Financial Fair Play investigation

[TheFinnFan]

Doesn't matter what they throw at us we are too big to fail. We literally can't go down.

Thats the effing spirit

 

[Bkk Andy]

Hahahahah as if. This is literally like, we need control to punish Everton. I have said it for years, the premier league have wanted us out since the war in Ukraine. Everything from poor decisions, ffp stuff, etc, it’s all a big swizz to get us gone. They have tried relegating us for the last two years. Now it’s this.

Why on Earth would the EPL want "to get us gone"? We're utterly irrelevant. Just another club making up the numbers. We're not big enough or important enough to start an agenda against. If we get punished it's because our we've breached rules and let's be honest, the EPL didn't force us to waste so much money on absolute garbage.

 

[zebedee]

The PL have no clear guidelines on punishment as they're making it up as they go a long. The majority of major leagues and UEFA have fined clubs based on FFP.

The EFL however have clear and stringent guidelines and which involve points deduction and transfer bans. 12 points is the max for entering administration. 9 has been the max they've given for P&S.

So the journo is just making things up based off what's already been done.

The PL themselves don't have a clue what they're doing especially in our case they were complicit in allowing the club to continue transfers etc.

No one knows.

Just saw that on faceache but a load of BS.

reckon at worst like Chelsea we'll end up having a transfer ban. Which TBH we are skint anyway so no biggy.

If we are cleared which I'm very hopeful of, Leeds etc will try their luck again

 

[blulouie]

I just wonder why the club couldn't stay inside the FFP guidelines? I don't believe there is an agenda against Everton but even if there is, if we didn't break FFP rules, this wouldn't be an issue. Perhaps I'm being very naive but if the vast majority of other clubs have managed it, it appears to be quite simple.....or at least it should be.

If we hadn't lost our major sponsor through the sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine by Russia plus the huge losses in the Covid years we probably would have stayed within the guidelines.

Only Chelsea & ourselves suffered through these sanctions and they sold up to Todd Boehly fairly quickly.

 

[wainy]

I just wonder why the club couldn't stay inside the FFP guidelines? I don't believe there is an agenda against Everton but even if there is, if we didn't break FFP rules, this wouldn't be an issue. Perhaps I'm being very naive but if the vast majority of other clubs have managed it, it appears to be quite simple.....or at least it should be.

Covid and the war in Ukraine. Wouldn’t be an issue without either of these.

 

[blulouie]

We've been in dialogue with the PL for seasons
Every transfer or financial outgoing were reviewed and agreed by the PL
The club were also in review with the government white paper.

Then all of a sudden they feel we should be deducted 12 points?

BS personally. You can't "help" a business then suddenly punish them as you'd be asked why you didn't punish them in the first place.

Which is what Leeds, Burnley etc had an argument about.

The Prem haven't officially said anything about it yet.
Just 2 journos posting on their twitter accounts & being copied by everyone else.

 

[GoldenToffee]

Whatever punishment we get is on top of us being punished over the last two years where we've needed to work hand-in-hand with the Premier League and get their permission for any signings.

The transgressions of City are far, far, FAR more serious than us going over the FFP limits - they are literally being charged with falsifying sponsorship deals and making secret payments all of which catapulted them to becoming 7 times (is it?) Premier League winners and now European champions. If they'd have been published nearer to the time of the offences they'd still be a nothing club like they always were.

But let's see which club gets the biggest punishment, hmm.

 

[tommytowne]

I suspect the old magical 42 point mark (minus the 12) might be enough to do it for us this season, but not a given and certainly no less. And we’d need to up the pace to get there.

What we need is the equivalent of a team letting the other team walk a goal in after a monumental error by the referee.
There are quite a few sides in the "there by the grace of god go I" camp and take it easy and let us get maximum points and wipe out any deficit.
As if!

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

It’s all a bit weird. Clubs are clamouring for changes that mean punishments can be enforced the same season the breach occurs.

So a club with infinite wealth could see they are heading for 60 point total just after Xmas but not going to win anything, spend £5billion on players in Jan, take the 12 point Everton precedent points deduction in the same season and win a domestic treble the following season with their newly acquired galacticos. Punished for their crimes by the letter of the law but with a squad set to dominate for 10 years.

Couple all that with the idea that rules are all about “sustainability” and protection of clubs/fans, but pretty much any possible punishment has a direct impact on sustainability, club and fans.

