Times article, Burnley/Leeds threaten to sue Everton

[everton fan number one]

No it does not.

And we do not know, formally whether than has been invoked. Theres nothing official to say it has, though it looks like both parties have unofficially decided to follow its guidance.

In that circumstance, or indeed if it were deemed as the punishment for an offence (which crucially to date has not occurred) I would say it would be unusual you would do punishment E, and then punishment W, especially if the club was showing willing to follow E, which given what has happened certainly seems to be the case.

Why have those rules in, if you would override them?

The other critical point, is to date, no breach has happened. So E, W or any other permutations have no relevance until that is established. Everton have shown losses under the permitted level, have had those accounts signed off as legitimate, and we have been told the PL have also signed them off as acceptable, having been given the full working of the uncrystalised losses.

If the PL wanted to punish the club in this season, it would need to have raised that the breaches have been failed within this season. There are 24 hours to go to do that. After that, really any punitive punishment would be next season (of which there is a range of options, with points deductions being at the sharp end).

I should add, I am not sure what would prompt such a U turn from the PL, and I am doubtful it would hold up in a court. Businesses are allowed to do write downs. That is perfectly normal practice, especially in the midst of a global pandemic.

All good points. I haven't seen what what it says about how long the PL has to sanction a club for a breach. You would think that as it pertains to accounts it must be time-limited so long as no fraud has taken place on our part. Would be very difficult for an independent arbitrator( because it won't go to court!) could insist that we be punished retrospectively if there is a specified time period for the accounting review to take place by the PL.

Arbitrators by the way make legal findings, but they can only interpret what the contract means. To challenge the contract's terms, or enforce an arbitrator's ruling ( say if it told the PL to consider a points deduction and it held no review) you would then go to court. But realistically it won't go before a Judge.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

Leeds would do better to focus on their own problems and sack the clown they have for a manager. Just three wins since he was appointed in Feb. One against Norwich (who they only just with the last kick of the game) and another against Watford who have both got relegated comfortably long before the last day. The other was a total and utter fluke against Wolves where they had a man advantage for over half an hour. Forget staying up in the Premier League, they'll do well to avoid relegation in the championship with that moron in charge! They're just using this whole far to draw attention away from their own failings as a club.

 

[barneygumble]

The funny thing is most Leeds and Burnley fans dont seem that arsed judging from what I've seen online.

Weirdly its mainly Newcastle fans trying to create a false rilvary with us. Seen two articles pop up by them since yesterday about it.

@catcherintherye you noticed the sudden weird obsession from the fat Geordie whoppers on twitter mate?

Newcastle and Leicester. The Leicester forums are so full of bile and hatred, it’s really bizarre.

 

[catcherintherye]

All good points. I haven't seen what what it says about how long the PL has to sanction a club for a breach. You would think that as it pertains to accounts it must be time-limited so long as no fraud has taken place on our part. Would be very difficult for an independent arbitrator( because it won't go to court!) could insist that we be punished retrospectively if there is a specified time period for the accounting review to take place by the PL.

Arbitrators by the way make legal findings, but they can only interpret what the contract means. To challenge the contract's terms, or enforce an arbitrator's ruling ( say if it told the PL to consider a points deduction and it held no review) you would then go to court. But realistically it won't go before a Judge.

It could go before a court if needed, but as you say it wont.

No wrongdoing has been established yet. That is the 1st step in all of this. Nobody can do anything until wrongdoing is established.

If that is established, then the question will be, why the PL accepted the accounts. It would be on them to justify that.

You cant then retrospectively dock points once the season has finished, when within a season you have okayed the accounts. If wrongdoing is established, it may be able to dock points next season, and the PL/EFC would potentially be liable for legal action by way of compensation.

EFC position strong though, as they will say, we followed the rules, and sought guidance at every step to ensure we stayed within the rules, which were confirmed we were.

