Everton FFP- yes

[chinapig]

23 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Premier League being strong so they can use that as an example that they don’t need an independent regulator, which the government are keen on 

The Bill to establish the regulator was in the King's Speech so it will happen. What the PL has been lobbying for is a watering down of the regulator's powers.

[Bristol Rob]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That is my interpretation too. One of Burnley, 18th in 2021-22 or Leicester, 18th in 2022-23.

Leeds finished 17th in 2021-22 so you could argue a prize momey gap between 16th and 17th, while Leeds finished 19th buy a few points off Everton in 2022-23 so again, you could argue a prize money gap between 18th and 19th.

Or maybe it's the case that the 3 will back the other for one of them to win their lawsuit of up to £100m.

And if/when Man City and Chelsea get found guilty and deducted points, will similar claims be made by teams who missed out on Champions League and European competition?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Bristol Rob said:

And if/when Man City and Chelsea get found guilty and deducted points, will similar claims be made by teams who missed out on Champions League and European competition?

Hadn't thought of that, once you open that door it can't be closed again.

[Gimme Shelton]

5 minutes ago, BigTone said:

We live in hope

Couldn't give a flying duck if the so called big boys of Europe buggered off,the rest of us could get on with the Football League 

[Bristol Rob]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hadn't thought of that, once you open that door it can't be closed again.

Which in turn could lead to every other club claiming prize money, isn't it a couple of million quid a place in the Prem at the end of the season.

It's these complexities that make me think most claims will fail.

[BigTone]

2 minutes ago, Gimme Shelton said:

Couldn't give a flying duck if the so called big boys of Europe buggered off,the rest of us could get on with the Football League 

My sentiments exactly

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, BigTone said:

My sentiments exactly

And mine.

I was all for the ESL until the big clubs said they wanted to stay and compete domestically too.  Cake and eat it.  

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Which in turn could lead to every other club claiming prize money, isn't it a couple of million quid a place in the Prem at the end of the season.

It's these complexities that make me think most claims will fail.

Depends on the validity of the claim and how many points are docked. If points were docked and allocated to specific seasons ie a season by season breakdown of overspend or a single big set of sanctions to cover numerous events.

Part of this mess can be attributed to the laissez faire PL attitude especially under a favourite of some on tbis forum, Richard Scudamore. Albeit the clubs vote for the regs nut some of this could have been challenged or nipped in the bud far earlier.

Edited November 18, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Bazooka Joe]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

And mine.

I was all for the ESL until the big clubs said they wanted to stay and compete domestically too.  Cake and eat it.  

And making a lots of dough in the process.

As has been proved.

 

[luke_bristol]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Part of this mess can be attributed to the laissez faire PL attitude especially under a favourite of some on tbis forum, Richard Scudamore. Albeit the clubs vote for the regs nut some of this could have been challenged or nipped in the bud far earlier.

Have no idea why any Bristol City fan would hold Richard Scudamore in high regard, he’s played a major part in making modern football the state it is.

[joe jordans teeth]

3 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Yes, I went on a rant about Everton.

On a thread about Everton.

Because I can't stand Everton.

Maybe you dont remember their spawny FA cup wins at our place(bet you are a Man Utd fan from Bristol)

Sadly I’m a Bristol city fan from Bristol

[BigTone]

15 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

And mine.

I was all for the ESL until the big clubs said they wanted to stay and compete domestically too.  Cake and eat it.  

In my mind if they go then they must go 100% and no longer play in any domestic league.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Everton expect it to be reduced notably on appeal.

Nauseating arrogance. For such large losses and expenditure 10 points feels wholly fair and perhaps even a bit low.

https://www.footballinsider247.com/revealed-everton-expect-10-point-deduction-to-be-significantly-reduced-after-appeal/

[Mr Popodopolous]

15 minutes ago, luke_bristol said:

Have no idea why any Bristol City fan would hold Richard Scudamore in high regard, he’s played a major part in making modern football the state it is.

Well maybe that isn't right term by me but you do those saying he would be a good choice of CEO etc.

[BigTone]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Everton expect it to be reduced notably on appeal.

Nauseating arrogance. For such large losses and expenditure 10 points feels wholly fair and perhaps even a bit low.

https://www.footballinsider247.com/revealed-everton-expect-10-point-deduction-to-be-significantly-reduced-after-appeal/

Is it possible it could be increased if their appeal fails ?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, BigTone said:

Is it possible it could be increased if their appeal fails ?

I hope so but surely that would need a PL appeal for a harsher sentence.

