Financial Fair Play investigation

[Moderatelywarmwater]

That the PL previously approved our submissions and rebuffed complaints must stand in our favour.

That needs to be emphasised over and over at the commission, until they are sick of hearing it.

That, and a record of full cooperation and improvement in our position since the initial monitoring began.

Whilst taking nothing for granted, I'm more hopeful than I was of avoiding significant punishment.

We have ace cards to play here and retrospective action calls into question the entire process.

If this requires re-visiting, on what precise basis is this so? What implications does it have for other clubs? What signal would it send to clubs in future that may be engaged in a process of co-operation with the PL?

The trouble is here, that yes it seems the PL approved our submissions, but the claim is that our accounts show something fundamentally different and that’s why the charges have been brought.

Now, we have two choices, take the PL’s view or the club’s view (Ok, actually we need to take the independent commissions view in the end I suppose).

But do we trust those running the club? Do we trust the, not to screw it up, do we trust them not to be incompetent?

Whilst I don’t know if the charges are fair or correct, I also don’t have any faith in the club being on the right side of the rules either.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I don't understimate the potential troubles ahead.

We have plenty for a Kings Counsel to get their teeth into though.

Burnley and Leeds were both threatening legal action last year and an abrupt stop was put to it. If there was a need to re-examine the details the club had provided to the PL, the time to do it was then and not now.

We can legitimately ask why now and as a result of what process? And why after a period of consolidation of our position?

I think this will be settled by legal argument and not the minutiae of the accounts.

Clubs are legitimately permitted to raise complaints on the issue. See Derby, arguably this is similar to Middlesbrough v Derby if Burnley and or Leeds have lodged formal complaints. Clubs have the right to do so.

Depends on what exactly the sign off entailed, relevant case law at EFL level proves this. Arguments of Estoppel were raised as Procedural Defences by both Derby and Sheffield Wednesday...and were all thrown out.

Every single Procedural Defence was thrown out in fact.

 

[witchdoc187]

I'm in line with that Athletic piece from Saturday - bemused about how on earth Everton have been referred by the PL based on the 2021/22 season accounts.

That PL fat cat Masters' appearance at the Commons Select Committee a few days after the referral seems the likley reason IMO. A stunt to make sure he wasn't leaving himself open to an awkward question from that committee.

I just dont see this as representing any threat to the club this season or next season.

The only damage it could do is on the pitch this season by undermining our resolve. Hopefully Dyche and the players can extinguish that doubt tonight.

Stay up to stay up. That's about the strength of it.

not unusual to use us as a scapegoat. Off the top of my head I recall James McFadden being the only player to ever receive a red card when the FA brought in the thing about swearing, then there was the ban for the dive at Palace that nobody else ever received. Funny old game

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

not unusual to use us as a scapegoat. Off the top of my head I recall James McFadden being the only player to ever receive a red card when the FA brought in the thing about swearing, then there was the ban for the dive at Palace that nobody else ever received. Funny old game

One of our players received similar in the early days so Everton are not the only ones. Bailey Wright in 2017 but not many more other than that and your example.

 

[witchdoc187]

One of our players received similar in the early days so Everton are not the only ones. Bailey Wright in 2017 but not many more other than that and your example.

Which teams that?

 

[Efcjake]

I'm in line with that Athletic piece from Saturday - bemused about how on earth Everton have been referred by the PL based on the 2021/22 season accounts.

I mean it's all fairly simple. You can't lose more than x amount over a 3 year period.

We blew that figure out of the water.

We lost a considerable amount of money yet again in 21/22. Hence the referral.

 

[everton1953]

To paraphrase W Churchill, never in the field of human conflict has so much crap been written on this particular unknowable subject, by so many (or is it just a few?)

 

[davek]

I mean it's all fairly simple. You can't lose more than x amount over a 3 year period.

We blew that figure out of the water.

We lost a considerable amount of money yet again in 21/22. Hence the referral.

It's never that simple with numbers though, is it? Not when they allow reasonable deductions to be made.

All told, Imo there's an awful lot of Everton supporters who have been unnecessarily cowed by press reports to believe the club is an outlaw organisation and / or supporters who WANT the club to get into hot water because it suits their primary goal of ridding Everton of the board of directors...a 'solution' that's something akin to wanting to cure a headache by chopping your own head off.

 

[Walken]

Mitigation was worth 1 point for Birmingham, maybe a higher standard of cooperation would be worth a bit more.

interesting that you should refer to EFL case law. The rules are largely harmonised (at the PL's behest no less).

They in turn as a test case referred to a UEFA case in the Birmingham case of 2019, the argument that Birmingham had gained no sporting advantage so should not be punished with points was dealt with this way.

Hi mate, looking forward to the game tonight?

 

[davek]

Which teams that?

I think he's a Sunderland fan.

 

[Yarrgh]

I think he's a Sunderland fan.

No wonder he knows so much about badly run clubs.

 

[Efcjake]

It's never that simple with numbers though, is it? Not when they allow reasonable deductions to be made.

All told, Imo there's an awful lot of Everton supporters who have been unnecessarily cowed by press reports to believe the club is an outlaw organisation and / or supporters who WANT the club to get into hot water because it suits their primary goal of ridding Everton of the board of directors...a 'solution' that's something akin to wanting to cure a headache by chopping your own head off.

It is exactly that simple Dave.

We can't lose more than 105 million in a 3 year period.

We lost 44.7 million this year, 120 million the year before, and 139 million before that.

That's about 305 million in a 3 year period.

I look forward to your reasonable deductions justifying the extra 200 million we lost in this period. COVID doesn't cover that.

 

[everton1953]

It's really dead simple. Looking forward to going to the game tonight and leaving all your desperate calculations and predictions behind you? Probably not.

 

[davek]

It is exactly that simple Dave.
We can't lose more than 105 million in a 3 year period.
We lost 44.7 million this year, 120 million the year before, and 139 million before that.
That's about 305 million in a 3 year period.
I look forward to your reasonable deductions justifying the extra 200 million we lost in this period. COVID doesn't cover that.

I dont know the exact figures but the'll be the ones accepted until recently by the PL to suggest there's nothing to see which revolve around stadium costs, the pandemic, expenditure on academy, women’s teams, community schemes, and on the disastrous effect on cash coming into the club due to the withdrawal of our main sponsor because of the Ukraine War.

It seems strange to me that in the UK economists and politicians constantly refer to the knock on effects of the pandemic and the Ukraine War and never get pulled over it, but a football club using that same argument is "stretching" a point to "appear" to have made stuff up to avoid a breach.

You know, not everything the club does is wrong. Just because there's an army of people out there (Everton supporters and outsiders alike) stating something is fishy doesn't make it so.

 

[Efcjake]

I dont know the exact figures but the'll be the ones accepted until recently by the PL to suggest there's nothing to see which revolve around stadium costs, the pandemic, expenditure on academy, women’s teams, community schemes, and on the disastrous effect on cash coming into the club due to the withdrawal of our main sponsor because of the Ukraine War.

The figures are out there on the OS Dave for all to see. Every one of the past years shows a loss with the previous 2 being above the threshold.

This year's accounts show that the Ukrainian/Usmanov sponsorship loss had very little impact and was replaced with deals at nearly exact value.

If you think we spent the extra 200 million we are over the limits by solely on pandemic costs, the academy and women's teams, and community schemes then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Nobody knows the details of the agreement between us and the PL but we do know the profit and sustainability rules and per our own reporting we have broken them massively. It's not that it's fishy, the rules and the accounts are clear and show we broke the rules.