 

[Oddball]

is this as nonsensical as it seems. the media usually run with trivia/non-stories to divert attention from uncomfortable truths. our focus needs to be on the shambles that is match officials and var who ruin the game. its been going on for that long i dont even know where to start! don`t forget we are in this position 100% due to refereeing decisions

 

[Yarrgh]

Have GoTs wonderful posters now turned into contractual barristers as they examine the regulations surrounding the spending rules??

I refer my learned friends to evidence items 1 and 2. Namely, Burnley are tossers and Leeds are a bunch of arse.

The defence rests m'lud.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

Newcastle and Leicester. The Leicester forums are so full of bile and hatred, it’s really bizarre.

I suspect the last few weeks have rubbed a lot of online fans up the wrong way - we've shown the sort of support clubs like Newcastle and Leicester couldn't drum up even if they were winning stuff.

Just jealousy / bitterness ultimately.

Find it weird I couldn't care less what another club / fanbase does apart from the Kopites.

 

[ToffeeDan]

Complying with the Budgetary requirement by selling players

We would account for the full amount of a transfer after agent fees etc. - irrespective of date receiving later payments from buying club

Current Transfer Value (Guestimate) ~ Current Amortised NBV (at mid 2021 not 2022 as this not accounted for yet)
Richarlison 70M ~ 16M
DCL 60M ~ Nil
Pickford 35M ~ 12M
Gordon 25M ~ Nil
Kean 25M ~ £10M approx
Godfrey £25M ~ £12M

Depending on Contract situations - current Account value (before Amortisation in 21-22 accounts):

Others: Mykolenko (£18M), Iwobi (£18M), Doucoure (£14M) have reasonable transfer value. Beyond these players we have very few that would attract a fee in excess of £10M - perhaps Gray, Patterson (£10M) Keane, Tom Davies maybe between £5-10M.

So, if we sold Richarlison next week it would work like this - £35M to £40M paid in 2018 over an initial 5 year contract - this is 3/5 Amortised by mid 2021 at £8M per annum (£40M down to £16M) and in 21/22 (season/accounts) a further cost of £8M is taken. Selling him next week for £70M realises a "profit" of £54M on the Present Day value (£16M) before the £8M cost this season is also offset.

So we wouldn't want to have to sell a number of those above and we know we have to trim the wage bill as well. Lucas Digne's move to Villa realised £20M on his 2021 value of £7-9M. At the end of the day one or a couple of big sales and a few moderately priced replacements would go a long way to address the problem on the financial side of things.

 

[Dad watched Dixie]

This is just so unbelievably laughable. Its just a complete none starter. Even supposing that there was a case for us to answer (unfortunately for the two cryarses there isn't!?) it would never get off the ground anyway because the second that Sunday is over and one of Leeds or Burnley become confirmed safe they will 100% lose interest and forget the whole thing. They will have zero interest in pursuing a long, drawn-out and expensive legal battle that they're 100% guaranteed to lose anyway! No, I'm happy to say that this nonsense is quite simply PR work from these clubs for the benefit of their fans and nothing more. Their impotent rage and blind flailing and screeching is an utter joy to behold!

If both clubs were that concerned, they wouldn't be threatening legal action, they would have already started it!

 

[everton fan number one]

If both clubs were that concerned, they wouldn't be threatening legal action, they would have already started it!

I don't know about that tbf. If they sued the league they would be told by the court to go to the arbitrator as it's in the contract. The arbitrator would then likely force the league to appoint a commission to consider the appropriate sanction. I think it would be necessary to have the commission even if the arbitrator carried out an investigation as the Prem would have to decide the sanction via the commission. Might be easier then for Leeds and Burnley to just request the commission first which is what they're doing now.

 

[davek]

It's getting tedious already. The last few weeks have been exhausting for us all. I understand people's unease as anxiety seems to be a default state for Evertonians now.

We should give ourselves a break. Lampard and co. won't be worried about this, and we certainly shouldn't let Burnley or Leeds get into our headspace.

