I've not seen anything other than Moshiri himself footing the bill.

Has he spent it wisely ? of course he hasn't he's made a right mess of it , particularly his manager appointments and his crazy trust in this board.
No doubt he is a madman but one thing we can't doubt is his willingness to keep ploughing money in til he gets it right then maybe he sells.

These rules need looking at seriously , how can the lower clubs ever compete with the top 6 clubs that have vastly bigger turnovers , some with dubious sponsor deals & some with mountainous debts yet still splurge money like confetti.

Have we "broke the rules" ? Most likely we have , but for me these rules are there to ensure no other clubs gatecrash the party & not under the guise that they are a protective measure for clubs.

Do I want / agree the club should be punished ?
Hell no ....I fear it would kill the club.
 

turner said:
The covid year should have been ignored for p&s. The world shut down, games were stopped for a long period, the euros were cancelled. Games were played behind closed doors. Players got sick, some probably never got back to their previous level (Godfrey's situation being suspicious in this case). It's madness to me that they have taken that year into account.

'the rules apply the same to everyone' :
Covid would disproportionately affect some teams rather than others depending on myriad different circumstances. Perhaps we could have sold some of our high earners in that period. Even supposedly well run clubs were trying to furlough staff.

I'm not for one minute suggesting our board aren't divs, but that year was so anomalous in the football world (nothing like that has happened since the wars) that it seems completely mad to include that year in the financial rules.

We'll end up with a bigger punishment than the 6 clubs that tried to topple the league completely.
Click to expand...
It was taken into account. The standard 3 year accounting window for P&S was increased to 4 years and the Covid year was averaged into the following year t and each club was allowed to allocate specific losses to Covid which were not taken into P&S calculations.
 
Villa_Fan said:
It is highly unlikely a club will submit accounts that auditors have identified discrepancies in, if they do they are pleading guilty at the time of submission. Also, the auditor is employed by and paid by the club, they will take the club's advice as to their accounting practices and their interpretation of said. Auditors will accept Everton's allocation of Covid losses even if they disagree with them as long as the interpretation is stated in the accounts. Other than blatant fraudulent accounting, the problem for clubs, and not just Everton, most clubs that get charged with FFP is when the FA disagrees with the interpretations made. This disagreement will always take place after the accounts have been submitted and accepted
Click to expand...

True, but the auditors can still sign off the audit report with a modified opinion, meaning something small and not material enough to stop the auditors from signing off the AFS. But yes, the FA will scrutinize the numbers against their regulations to see if there's any breach.
 
Damo_1878 said:
Dave, you keep accusing people of wanting Everton punished.

They don't. They are angry at how the club has been mismanaged to have been placed in this position. By Bill Kenwright and Denise Barrett-Baxendale
Click to expand...
If you're not for us, you're against us.
 
blulouie said:
I think there are many factors at play here not just about a club "overspending" and being put on the naughty step.

I've never liked these rules , whichever you chose to name them P&S or FFP.
If a club wants to better itself with an owner that is will willing to spend to compete at the higher level of football then so be it as long as that isn't lumbered onto the club as debt.

As of yet I've not seen anything other than Moshiri himself footing the bill.

Has he spent it wisely ? of course he hasn't he's made a right mess of it , particularly his manager appointments and his crazy trust in this board.
No doubt he is a madman but one thing we can't doubt is his willingness to keep ploughing money in til he gets it right then maybe he sells.

These rules need looking at seriously , how can the lower clubs ever compete with the top 6 clubs that have vastly bigger turnovers , some with dubious sponsor deals & some with mountainous debts yet still splurge money like confetti.

Have we "broke the rules" ? Most likely we have , but for me these rules are there to ensure no other clubs gatecrash the party & not under the guise that they are a protective measure for clubs.

Do I want / agree the club should be punished ?
Hell no ....I fear it would kill the club.
Click to expand...
No matter how many times people say otherwise, the rules were brought in specifically to prevent owners bankrupting a club in pursuit of success. Which is why all the clubs , including Everton, helped to formulate , vote them in and agreed to abide by them.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top