Wouldn’t be surprised if we have accidentally forgotten to dot an I or cross a T leading to a breach, we are hopeless in every department so why would beancounting be any different, and if so we are open to punishment. But the system is so backward and self defeating it’s staggering.

 

[WestStandLower]

No quotes, no evidence. Why are the PL making the recommendations when that is the job of the Independent Commission is meant to be. Otherwise it takes away the whole “independent” aspect

Not sure that they do so in the sort of charge Everton are facing but in some disciplinary the PL offer up a penalty that would be imposed if the charge is admitted

 

[Bkk Andy]

If we hadn't lost our major sponsor through the sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine by Russia plus the huge losses in the Covid years we probably would have stayed within the guidelines.

Only Chelsea & ourselves suffered through these sanctions and they sold up to Todd Boehly fairly quickly.

We reported so much more in losses than the fake sponsorship we lost. The reality is that we're really badly run, overpaid for poor players with outrageously high wages that were then unsellable. For sure, covid impacted us, but we claimed it impacted us so much more than everybody else it's unbelievable.

 

[everton fan number one]

In my earlier response I make the comment that arbitration can be requested if the commissions conclusion is “ so perverse” which in effect what 4.5 says and Yep the wording is as you quote.

My understanding is that you can’t just say “I want to go to arbitration” you would have to state the grounds for going to arbitration in advance i am far from sure that the size of any penalties can be taken to arbitration it’s more about procedural matters and compliance with the laws of the land. An application under 4.5 would be unusual to say the least

Clubs as shareholders of the PL have effectively agreed to adhere to the process laid down within the PL rules so no the commission isn’t a legal court it’s a body that enforces the rules as agreed by the shareholders

City took the matter of the PLs ability to independently arbitrate matters to the High court and they, City, got their backside well and truly kicked.

Not much point arguing with you when I do, inter alia, sports litigation for a living.

There's a separate provision with the word "perverse" so rather think you were referring to that. Anyway..

 

[blueblood]

As ever with these things, the headline is more dramatic than the substance. The article itself says ‘Telegraph Sport understands the Premier League has recommended the punishment to be extremely severe, and up to a maximum of 12 points.’
The ‘up to’ is the key phrase in there. That means the absolute maximum punishment for the alleged offences is recommended at 12 points. I would hope the actual sanction, if we are found guilty, would be substantially less.

 

[Bluerover]

The timing is so suspect as well...

Premier League makes late attempt to reshape role of independent regulator

The Premier League has made a bid to alter the role of English football’s independent regulator, weeks before legislation is expected to be announced

www.theguardian.com

I am a Law graduate (LLB) from Trinity College Dublin- not a UK practitioner - but surely these proceedings are quasi-judicial or 'other' legal proceedings as there is the clear power to impose a punishment on EFC. They should therefore be subject to the sub judice rules under the UK Contempt of Court Act 1981, and the statement from an interested party such as the PL, if it is true, must surely amount to contempt as it is clearly prejudicial to the proceedings:

Strict liability​

1The strict liability rule.​

In this Act “the strict liability rule” means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so.

2Limitation of scope of strict liability.​

(1)The strict liability rule applies only in relation to publications, and for this purpose “publication” includes any speech, writing, [F1programme included in a cable programme service] or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.

(2)The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be
seriously impeded or prejudiced.

(3)The strict liability rule applies to a publication only if the proceedings in question are active within the meaning of this section at the time of the publication.

(4)Schedule 1 applies for determining the times at which proceedings are to be treated as active within the meaning of this section.

[F2(5)In this section “programme service” has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Act 1990.]


Schedule 1:12

Proceedings other than criminal proceedings and appellate proceedings are active from the time when arrangements for the hearing are made or, if no such arrangements are previously made, from the time the hearing begins, until the proceedings are disposed of or discontinued or withdrawn; and for the purposes of this paragraph any motion or application made in or for the purposes of any proceedings, and any pre-trial review in the county court, is to be treated as a distinct proceeding.

 

[Andy Gray Diving Headers]

You may have a point and fair play, you seem to be more clued up then I am. As I say, perhaps I'm being naive, especially as it's way too clever for me but if all we have to base our opinions on is what we read in the papers, none of us know exactly what's going on, do we? I just have a feeling we sailed way too close to the wind for a few years now and wonder why other clubs don't. At least our alleged overspending misdemeanors brought us many trophies to enjoy......