Financial Fair Play investigation

[catcherintherye]

Premier League isn't subject to the FOI act.

Premier League works on behalf of the 20 members.

If we cannot govern ourselves as a football club we are not a proper functioning football club

Why we must have an EFC Annual General Meeting or Extraordinary General Meeting - urgently

I see, would the PL not be willing to grant journalists, asking perfectly reasonable questions the relevant answers if it has nothing to hide? Why would it refuse to do this?
I know the PL works on behalf of it's members, it also regulates the game. It is their job to scrutinise clubs, and give appropriate advice if there is wrongdoing. Have they done so?
There is no mechanism to force an EGM for me and you, beyond asking for one. But like the PL, the board and shareholder do not have to listen.

 

[Damo_1878]

Spell it out FFS!

What do you think is the correct punishment for Everton?

A fine?
Embargoed on transfers?
Points deduction?
Relegation?

I've told you. I expect it is going to end up being a large fine and very expensive. That's after arguments made for reductions in penalty

On the basis we sold Gordon and are projecting a profit in the next accounting year

This will impact Everton being able to sign players and our fans will inevitably be asked to cough up more money

Whilst Bill Kenwright and Denise Barrett Baxendale continue to remain unaccountable

 

[Neiler]

@davek and @Neiler with some ridiculous level of wishful thinking on the previous few pages

Any thought PremierLeague P&S is going to disappear is fanciful nonsense from you two

It isn't. Its going to the independent commission

Everton don't really have a leg to stand on.

The only thing they can argue is in T+1 profits are being booked from the Gordon sale

To hope that reduces the penalty coming to Everton Football Club

It’s sounds like you want us to be punished so it heaps pressure on the board mate.

We need issue specific objectivity.

 

[Damo_1878]

I see, would the PL not be willing to grant journalists, asking perfectly reasonable questions the relevant answers if it has nothing to hide? Why would it refuse to do this?
I know the PL works on behalf of it's members, it also regulates the game. It is their job to scrutinise clubs, and give appropriate advice if there is wrongdoing. Have they done so?
There is no mechanism to force an EGM for me and you, beyond asking for one. But like the PL, the board and shareholder do not have to listen.

To have an EGM requires 5% of share holders votes to agree to hold one.

Kenwright and Baxendale are misadvising Moshiri. Have done consistently including removing the AGM requirement

Under the Companies Act, company members can only put a motion to remove directors forward within a meeting of the shareholders

EFCSA and other shareholders continue to push for a meeting.

Without delay

 

[catcherintherye]

If they did or they didnt, they certainly have the option to review at a later date, which it appears they have done.

I suspect Leeds and Burnley didnt let it rest, personally.

Of course they have that right. But there is a legitmate questions to say, why has it changed in the last 12 months? What has demonstrably changed in the last 12 months? What guidance has been given to suggest this would happen?

Saying 2 members, who hold a conflict of interest moaned and influenced the decision is not any kind of answer.

I am happy to hear an answer, and of course people can change their view on what is a legitimate write down, but I wouild be intrigued at why something in March 21 was seen as legitimate and in March 22 wasn't. Has there been any change in accountancy law in that time period that we need to be aware of?

I am not sure how any member can be realistically expected to comply with rules, if the regulator in charge of upholding them changes the rules one month to the next, with seemingly no explanation as to why. All anyone can ask is that you are judged to a consistent standard.

 

[Damo_1878]

It’s sounds like you want us to be punished so it heaps pressure on the board mate.

We need issue specific objectivity.

Do you seriously think I want Everton to be in this position?

Like saying I want Everton to lose. I never want us to lose.

However, people need to seriously wake up and stop living in delusions

We are in this position due to severe errors in judgment from highly paid executives

There needs to be consequences for that. Big ones.

 

[catcherintherye]

It’s sounds like you want us to be punished so it heaps pressure on the board mate.

We need issue specific objectivity.

Indeed, wanting to get back at the board is not a good legal basis to detirmine sentence. It's vengeance and should have no part in this.

Ironically, I did point out as regulator of the game, they could just have a punishment which is on the board for them to be removed, but for whatever reason he didn't seem to want that either. Which makes far more sense, as they are the culprits in this.
LIke when Bernie Madoff was done (and that is millions of times worse than this) they arrest Madoff and the management team, they do not arrest customers.

 

[catcherintherye]

Do you seriously think I want Everton to be in this position?

Like saying I want Everton to lose. I never want us to lose.

However, people need to seriously wake up and stop living in delusions

We are in this position due to severe errors in judgment from highly paid executives

There needs to be consequences for that. Big ones.

