Financial Fair Play investigation

[davek]

Some big assumptions made there.

That the youth players are up to it. That we won't have the same injury issues.

This squad is desperate for reinforcements. Almost all over the park.

We need it at RB and LB. Elsewhere we're ok. Even the striker situation wont be as dire if Simms proves himself as we've learnned how to get goals from other positions.

Dyche with 38 games with the same sqaud next season gets the job done IMO.

 

[davek]

Its very hard to work out the dynamic here, my suspicion is the regulator thing and i suspect they are under heat from other clubs also - is to swift a change of tact - the level of punishment will be on the scale and scope of whats in the accounts - how disputable it is.

If the PL are being pressured into this i wonder are they asking us to take one for the team and in return will get a hand slapping. Other thing is the can of worms a stringent penalty opens up, im looking around the league seeing a lot of clubs - not without risk, future risk or questionable sins. Im thinking the scab 6, Villa, Leicester and Chelsea - im looking up North at Saudi Arabia and with sovereign wealth fund going to land at Utd - fingers can be pointed both ways and if we had any sense we should be privately rattling a few sabres.

The thought crossed my mind too.

They can present whatever case they want against Everton and make it clear any charge should be light or harsh.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

It's strongly in our favour that we have two seasons worth of belt-tightening and co-operation with the PL and also have the prospect of turning profit on this year's accounts.

In a quasi-legal proceeding, weight will be given to corrective actions and mitigating circumstances.

I'm strongly of the view that this has come about through politicking from other clubs and not the PL itself, insofar as you can separate one from the other. A complaint from a poster club is worth more than from Leeds or Burnley.

They have previously said we had no case to answer and the club has consolidated and improved its position since then.

That all adds up to a solid defence but we just have to wait.

Birmingham got one point back in mitigating circumstances in their case, is that the sort of weight you had in mind?

Besides which the right of anyone at any time to lodge a complaint is enshrined within the rules assuming it mirrors those of the EFL.

 

[Dymak]

Are you certain on this because Middlesbrough and Wycombe actually did that very thing vs Derby.

Has to be heard by an Independent Panel so...PL rules may differ but I'm not so certain. Peterborough are also watching and waiting v Reading...

Surely it would depend on the precise nature of the FFP judgement if it goes against Everton.

In 2019 Gibson threatened initially Derby then latterly a £50m claim v the EFL so some kinda joint liability seems possible. His claim v the EFL was linked to failure to enforce.

I'm not certain.

Burnley are free to do what they wish, I just don't think they will commence any legal proceedings on the grounds that they didn't like the rules, especially if they soon become PL members once again.

I also think any argument they could put forward would be weak. The same rules were applicable to Burnley and every other PL club.

 

[perth_blue]

This may have been asked not sure.
But we were obviously investigated by the PL, relating to the Burnley, Leeds request.
Was the outcome of that ever disclosed?
Could this referral be a final independent review of their findings? Prior to the PL potentially then clearing the report, that way they can turn to an independent panel clearing their findings also?

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I'm not certain.

Burnley are free to do what they wish, I just don't think they will commence any legal proceedings on the grounds that they didn't like the rules, especially if they soon become PL members once again.

I also think any argument they could put forward would be weak. The same rules were applicable to Burnley and every other PL club.

Well didn't stop Steve Gibson or Rob Couhig and potentially Darragh McAnthony at Championship level. The validity of the first two cases has never been correctly tested as Mel Morris settled with Middlesbrough and new owner settled with Couhig in 2022.

Erm...dunno. I could see a scenario of joint liability. PL and Everton if rules not enforced correctly.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

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

This is where I get a bit confused because I don't know the ins and outs of other cases like the Derby one.

If the PL give us, say, a 6 point deduction for 23/24, is it the case that we think Burnley could sue us as the offence relates to 21/22 and therefore the punishment should too? But wouldn't it be double jeopardy to say we have to compensate Burnley on the basis that the 6 point deduction effectively "relegates" us that season not them, while also applying the actual 6 point deduction to 23/24? That's then effectively two points deductions.

