Financial Fair Play investigation

[Damo_1878]

She is CEO of a business that is failing on every single level.

Why would I dispute that statement?

She and Kenwright are absolutely delusional

 

[davek]

So, someone who is better informed and qualified than us holds an opinion?

that’s it?

But because it’s not a convenient you choose to come out with some total hooey about him.

There’s a valid response. “I don’t agree with him” and that valid response deserves some kind of explanation why you think that.
Your response is to baselessly smear a good man rather than just say you don’t agree with him.
why? Because its the Dave K show and facts and opinions don’t matter compared to the circus.

Yes.

 

[Walken]

Can't believe a good man has been smeared, this has really taken a turn.

 

[davek]

You haven’t really disproved any of his comments instead ,I said at the outset, you have merely engaged in a prolonged ad hominem attack which illustrates a lack of any coherent objection to any of his statements.
Instead you have been deliberately confrontational and attempted to create an entirely artificial divide between fellow supporters, straight out of playbook of our own board in fact.
Also once again nothing we say or discuss on here will have any influence on the inquiry, to believe otherwise is naive or just more devilry to foment an argument which serves no purpose other than your own imagined self importance.

I dont want to disprove his comments on Everton's financial mess. What would be the point of denying that? The board and owner are an utter disgrace to the club. I dont need to be reminded of that.

The issue under discussion here is another matter entirely: Everton's referral and what should and shouldn't be declared by someone if they wish to be regarded as an objective voice on the matter...more especially a professional working in the field.

Declaring that Everton will be found guilty and will be deducted points is not the sort of thing any football industry expert should be doing. And neither should he be using his podcast to position Everton as a club whose officials have harassed him. That makes him not objective but part of the story and any pronouncements he makes highly subjective.

Ad Hominem attack my arse.

 

[Damo_1878]

I dont want to disprove his comments on Everton's financial mess. What would be the point of denying that? The board and owner are an utter disgrace to the club. I dont need to be reminded of that.

The issue under discussion here is another matter entirely: Everton's referral and what should and shouldn't be declared by someone if they wish to be regarded as an objective voice on the matter...more especially a professional working in the field.

Declaring that Everton will be found guilty and will be deducted points is not the sort of thing any football industry expert should be doing. And neither should he be using his podcast to position Everton as a club whose officials have harassed him. That makes him not objective but part of the story and any pronouncements he makes highly subjective.

Ad Hominem attack my arse.

Well done for admitting that @davek very big of you to admit it

 

[Yarrgh]

Does anyone know what the like punishment will be? Will it be a fine or points deduction this or next season?

Thanks.

Punishment will be Bill Kenwright being bathed in lamb placentas and monkey brain serun in Swiss rejuvenation clinic and him being around for 30 more years.

 

[Blue peter]

Does anyone know what the like punishment will be? Will it be a fine or points deduction this or next season?

Thanks.

The Sky Door

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

What are the chances of a deduction this season?

Irrespective of the merits of the case- some will say it is merited ie overspend should be punished harshly, some will argue it's not too important, timeframe wise I don't see how there is time if found guilty for a deduction and appeal.

About 6 months too late for any finalised punishment to be applicable this year. I think anyway.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

No. Because "revenue" is past tense

You have to put "Future" in front of it to say £500 m

The club hasn't lost £500 m revenue in either the 2021/2022 accounts or the 2022/2023 accounts

I was under the impression that USM was not or barely affected last season g8gen but moving forward more likely.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

None. Everton have opportunity to appeal which would essentially start the process/investigation all over again

It would likely impact next season if at all

Yes and no, wouldn't that be more of a De novo hearing or re-hearing? Although an appeal would extend the process yes. Appeal heard by the Upper Body- in EFL case it was an IDC for case, LAP the Appeal.

IDC- Independent Disciplinary Commission (Original case).

LAP- League Arbitration Panel (Appeal).

