Financial Fair Play investigation

[Neiler]

So now we know where we stand with regards to the cahrge, i make our loss position this:

Year 1: £111.8 mill loss

Year 2: £42.25 loss - two years averaged - Covid losses.

Year 3: £36.4m - less covid losses.

Total: 190.45

Ill deduct £45 mill over the three years to conservably reflect allowed deductions for women's footballs, community and academy.

Total: £145.45

I make it we are over £40 mill in breach.

 

[catcherintherye]

City argued ( unsuccessfully) in the HC that the PLs arbitration panel wasn’t competent of carrying out arbitration and that irrespective it would show bias. Quite simply they, City, had their backsides kicked.

Of course Everton could try the same route and make the same arguments but it’s highly unlikely that the Courts would rule in Everton’s favour that is if it even got to a hearing. If Everton went down this route it’s probable that other charges will follow as such tactics would almost certainly be viewed as not acting in good faith.

You really need to park the City charges because theirs is a far more complex matter in that many of the charges are far more complex and are hugely subjective. Everton’s charge will be based purely on the numbers presented. Ok there will no doubt be debate around COVID losses but the numbers presented by other clubs will have or will aid the tribunal or come to a view or maybe their is agreement between the PL and Everton over such matters.

Everton are one of the 21 shareholders (20 clubs + the FA) all have signed up to the regulatory process just as all members of the FA have, the EFL clubs have, The NL have, The Rugby Union have , The Rugby league Cricket etc etc have signed up to their governing body processes . No club participating, no individual player is forced into membership and had Everton, City or indeed any club had concerns around the whole process then the time to advocate change isn’t when you are charged.

Well a few things.

1) I'm not commenting on likelihood of success. I'm merely noting that the option exists, which other people were wrongly stating didnt didnt exist. So thank you for adding some context to something that was not necessary.

2) I dont need to do anything. Politely, you are in no position to tell me to do anything. I wont be taking any legal action as I'm a supporter of a team, discussing hypothetical. If you're such an expert (which frankly, I highly doubt) maybe you can offer your words of wisdom to teams involved? So please, dont tell me what I do or dont need to park, as you're in no position to do so.

3) I'm not sure why there would be a debate around Covid numbers that have already been agreed. That would greatly weaken the PL position.

4) Everton, or any club are entitled to raise concerns about the process at any point. There is no right or wrong time to point out flaws.

5) Everton may be a minority shareholder, but that doesnt fundamentally alter the conflict of interest that exists within football.

6) Politely, Chelsea have lost nearly as much as Everton did over 4 year aggregated, in 1 year, and have subsequently spent around 600m net on transfers. On what position is it in any way logical, reasonable or fair for that club to claim they have been cheated, by a team who in the same period has not spent a single penny on transfers?

All the best.

 

[Neiler]

So heading into the next financial year, we loose a massive £111.8 mill loss from our cycle:

Year 1: £42.25 loss - two years averaged - Covid losses.

Year 2: £36.4m - less covid losses.

Year 3: We can make a loss of £26.35 mill and comply.

 

[catcherintherye]

So now we know where we stand with regards to the cahrge, i make our loss position this:

Year 1: £111.8 mill loss

Year 2: £42.25 loss - two years averaged - Covid losses.

Year 3: £36.4m - less covid losses.

Total: 190.45

Ill deduct £45 mill over the three years to conservably reflect allowed deductions for women's footballs, community and academy.

Total: 145.45

I make it we are over £40 mill in breach.

In layman's terms the outgoing year was around 25m less than the incoming year, I suspect that's the figure.

 

[Neiler]

In layman's terms the outgoing year was around 25m less than the incoming year, I suspect that's the figure.

The 13 mill magic no.

 

[Billy Dean]

Would disagree that is was good business mate, i dont think there was discernable plan i think its just circumstance, we need to sell anything that nots nailed down really, Kean and Gordon were just two we could. This summer it could be Onana and or Pickford.

Garner wont have come into the cited years account - Patterson would mind.

Patterson and Mykolenko fees amounted to the same as what we recouped for Diane iirc

 

[catcherintherye]

UEFA have banned some clubs from European competition albeit Eastrtm ones but not only Eastern ones for FFP breaches. AC Milan were a famous example.

Although there is an argument that under English examples save for the loss limits, the rules that most mirror the PL and vice versa are the Championship ones. They were pretty much aligned since 2016-17.

Well the EFL is a far different comp to the Pl in terms of size and structure, and it does not have the same length of time doing it.

UEFA is the obvious competitor. They did ban AC Molan for a year. There is no like for like comparison to that for the PL. That is also their most stringent punishment, for a more serious offence.

The majority of offences they have, are fines, under £1m. For an offer offence as small as ours, that is the precedent that ought to exist.

 

[catcherintherye]

Patterson and Mykolenko fees amounted to the same as what we recouped for Diane iirc

We dont pay those all up front.

 

[catcherintherye]

Sorry I think you are mixing up tribunals and Courts of Law. Even then many courts don’t hand out punishment they hand out rulings.

The PL process is now in full swing Everton will possibly want to take advantage of every opportunity the process affords but once the tribunal sits the opportunity to take the matters to a Court of Law are limited and their arguments would have to be on a point of law

Professional bodies such as the BMA such as the Law Society have their own regulatory bodies where the members of tribunals are appointed by the organisation.

I'm not mixing them up, in fact I have spent numerous posts pointing out their differences.

