Financial Fair Play investigation

[kenada_blue]

Wouldn't entirely rule that out. That's one of the only logical reasons for "you're fine" last year turning into "you're not" this year, if we weren't being entirely truthful about something

Of course you can't rule anything out, the reason why they're there as guidelines is because it scares people of what they could do rather than what will.

My take is purely based off previous situations and comparisons.

Let's not forget we've apparently cooperated with the league for years and they've agreed/signed off every move we've made. If the commission feels we've been out of line, it puts the PL under more scrutiny allowing this to happen. Anything that goes against how the PL operates adds more fuel to the government white paper they're getting currently grilled under.

We'll get fined. The league will say "look how good we've been in spotting and controlling this, we don't need independent reviews" and move on.

 

[ChrisPW75]

Out of interest does our loss include the stadium build or is that separate? I think it's separate but can anyone confirm? Thanks

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Out of interest does our loss include the stadium build or is that separate? I think it's separate but can anyone confirm? Thanks

Infrastructure costs are exempt from FFP/P&S and rightly so.

Indeed when UEFA founded these rules this was seen as 'good' expenditure- to grow a club etc along with the other categories. Malaga are a cautionary tale, Portsmouth and Leeds before then.. had Bournemouth not been promoted last year perhaps they would be in an FFP or financial mess now.

It's probably more likely the indirect losses due to Covid that have caused an issue ie the argued £88-138m in the transfer market and maybe shifting from a £13m pre tax loss in 2017-18 to whatever the probably higher pre tax loss last season was. If it was tight to 2021 then it maybe tighter still to 2022.

 

[ChrisPW75]

Infrastructure costs are exempt from FFP/P&S and rightly so.

Indeed when UEFA founded these rules this was seen as 'good' expenditure- to grow a club etc along with the other categories. Malaga are a cautionary tale, Portsmouth and Leeds before then.. had Bournemouth not been promoted last year perhaps they would be in an FFP or financial mess now.

It's probably more likely the indirect losses due to Covid that have caused an issue ie the argued £88-138m in the transfer market and maybe shifting from a £13m pre tax loss in 2017-18 to whatever the probably higher pre tax loss last season was. If it was tight to 2021 then it maybe tighter still to 2022.

Hi, yes I was aware they are exempt. Clearly we would have been spending tens of millions for the last couple of years which if included in the £370m, will make our breach significantly less.

My big concern is where as other clubs made a loss during covid, there losses are are commensurable with the lack of gate receipts and losses with TV money. However I believe our gate receipts are only around £14 for a normal year. It seems our losses far outstrip the covid losses which is very very worrying, unless large chunks of it include the building of Bramley Moore Dock which if included in the loss will significantly reduce/mitigate our losses.

 

[brieverton]

Not sure how any impactful sanction against Everton, and most notably a points deduction, would damage the PL "brand".

As it is, the spoils are limited to the Top Six and now, potentially Newcastle. They get their Europe money and blue-chip sponsorships, whilst Everton fight it out for Stake.com. We don't make in shirt sponsorship what Liverpool make in sleeve sponsorship, or for their training gear.

The PL is run by the elite, for the elite. Anything else is window-dressing. We are barely a consideration.

Who is going to be perturbed by a points deduction for Everton apart from ourselves? AIL, the sponsors of Tottenham? A Man Utd fan in Singapore who is vaguely aware of Everton's existence? A neutral fan watching in Nigeria?

The one thing in our favour is the situation with Man City. But I have no faith in the PL to apply the same standard of punishment, and to the equivalent level of severity. And I don't think people without blue-tinted specs care all that much. If anything, it would be spun as the PL getting their house in order, as a re-assurance, not that its needed, to global business and a global audience, who can't be bothered with the armchair accountant gig. Who could blame them?

If the Italian authorities can dock points from Juventus, the PL can do with Everton, and with a certain glee in the process.

The biggest ever existential threat to their brand is the Super League. They turned the other cheek because they need the big clubs and both sides know it. They can spin whatever sort of punishment they like when its us, and get away with it.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Hi, yes I was aware they are exempt. Clearly we would have been spending tens of millions for the last couple of years which if included in the £370m, will make our breach significantly less.

My big concern is where as other clubs made a loss during covid, there losses are are commensurable with the lack of gate receipts and losses with TV money. However I believe our gate receipts are only around £14 for a normal year. It seems our losses far outstrip the covid losses which is very very worrying, unless large chunks of it include the building of Bramley Moore Dock which if included in the loss will significantly reduce/mitigate our losses.

My calculations already to 2021 have excluded the capitalised Bramley Moor Dock deal and show big losses anyway. They're listed separately for each season at the bottom of the Profit and Loss Account.

I haven't looked in such depth but seems that as part of the £82m "okay" loss it included chunks of Player Impairment which is...surprising?

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Had a quick check:

1) A combined total of Impairment of Player Registration and Provision for Onerous Contracts across the two years is interesting when attributed to Covid and therefore excluded both from present and future costs.
2) Let alone the £88m, potentially rising to £138m in transfer market losses!
3) Question is whether double counting is a risk here by me.

Spending £80 odd million in 2020-21 (Intangible Asset additions). and wage bill rising by £18m that sesson in the context of an argument about the impact of Covid-19...hmm. Provision for Onerous Contracts if included in the wage bill though may knock that rise gone to £10-15m.

