Everton FFP

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Muttley said:
Should be a statutory punishment of relegation for cheating.
Click to expand...
exactly that start relegating teams for breach of ffp rules and all clubs will comply to the rules immediately no arguments then about how many points should be docked the only sympathy ive got with everton is that the authorities are protecting the sneaky 6 clubs no doubt about it the premier league is a closed shop for the big wealthy clubs
 

What I hate about the situation is their screams of the injustice of it all! They have admitted to breaching the rules by 19.5m. So therefore are GUILTY! You can argue all day long if you think the punishment is harsh but facts are facts - they are GUILTY!

I have sympathy for some more measured Evertonians (trust me there are one or two I know) who have said they fucked up and should be punished but are aghast at the punishment and the lack of movement on City, Chelsea, Spurs and even Man U. But to call league corrupt after admitting your GUILT and then saying its not far is a bit well, rich.
 
scouseblade said:
What I hate about the situation is their screams of the injustice of it all! They have admitted to breaching the rules by 19.5m. So therefore are GUILTY! You can argue all day long if you think the punishment is harsh but facts are facts - they are GUILTY!

I have sympathy for some more measured Evertonians (trust me there are one or two I know) who have said they fucked up and should be punished but are aghast at the punishment and the lack of movement on City, Chelsea, Spurs and even Man U. But to call league corrupt after admitting your GUILT and then saying its not far is a bit well, rich.
Click to expand...
I think that’s the point the punishment does feel harsh but the conviction not. The PL have set a precedence now though so it’ll be interesting to see if they stick to it. Essentially the tariff is a point for every two million of breach following a guilty plea, so presumably with credit for that. Let’s see what happens next with other cases.
Part of their get out though is that the other cases aren’t the same so it’ll be hard to compare and contrast when and if they come to punishment
 
If this point has been made elsewhere in this thread, apologies.

The recent 'outrage' at the supposed severity of the points deduction has been accompanied by the use of the 'proportionate' argument. Correct me if you like, but I don't recall any suggestion of there being a deduction of points based on exactly how much or little a club spends.

It seems perfectly clear, if you overspend you will suffer sanctions. No suggestion that this will be employed in a tiered system, if you overspend you'll be deducted points, no ifs, ands or maybes.
The responsibility for this is down solely to their board's inability to cut their economic cloth accordingly. Either exist by the existing penalties or suffer the consequence of your actions.
Or is the suggestion that some clubs are 'special' cases and therefore be treated with kid gloves?

The sooner the League addresses the similar cases of Chelsea, Man City, and those other clubs who've spent without being mindful of their overspends the better. It will show consistency and set a precedent for future financial husbandry. How is any of this not a good thing?

Proportionate my arse, this is a clear abuse of the rules and Everton's board need to put their big boy pants on and learn how the existing rules actually work.
 
itsinyerblood said:
If this point has been made elsewhere in this thread, apologies.

The recent 'outrage' at the supposed severity of the points deduction has been accompanied by the use of the 'proportionate' argument. Correct me if you like, but I don't recall any suggestion of there being a deduction of points based on exactly how much or little a club spends.

It seems perfectly clear, if you overspend you will suffer sanctions. No suggestion that this will be employed in a tiered system, if you overspend you'll be deducted points, no ifs, ands or maybes.
The responsibility for this is down solely to their board's inability to cut their economic cloth accordingly. Either exist by the existing penalties or suffer the consequence of your actions.
Or is the suggestion that some clubs are 'special' cases and therefore be treated with kid gloves?

The sooner the League addresses the similar cases of Chelsea, Man City, and those other clubs who've spent without being mindful of their overspends the better. It will show consistency and set a precedent for future financial husbandry. How is any of this not a good thing?

Proportionate my arse, this is a clear abuse of the rules and Everton's board need to put their big boy pants on and learn how the existing rules actually work.
Click to expand...
Agree albeit a sliding scale for points v overspend could be useful moving forward.

EFL have one, but we're late to bring it in ie only after Birmingham had failed.

6 points seems to be a potential starting point in the PL. Then 1 point per £5m of breach thereafter. Should it be a tougher tariff?

EFL one loosely speaking is:

12 points is the starting point. Then you deduct from the 12 points depending on the reduction. Should be a rising not a sliding scale but anyway..

12 points for a 3 year overspend but..

in excess of £15m, it remains 12 points.

£12.5m-15m- 9 points
£10-12.499m- 8 points
£8-9.99m- 7 points
£6-7.999m- 6 points
£4-5.999m- 5 points
£2-3.999m- 4 points
£1.00-1.999m- 3 points

A bit clunky but the general gist. Maybe the first bit of 3 points for £1 as opposed to £1m isn't strictly speaking right hut saw it laid out somewhere.
 
