Everton FFP- yes

[Mr Popodopolous]

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

I'm struggling to get my head around their argument? Because they have been punished for those years, they expect to exclude those years from the psr calculations? 

Possibly. However his complaint seems to be about the Appeal Process being incorrect too.

There is an argument to reset losses that exceed £35m or £13m as may apply down the max ie £35m or £13m while those at that level or below remain at that.

However I don't know the PL process on prior individual seasons in the cycle that exceed...nothing in the rules about it so I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Edited January 15 by Mr Popodopolous

[W-S-M Seagull]

What's the problem? Both clubs have confirmed they are in breach of p&s rules. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.premierleague.com/news/3858986

Intriguingly it says nothing about Promotion Bonuses in this statement..I would then suggest multiple would have failed if so..going back Aston Villa, Bournemouth, Fulham maybe mode than once and Wolves in the year of Promotion and quite possibly Leeds would all fall foul.

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Possibly. However his complaint seems to be about the Appeal Process being incorrect too.

There is an argument to reset losses that exceed £35m or £13m as may apply down the max ie £35m or £13m while those at that level or below remain at that.

However I don't know the PL process on prior individual seasons in the cycle that exceed...nothing in the rules about it so I guess we'll have to wait and see.

My understanding is they are appealing the punishment, not appealing the commisions findings? So them saying "We've had to submit a p&s calculation which is subject to change" is complete bs because the appeal isn't going to change those calulations? 

[W-S-M Seagull]

Forests argument doesn't stack up for me either. They had 3 years to stay within the allowed limit. You then can't argue that the money from a player they sold 2 months later should be included. They had 3 years to comply and they didnt. So suck it up. 

[Sir Geoff]

Everton keep conveniently forgetting that their losses initially amounted to £290 million.

[Hxj]

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

My understanding is they are appealing the punishment, not appealing the commisions findings? So them saying "We've had to submit a p&s calculation which is subject to change" is complete bs because the appeal isn't going to change those calulations? 

I think that the point more fairly made is what if the losses were £50 million in 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22, followed by a loss of £10 million in 2022/23.

The losses to 2021/22 would be £150 million and the losses to 2022/23 would be £110 million, both failures.  However the club has already been substantially punished for the 2020/21 and 2021/22 losses in the first sanction, and 2022/23 is itself well below the £35 million limit.  In the EFL the £50 million would be reset to £35 million.  Meaning that Everton would be compliant for 2022/23.

(the above numbers are entirely made up and simplified)

Edited January 15 by Hxj

[Davefevs]

Surely you understand the rules first and foremost and then stick to them.  Unfair advantage gained.

[Open End Numb Legs]

For me this is personal.

My sister's long term ex partner was a Forest fanatic. He went off with another woman just because she could offer money to subsidise his failing crappy business that my sister had subsidised for 10 years before.

I think this should be taken into consideration and Forest should drop into the national league.

[W-S-M Seagull]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Surely you understand the rules first and foremost and then stick to them.  Unfair advantage gained.

On a human level, does he have any understanding of the impact its had on fans such as our own where we've had to watch some pretty shite stuff over the past few years whilst we were in austerity to avoid breaching ffp? Why should we potentially lose put to clubs who haven't got themselves in order and have instead cheated? 

The sympathies I'm hearing for Forest goes alone the lines of "well they wanted to get out of the Championship so had to spend. They wanted to stay in the premier league so they had to spend to compete" hmmm how about they adjust their ambitions to what's possible within the rules instead of cheating clubs such as our own. 

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

On a human level, does he have any understanding of the impact its had on fans such as our own where we've had to watch some pretty shite stuff over the past few years whilst we were in austerity to avoid breaching ffp? Why should we potentially lose put to clubs who haven't got themselves in order and have instead cheated? 

The sympathies I'm hearing for Forest goes alone the lines of "well they wanted to get out of the Championship so had to spend. They wanted to stay in the premier league so they had to spend to compete" hmmm how about they adjust their ambitions to what's possible within the rules instead of cheating clubs such as our own. 

Agree, what about the human impacts of those that followed the rules.

[1960maaan]

Everton were so far over allowances I did wonder what would happen the 'next year'.
Looking at one Everton blog they expect losses to be around £50m for 22/23. If I have the right figures they have £100m & £43m for the previous 2 , that would total £200m for the period .
Now the question I don't know the answer to , does the initial deduction affect the 3 year period?
Effectively year 1 & 2 were taken into account with 10 points deduction , but obviously it's a rolling 3 years and they look to be over the next £105m allowance by some way . 
If they get more sanctions it will seem harsh unless we see others getting hit, ie: Chelsea & Man City. 

