Everton

[HillmortonBlade]

Can’t help thinking that when Sheffield F.C wrote the rules for the modern game they should have seen this coming and wrote rules to cover it.

And definitely should have covered VAR there, because forensic examination of minutiae would have been invaluable.

 

[CityInPeace]

There are Written Reasons.

Premier League statement

www.premierleague.com

Seen a snippet of this report elsewhere but not looked at the Written Reasons myself..but the bit I saw basically infers that there are unresolved issues pertaining to the Everton Capitalisation of Interest...PL say x, Everton say Y. If PL win then it means Everton losses are greater.

 

[CityInPeace]

Yes, but think about the fans..

If anyone doesn’t think that corruption and/or incompetence isn’t rife at the highest level (or any level in my experience)…

It's the fans of compliant clubs I feel for more..Everton and their fans have acted ridiculously and it feels like they are clearly more deserving of the drop than Nottingham Forest if we had to pick one.

 

[1889]

The Premier League is fucking awful, it’s overly regulated at every level, by people who have finance and their own personal interests at heart, not those of our National game.

Sooner a Saudi backed European Super League gets up and running the better, take VAR and the PGMOL with them and then we can all go back to an old school Div’s 1,2,3,4………if only

 

[103SecondsOfMagic]

Upcoming Forest v Everton being branded the 'points deduction derby'

Sky actually managing to commercialise being sanctioned for cheating. Get us the fuck out of here asap

 

[184blade]

The Premier League is fucking awful, it’s overly regulated at every level, by people who have finance and their own personal interests at heart, not those of our National game.

Sooner a Saudi backed European Super League gets up and running the better, take VAR and the PGMOL with them and then we can all go back to an old school Div’s 1,2,3,4………if only

The big clubs will want to have their cake and eat it, ie stay in the premier league for the money but reduce the number of teams so they can play in a super league too. I expect they’ll join the FA and league cups at a later stage too, thus ensuring no more giant killings.

 

[Rufus Smalls]

Because two wrongs doesnt make another wrong. (PL rule book Section 8RW page 184)

One wrong doesn't make a wrong - in the case of Man City.

 

[varkanoid]

And definitely should have covered VAR there, because forensic examination of minutiae would have been invaluable.

and dont forget Goal Line Technology - the correct use off so they remember to turn it on before the match starts.

 

[Jaime]

I do struggle by the ‘independent commission’ reviewing cases. Who are they? What expert and technical knowledge do they have?

In the UK court system, you would have a jury of your peers…. Why not apply a similar principle and have a randomly selected representation of professional football clubs + fan representatives be the jury to judge the case?

Clearly the current penalty for being guilty is totally random and nonsensical! Give the power to the peers to set the penalty and allow an ‘independent commission’ to review the appeal (noting they can only change the outcome by plus/minus x% … ie they can’t totally remove it!).

 

[MobileBlade]

I do struggle by the ‘independent commission’ reviewing cases. Who are they? What expert and technical knowledge do they have?

In the UK court system, you would have a jury of your peers…. Why not apply a similar principle and have a randomly selected representation of professional football clubs + fan representatives be the jury to judge the case?

Clearly the current penalty for being guilty is totally random and nonsensical! Give the power to the peers to set the penalty and allow an ‘independent commission’ to review the appeal (noting they can only change the outcome by plus/minus x% … ie they can’t totally remove it!).

Take a read of the Premier League handbook. It tells you. The chair is taken from a panel if QCs

 

[Jaime]

Take a read of the Premier League handbook. It tells you. The chair is taken from a panel if QCs

I’ve not read the handbook, however, my point remains over the representational element

 

[SUFCinks]

An Everton supporting mate of mine is enraged at today's news. He thinks the Premier League are corrupt as fuck for docking them too many points!!! Funny how people's opinions differ isn't it?

I suppose, looking at it from his POV Man City are facing 115 breached of FFP rules and not a point docked yet. So I can understand it if that’s what he’s thinking but personally i think they’ve got off lightly.