You are basically not bothering to read what I'm saying, and reiterating what I'm putting previously in some bizarre attempt at a "gotcha".

if you want to add value to the discussion, it would make sense to read the nature of the discussion, rather than inventing what you want to see.

As a final aside do bodies such as the BMA have some independence oversight at regulatory level?

 

[Neiler]

Patterson and Mykolenko fees amounted to the same as what we recouped for Diane iirc

From a net point of view - we would mate but that's not a great indicator and player trading isnt a big problem for us. We would have booked a profit on Digne, but not as much as his transfer fee as he had a book price (same for Richarlison), so his fee less his book price. That money would have went straight of our loss.

Myko and Patterson we would have spread the cost over their contracts, Myko we prob took on about 4 mill a year, Patterson about 2.5mill - + wages.

Transfer fees, or player trading isn't our problem really, its the costs associated wages in the main really.

Essentially we have to sell our good players, to pay the wages of our bad ones.

 

[Yarrgh]

You've been told by myself and a lawyer in this very thread about this and you just ignore what people tell you.

You have zero comprehension of corporate litigation. Zero.

You can only sue if you have "cause"

Where in the rulebook which is a legal Contract between the league and clubs has cause been generated?

When you figure that out. Come back to me

You sir are a buffoon.

 

[catcherintherye]

You sir are a buffoon.

I tried with him last night, but no level of sense seemed to go in. You read it back, and it doesn't get any better from him.

 

[catcherintherye]

From a net point of view - we would mate but that's not a great indicator and player trading isnt a big problem for us. We would have booked a profit on Digne, but not as much as his transfer fee as he had a book price (same for Richarlison), so his fee less his book price. That money would have went straight of our loss.

Myko and Patterson we would have spread the cost over their contracts, Myko we prob took on about 4 mill a year, Patterson about 2.5mill - + wages.

Transfer fees, or player trading isn't our problem really, its the costs associated wages in the main really.

Essentially we have to sell our good players, to pay the wages of our bad ones.

Essentially football has a big problem that salaries have always been too high. We are at the worst end of that.
It requires sales to justify those figures, and requires endless growth in fees to fuel it. At some point it comes crashing down.

 

[mahermi1]

So heading into the next financial year, we loose a massive £111.8 mill loss from our cycle:

Year 1: £42.25 loss - two years averaged - Covid losses.

Year 2: £36.4m - less covid losses.

Year 3: We can make a loss of £26.35 mill and comply.

Are the Kean and Gordon transfer monies included in that ?

 

[Neiler]

Essentially football has a big problem that salaries have always been too high. We are at the worst end of that.
It requires sales to justify those figures, and requires endless growth in fees to fuel it. At some point it comes crashing down.

I feel the game and the financial models around are in a great degree of flux and conflict mate and i think rules and regulators are just bewildered and confused in terms of what to do and trying and prob failing to find the right balance. The game has changed radically in 10 years in terms of models.

Traditionally, the only way to run a football club in the main was create revenue and invest it, the more you create the better you are, the gap was small amongst clubs and still required skill as opposed to gazumpoing. Utd, Juve, Real, Barca, Bayern all had the leg up here. Utd, Arsenal, Everton, Spurs and Mordor had it domestically.

The advent of Abramovich, to City and now Newcastle - that will be followed by Mordor and Utd - sees a different kind of wealth we are talking sovereign wealth funds, with more finance then the GDP of counties at their disposal, money become irrelevant.

The intention of Fifa, Uefa, PL EFL etc - is to make the game both sustainable and competitive - hence FFP/PS. But what is actually playing out in Europe and to an extent domestically is civil war and the powers at be dont know what to do.

Utd, Juve, Real, Barca, Bayern without sovereign wealth - want either a Super League, or strict cost controls as they cant keep up. City, PSG, Newcastle and soon a few others will want the brake taken off as its restrictive to them building and raising their profile. Fifa, Uefa, PL, EFL etc have to balance those two opposing forces very carefully - the issues are: a break way, clubs going insolvent trying to keep up or sovereign wealth funds absolutely mullering football through getting money into their clubs - that the powers that be dont have the infrastructure to assess or stop, all the while getting pressure at both points. Its an arms race and you are either on the side of chasing insolvency to keep up or pushing the boundary on what you can spend to push the ceiling higher and leave your rival behind. Something will give.

In our case, i see us as having a wealthy owner - who is remarkable for his investment - i dont think the investment comes from him -its over £850 mill - but that a different point - we have access. We spent that access stupidly and managed and continued to manage stupidity, like a rich mans plaything which is prob what we are. We are utterly dependent on that investment though, with no guarantees of the ladder not being pulled up at some point. That dependency leaves us at huge risk, as ive been saying for a while and its highlighted in the accounts yesterday - if we go down - we are in massive trouble - we arent coming back up for a while in my opinion - the EFL would nail us.

Our issue is the P/S rules, growth helps that and thats the point really, if it wasnt for the rules i think wed be deeper into this and wouldn't be bothered to much by loss - if my ownership theroy is correct. I think its going to be rules that scupper us as opposed to access to finance, just based on the scale of investment that been put in so far and again this year - seems like a never ending pot - its quite staggering. So are we part of City's, PSG and Newcastles - relying on owners or Utd's, Real and Barca and Bayerns relying on revenue - prob the former unless Moshiri pulls up the ladder.