It's pretty accepted in any walk of life that punishment applies from the date the punishment is given not the date of the offence - for example, Ivan Toney was gambling over a period of time, has admitted offences but not yet been banned. When he is given the ban could any team Toney has played and scored against during the period between the offences (or admitting the offences) and him getting the ban then sue him or Brentford for their lost points? No, of course not, because, while it might be a bit unfair he kept playing as long as he did, that's just not how it works. Punishments won't, and can't, be retroactively applied.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

This is where I get a bit confused because I don't know the ins and outs of other cases like the Derby one.

If the PL give us, say, a 6 point deduction for 23/24, is it the case that we think Burnley could sue us as the offence relates to 21/22 and therefore the punishment should too? But wouldn't it be double jeopardy to say we have to compensate Burnley on the basis that the 6 point deduction effectively "relegates" us that season not them, while also applying the actual 6 point deduction to 23/24? That's then effectively two points deductions.

It's pretty accepted in any walk of life that punishment applies from the date the punishment is given not the date of the offence - for example, Ivan Toney was gambling over a period of time, has admitted offences but not yet been banned. When he is given the ban could any team Toney has played and scored against during the period between the offences (or admitting the offences) and him getting the ban then sue him or Brentford for their lost points? No, of course not, because, while it might be a bit unfair he kept playing as long as he did, that's just not how it works. Punishments won't, and can't, be retroactively applied.

Well that didn't stop clubs from suing Derby and potentially Reading. Peterborough finished 4 pts off safety last year and Reading were the team in 21st and if Reading in breach last year based on the Business Plan they should potentially have been docked their 2nd 6 points last year too.

Hence I expect Peterborough would argue that the continued overspending of Reading and the failure to punish it at the time cost them £5-10m. That's a quick analysis of the gap in TV money between the two divisions.

None of us truly know what a Panel would decide on this. However as a theoretical Football Creditor it couldn't just be ignored IMO.

 

[WestStandLower]

FA to investigate Chelsea over their losses

Why would the FA investigate ? It’s a PL matter

My gut feeling is that to 2022 they should be fine but face a race against time to the end of June 2023 to sell players or otherwise become compliant again. Remember the Covid years are merged and averaged which helps..everyone.

Others have already covered this hut no. Think it has to be heard in English and Welsh arbitration system.

The losses over the three years were £241.9 million.

The Swiss Rambler estimated that deductibles for the likes of academy and ladies teams is circa £25 million per season so over the 3 years that’s £75 million.

In 20/21 alone the accounts show COVID losses alone of £46million gate receipts and £16.1 commercial On site merchandising isnt quantified so as a minimum that’s £62 million.

So before you blink that’s £137 million from £241.9 million is near enough bang on the £105 million that’s allowed. That’s before you factor in things like the exceptional payment of £24.1 million in 20/21 ( which I believe will be allowed ) in respect of a settlement of a legal matter pre dating RAs tenure.

The DM story that stirred up the speculation .made some major mistakes in that we weren’t able to receive income, prize and gate receipts for the Middlesbrough away game, FA Cup semi against Palace and Final against Liverpool which will as a minimum total £3.5 million. Also there was one CL game against Real Madrid and 6 home games where ST and away supporters could attend but without food outlets, shops , hospitality etc being available. Yes ST had already been sold but circa 18000 matchday tickets are available normally so that probably after VAT would be around £10-£15 million

I don’t think there will be an issue at all in 21/22 but the 22/23 numbers will be anyone’s guess

 

[MercuryBlue88]

Ive not read everything about this, but is there a chance this whole referral is to actually shut down any talk of sanctions. Is it possible PL are ok with our accounts and measures, but are recieving pressure from outside influences. If we are cleared by a tribunal, that shuts up the government/other clubs about the prems self policing?