Won't be a popular view but I believe that the hierarchy at Everton believed in 2020 that FFP would be scrapped due to Covid. A few other clubs probably thought similar.

 

[ChrisPW75]

I wonder if the issue is the value of the current stadium? Clearly we are building an asset that would/should be on the balance sheet for the new stadium? And Goodison probably has very little asset value. Can we offset the developing asset of the new stadium to offset the losses?

 

[ChrisPW75]

Had a quick check:

1) A combined total of Impairment of Player Registration and Provision for Onerous Contracts across the two years is interesting when attributed to Covid and therefore excluded both from present and future costs.
2) Let alone the £88m, potentially rising to £138m in transfer market losses!
3) Question is whether double counting is a risk here by me.

Spending £80 odd million in 2020-21 (Intangible Asset additions). and wage bill rising by £18m that sesson in the context of an argument about the impact of Covid-19...hmm. Provision for Onerous Contracts if included in the wage bill though may knock that rise gone to £10-15m.

Won't be a popular view but I believe that the hierarchy at Everton believed in 2020 that FFP would be scrapped due to Covid. A few other clubs probably thought similar.

thanks

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I wonder if the issue is the value of the current stadium? Clearly we are building an asset that would/should be on the balance sheet for the new stadium? And Goodison probably has very little asset value. Can we offset the developing asset of the new stadium to offset the losses?

Depreciation is excluded from FFP as a matter of course so that and expenditure on new Infrastructure is already considered exempt.

 

[davek]

They should have been referred before Everton were ever referred. TheNewcastl takeover has the potential to skew competition in the PL infinitley more than Everton spending a few million over the FFP limits.

 

[judge]

They'll give us a points deduction. We're generally not a well liked club and no one (but us) wil kick up a fuss. Ironic really, when you consider that any signings we've made haven't had that much of a positivie impact/kept us safe from relegation - not like, say, Carlos Tevez who scored most of the goals that kept West Ham up all those years ago - can't remember what the sanction was then!!!

 

[roydo]

They'll give us a points deduction. We're generally not a well liked club and no one (but us) wil kick up a fuss. Ironic really, when you consider that any signings we've made haven't had that much of a positivie impact/kept us safe from relegation - not like, say, Carlos Tevez who scored most of the goals that kept West Ham up all those years ago - can't remember what the sanction was then!!!

West Ham settled out of court and paid Sheffield a wedge.

 

[Goat]

They'll give us a points deduction. We're generally not a well liked club and no one (but us) wil kick up a fuss. Ironic really, when you consider that any signings we've made haven't had that much of a positivie impact/kept us safe from relegation - not like, say, Carlos Tevez who scored most of the goals that kept West Ham up all those years ago - can't remember what the sanction was then!!!

August 31, 2006: West Ham stun the world of football with the Deadline Day signings of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano. The contracts of the Argentine duo were previously held by agent Kia Joorabchian's company, MSI.



March 2, 2007: The Premier League charges West Ham for breaching Rule B13 and Rule U18 in relation to the signings of Tevez and Mascherano.

West Ham alleged PL rule breaches​

• Rule B13: "In all matters and transactions relating to the league, each club shall behave towards each other club and the league with the utmost good faith."
• Rule U18: "No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in league matches or in any (other) competitions."

April 4, 2007: A three-man panel is appointed by the Premier League to investigate West Ham's signings of Tevez and Mascherano.

April 27, 2007: West Ham receive a £5.5m fine but are spared a points deduction after pleading guilty to breaking Premier League rules. The verdict also rules "the registration of Carlos Tevez could be terminated by the Premier League", but Tevez is later cleared to play in the Hammers' remaining fixtures of the 2006/07 season.

March 16, 2009: West Ham and Sheffield United reach an out-of-court settlement to end their dispute over the Tevez transfer.

Sheffield United, West Ham and the Carlos Tevez saga

Watch Sheffield United vs West Ham live on Friday Night Football from 7pm on Sky Sports Premier League; kick-off 8pm

www.skysports.com

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

August 31, 2006: West Ham stun the world of football with the Deadline Day signings of Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano. The contracts of the Argentine duo were previously held by agent Kia Joorabchian's company, MSI.



March 2, 2007: The Premier League charges West Ham for breaching Rule B13 and Rule U18 in relation to the signings of Tevez and Mascherano.

West Ham alleged PL rule breaches​

• Rule B13: "In all matters and transactions relating to the league, each club shall behave towards each other club and the league with the utmost good faith."
• Rule U18: "No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract to acquire the ability materially to influence its policies or the performance of its teams in league matches or in any (other) competitions."

April 4, 2007: A three-man panel is appointed by the Premier League to investigate West Ham's signings of Tevez and Mascherano.

April 27, 2007: West Ham receive a £5.5m fine but are spared a points deduction after pleading guilty to breaking Premier League rules. The verdict also rules "the registration of Carlos Tevez could be terminated by the Premier League", but Tevez is later cleared to play in the Hammers' remaining fixtures of the 2006/07 season.

March 16, 2009: West Ham and Sheffield United reach an out-of-court settlement to end their dispute over the Tevez transfer.

Sheffield United, West Ham and the Carlos Tevez saga

Watch Sheffield United vs West Ham live on Friday Night Football from 7pm on Sky Sports Premier League; kick-off 8pm

www.skysports.com

Haha the state of that, found quilty of breaking the rules but still allowed to play Tevez who was instrumental in keeping them up at the expense of Sheffield United!