Times article, Burnley/Leeds threaten to sue Everton

[everton fan number one]

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.

Yes, that is slightly worrying.

I think the 105m rule is what's in question though; the issue being to what extent are our claimed Covid losses accepted by the Prem. I think in ordinary circumstances then hitting the threshold would surely trigger it automatically.

 

[degsy]

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

I too refer my learn'd friend to the theory of...the man on the Clapham omnibus.

The man on the Clapham omnibus is a hypothetical ordinary and reasonable person, used by the courts in English law where it is necessary to decide whether a party has acted as a reasonable person would – for example, in a civil action for negligence. The character is a reasonably educated, intelligent but nondescript person, against whom the defendant's conduct can be measured.

As is the fashion today, (I will take the liberty to speak for more than a few on here)
#I / we are that man on the hypothetical Clapham Omnibus.
We don't need a QCs opinion to see whats right - or a complete load of arl toss

 

[MrGrumpy]

Just listened to that whopper who made the claims in the Times. Ziegler or whatever he's called on talksport. Basically said clubs are unhappy how much Everton spent and were allowed to spend in January. Bbc said this as well. Claiming we spent 70 million on Patterson, mykolenko and alli.

But we actually effectively spent nothing as all signings were as a result of the money received from the Digne sale. We did not spend anything near 70 million but lazy journalism from them is basically suggesting we bought Alli for 40 million. Where we in fact probably have spent 5-10 million max so far on Alli if that.

Its just a load of utter waffle.

Let's consider this worst case circumstance, Everton get a 6 points deduction at the start of next season for showing too much debt. So then Everton decide its unfair because they had already been given their punishment because the rules state that their finances will be controlled by a moderator should they exceed profit and sustainability rules. Everton then take the Premier league to court over unfair punishment that doesn't comply with their rules. The whole thing becomes an absolute joke.

This thread might as well be closed because really the whole thing is laughable and a non starter. It's click bait from the media.

Don’t forget that we spent(500 million) all this money and are crap but Liverpool(4billion) havnt spent a penny and are going for 4 trophies

 

[everton fan number one]

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.

They've changed the definition of the following to exclude Covid losses from the PSR calculation;

A.1.5. “Adjusted Earnings Before Tax” means Earnings Before Tax adjusted to exclude costs (or estimated costs as the case may be) in respect of the following: (a) depreciation and/or impairment of tangible fixed assets, amortisation or impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets (but excluding amortisation of the costs of Players’ registrations); (b) Women’s Football Expenditure; (c) Youth Development Expenditure; (d) Community Development Expenditure; and (e) in respect of Seasons 2019/20, 2020/21, and 2021/22 only, COVID-19 Costs, Each of Youth Development Expenditure, Women’s Football Expenditure and Community Development Expenditure and COVID-19 Costs shall only be excluded from the calculation of Adjusted Earnings Before Tax if separately disclosed: (f) by way of notes to the Annual Accounts; or (g) by way of supplementary information which reconciles to the Annual Accounts and which has been subject to independent audit;

 

[ToffeeDan]

I refer my learn'd friend to the theory of...the man on the Clapham omnibus.

The man on the Clapham omnibus is a hypothetical ordinary and reasonable person, used by the courts in English law where it is necessary to decide whether a party has acted as a reasonable person would – for example, in a civil action for negligence. The character is a reasonably educated, intelligent but nondescript person, against whom the defendant's conduct can be measured.

As is the fashion today, (I will take the liberty to speak for more than a few on here)
#I / we are that man on the hypothetical Clapham Omnibus.
We don't need a QCs opinion to see whats right - or a complete load of arl toss

Unfortunately, these days, the Trial by Media means that, instead of the fabled MotCO we get MotNA - Man on the Norwegian Airbus.. an altogether different, dangerous animal.