Football at this level is an ugly, dirty business. There are no white knights. It will continue in this fashion and this nonsense will be shut down soon enough.

Spot on mate.

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

I suspect the last few weeks have rubbed a lot of online fans up the wrong way - we've shown the sort of support clubs like Newcastle and Leicester couldn't drum up even if they were winning stuff.

Just jealousy / bitterness ultimately.

Find it weird I couldn't care less what another club / fanbase does apart from the Kopites.

I live in Leicester now. Managed to make my son a toffee, though he was getting stick in school last week. ?

Their fans were great round here when then won the title. Even they knew it was an incredible one-off likely to never happen again. I didn’t begrudge them their fun at all as they found it quite funny.

Last couple of years for some reason they have changed. Wanting Brenda out when they are mid-table etc. Suddenly entitled.

Food in the stadium is crap too.

 

[WestStandLower]

The issue is the powers to agree a budget with the club under e.15 are in addition to the requirement to keep within the financial limits under the earlier part of Part E.

Notwithstanding the fact that a budget may be required, the PL still has the power W to sanction any breach of accounting rules by way of the sanctions stated under W.

The ability for the Prem to appoint a commission is separate to e.15 which is why Leeds and Burnley are asking for one.

Where 15.E is relevant is that it may show the Prem have already considered whether or not to puruse further sanctions, having acquired the necessary further information under 15.E ( and agreed a budget in lieu if this has happnened), therefore an Abitrator would be likely to find the matter has been properly repsonded to in accordance with the contract.

The fact that E.15 has been used as such does not exclude further action under W however.

I think this is right. That said however if the £105 million is the issue then it’s not a will they wont they appoint a commission the relevant rule says they “SHALL” appoint a commission
51.
If the PSR Calculation results in losses of in excess of £105m:
E.51.1. the Board may exercise its powers set out in Rule E.15; and
E.51.2. the Club shall be treated as being in breach of these Rules and accordingly the Board shall refer the breach to a Commission constituted pursuant to Section W of these Rules.
E.52.

Have the board accepted that Everton’s numbers in respect of COVID losses can include subjective numbers in respect of non transfer activity?

These commissions are not the subject to a lot of publicity for instance the rumoured City PL Commission into inflated income is still on going some years after CAS concluded their investigation

The PL Commission that looked into issues around 3rd party ownership re two players WHU (Tevez& Mascherano spelling ) folwoed a reuest from a PL clubs and resulted in a settlement paid by WHU and was concluded quite quickly because it involved a club relegated.

 

[catcherintherye]

I think this is right. That said however if the £105 million is the issue then it’s not a will they wont they appoint a commission the relevant rule says they “SHALL” appoint a commission
51.
If the PSR Calculation results in losses of in excess of £105m:
E.51.1. the Board may exercise its powers set out in Rule E.15; and
E.51.2. the Club shall be treated as being in breach of these Rules and accordingly the Board shall refer the breach to a Commission constituted pursuant to Section W of these Rules.
E.52.

Have the board accepted that Everton’s numbers in respect of COVID losses can include subjective numbers in respect of non transfer activity?

These commissions are not the subject to a lot of publicity for instance the rumoured City PL Commission into inflated income is still on going some years after CAS concluded their investigation

The PL Commission that looked into issues around 3rd party ownership re two players WHU (Tevez& Mascherano spelling ) folwoed a reuest from a PL clubs and resulted in a settlement paid by WHU and was concluded quite quickly because it involved a club relegated.

But again, no wrongdoing has been established.

The accounts, independently audited and signed off show losses within the FFP rules. Accounts that are accepted by the PL (from statements from the club).

There is also no mention of the commission needing to be independent. It can be a PL commission, who would feel that working with the PL in budgets is sufficient.

 

[Nymzee]

If we lose tomorrow and Spurs also lose reckon they'll probably be emailing Leeds and Burnley to join in on the fun.