Financial Fair Play investigation

[maccavennie]

Can't wait to read Matt Hughes' latest article today.

I'm going for

15 point deduction with instant relegation to the Championship
Pickford inserted a clause allowing him to leave for free
Everton on the verge of bringing Ronaldo back to the Prem on a 250k pw deal
New stadium has sunk but if it doesn't it will end up being an all standing stadia because we can't afford seats

 

[cronullasharks]

Can't wait to read Matt Hughes' latest article today.

I'm going for

15 point deduction with instant relegation to the Championship
Pickford inserted a clause allowing him to leave for free
Everton on the verge of bringing Ronaldo back to the Prem on a 250k pw deal
New stadium has sunk but if it doesn't it will end up being an all standing stadia because we can't afford seats

It better be fat Ronaldo that turns up then. Though that won't help if the stadiums sinking.

 

[Moomin]

Our net transfer spend over the past 5 seasons sees us 15th place with two of the sides below us clubs who were promoted within that timeframe in Brentford and Bournemouth. Only Palace, Leicester and Brighton have a lower net spend.

So the team that is 15th out of 20th for net transfer spend in the last 5 years is being accused of breaching financial fair play

This is literally a joke

It’s a witch-hunt against Everton

The rules are stupid

It's not a witch hunt against us, the rules are the rules.

 

[hallamblue]

Do you think the top six who tried to destroy our league for their own personal gain and greed was a bit worse than Evertons alleged breach mate ? And all they were given was a slap on the wrist a paltry fine. They brought English football into disrepute, thoughts..

Theoretically they weren't trying to destroy the Premier League. They wanted to stay in it and play in a new European Competition as well.

 

[brieverton]

Ignorance is no defence but they can genuinely plead incompetence here at the very least.

 

[GoldenToffee]

Ignorance is no defence but they can genuinely plead incompetence here at the very least.

Perhaps even that they are not of sound mind, especially Fat Head Bill.

 

[AndyC]

Well we just sold Gordon for 40 mil and haven’t replaced him with anyone

The Gordon fee went straight to the accounts - was never going to be used to replace him.

 

[ToffeeTim]

The Gordon fee went straight to the accounts - was never going to be used to replace him.

But will only be in the June 23 figures, so not relevant to our FFP investigation

We have obviously cut back on spending and have raised significant fees in the last year though, so that surely will act in our favour. Or at least it should.

 

[AndyC]

But will only be in the June 23 figures, so not relevant to our FFP investigation

We have obviously cut back on spending and have raised significant fees in the last year though, so that surely will act in our favour. Or at least it should.

True. Was merely pointing out that any thoughts of the Gordon money being reinvested into the squad were forlorn hopes.
The money went to the accounts to bolster their appearance to potential minority investors needed to assist with the stadium project.

 

[bluelife]

It will be a 21 point deduction next season I suspect, which will see us narrowly survive the drop to league 1.

 

[DanEFC92]

But will only be in the June 23 figures, so not relevant to our FFP investigation

We have obviously cut back on spending and have raised significant fees in the last year though, so that surely will act in our favour. Or at least it should.

Does seem like a kick in the teeth; 'you'll have to sell your best players to not fall foul of FFP' - falls foul of it anyway.

 

[oglop44]

Been thinking about the theory that it was 1 transfer causing the problems with the accounts and I think, if true, it must be the Moise Kean deal rather than the Dele deal. We loaned him to Juventus on 31 August 2021 for 2 years with an obligation to buy. It was heavily rumoured that there were conditions to the obligation but that was never confirmed. Everton stated that it was "an obligation for the Turin club to make the transfer permanent."

So if we accounted for this deal in total, 2 loan fees and the permanent transfer fee, in the 21/22 season that might explain the confusion. Everton state it's an obligation so guaranteed money and safe to account for, the Premier League state that it was conditional and should be accounted for when the transfer officially happens.

Just a theory really but my main evidence is that the news leaked that Juventus had signed Kean permanently earlier this month:
Convenient timing for a transfer that wouldn't really be relevant until July, unless it was necessary for the accounting year.