 

[YoboCopter]

Nothing ever happens to prem teams of great magnitude

Be a transfer ban and points deduction suspended for 3 years or something else ridiculous

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Well that didn't stop clubs from suing Derbt and potentially Reading. Peterborough finished 4 pts off safety kast year and if Reading in breach last year based on the Business Plan they should potentially have been docked their 2nd 6 points last year too.

Hence I expect Peterborough would argue that the continued overspending of Reading and the failure to punish it at the time cost them £5-10m.

None of us truly know what a Panel would decide on this. However as a theoretical Football Creditor it couldn't just be ignored IMO.

Just looking at the Derby case, the accusation from Boro and Wycombe was of "systematic cheating" over several years. If that's the case with us then it's hard to argue against whatever comes our way. With such close scrutiny from the PL of our business dealings over the last couple of years it would've had to be a hell of a cover up for them to not notice, and if they turned a blind eye to systematic cheating then they are in a fair bit of trouble themselves.

We need to wait and see what the accusation actually is. But IMO it will have to be a helluva charge to amount to the sort of systematic cheating that could see us sued by clubs over previous seasons outcomes. If it does amount to that then hell mend us.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Why would the FA investigate ? It’s a PL matter


The losses over the three years were £241.9 million.

The Swiss Rambler estimated that deductibles for the likes of academy and ladies teams is circa £25 million per season so over the 3 years that’s £75 million.

In 20/21 alone the accounts show COVID losses alone of £46million gate receipts and £16.1 commercial On site merchandising isnt quantified so as a minimum that’s £62 million.

So before you blink that’s £137 million from £241.9 million is near enough bang on the £105 million that’s allowed. That’s before you factor in things like the exceptional payment of £24.1 million in 20/21 ( which I believe will be allowed ) in respect of a settlement of a legal matter pre dating RAs tenure.

The DM story that stirred up the speculation .made some major mistakes in that we weren’t able to receive income, prize and gate receipts for the Middlesbrough away game, FA Cup semi against Palace and Final against Liverpool which will as a minimum total £3.5 million. Also there was one CL game against Real Madrid and 6 home games where ST and away supporters could attend but without food outlets, shops , hospitality etc being available. Yes ST had already been sold but circa 18000 matchday tickets are available normally so that probably after VAT would be around £10-£15 million

I don’t think there will be an issue at all in 21/22 but the 22/23 numbers will be anyone’s guess

The DM story and I'm surprised given that Matt Hughes has specialised in Chelsea news down the years, made one blunder which surprised me. The combined average of the Covid years is key there. Nor the individual year. He's usually quite good on Football finance stories.

Yes agreed likely to be more than a few million. I suppose the tail end of the also,19 pre tax losses of approaching £100m was it.

What is the £24.1m legal matter? While since I've looked at Chelsea accounts in some depth , either way the offset would be averaged as with everything for Covid. Think to 2023 could be the bigger issue.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Ive not read everything about this, but is there a chance this whole referral is to actually shut down any talk of sanctions. Is it possible PL are ok with our accounts and measures, but are recieving pressure from outside influences. If we are cleared by a tribunal, that shuts up the government/other clubs about the prems self policing?

Possible although the PL have the right to analyse both at the time, the year after and the year after. If it's a referral for adjudication you might be onto something but such Covid losses well they're so out of whack.

 

[mahermi1]

Nah. The squad has players like Garner and Patterson hardly used since arriving here. Thos two can slot into CM and wide right. We can call back Branthwaite and Cannon. And Simms could prove in the rest of the season that he's up to getting us a solid return of goals. Price and Mills could also make their pitch on the periphery of the first team.

Most importantly we'd have Dyche with a summer pre-season training to get us up to where he wants our fitness levels to be and work on ball retention to go with what he's achieved already.

A transfer embargo would hit us but not by much.

would the players still here want to stay though ? Just to survive, could really see three or four banging down the door to get out..