6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Walken]

One horrible ghoul him

 

[ForeverEverton]

It does my head in that people post this sort of stuff, we have a 2nd charge pending and the IC says any breach should ONLY BE A POINTS DEDUCTION....



This guy seems to be more level headed and a bit more clued up on the subject.

 

[Jacko93]

No they didn’t but if you consider a player an asset ( which for accounting purposes they are just that) then both Sheffield Wednesday and Forest delayed selling an asset to maximise value.
I am not saying that it should happen but I can see there is an debate to be had

There is no debate to be had. The consideration for playing assets are at a much higher risk than that of realty assets. They played him in 3 games, which is a risk they took for him becoming injured and unsaleable. They did this with the knowledge that they would fail PSR without his sale. That would be deemed as taking an unnecessary risk with the clubs finances. It is different to realty assets which are often insured for their value.

 

[Neiler]

Apologies my mistake and yes it will feature in the 22/23 statutory accounts but the bad news is ( if the report is correct ) that because it was an obligation to buy as opposed to an option to buy that means for PS purposes the fee would have been factored in earlier namely the date the obligation was signed off

Think your tying yourself in a knot there mate, in your post just before you said it was accounted for in 23/24, now it’s 22/23. He was actually initially loaned out to Juve in financial year 21/22.

It doesn’t appear to be counted for in any our playing trading statements.

 

[Sheedy's right peg]

This is an interesting point. A lot of our argument about the first charge related to a change in the rules for allocating stadium costs against losses. We thought we could, but then they said no. Ok, we get hit with the first charge, then.

But because the whole process of the first charge wasn't resolved until during the next season, we were then unable to do anything to bring ourselves in line with their eventual ruling, because the time period had already closed during that long wait. It's not like we could go back retroactively and deal with it.

But if we had known before the summer, we could have sold someone and then presumably been in compliance. So no second breach. In other words, the very process itself could be said to have caused the second breach.

Granted, there are rebuttals to that, so it's not exactly air-tight, but maybe it will provide some mitigating thought towards the second charge.

I say Myllos and Crimson Toffee should represent us in court.

Guessing they wouldn't charge the club £10k a day?

 

[Neiler]

Here’s the Burnley take:

So, in brief:

Season 1: Spend more than the rules allow to stay up at the expense of Club X, who are playing by the rules.
Season 2: again spend more than the rules allow, this time to purchase players from the club X (such as Dwight McNeil), at reduced rate as their players wish to stay in the tope tier.
Season 3: Upon club X's return to the division, utilise your squad (bolstered by years of financial rule breaking) to beat them home and away, gaining the six points required to negate the punishment from all previous rule breaking.

I give you the English Premier League - Where cheats prosper.

 

[Gallaeo]

No they didn’t but if you consider a player an asset ( which for accounting purposes they are just that) then both Sheffield Wednesday and Forest delayed selling an asset to maximise value.
I am not saying that it should happen but I can see there is an debate to be had

We claimed having to sell Richy by 30 June cost us up to £20m in reduced fee. Wasn’t accepted. Can’t therefore accept it the other way

 

[pfim]

No they didn’t but if you consider a player an asset ( which for accounting purposes they are just that) then both Sheffield Wednesday and Forest delayed selling an asset to maximise value.
I am not saying that it should happen but I can see there is an debate to be had

Then everyone will do it and there’s no point in having accounting periods

I think the common theme with the two commissions is that the rules are the rules, and any deviations need to be supported with unimpeachable reasoning.

 

[nick_waters]

It does my head in that people post this sort of stuff, we have a 2nd charge pending and the IC says any breach should ONLY BE A POINTS DEDUCTION....



This guy seems to be more level headed and a bit more clued up on the subject.

Gow's point makes no sense. Firstly we have not been cleared of the first 'murder', and secondly the second 'murder' is essentially the same as the first.

 

[BlueStevie35]

Here’s the Burnley take:

So, in brief:

Season 1: Spend more than the rules allow to stay up at the expense of Club X, who are playing by the rules.
Season 2: again spend more than the rules allow, this time to purchase players from the club X (such as Dwight McNeil), at reduced rate as their players wish to stay in the tope tier.
Season 3: Upon club X's return to the division, utilise your squad (bolstered by years of financial rule breaking) to beat them home and away, gaining the six points required to negate the punishment from all previous rule breaking.

I give you the English Premier League - Where cheats prosper.

Season three there shows how thick Burnley fans are, considering we’ve only played them in the league once this season, the other game was in the cup, and it wasn’t our fault their players crapped the bed in both games

 

[Swartzy]

We've just been given a boost that will hopefully play out on the field. It's time we go on a run that gains us enough points that the 2nd charge basically becomes Defunct.
We can't be Waiting with are asses clenched til the end of the season on whether this charge is our ending.
Been doing it for long enough already !!!

 

[Croker]

Here’s the Burnley take:

So, in brief:

Season 1: Spend more than the rules allow to stay up at the expense of Club X, who are playing by the rules.
Season 2: again spend more than the rules allow, this time to purchase players from the club X (such as Dwight McNeil), at reduced rate as their players wish to stay in the tope tier.
Season 3: Upon club X's return to the division, utilise your squad (bolstered by years of financial rule breaking) to beat them home and away, gaining the six points required to negate the punishment from all previous rule breaking.

I give you the English Premier League - Where cheats prosper.

I love that people outside of Everton look in and think that we had some sort of coherent transfer plan to beat relegation.

It’s like those art critics who rave about the beauty and intelligence shown in an abstract painting, only for it to be revealed that the artist was a chimp.

 

[Neiler]

I love that people outside of Everton look in and think that we had some sort of coherent transfer plan to beat relegation.

It’s like those art critics who rave about the beauty and intelligence shown in an abstract painting, only for it to be revealed that the artist was a chimp.

Thats a fair point, imagine looking at Everton over the last three seasons and thinking we had @ coherent plan!

 

[Neiler]

According to the commission the stadium has cost £800 mill to date.

 

[CrimsonToffee]

According to the commission the stadium has cost £800 mill to date.

Well, that answers a lot of my questions about a potential second breach, then. Because like I said earlier, it seems inconceivable that we would have a second breach that was related in any meaningful way to transfer business, but this kind of spending on the stadium - yep, that would do it.