I recall the EFL appealing in varied cases vs clubs if a sentence was deemed too light or more often when they lost.

[W-S-M Seagull]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Everton expect it to be reduced notably on appeal.

Nauseating arrogance. For such large losses and expenditure 10 points feels wholly fair and perhaps even a bit low.

https://www.footballinsider247.com/revealed-everton-expect-10-point-deduction-to-be-significantly-reduced-after-appeal/

I'm not sure how it could be because wasn't the punishment that was given to Wednesday referenced? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I'm not sure how it could be because wasn't the punishment that was given to Wednesday referenced? 

Sheffield Wednesday initially got 12 but it was halved due to mitigating factors but I don't see grounds for such mitigation in this instance.

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/nov/18/everton-fans-view-premier-leagues-10-point-penalty-simply-doesnt-add-up

The Esk as he is better known, does raise some good points but overall I can't agree with some key points of his analysis. The PL got there in the end but some of the things he complains about are de rigeur ie sanctions the League may want entering the media, a deduction remaining in play until such time as an Appeal lodged as opposed to imposed, removed while Appeal heard.

[fisherrich]

4 hours ago, luke_bristol said:

Have no idea why any Bristol City fan would hold Richard Scudamore in high regard, he’s played a major part in making modern football the state it is.

Agreed, it is a well known fact that their was/probably still is, a high level of corruption within the Prem. Scudamore was obviously involved. Football is a dirty game at the top table. FACT.

When it goes pop, there will be a major fallout.

[Lanterne Rouge]

1 minute ago, fisherrich said:

Agreed, it is a well known fact that their was/probably still is, a high level of corruption within the Prem. Scudamore was obviously involved. Football is a dirty game at the top table. FACT.

When it goes pop, there will be a major fallout.

I`ve been saying for years that it`s only a matter of time before football eats itself and the fallout will be immense. I`d like to think that clubs like us who are, in the main, well run will be well placed to ride out the storm.

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/nov/18/everton-fans-view-premier-leagues-10-point-penalty-simply-doesnt-add-up

The Esk as he is better known, does raise some good points but overall I can't agree with some key points of his analysis. The PL got there in the end but some of the things he complains about are de rigeur ie sanctions the League may want entering the media, a deduction remaining in play until such time as an Appeal lodged as opposed to imposed, removed while Appeal heard.

He makes an unconvincing case for me.

That said, is it right that sporting sanctions be applied to a club due to its poor ownership and leadership as against a wilful attempt to cheat or deceive?

This speaks only to the size of the sanction. If there had been a wilful attempt to cheat or deceive the deduction would likely have been greater than 10 points.

The process and the individuals involved in it were anonymous, too.

I'm not sure how a process can be anonymous - perhaps he means the hearing should be public. If so and if the names of commission members were made public they would undoubtedly be subjected to abuse and threats from Everton fans and others.

Prejudice – the reporting of a potential 12-point penalty by the media during the hearing. How can that not be prejudicial? The report was accurate, that was the penalty the Premier League was seeking.

He complains about lack of transparency then objects to the requested penalty being known. So he wants secrecy when it suits him then.

I could go on but it's largely special pleading and whataboutery.

[Mr Popodopolous]

19 minutes ago, chinapig said:

He makes an unconvincing case for me.

That said, is it right that sporting sanctions be applied to a club due to its poor ownership and leadership as against a wilful attempt to cheat or deceive?

This speaks only to the size of the sanction. If there had been a wilful attempt to cheat or deceive the deduction would likely have been greater than 10 points.

The process and the individuals involved in it were anonymous, too.

I'm not sure how a process can be anonymous - perhaps he means the hearing should be public. If so and if the names of commission members were made public they would undoubtedly be subjected to abuse and threats from Everton fans and others.

Prejudice – the reporting of a potential 12-point penalty by the media during the hearing. How can that not be prejudicial? The report was accurate, that was the penalty the Premier League was seeking.

He complains about lack of transparency then objects to the requested penalty being known. So he wants secrecy when it suits him then.

I could go on but it's largely special pleading and whataboutery.

Definitely special pleading and good point in the transparency inconsistency too.

Maybe I was slightly unconsciously biased ad he writes well in general but I don't see that he has a case here particularly.

Yeah the Hearing needs to be held behind closed doors too, as you say.

Overall I don't have any particular sympathy with Everton.

To take some first paragraph points in turn:

1) "Stadium build and technical accounting treatment of interest costs".

Maybe. For me, I'm unsure that any costs of infrastructure should be included all told, that is deemed good expenditure.