Muttley said:
Should be a statutory punishment of relegation for cheating.
Click to expand...
I agree, but it won`t ever happen for a number for reasons:

  1. The clubs won`t ever pass that as a rule - far too many of them would be at risk
  2. You'd never see clubs admitting to breaches ever again - and any justice system has to (IMO) have an ability to mitigate a punishment with a guilty plea
  3. The PL themselves won`t want stuff to be too definitive, as it offers very little wiggle room.
 
Selly said:
I agree, but it won`t ever happen for a number for reasons:

  1. The clubs won`t ever pass that as a rule - far too many of them would be at risk
  2. You'd never see clubs admitting to breaches ever again - and any justice system has to (IMO) have an ability to mitigate a punishment with a guilty plea
  3. The PL themselves won`t want stuff to be too definitive, as it offers very little wiggle room.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And i think this is where the crux lies with City. The multi-PL winning, European, soon to be World champions. Can you honestly think the PL could survive with its reputation in tact if the biggest winners in the past 10 years are found to be cheating b*stards? To me, Everton are an easy target. City will get 6 points and a fine.
 
scouseblade said:
Agreed. And i think this is where the crux lies with City. The multi-PL winning, European, soon to be World champions. Can you honestly think the PL could survive with its reputation in tact if the biggest winners in the past 10 years are found to be cheating b*stards? To me, Everton are an easy target. City will get 6 points and a fine.
Click to expand...

Of course the PL would survive. What's it going to be replaced with? People aren't just going to stop watching Premier League football just because a team has been found to have broken the rules. Everyone knows they're cheating bastards anyway.
 
Apologies if been posted before but surely the independent commission must have a formula for punishment? They can't sit round the table and look at each other waiting for suggestions as to how many points to deduct. Everton are whinging about the amount of points deducted, they have to be wary of perhaps paragraph 4 where it states any frivolous challenge is liable to more sanctions. Their best bet is to take it on the chin and crack on.
 
CityInPeace said:
Agree albeit a sliding scale for points v overspend could be useful moving forward.

EFL have one, but we're late to bring it in ie only after Birmingham had failed.

6 points seems to be a potential starting point in the PL. Then 1 point per £5m of breach thereafter. Should it be a tougher tariff?

EFL one loosely speaking is:

12 points is the starting point. Then you deduct from the 12 points depending on the reduction. Should be a rising not a sliding scale but anyway..

12 points for a 3 year overspend but..

in excess of £15m, it remains 12 points.

£12.5m-15m- 9 points
£10-12.499m- 8 points
£8-9.99m- 7 points
£6-7.999m- 6 points
£4-5.999m- 5 points
£2-3.999m- 4 points
£1.00-1.999m- 3 points

A bit clunky but the general gist. Maybe the first bit of 3 points for £1 as opposed to £1m isn't strictly speaking right hut saw it laid out somewhere.
Click to expand...
The overall conclusion appears to be that punishment is diluted if you don't know how to use a calculator.

We're talking about clubs with enormous resources, they employ the finest legal minds and accountants, yet somehow it seems beyond them to remain on the right side of legally binding expenditure. For a top club a sliding scale is meaningless, it barely scratches the surface and isn't designed to stop future financial violations from happening. We might as well discuss how it's possible to be a 'little bit pregnant', which as most folks understand is a nonsense.

Until recently clubs with enormous financial muscle could spend with impunity, without a threat of penalty and went about their business without any sort of consequence at all. Now that the reality of facing a harsher, more realistic present is at their doorstep these same actors resist these rules as if, somehow, the world is being unfair and that they're incapable of following the rules. Or should we have one rule for certain clubs and another for the rest of us?

A sliding scale is a nonsense, it completely dilutes the effective threat of not being able to follow the rules. As in a previous post, the nonsensical idea of a 'proportionate' penalty makes a mockery of why this law is necessary and needed. It will send a chill and deserved wind through the corridors of those boardrooms who see themselves as above the rules that other clubs have to abide by.

Continued attempts at justifying this type of unbridled financial recklessness needs to be resisted, otherwise these same clubs will continue to dilute any law they imagine shackles their ability to spend.
Follow the example of less resourced clubs, put your house in order, do not abuse these rules, in short accept that there's such a thing as natural justice, accept that the bubble you live in will be popped and that the harsh reality you seem to think doesn't apply will creep up on you and tap you on the shoulder in an even more unpleasant manner than you had considered possible.
 
itsinyerblood said:
The overall conclusion appears to be that punishment is diluted if you don't know how to use a calculator.

We're talking about clubs with enormous resources, they employ the finest legal minds and accountants, yet somehow it seems beyond them to remain on the right side of legally binding expenditure. For a top club a sliding scale is meaningless, it barely scratches the surface and isn't designed to stop future financial violations from happening. We might as well discuss how it's possible to be a 'little bit pregnant', which as most folks understand is a nonsense.

Until recently clubs with enormous financial muscle could spend with impunity, without a threat of penalty and went about their business without any sort of consequence at all. Now that the reality of facing a harsher, more realistic present is at their doorstep these same actors resist these rules as if, somehow, the world is being unfair and that they're incapable of following the rules. Or should we have one rule for certain clubs and another for the rest of us?