 

[Champagneblade]

I’d love to know who is forming part of these commissions.

The PL wanted a deduction of 10 and 7 for Everton. Mr Faceless then decided to drop that to 6 and 2. So under the PL’s understanding, Everton would have been docked 17 points and would currently sit on 18 points and Forest, who they wanted to dock 8 points and got docked 4 would be sat on 21.

That would put Luton safe on 25, put Everton in the drop zone and Forest one result away from 3rd bottom.

Even little old Sheffield United would have a game in hand to come within 2 points of safety!

This is what I don’t comprehend and I’ve said it before; if you make a rule not to do something, why the hell do you not spell
out in black and white what the punishment would be?

Now you have arbitrary panels making crucial decisions about promotion and relegation. I mean how do Forest get off so lightly when they overshoot by more than Everton? Conversely why is it fair to punish Everton twice in one season and why then when one of the charges could be more due to a dispute on stadium funding, will that punishment carry over to next season but not this one?

Make it make sense.

 

[Montymagic]

Basically they handed out a ' punishment ' that gave them both the best chance of staying up, just enough to keep them above the relegation zone


Go figure.

 

[FATTYFOULKE]

I thought spending on infrastructure was allowed under the rules but I keep hearing a lot of the reason they went over the limit is because of spending on the new ground?

How can Tottenham have got away with it if so? Their new ground cost literally one billion.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Interesting financial stats for PL clubs in this article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68713522

 

[west_yorks_blade]

I’d love to know who is forming part of these commissions.

The PL wanted a deduction of 10 and 7 for Everton. Mr Faceless then decided to drop that to 6 and 2. So under the PL’s understanding, Everton would have been docked 17 points and would currently sit on 18 points and Forest, who they wanted to dock 8 points and got docked 4 would be sat on 21.

That would put Luton safe on 25, put Everton in the drop zone and Forest one result away from 3rd bottom.

Even little old Sheffield United would have a game in hand to come within 2 points of safety!

This is what I don’t comprehend and I’ve said it before; if you make a rule not to do something, why the hell do you not spell
out in black and white what the punishment would be?

Now you have arbitrary panels making crucial decisions about promotion and relegation. I mean how do Forest get off so lightly when they overshoot by more than Everton? Conversely why is it fair to punish Everton twice in one season and why then when one of the charges could be more due to a dispute on stadium funding, will that punishment carry over to next season but not this one?

Make it make sense.

You’re dead right.
The lack of transparency is a huge problem. There’s just no credibility to these decisions.

Let’s not forget that Forrest also got a pathetic slap on the wrist when they failed to control their supporters and Billy ended up being assaulted on the pitch.

And inevitably when this sort of wishy washy decision happens, most people naturally assume the whole thing stinks.

 

[SouthportBlade]

Subjective punishments are going to be subjective - and a lot of this is uncharted territory.

Unless there are black and white rules, punishments are always going to come under scrutiny and scepticism. Imagine ToffeeTalk or ForestForum have starkly different views to ours.

What we have now is a couple of precedents, which hopefully provide some sort of framework to use in future. Whether you like it or not, they should set in stone and clubs have to deal with it.

Ultimately there needs to be a deterrent. Points deduction will do that, my guess is we will see more clubs demonstrating financial prudence in the next couple of years to avoid this.

 

[Silent Blade]

How can Tottenham have got away with it if so? Their new ground cost literally one billion.

When calculating FFP losses expenditure on ground improvements, new stadium, trading ground and Academy are not included. Just transfer fees, players wages and agent payments.

 

[Champagneblade]

Quick reminder that in the Olympics if you don’t adhere to the rules you get disqualified from the competition.

So it’s time for Forest and Everton fans to stop bleating.

That would be the equivalent of them getting the ‘R’ regardless of them fulfilling their remaining fixtures.

You agree to spending rules. You fail to respect them, and regardless of how well or poorly you recruit, you have gained a sporting advantage, because you’ve been given a chance to extend your recruitment net wider than was permitted. So how anyone can comment that you didn’t gain a sporting advantage by spending more on players needs some serious help.