2) "The unique market conditions created by Covid-19 at a time when the club was in its investment stage of development"

Sorry but no. Need to be compliant at all times and cut back and show restraint if required. Sell more if required.

3) And of course, the treatment of player X and its consequential economic impact."

That can be classed as unlucky hut surely there would have been wage savings or similar when suspended? To try and add back £10m for not taking our a lawsuit is purely speculative and was correctly rejected.

Edited November 18, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Got that bit wrong albeit they did get £20m less than anticipated for Richarlison but clubs will take advantage when up vs a ticking clock for FFP.

Onus is on the club.

Edited November 18, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Fairly sure they tried although would have to get and read it again, to argue for some kind of add-back as P&S meant they maybe only able to sell Richarlison for £60m rather than £80m..guess what sell more players if needs be. Or recruit less in January. (A portion of that extra £20m would have gone to Watford in sell-on too hence not includable in Profit on Disposal).

Yet it was reported that they turned down a £60m bid from Chelsea for Gordon. They later had to accept £20m less from Newcastle. Whose fault was that?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Another snippet on the Richarlison bit.

Surely they should be raging at their board for putting them in a position where they need to sell a star asset by a deadline or it's fail, or to raise £x by a deadline.

Again £2m of that would have gone to Watford as part of a sell-on so still not quite there.

The only real anger towards Moshiri, Kenwright (RIP) etc last season was probably due to not being top 8 regulars not for nearly running them aground financially.

For on pitch faltering, not financial mismanagement.

Edited November 18, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

A good piece from Will Unwin.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/nov/18/everton-pay-price-of-leaderships-manic-spending-and-blind-eye-to-sense

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

5 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Definitely special pleading and good point in the transparency inconsistency too.

Maybe I was slightly unconsciously biased ad he writes well in general but I don't see that he has a case here particularly.

Yeah the Hearing needs to be held behind closed doors too, as you say.

Overall I don't have any particular sympathy with Everton.

To take some first paragraph points in turn:

1) "Stadium build and technical accounting treatment of interest costs".

Maybe. For me, I'm unsure that any costs of infrastructure should be included all told, that is deemed good expenditure.

2) "The unique market conditions created by Covid-19 at a time when the club was in its investment stage of development"

Sorry but no. Need to be compliant at all times and cut back and show restraint if required. Sell more if required.

3) And of course, the treatment of player X and its consequential economic impact."

That can be classed as unlucky hut surely there would have been wage savings or similar when suspended? To try and add back £10m for not taking our a lawsuit is purely speculative and was correctly rejected.

For me if they want to use the player X argument then they need to also include the possibility that they could have had to pay him a large sum for potentially unfair dismissal as he was never charged with anything. 

Mason Greenwood was charged but the charges later dropped and Man Utd still couldn't sack him because despite the damming evidence against him that was put into the public, in the eyes of the law he is an innocent man. 

They didn't sue player X because they didn't have a leg to stand on because he would have been able to sue them back (and most likely won) to me it seems like they probably mutually agreed to not sue each other and to just draw a line under the whole thing.

Edited November 19, 2023 by W-S-M Seagull

[downendcity]

16 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Sheffield Wednesday initially got 12 but it was halved due to mitigating factors but I don't see grounds for such mitigation in this instance.

It seems to me that the mitigation comprises "but we are Everton", and "it's unfair".

There's also an element of Everton having thought they'd got away with it as a result of their financial jiggery pokery and that the premier League would probably do next to nothing about it.

At the time of Derby being called to account and when they were in danger of going out if business, many said that it needed a big club to go bust for the football world to realise that financially it had to change.

Unfortunately, it could well be that a 10 point deduction will be insufficient to relegate Everton this season (the irony being that had the penalty been applied when it should have been, it would!).

However, the Man City case is far more interesting. If they are found guilty ( at this stage still a big if, as I suspect their lawyers will, at the least, try to keep kicking the van down the road) then if punished   proportionally, they must surely be relegated at least one division.

That level of fallout could well lead to a realty check, as far as football finances are concerned, and particularly for clubs that are effectively state owned.

 

 

[Coombsy]

11 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Another snippet on the Richarlison bit.

Surely they should be raging at their board for putting them in a position where they need to sell a star asset by a deadline or it's fail, or to raise £x by a deadline.

Again £2m of that would have gone to Watford as part of a sell-on so still not quite there.

The only real anger towards Moshiri, Kenwright (RIP) etc last season was probably due to not being top 8 regulars not for nearly running them aground financially.

For on pitch faltering, not financial mismanagement.

Did he get a banning order