A sliding scale is a nonsense, it completely dilutes the effective threat of not being able to follow the rules. As in a previous post, the nonsensical idea of a 'proportionate' penalty makes a mockery of why this law is necessary and needed. It will send a chill and deserved wind through the corridors of those boardrooms who see themselves as above the rules that other clubs have to abide by.

Continued attempts at justifying this type of unbridled financial recklessness needs to be resisted, otherwise these same clubs will continue to dilute any law they imagine shackles their ability to spend.
Follow the example of less resourced clubs, put your house in order, do not abuse these rules, in short accept that there's such a thing as natural justice, accept that the bubble you live in will be popped and that the harsh reality you seem to think doesn't apply will creep up on you and tap you on the shoulder in an even more unpleasant manner than you had considered possible.
Click to expand...
And this is why there should be one punishment for the crime, relegation. Whether 1 count or 125.
 
Belvedere Blade said:
www.teamtalk.com

Cataclysmic Man City points deduction claim arises as Chelsea are also told 'relegation is possible'

Man City and Chelsea are in high danger of a significant points deduction over claims they have breached FFP regulations, a football finance expert claims.
www.teamtalk.com www.teamtalk.com
Click to expand...
Lets for one second assume that both clubs are deducted 80 points for this season. (and the article puts the upper limit at 70)

Are any of us actually convinced that this would improve our chances of staying up?
 

Selly said:
Lets for one second assume that both clubs are deducted 80 points for this season. (and the article puts the upper limit at 70)

Are any of us actually convinced that this would improve our chances of staying up?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
Selly said:
Lets for one second assume that both clubs are deducted 80 points for this season. (and the article puts the upper limit at 70)

Are any of us actually convinced that this would improve our chances of staying up?
Click to expand...

It would.
 
Are they both due to get sanctioned THIS season though, I’d expect an announcement next season.
 
Everton have lodged their appeal which will be heard before the end of the season. this needs sorting asap. imagine they are in the bottom three with only a few games to go ( I know this is unlikely). Other clubs will obviously trying to get as many points as possible to stay above them. But sometimes clubs have to compromise, for example where during a match they "settle for a draw" because one point is better than none. Then with three games to go Everton's punishment is suspended. Pushing them way out of relegation and landing another club in the zone with little time to do anything about it. What is the betting Everton's punishment just keeps them up
 
Need4speed said:
Everton have lodged their appeal which will be heard before the end of the season. this needs sorting asap. imagine they are in the bottom three with only a few games to go ( I know this is unlikely). Other clubs will obviously trying to get as many points as possible to stay above them. But sometimes clubs have to compromise, for example where during a match they "settle for a draw" because one point is better than none. Then with three games to go Everton's punishment is suspended. Pushing them way out of relegation and landing another club in the zone with little time to do anything about it. What is the betting Everton's punishment just keeps them up
Click to expand...

There really needs to be a clear set of punishments laid out and able to be dealt out to clubs within a season. With a set window for appeals (if allowed to be heard) there should also be a clear warning that appeals can also have the possibility of carrying further punishments if clubs are using delaying tactics or frivolous appeals in order to delay or mitigate punishments on themselves.
For me I think only instant demotion from the league is needed for breaches of FFP. Sliding scales of points or fines just leave the door open for the cooking of books even more.
 
I don't have a PL allegiance but Everton, a lot of their fans and their apologists or famous supporters really are insufferable aren't they.

www.theguardian.com

Everton lodge appeal and hint at tension over commission’s independence

Everton have formally appealed against the decision to deduct the club 10 points, with the outcome expected in the new year
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

"Everton’s description of a “Premier League commission” differs from the league’s statement on the appeal and suggests tensions between the two over their interpretation of the commission’s independence."
 
Last edited:
Looks like Burnley, Leeds and Leicester might be withdrawing their legal claims and are instead open to negotiation as they don't want to risk pushing Everton into administration.
www.dailymail.co.uk

Burnley, Leeds and Leicester are set to WITHDRAW plan to sue Everton

Burnley, Leeds and Leicester are set to withdraw their planned claim for compensation against Everton in favour of seeking a negotiated settlement with the club.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 

scouseblade said:
What I hate about the situation is their screams of the injustice of it all! They have admitted to breaching the rules by 19.5m. So therefore are GUILTY! You can argue all day long if you think the punishment is harsh but facts are facts - they are GUILTY!

I have sympathy for some more measured Evertonians (trust me there are one or two I know) who have said they fucked up and should be punished but are aghast at the punishment and the lack of movement on City, Chelsea, Spurs and even Man U. But to call league corrupt after admitting your GUILT and then saying its not far is a bit well, rich.
Click to expand...
Everton have been caught robbing a post office at gunpoint and have been sentenced.

Their excuse in court seems to be - "yeah but Man City have robbed more post offices than us!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom