Financial Fair Play investigation

[Damo_1878]

Passed, accepted, signed off, the wording doesnt matter.

What does matter is that the regulator is well within its right to analyse the accounts submitted at any point it pleases.

Your whole "argument" seems to boil down to the fact that you are claiming they have no recourse to take.

100%

 

[Damo_1878]

Its as easy as this to me.

The threshold for FFP/P&L is 105m over 3 years.

We submitted accounts that showed a loss of 360million over that period, we didnt just break the rules, we spat in the rules face and then kicked them in the balls. I hope they throw the book at us.

I cannot disagree

The scale of the incompetence of Bill Kenwright and Denise Barrett Baxendale is off the charts

As is their deluded arrogance

 

[Bebeto]

Yeah and meanwhile Chelsea spend the same amount in 7 months than we get lambasted for spending in 7 years.

Financial Fair Play?

Don't make me laugh.

Financial fair play was introduced supposedly to protect club when in fact the only thing it does is protecting the top 6 clubs in the country so that they could never be challenged. It is totally against competition...one day that rule will go.

 

[Goat]

Financial fair play was introduced supposedly to protect club when in fact the only thing it does is protecting the top 6 clubs in the country so that they could never be challenged. It is totally against competition...one day that rule will go.

Its already being phased out.

UEFA's new financial sustainability regulations to replace FFP: All you need to know

What are UEFAS new financial sustainability rules? What are the punishments for breaking the rules? When do the new rules start? Is everyone in favour of the new rules? Heres everything you need to know....

www.skysports.com

What are the new regulations?​

Given their name, it is no surprise that the key objective of the new regulations is to achieve financial sustainability. These will be achieved through three key pillars: solvency, stability, and cost control.

For solvency, the new no overdue payables (towards football clubs, employees, social/tax authorities, and UEFA) rule will ensure better protection of creditors. Controls will be performed every quarter and there will be less tolerance towards late payers.

The new football earnings requirements are an evolution of the existing break-even requirements and will bring greater ability to club finances. To ease the implementation for clubs, the calculation of football earnings is similar to the calculation of the break-even result. While the acceptable deviation has increased from €30m over three years to €60m over three years, requirements to ensure the fair value of transactions, to improve the clubs’ balance sheet, and to reduce debts have been significantly strengthened.

The biggest innovation in the new regulations will be the introduction of a squad cost rule to bring better cost control in relation to player wages and transfer costs. The regulation limits spending on wages, transfers, and agent fees to 70 per cent of club revenue. Assessments will be performed on a timely basis and breaches will result in pre-defined financial penalties and sporting measures. The new regulations will come into force in June 2022. There will be gradual implementation over three years to allow clubs the necessary time to adapt.






We wont pass them either.

 

[catcherintherye]

What about that story that claimed our accountants wouldnt sign off on the accounts cos they were a work of fiction?

Look, if you submit a tax return to HMRC, they will accept the tax return, but at some point somebody will look close at the submission and come for you.

Man City were charged for account breaches they made in 2014.

Premier League clubs can not use the no backsys rule.

I understand that to be this years accounts, not the previous years?

I mean my first point would be it's not relevant to that specific discussion.

More broadly though, it is alarming. But my question would be, why has the regulator either been accepting them (or if we take your interpretation) not challenging them? Why have they been telling stakeholders Everton have not breached any rules? Why were previous accounts not referred, when they were asked to do so? If we can both see they are problematic, an Accounting firm can, what has the regulator who upholds these rules been doing?

I understand people may not want to hear it, but as a football fan, I dont think its illegitimate to ask these questions.

Re the City case, I understand City have been obstructive, and were highlighted earlier but its dragged on. I do see that as different to not challenging people at the time.

Linked to this though, CAS (an independent court) through out UEFAs case, partially on the time it took. Which sort of underlines the point that more broadly, it is reasonable to expect a regulator to action problems swiftly, and you cant just sit on them indefinitely.

 

[JLW]

If the club was run correctly this wouldn't even be a debate, unfortunately the disaster that is Bill and Co is plummeting this club into extinction.
And yet they are still loitering around picking up a ludicrous salary each year.

Chasing a dream without the competent personnel at board level might actually destroy us for decades, even worse than the past 3 decades.

 

[catcherintherye]

I can only assume how long it takes to forensically scrutinise a Premier League clubs accounts.

I cant imagine its something somebody does in their lunch hour.

Well the 2021/22 accounts were submitted March 1st, and have been referred by mid March. That would seem a reasonable indicator of how long it would take. Even if you were conservative and doubled that time, it would not take years.