 

[Damo_1878]

Yes and no, wouldn't that be more of a De novo hearing or re-hearing? Although an appeal would extend the process yes. Appeal heard by the Upper Body- in EFL case it was an IDC for case, LAP the Appeal.

IDC- Independent Disciplinary Commission (Original case).

LAP- League Arbitration Panel (Appeal).

They have to appoint appeal board then review the evidence in full

New evidence can be entered

It's a new hearing with the opportunity to enter new evidence at the discretion of the appeal board. Rules W.70 and W.71

 

[Damo_1878]

I was under the impression that USM was not or barely affected last season g8gen but moving forward more likely.

I'm not the one saying it has or the club lost "£500 m revenue"

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

They have to appoint appeal board then review the evidence in full

New evidence can be entered

It's a new hearing with the opportunity to enter new evidence at the discretion of the appeal board rule W.70 and W.71

Thanks, maybe it differs- my main knowledge is the EFL quasilegal process. I remember no new evidence at EFL level was mentioned, de novo a different matter.

 

[Damo_1878]

Thanks, maybe it differs- my main knowledge is the EFL quasilegal process. I remember no new evidence at EFL level was mentioned, de novo a different matter.

Basically the rules say the Appeal board has discretion on how it sees fit to direct the running of the Appeal.

It is essentially a new hearing with new Appeal board members seeing and hearing the evidence again

 

[Tom Hughes]

Hold on, you want me to put up and shut up and show you that he's inaccurate in what he's said about Everton's finances...when I agree with what he's said about Everton's finances?

Can you put your thinking cap on please.



If his job was just light entertainer on a football podcast with his mate Kevin Day then there'd be no problem with him saying what he thinks will happen with Everton's referral. Opinions are like arses and every one has one.

But - as you have alluded to on may occasions in order to appeal to his 'authority' - Maguire also works for Liverpool University as an academic and an accountant so it's legitimate to call into question his professionalism when he prejudges the outcome of an ongoing commission by assuming Everton's guilt, making predictions on a likely and appropriate level of punishment that will follow in the wake of said commission's conclusions, and literally broadcasting the content of private messages between himself and an officer/officers of Everton FC...and does so by framing them as harassment from the club.

You dont want to address that though, so I can only conclude that you believe Maguire is at liberty to say just about anything without being critiqued for it.

Overall, I'd identify you, along with a lot of others, as being unwilling and / or unable to hold a more nuanced approach to the matter that involves condemnation for the board and owner but support for Everton in their case brought by the PL. Someone like Maguire - who also cant distinguish that - will always get a free pass from you.

You're all over the place here. You're basically admitting he's right, but just don't like him saying it? That is literally a non-argument!

Yes, he works at Liverpool University teaching courses and conducting research relating to football business and finance. Writing various papers and book on the subject. That's why all the major newspapers and various other media have asked his opinion for years, not just his own blogs or "light entertainment" at all. He hasn't predicted the outcome of the commission .... and his only reference to "potential" punishments is precisely that, a reference straight out of the PL handbook, all in response to direct questions on the subject. All of which is comfortably within his professional remit. Commentators commentate.....!

He is also perfectly at liberty to report being contacted by the club and if necessary reveal the entire content of that conversation. It wasn't him contacting them or trying to illicitly coerce or share information. So, if that can be framed as harassment, that's entirely the club's fault, like the whole sorry mess we find ourselves in, nothing nuanced at all..... just one more misguided error of judgment to add to the never ending list.

If he's misrepresenting anything or behaving inappropriately (as you claim), then they can sue him, report it to his employer(s) or any representative professional body. They didn't (and won't, because non-arguments don't work in court and can prove very expensive), they contacted him directly at midnight, so he owns that conversation and can use it as he sees fit. End of story!

Let's face it, he's not the first commentator/reporter that has had his wings clipped by Kenwright and Co. The difference of course is that Maguire is not a snotty nosed reporter from the Echo, nor is he subservient to the club in any way.