 

[ToffeeDan]

They've changed the definition of the following to exclude Covid losses from the PSR calculation;

A.1.5. “Adjusted Earnings Before Tax” means Earnings Before Tax adjusted to exclude costs (or estimated costs as the case may be) in respect of the following: (a) depreciation and/or impairment of tangible fixed assets, amortisation or impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets (but excluding amortisation of the costs of Players’ registrations); (b) Women’s Football Expenditure; (c) Youth Development Expenditure; (d) Community Development Expenditure; and (e) in respect of Seasons 2019/20, 2020/21, and 2021/22 only, COVID-19 Costs, Each of Youth Development Expenditure, Women’s Football Expenditure and Community Development Expenditure and COVID-19 Costs shall only be excluded from the calculation of Adjusted Earnings Before Tax if separately disclosed: (f) by way of notes to the Annual Accounts; or (g) by way of supplementary information which reconciles to the Annual Accounts and which has been subject to independent audit;

EBITA - Earnings before Interfering T**ts Arrive
PFLAC - Prats from Leeds and Chelsea

 

[everton fan number one]

EBITA - Earnings before Interfering T**ts Arrive
PFLAC - Prats from Leeds and Chelsea

There needs to be an anti-Leeds clause

 

[degsy]

Unfortunately, these days, the Trial by Media means that, instead of the fabled MotCO we get MotNA - Man on the Norwegian Airbus.. an altogether different, dangerous animal.

But very easy to out wit

 

[ToffeeDan]

There needs to be an anti-Leeds clause

TALCL - The Anti Leeds Clause League

 

[catcherintherye]

They've changed the definition of the following to exclude Covid losses from the PSR calculation;

A.1.5. “Adjusted Earnings Before Tax” means Earnings Before Tax adjusted to exclude costs (or estimated costs as the case may be) in respect of the following: (a) depreciation and/or impairment of tangible fixed assets, amortisation or impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets (but excluding amortisation of the costs of Players’ registrations); (b) Women’s Football Expenditure; (c) Youth Development Expenditure; (d) Community Development Expenditure; and (e) in respect of Seasons 2019/20, 2020/21, and 2021/22 only, COVID-19 Costs, Each of Youth Development Expenditure, Women’s Football Expenditure and Community Development Expenditure and COVID-19 Costs shall only be excluded from the calculation of Adjusted Earnings Before Tax if separately disclosed: (f) by way of notes to the Annual Accounts; or (g) by way of supplementary information which reconciles to the Annual Accounts and which has been subject to independent audit;

They havent excluded Covid losses at all.

They have said they need to be provided as a separate amendment, and that they need to reconcile the account figure (I.e they need to add up to what the base P& L figure is.

This clause might be why it's not mentioned in the main text, but is hinted at, and has an accompanying document @MikelsGoat . It may be at the request if the league.

The accounts, and those documents will have been independently audited, indeed there is some suggestion the figure of write offs was arrived at by an independent company, not the club.

 

[everton fan number one]

They havent excluded Covid losses at all.

They have said they need to be provided as a separate amendment, and that they need to reconcile the account figure (I.e they need to add up to what the base P& L figure is.

This clause might be why it's not mentioned in the main text, but is hinted at, and has an accompanying document @MikelsGoat . It may be at the request if the league.

The accounts, and those documents will have been independently audited, indeed there is some suggestion the figure of write offs was arrived at by an independent company, not the club.

Does it not mean Covid losses don't count towards the 105 limit?

 

[Connor]

 

[Taifi gorm]

Just an attack piece and a poorly researched one at that, obviously had the obituaries wrote and a shabby attempt to preempt the club's moves against the pgmol etc.

Funny that the cough 'socialist' corporate entity's dirty work is being led by dog whistles in the establishment press.

 

[catcherintherye]

Does it not mean Covid losses don't count towards the 105 limit?

I think it really relates to what section you place the losses that come from Covid mate. They dont count to 105m and not should they.

 

[WestStandLower]

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.

I dont that it’s down to the PL to accept or reject accounts that’s nothing to do with them. The requirements are to submit audited accounts and those accounts will be examined alongside submission or should I say sums the clubs believe should be excluded from the establ losses based on the accounts and in this context COVID and that in term will be assessed there isn’t a timeline detailed in the rules and it’s very very unlikely that then PL will rush such matters.

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.

No the audited accounts do not show that.

Irrespective do you actually mean FFP ?

FFP is a requirement of UEFA licensing which is a must for clubs competing in European competitions.

What is being discussed is the PLs Profit and Sustainability which is a completely different matter

Accounts are completed in accordance with accounting standards in the numbers filed by the club with HMRC will be allowable losses those losses won’t mirror the numbers that the PL use when they assess the matter.

Burnley and Leeds are asking the PL to open a commission there take is quite simply that Everton have inflated the COVID numbers.