Could be interesting few weeks. 

[Markthehorn]

8 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Everton were so far over allowances I did wonder what would happen the 'next year'.
Looking at one Everton blog they expect losses to be around £50m for 22/23. If I have the right figures they have £100m & £43m for the previous 2 , that would total £200m for the period .
Now the question I don't know the answer to , does the initial deduction affect the 3 year period?
Effectively year 1 & 2 were taken into account with 10 points deduction , but obviously it's a rolling 3 years and they look to be over the next £105m allowance by some way . 
If they get more sanctions it will seem harsh unless we see others getting hit, ie: Chelsea & Man City. 

Could be interesting few weeks. 

Unfortunately for them they have been caught out and punished.

Presume Man C will be at some point too but can understand there being a few doubts about how strongly .

[1960maaan]

22 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Surely you understand the rules first and foremost and then stick to them.  Unfair advantage gained.

 

13 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Agree, what about the human impacts of those that followed the rules.

What a ******* stupid statement , looks like he's after some likes from Everton fans.

I have a soft spot for Everton , but what's the point of rules if you turn around and say , "nah , sorry you were charged, just seen that little Tommy is upset with it so carry on" 
As it is they have used (badly) a £200m advantage over any Club that stayed within the rules, ignore that and you might as well just hand the keys to the Prem to Man City and Newcastle .

[W-S-M Seagull]

5 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Everton were so far over allowances I did wonder what would happen the 'next year'.
Looking at one Everton blog they expect losses to be around £50m for 22/23. If I have the right figures they have £100m & £43m for the previous 2 , that would total £200m for the period .
Now the question I don't know the answer to , does the initial deduction affect the 3 year period?
Effectively year 1 & 2 were taken into account with 10 points deduction , but obviously it's a rolling 3 years and they look to be over the next £105m allowance by some way . 
If they get more sanctions it will seem harsh unless we see others getting hit, ie: Chelsea & Man City. 

Could be interesting few weeks. 

I do not know how it all works and I'm certainly not an expert. But you can't just pretend those years don't exist because then they end up getting an advantage by previously falling foul of the rules? 

Maybe they should have been doing all they could to raise money in 22/23 to bring them into line? But instead they chose to keep their competitive advantage rather than complying with the rules and that's why I have zero sympathy. 

Man City are a completely different case. It's worth remembering that Everton X2 and Forest have admitted to the breaches. Man City deny all charges. 

[1960maaan]

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

Man City deny all charges.

They do have the best Lawyers apparently , but with 115 charges you would think some of them would stick.

[Markthehorn]

7 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

 

What a ******* stupid statement , looks like he's after some likes from Everton fans.

I have a soft spot for Everton , but what's the point of rules if you turn around and say , "nah , sorry you were charged, just seen that little Tommy is upset with it so carry on" 
As it is they have used (badly) a £200m advantage over any Club that stayed within the rules, ignore that and you might as well just hand the keys to the Prem to Man City and Newcastle .

Probably wouldn’t care one bit if this was Bournemouth or Brentford !

[W-S-M Seagull]

31 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Agree, what about the human impacts of those that followed the rules.

And that human impact will be felt all the way down to the likes of the tea lady. 

That's where the impact is felt the most. Real honest people at the bottom lose their jobs whilst a club is trying to stay in line. 

Not suggesting the tea lady got sacked but you get what I mean. 

9 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

They do have the best Lawyers apparently , but with 115 charges you would think some of them would stick.

Possibly but as of yet there is no public evidence they are guilty and they deny all charges. 

Forest and Everton x2 have admitted the breaches. 

[WarksRobin]

Has Colin Calderwood voiced his opinion yet?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Winter is good but without being impolite, can be a bit of a starphucker- apologies for the crude language. See Jim White too, slight sucker for the bigger name..

If it was I dunno Burnley and Brentford?

Edited January 15 by Mr Popodopolous

[Natchfever]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Surely you understand the rules first and foremost and then stick to them.  Unfair advantage gained.

Henry Winter should know better.

**** Everton .

[Kingswood Robin]

1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

On a human level, does he have any understanding of the impact its had on fans such as our own where we've had to watch some pretty shite stuff over the past few years whilst we were in austerity to avoid breaching ffp? Why should we potentially lose put to clubs who haven't got themselves in order and have instead cheated? 

The sympathies I'm hearing for Forest goes alone the lines of "well they wanted to get out of the Championship so had to spend. They wanted to stay in the premier league so they had to spend to compete" hmmm how about they adjust their ambitions to what's possible within the rules instead of cheating clubs such as our own. 