Basically they are cheats and they should have been kicked out. Same with City if proven wrong. Plus what’s with the conjecture over stadium costs being in or out? Are they delaying resolving that because any additional points would have an impact on the season?

 

[Need4speed]

The funny thing about it both Everton and Nottingham Forest have lost millions over the agreed limits (agreed by Premier League clubs who vote on the rules) but they are still shit. Leicester blew even more and they were relegated Their fans should be fuming at those running their clubs.

 

[jt64]

I do struggle by the ‘independent commission’ reviewing cases. Who are they? What expert and technical knowledge do they have?

In the UK court system, you would have a jury of your peers…. Why not apply a similar principle and have a randomly selected representation of professional football clubs + fan representatives be the jury to judge the case?

There are reasons why juries for all intents and purposes only exist in criminal cases, and only a small fraction of those in any case

 

[blade too long]

when you look at the swingeing points deductions handed out to EFL clubs , Luton -30 , Derby -21 , Rotherham -17 Bournemouth -17 Leeds -15
a 2 point deduction for a second offence by Everton is pitiful, no matter what the circumstances
Italy had the balls to relegate Juventus over financial Chansiriness

 

[FATTYFOULKE]

When calculating FFP losses expenditure on ground improvements, new stadium, trading ground and Academy are not included. Just transfer fees, players wages and agent payments.

That’s what I thought but when it gets discussed on a Talksport they always mention part of the reason being spending on the new ground.

 

[UddersBlade]

Just forget about it! Just be happy it won’t impact us. I just heard the interview with Luton’s Director moaning about the points deductions to Forest and Everton being far too lenient & the uncertainty they face. I could see this coming & I will be amazed if Everton /Forest get point deductions eased a little at the end of the season - so that will send Luton down.

After the Tevez saga ….i am so happy we won’t be the victims this time.

 

[Sean Thornton]

That’s what I thought but when it gets discussed on a Talksport they always mention part of the reason being spending on the new ground.

Something to do with interest costs which Everton have capitalised rather than charge as an expense.

 

[CityInPeace]

I'll try and explain a few bits.

1) Infrastructure Expenditure is exempt from FFP/P&S/PSR call it what you will. At this point I'm talking the core expenditure it construction costs etc, not the Interest Payments..
2) Usually it goes through the Cash Flow, Purchase of Tangible Assets etc not Profit and Loss. Everton didn't for some reason..but the core expenditure again just deduct.
3) There was a debate, an anomaly pertaining to capitalisation of Interest linked to Pre and Post Planning Permission. This notwithstanding, Everton overspent anyway.
4) The 2023 3 Year FFP Test namely the most recent case seemed to have the £16m overspend was it despite and including the capitalisation of Interest.

In other words Everton seemed to have their 2022 Accounts which has removed around £6m in Interest from the Profit and Loss and £19m of Interest from the £89m loss. The £6m seems most contentious atm..they argued that it is purely for the Stadium that portion, the League see it differently..no real reports yet or analysis of the £19m. Print Screens in a few mins..

 

[CityInPeace]

The Losses as stated a year ago.

The Losses as Restated...

Do they have documentation separating out Interest specifically attributed to the Stadium vs that payable on Loans to help finance genuine running costs and what portion is attributable is the debate here.

 

[Espania blade]

I thought spending on infrastructure was allowed under the rules but I keep hearing a lot of the reason they went over the limit is because of spending on the new ground?

How can Tottenham have got away with it if so? Their new ground cost literally one billion.

Spending on infrastructure should be allowed, it's improving the asset value, what's wrong with improving your infrastructure ?

If i've read it correctly they have been charged with capitalizing the interest payments on the infrastructure, as long as it doesn't involve player purchases I think it's a stupid rule and needs scrapping, I think that is the basis of an appeal and they will (should) win.

 

[Yewsman]

In criminal proceeds a previous conviction (particularly for the same type of wrong doing) is an aggravating factor in sentencing not a mitigating factor!