Financial Fair Play investigation

[davek]

A nobody - traded professional and academic integrity for 10 minutes on TalkSport and a few extra Twitter followers.

Academia must be in a sorry state now if they're employing charaltans like Maguire.

I note that he's made a comment on Everton's failure to settle up with Ancelotti and that it's "an embarrassment" for Everton.

Maybe he should deal with his own embarrassment of claiming that the PL's FFP issue with the club was down to a player signing when it turns out to be about the stadium.

What a fraud this feller is.

 

[Groucho]

Academia must be in a sorry state now if they're employing charaltans like Maguire.

I shudder to think

 

[James Patrick]

People know the loss figures, they’ve been published, and the losses exceed what is allowed within P&S rules, don’t they?

I’m struggling to understand why people are ignoring this in favour of this idea that it’s about some unknown tax issue?

No because there are allowable cost exceptions so unless you know what they are/aren't then it's difficult to accurately comment imo.

 

[Shevin Keedy]

No because there are allowable cost exceptions so unless you know what they are/aren't then it's difficult to accurately comment imo.

Are we able to forego the accurate commentary in favour of wild and unfounded speculation, could we do that?

 

[PeregrineT]

People know the loss figures, they’ve been published, and the losses exceed what is allowed within P&S rules, don’t they?

I’m struggling to understand why people are ignoring this in favour of this idea that it’s about some unknown tax issue?

Total loss figures have nothing to do with FFP because the league allows a lot of exceptions, I dont know how many times people on this board have to say this. Chelsea lost hundreds of millions, which is well above 105 million. The premier league themselves said in the past we were in compliance. If you want to ignore what everyone else has explained on it fine, but dont keep bringing up things that are completely false.

Confusing other people because you dont understand something, while others do, isnt positive to any discussion.

 

[matty1878]

we need to leg this

we need to buy we need to buy we need to buy we need to buy

 

[BlueStevie35]

People know the loss figures, they’ve been published, and the losses exceed what is allowed within P&S rules, don’t they?

I’m struggling to understand why people are ignoring this in favour of this idea that it’s about some unknown tax issue?

Not an idea, it’s literally been reported that that’s what the charge is for

 

[Dymak]

Total loss figures have nothing to do with FFP because the league allows a lot of exceptions, I dont know how many times people on this board have to say this. Chelsea lost hundreds of millions, which is well above 105 million. The premier league themselves said in the past we were in compliance. If you want to ignore what everyone else has explained on it fine, but dont keep bringing up things that are completely false.

Confusing other people because you dont understand something, while others do, isnt positive to any discussion.

Alright, don’t wet yourself. I asked a question, that’s all.

And it’s a question worth asking because what you claim “everyone else has explained” is not what has been reported at all. On the contrary, it’s being widely reported that Everton have exceeded P&S losses resulting in a disciplinary charge from the Premier League. There’s been no mention of secret allowances that make the published loss figures irrelevant.

And I don’t ever remember the Premier League saying Everton were compliant. I remember them saying there was no case to answer LAST YEAR, and their position has clearly changed this year upon receipt of our accounts. The idea that we couldn’t possibly be in breach this year just because we weren’t in breach last year sounds ridiculous to me.

But if there are some secret allowances that keep our losses within the P&S rules then sound, nice one, we don’t have anything to worry about despite the widespread media reports suggesting otherwise.

 

[Dymak]

Not an idea, it’s literally been reported that that’s what the charge is for

Reported where? It must be a new report that contradicts all the previous reporting.

 

[BlueStevie35]

Reported where? It must be a new report that contradicts all the previous reporting.

Joyce

 

[Chewbacca]

The pinch of salt I always employ is that 75% of sports “journalists” are RS fans

 

[Shevin Keedy]

we need to leg this

we need to buy we need to buy we need to buy we need to buy

I think if our representatives state our case as eloquently as that then we'll really have nothing to worry about.

 

[Dymak]

Joyce

I hope he’s correct, but we are talking about one article from one journalist, who states “It is understood”. It’s one article that contradicts an abundance of other articles on the subject.

I’m not saying that I believe the Daily Mirror and The Mail over Joyce. But why does he have to say “it is understood” if it’s a fact that’s not even up for discussion?

 

[matty1878]

I think if our representatives state our case as eloquently as that then we'll really have nothing to worry about.

i hope so mate!

 

[Blue peter]

I hope he’s correct, but we are talking about one article from one journalist, who states “It is understood”. It’s one article that contradicts an abundance of other articles on the subject.

I’m not saying that I believe the Daily Mirror and The Mail over Joyce. But why does he have to say “it is understood” if it’s a fact that’s not even up for discussion?

It could still be wrong but I would suggest it should carry a little more weight because he does have contacts within the club and is the first journalist to actually specify what the charges may be about, every other journalist has been vague. The only contradictory information come from MacGuire who said he believed it to be in respect of one transaction. If course that one transaction could actually also be the tax issue.