Equally it could have been leaked so we could include it in the 22/23 accounts also. It's not a perfect theory!

 

[balggy]

It ultimately depends whether the Premier League want to bury us or give us a fighting chance.

A point deduction of 4 points or more and Burnley will sue for probably the difference between parachute payments and premier league money.

If they follow the same approach as Birmingham City and go for 9, there is a very good chance that would relegate us next season. When you then combine that with the claim Burnley would have, you are genuinely looking at administration. If Burnley end up having a claim and we are no longer a Premier League club (I.e. we are relegated this season) how do we afford that? Would be difficult to find the cash even if we stay up.

Ultimately my biggest gripe with the rules is “what is the purpose of them?” If the worst case scenario were to happen, they would be effectively destroying a premier league football club. That doesn’t exactly sounds great for “sustainability”.

And whilst we have previously made massive massive mistakes, the type others could look at and say “we ain’t doing that”, quite a few have noted that we are slowly turning it around. I think we are getting to the stage of possibly making a small profit (for this financial year) and when you factor the increase in revenue with the new stadium, there’s possibly a bright future.

The club isn’t in administration, it’s paying wages and honouring commitments it has made to creditors. So it’s a functioning business. And whilst it’s previously made mistakes, you could say it’s learned its lesson and is on a different path. But if the Premier League properly leathers us, all that is gone. That’s the bit I don’t get. A rule to protect clubs which through its very implementation could end up killing a club

 

[mahermi1]

Theoretically they weren't trying to destroy the Premier League. They wanted to stay in it and play in a new European Competition as well.

They would have destroyed it for the other 14 teams because it would not have even been a competition anymore due to the financial advantages they would have held.
Come to thi k of it, its not much different right now.

 

[davek]

It ultimately depends whether the Premier League want to bury us or give us a fighting chance.
A point deduction of 4 points or more and Burnley will sue for probably the difference between parachute payments and premier league money.
If they follow the same approach as Birmingham City and go for 9, there is a very good chance that would relegate us next season. When you then combine that with the claim Burnley would have, you are genuinely looking at administration. If Burnley end up having a claim and we are no longer a Premier League club (I.e. we are relegated this season) how do we afford that? Would be difficult to find the cash even if we stay up. Ultimately my biggest gripe with the rules is “what is the purpose of them?” If the worst case scenario were to happen, they would be effectively destroying a premier league football club. That doesn’t exactly sounds great for “sustainability”.

And whilst we have previously made massive massive mistakes, the type others could look at and say “we ain’t doing that”, quite a few have noted that we are slowly turning it around. I think we are getting to the stage of possibly making a small profit (for this financial year) and when you factor the increase in revenue with the new stadium, there’s possibly a bright future.

The club isn’t in administration, it’s paying wages and honouring commitments it has made to creditors. So it’s a functioning business. And whilst it’s previously made mistakes, you could say it’s learned its lesson and is on a different path. But if the Premier League properly leathers us, all that is gone. That’s the bit I don’t get. A rule to protect clubs which through its very implementation could end up killing a club

I think that's sound analysis tbh.

How do you help a club continue down the path of getting itself back into financial balance by handing them a mountain to climb in order to avoid the drop and financial ruin?

Points deductions of any magnitude doesn't make sense to me. Any reasonable body of people see that and avoid making matters worse. Their task is to bring a wise judgement at the end of the proceedings. There's not much wisdom in making matters worse.

I've said before that context is the key to our case: the commssion might be looking at the 2021/22 season's financial figures, but they wont do that in isolation; they cant help but know that Everton have been fully co-operating with the PL - to the extent that we've reduced our own chances for the past 2 years of surviving due to massively curtailing our spending. They can see the trajectory in terms of losses that will result in the club coming back into line next year.

No judgement can ignore all those mitigating factors. It'd be a barmy decision to allow no context and I refuse to believe they wont take that on board.

Anything like a points deduction is OTT; and if that points deduction places us in financial peril you have to say WTF was the point of the whole process of PL guidance for the last 2 seasons if a commission then decides to sink you?