Completely agree. That side of it never gets mentioned.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Everton. Using a UEFA based and indeed EFL type template to build on the worked example by @Hxj

For £13m use £35m and it should be so impossible to fail such a high bar wirh £100m in TV money bare minimum plus decent allowable costs etc etc.

2019-20 and 2020-21 combined average..

If £20m after allowables and Covid it remains £20m.

If £35m it remains £35m.

If say £50m or even £1 above £35m it goes back to £35m.

Then the same again for 2021-22.

This forms the basis for 2022-23. Whixh may mean say instead of £50m, £20m..£35m it means £35m, £20m..£50m.

Using a template that maybe was used in the EFL end UEFA.

Edited January 15 by Mr Popodopolous

[maxjak]

Similar to VAR .............FFP is a complete farce, punishing on occasions the wrong clubs while ignoring other's who are slipping through the cracks with clever financial manoeuvre's  .  I am not saying Everton are an innocent party, but  I believe that FFP is  not the level playing field it purports to be?              

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Similar to VAR .............FFP is a complete farce, punishing on occasions the wrong clubs while ignoring other's who are slipping through the cracks with clever financial manoeuvre's  .  I am not saying Everton are an innocent party, but  I believe that FFP is  not the level playing field it purports to be?              

It has two objectives:

- competition (cough, cough)

- financial security

It doesn’t really do either that well.

[Natchfever]

2 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Similar to VAR .............FFP is a complete farce, punishing on occasions the wrong clubs while ignoring other's who are slipping through the cracks with clever financial manoeuvre's  .  I am not saying Everton are an innocent party, but  I believe that FFP is  not the level playing field it purports to be?              

Im sure it isnt fair  but if youre caught thieving, a defence along the lines of " tom dick and harry stole more than me" wouldnt carry much weight would it.

Everton consider themselves special but are guilty as charged so suck it up.

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.goodisonnews.com/2024/01/15/ally-mccoist-and-jeff-stelling-rant-live-on-talksport-as-another-everton-points-deduction-mooted/

I can tell Jeff and I like Jeff from his Soccer Saturday days exactly what Everton could have done.

January 2022

*Sacking Benitez and replacing with Lampard added £10-11m to their losses for one.

*Adding Patterson for £16m, 5.5 years-£1.45m in amortisation and then you add wages for 5-6 months.

Adding Mykolenko for £17.9m, 4.5 years-£1.98m then you add 5-6 months of wages.

*El Ghazi- maybe a loan fee plus 5-6 months wages.

*Van De Beek- £0.5m loan fee plus 5-6 months wages.

Alli- No fee or loan fee but he was on major wages at Tottenham.

Oddly they were adjudged to have breached by £19.5m.a transfer free January and I reckon they squeak in!

Digne sold, Richarlison sold of course but they had one summer window and couldn't hack the financial discipline. They probably failed due to the January 2022 activity. By their own admission they expected to finish higher prize money etc..own fault.

They gambled and lost FFP wise but stayed up. Suck it up.

[maxjak]

8 minutes ago, Natchfever said:

Im sure it isnt fair  but if youre caught thieving, a defence along the lines of " tom dick and harry stole more than me" wouldnt carry much weight would it.

Everton consider themselves special but are guilty as charged so suck it up.

Sorry but i find that that a little simplistic and glib?   FFP is by no means a perfect model, and it needs to be refined and reviewed, as i do not believe it is achieving it's aims.  Everton are being hung out to dry, but theyr'e ; other clubs sailing very close to the wind.  I think FFP is failing in it's objectives and needs to be totally overhauled.       "Suck it up"?  Really??

Edited January 15 by maxjak

[Natchfever]

7 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Sorry but i find that that a little simplistic and glib?   FFP is by no means a perfect model, and it needs to be refined and reviewed, as i do not believe it is achieving it's aims.  Everton are being hung out to dry, but theyr'e ; other clubs sailing very close to the wind.  I think FFP is failing in it's objectives and needs to be totally overhauled.       "Suck it up"?  Really??

Yes suck it up Everton.

Hopefully other offenders will be dealt with in due course.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Henry Winter citing elements of the Everton defence, what a load of arrogant nonsense from the club again. This section jumps out.

"Everton believe PL appears to accept the current PSR rules are flawed as they’re changing them in August. Part of EFC defence is that current rules have not taken into account inflation, spiralling transfer fees etc. Club believe that under the incoming PSR rules their accounts would be compliant"

Good that means we didn't need to sell Semenyo because we would be compliant with the new rules so no need to risk a fail last year.

"Not keeping up with transfer fees" misses a key bloody tenent of the rules. Which is unspoken but clearly dampening down fees and wages is an objective. Or cap, stall the inflation anyway.

Edited January 15 by Mr Popodopolous