Financial Fair Play investigation

[malfosse]

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

You can follow the rules and still it be a witch hunt mate. I'm not saying it is.

Oumar Niasse: Everton's David Unsworth says ban sets precedent

Everton caretaker boss David Unsworth says a "dangerous precedent" could be set after Oumar Niasse was found guilty of diving.

www.bbc.co.uk

It turned out that the FA weren't busy at all, as just one other player incurred a ban for diving.

 

[brieverton]

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.

Two seasons worth of co-operation should also count for something. One can hope.

 

[Ferguson1878]

The rules in place are anti competitive and farcical but Everton have also been ran abysmally for the best part of a decade.

Both are true.

and the rest

 

[davek]

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..

Maybe Onana is one who can have his head turned to get a better deal elsewhere. I cant see anyone else being that impatient to leave.

If it's a one window ban then that would also be a factor in decision making.

 

[WestStandLower]

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.

It’s actually a very poor story . For instance he said that the bulk of TV money had been paid prior to March 10 yes a huge chunk would have been but there would still have been as a minimum the place money to be paid.

I only looked at one years of losses for COVID to try highlight the flaw in the DMs calculations that was the 20/21 season

You are 100% right of course the 19/20& 20/21 seasons would be averaged which changes the dynamic of the story

Over the two years 19/20. & 20/21 the loss was in total £90 million (£45 million pa). As I said earlier there are all the deductions that you can off set such as academy My guess would be for this period the numbers could well be positive.

The £24.1 million I think goes back to this

Chelsea apologise for 'terrible crimes' committed by former coach

Clive Sheldon QC's review found the club did not protect a young player following an allegation made against former chief scout Eddie Heath in 1975

www.football.london

As I said earlier 22/23 is anyone’s guess.

 

[MikeH72]

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..

Who would attract attention from bigger clubs?Genuinely?

 

[gwladysnight]

Maybe Onana is one who can have his head turned to get a better deal elsewhere. I cant see anyone else being that impatient to leave.

If it's a one window ban then that would also be a factor in decision making.

It is the knock-on effect though.

Until this situation is resolved then it will affect our ability to finance the BMD. That could lead to the BMD being delayed which would mean we have to finance it but don't receive an uplift in match-day revenue.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

It’s actually a very poor story . For instance he said that the bulk of TV money had been paid prior to March 10 yes a huge chunk would have been but there would still have been as a minimum the place money to be paid.

I only looked at one years of losses for COVID to try highlight the flaw in the DMs calculations that was the 20/21 season

You are 100% right of course the 19/20& 20/21 seasons would be averaged which changes the dynamic of the story

Over the two years 19/20. & 20/21 the loss was in total £90 million (£45 million pa). As I said earlier there are all the deductions that you can off set such as academy My guess would be for this period the numbers could well be positive.

The £24.1 million I think goes back to this

Chelsea apologise for 'terrible crimes' committed by former coach

Clive Sheldon QC's review found the club did not protect a young player following an allegation made against former chief scout Eddie Heath in 1975

www.football.london

As I said earlier 22/23 is anyone’s guess.

£120m across the 2 years aggregated, yes it could be a positive. FFP allowances £25m per season so down to £35m, Covid losses...gross or net figure? ie Straight up Covid losses or Covid losses net or cost savings. SwissRamble last year looked at the latter.

Perhaps lop the £24.1m off too...that again halved the combined average.

 

[DanEFC92]

Fully don't understand anyone thinking we would be fine with a transfer ban.

 

[davek]

It is the knock-on effect though.

Until this situation is resolved then it will affect our ability to finance the BMD. That could lead to the BMD being delayed which would mean we have to finance it but don't receive an uplift in match-day revenue.

All of which should surely be of interest to a PL looking to 'sustain' football and a commission that might care to punish this club.

 

[Moomin]

You can follow the rules and still it be a witch hunt mate. I'm not saying it is.

Oumar Niasse: Everton's David Unsworth says ban sets precedent

Everton caretaker boss David Unsworth says a "dangerous precedent" could be set after Oumar Niasse was found guilty of diving.

www.bbc.co.uk

It turned out that the FA weren't busy at all, as just one other player incurred a ban for diving.

Lanzini got banned for diving that season as well by the FA.

 

[davek]

Fully don't understand anyone thinking we would be fine with a transfer ban.

Who;s saying it would be fine? I'm saying we could manage that situation better than a points deduction of around 9/10 points.

Less than 10 points and about 5 then I'd take that deduction and not the embargo.

 

[malfosse]

Lanzini got banned for diving that season as well by the FA.

So only two players have ever dived?
Just for clarity I don't think we're being unfairly singled out.
I also don't think anything will happen to us, hope so anyway.

 

[Moomin]

So only two players have ever dived?

It was a poor rule which got scrapped.

What does the FA have to do with the Premier League referring us to an independent comission?

 

[toffee-L]

Fabio Patrici banned from footy, can other teams now claim Spurs had an unfair advantage and cost them money
euro qualification etc? You can extrapolate these sort of claims any which way you want, there is no way to accurately quantify damages.

Why’s that? He received that ban from his time at Juventus and that club has been recently punished in the form of a points deduction.

That being said, it would be fantastic if our Directors were given a similar punishment.