 

[Goat]

I understand that to be this years accounts, not the previous years?

I mean my first point would be it's not relevant to that specific discussion.

More broadly though, it is alarming. But my question would be, why has the regulator either been accepting them (or if we take your interpretation) not challenging them? Why have they been telling stakeholders Everton have not breached any rules? Why were previous accounts not referred, when they were asked to do so? If we can both see they are problematic, an Accounting firm can, what has the regulator who upholds these rules been doing?

I understand people may not want to hear it, but as a football fan, I dont think its illegitimate to ask these questions.

Re the City case, I understand City have been obstructive, and were highlighted earlier but its dragged on. I do see that as different to not challenging people at the time.

Linked to this though, CAS (an independent court) through out UEFAs case, partially on the time it took. Which sort of underlines the point that more broadly, it is reasonable to expect a regulator to action problems swiftly, and you cant just sit on them indefinitely.

So maybe the City case made these people speed up the time in which they bring cases?

Simple question mate.

Do you think we broke FFP/P&L rules?

 

[Blue peter]

Let’s face it we will knew even at the time the Covid write downs were ridiculous and some even laughed at how the club were allowed to get away with it. The question therefore appears to be did they actually get away with it e.g. Did the PL tell its members that no further action was required (we only have a Daily Fail assertion of that) or did they not?

Or as some have suggested was it prima facie ok to accept the submitted write downs at that time subject to further investigation. I find it odd, that these charges however been made public after seeing the latest set of approved accounts which will shortly be made public.

 

[Damo_1878]

I understand that to be this years accounts, not the previous years?

I mean my first point would be it's not relevant to that specific discussion.

More broadly though, it is alarming. But my question would be, why has the regulator either been accepting them (or if we take your interpretation) not challenging them? Why have they been telling stakeholders Everton have not breached any rules? Why were previous accounts not referred, when they were asked to do so? If we can both see they are problematic, an Accounting firm can, what has the regulator who upholds these rules been doing?

I understand people may not want to hear it, but as a football fan, I dont think its illegitimate to ask these questions.

Re the City case, I understand City have been obstructive, and were highlighted earlier but its dragged on. I do see that as different to not challenging people at the time.

Linked to this though, CAS (an independent court) through out UEFAs case, partially on the time it took. Which sort of underlines the point that more broadly, it is reasonable to expect a regulator to action problems swiftly, and you cant just sit on them indefinitely.

The Premier League only received the EFC accounts on 01 March

They actioned the independent commission 24 March

How is that "sitting on it"?

 

[catcherintherye]

But again, from what I can see and this is ALL just total guesswork.

We submitted our accounts, I reckon the PL thought they stunk, but to protect the brand, they let them through.

Leeds, Burnley and probably other clubs didnt let it go and pushed and pushed, so then they were sent to an independent company, who laughed at them and thus left the PL with no choice but to pursue us.

I think its partially true. They would have probably sent them off and got them passed. I suspect they have come under pressure from teams, and may be panicking.

This is hypothetical, but it is worth considering, would teams have a conflict of interest in wanting Everton to be punished?

 

[catcherintherye]

The Premier League only received the EFC accounts on 01 March

They actioned the independent commission 24 March

How is that "sitting on it"?

I am not referring to that set of accounts.

 

[Goat]

Well the 2021/22 accounts were submitted March 1st, and have been referred by mid March. That would seem a reasonable indicator of how long it would take. Even if you were conservative and doubled that time, it would not take years.

It takes time to review them.

We arent the only club in the league.

It then takes time to submit them to an independent company, for them to review them.

If I murdered somebody yesterday and the Police came for me next year, could I say "You never caught me at the time I committed the crime, so let me free"?

 

[Tommy Chong]

I don't believe that the regulator scrutinised them, they are deemed to be true and correct as they have been approved by the club and the club's accountants. It is only after accounts have been submitted that they can be scrutinised and then if a problem is found the club will be investigated and charged if they feel they have broken the rules. Look at Derby, their accounts were accepted as true and correct and it was only at a later point in time that the FFP breaches were identified. The FA accepting a set of accounts from a club does not mean they approve them

Well, the first the regulator will look at is the audit report to see if the auditors picked up any discrepancies.

That carries a lot of weight, but you also have to take into account that the regulator will be looking for different things in the accounts as opposed to what a normal auditor would be looking for.

 

[JLW]

So maybe the City case made these people speed up the time in which they bring cases?

Simple question mate.

Do you think we broke FFP/P&L rules?

My answer to that is id guess 90% of the league break the rules but they employ people smart enough within their clubs to manipulate the numbers or find 'loopholes'