Well you seem to be under the delusion the club broke P&S rules which it didn't.

And you have been offered the solution that the PL punish those execs, by barring them from being involved in football, due to their severe errors in judgement. Yet you didn't seem to want that in favour of some EGM, which we will not get and which may lead to some criticism. The rationale makes little sense.

The PL aided the senior execs who have caused this mess, yet you seem to want everybody but them to carry the can.

 

[Damo_1878]

Indeed, wanting to get back at the board is not a good legal basis to detirmine sentence. It's vengeance and should have no part in this.

Ironically, I did point out as regulator of the game, they could just have a punishment which is on the board for them to be removed, but for whatever reason he didn't seem to want that either. Which makes far more sense, as they are the culprits in this.
LIke when Bernie Madoff was done (and that is millions of times worse than this) they arrest Madoff and the management team, they do not arrest customers.

The old don't hold the board accountable and blame someone else trope

 

[Damo_1878]

Well you seem to be under the delusion the club broke P&S rules which it didn't.

And you have been offered the solution that the PL punish those execs, by barring them from being involved in football, due to their severe errors in judgement. Yet you didn't seem to want that in favour of some EGM, which we will not get and which may lead to some criticism. The rationale makes little sense.

The PL aided the senior execs who have caused this mess, yet you seem to want everybody but them to carry the can.

It did break them. It was given an exception. Specific to last year. Then broke it again

 

[Neiler]

You’re saying the PL knew the contents of the accounts that they have only recently received? The accounts that will be published publicly next week, and show just how much we have breached the rules by?

I don’t think that the case, but I'm happy to be corrected?

I think last year’s PL response applied to the state of affairs that applied this time last year only. I don't think there was any guarantee that the same stance would apply in the future.

How long did you think that last years stance was due to last for?

Every club has to submit a projection of their accounts in the March before the end of the financial year mate - so the PL had out projection in March 22. They have the projection for 23 right now.

 

[Hungry Hungry Hibbo]

This ain't like City, who pumped money into their revenue streams using companies who their owner also owns.

We've simply spent way too much, compared to our income. We're screwed.

 

[Goat]

Of course they have that right. But there is a legitmate questions to say, why has it changed in the last 12 months? What has demonstrably changed in the last 12 months? What guidance has been given to suggest this would happen?

Saying 2 members, who hold a conflict of interest moaned and influenced the decision is not any kind of answer.

I am happy to hear an answer, and of course people can change their view on what is a legitimate write down, but I wouild be intrigued at why something in March 21 was seen as legitimate and in March 22 wasn't. Has there been any change in accountancy law in that time period that we need to be aware of?

I am not sure how any member can be realistically expected to comply with rules, if the regulator in charge of upholding them changes the rules one month to the next, with seemingly no explanation as to why. All anyone can ask is that you are judged to a consistent standard.

I just think its silly people keep saying "They signed off" no backsys.

Im pretty sure club accounts are fairly complex things, so when they are handed in, somebody looks and says sound, but then maybe they get reviewed over time?

Im baffled how people can argue we didnt break any rules, we made an utter mockery of them, for 4 whole years, im just shocked it took them so long.

 

[catcherintherye]

To have an EGM requires 5% of share holders votes to agree to hold one.

Kenwright and Baxendale are misadvising Moshiri. Have done consistently including removing the AGM requirement

Under the Companies Act, company members can only put a motion to remove directors forward within a meeting of the shareholders

EFCSA and other shareholders continue to push for a meeting.

Without delay

View attachment 207396

The people who own over 95% of shares do not want an EGM. That is my point. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

My point is, if found guilty, the PL should just remove the executive team and bar them from football governance moving forward. That is perfectly within their control. I'm not sure why it is even controversial. The fact they haven't suggests to me their may be some potential collusion with senior PL figures in this.

And again, even if we had an EGM, it would be pointless, and the majority vorting shares are held by people who will not do anything. It would achieve nothing. The board would remain.

 

[Damo_1878]

The people who own over 95% of shares do not want an EGM. That is my point. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

My point is, if found guilty, the PL should just remove the executive team and bar them from football governance moving forward. That is perfectly within their control. I'm not sure why it is even controversial. The fact they haven't suggests to me their may be some potential collusion with senior PL figures in this.

And again, even if we had an EGM, it would be pointless, and the majority vorting shares are held by people who will not do anything. It would achieve nothing. The board would remain.

It would allow things to come to light

Things that would enable Moshiri to act