W-S-M Seagull Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/everton-supporters-submit-case-against-28474925 So are they going to also allow submissions from fans of clubs such as Leicester detailing the impact Evertons cheating has had on their clubs? Ultimately Everton fans are still watching their team in the premier league because of the cheating. They would be well advised to shut up. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 23 Author Report Share Posted January 23 2 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said: So are they going to also allow submissions from fans of clubs such as Leicester detailing the impact Evertons cheating has had on their clubs? Ultimately Everton fans are still watching their team in the premier league because of the cheating. They would be well advised to shut up. Totally agree. Burnley another and frankly cleaner one given they have always been miles clear of FFP, had been run along such prudent lines...possible that Everton had breached 2 seasons in the bounce thereby impacting the relegation battle and prospects of not one but two sides. They should take it on the chin gracefully this and any subsequent sanctions Everton and their fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 23 Author Report Share Posted January 23 Burnley made a £36m pre tax profit in 2021-22, which was the first FFP period that Everton failed. Some of that was brought about by relegation oddly because their accounts run until July 31st to sales from late May/early June to end of July count in that period but still. What of the impact on them and their fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 23 Author Report Share Posted January 23 (edited) The other thing that is good about better enforcement is that, unless you are well run in the first place you can't buy your way out of trouble, a sticky patch or buy your way back to momentum in January. You have to coach, you have to work..find solutions. Some managers are better at this than others. Edited January 23 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 17 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: The other thing that is good about better enforcement is that, unless you are well run in the first place you can't buy your way out of trouble, a sticky patch or buy your way back to momentum in January. You have to coach, you have to work..find solutions. Some managers are better at this than others. Or copy La Liga and have a budget assigned for the gross salaries and any amortisation for the entire squad plus coaching staff ahead of the season. Even if a club later increases revenue e.g. new sponsorship they can only add a maximum of 30% of that to their budget. Prevention is better than cure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said: So are they going to also allow submissions from fans of clubs such as Leicester detailing the impact Evertons cheating has had on their clubs? Ultimately Everton fans are still watching their team in the premier league because of the cheating. They would be well advised to shut up. Weren’t Leicester one of the clubs that cheated ffp in the Championship? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 23 Author Report Share Posted January 23 2 minutes ago, Portland Bill said: Weren’t Leicester one of the clubs that cheated ffp in the Championship? Yes, ironically I wonder about their compliance to the present season in respect of the 3 year rule..mainly but not 100 pct due to their major loss in 2021-22. 2014 They failed and there were wider questions pertaining to a sponsorship arrangement with Trestellar. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/11/leicester-city-finances-football-league-financial-fair-play-investigation One that confuses me is how Bournemouth the to their income net of TV cash and Fulham due to their seemingly regularly free spending ways/big losses seem to comply at all times. (I know they failed the old rules, fine and embargo respectively). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ska Junkie Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 (edited) I haven't read the whole thread so please excuse if this has been covered already but why are Everton being deducted points / have been already yet Man C, Chelsea and Forest haven't? Surely the same rules apply to City, Chelsea etc yet they've had no penalties. Could anyone explain this for me as surely consistency is necessary? Thanks. Edited January 23 by Ska Junkie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 23 Author Report Share Posted January 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ska Junkie said: I haven't read the whole thread so please excuse if this has been covered already but why are Everton being deducted points / have been already yet Man C, Chelsea and Forest haven't? Surely the same rules apply to City, Chelsea etc yet they've had no penalties. Could anyone explain this for me as surely consistency is necessary? Thanks. I'll try as a starting point Ska. Taking each club in turn. The present and more straightforward matters Everton A) Deemed in breach of the period ending 2021-22 ie the period of 2018-19, the combined average due to Covid of 2019-20 and 2020-21, then 2021-22. Even after sales, Covid allowables, averaging, usual allowables and Stadium related expenditure albeit not necessarily interest they overspent. Overspending generally means deduction.. B) Also the baseline numbers seem to show a potential breach to the period ending 2022-23. Namely 2019-20, 2020-21 average, 2021-22 and 2022-23. There is an argument pertaining to overlap or excess losses in one period impacting the next and maybe the next. The EFL and UEFA have some partial reset, e.g. excess of Upper Loss limit in one year reset down to it..say £55m P&S Loss in one year reset to £35m. I guess that side of it remains to be seen. Nottingham Forest In simple terms, they're deemed to have breached the Spending Limits to 2022-23. 2 Championship seasons and 1 PL season. £13m, £13m and £35m. Personally I thought they were in bigger danger of breaching to the year they went up rather than last season but they should certainly face a points deduction. The submission for P&S form at PL level seems to lack an allowable for Promotion Bonuses which is strange but if applied back to 2016-17 and reassessed that way Aston Villa, Wolves, Bournemouth probably, Fulham once or more and maybe even Leeds would all fail. Logic dictates that they should be excluded if properly evidenced as they're entirely contingent on promotion..but the form seems not to show a space for it. Computer says no?? A key pillar of the Nottingham Forest defence or mitigation appears to be based on the sale of Brennan Johnson and whether they should be allowed to or can include it in the 2022-23 Accounts. I also question their Covid losses for the year they went up, believe it could have unduly assisted with compliance for that period. More Complex cases Man City 115 Charges. A Hearing is reportedly due in the Autumn of 2024. It takes a lot of unpicking had Man City see reportedly contesting all the way. Their accounts now and the last several years will be way within, the question is and it is very serious, to what extent was their rise up clean and compliant. There should have been far more real time analysis at PL and UEFA level. Even if they had say excess sponsorship now, perhaps last 7-8 years, I believe that their success, growth in profile, prize money, player sales and yes legitimate rises in revenue odd the back of success.. they have sufficient headroom to be compliant now, several years and more. Having to go through however many years, however many transactions...probably lawyers, accountants, Independent valuation experts on both sides. If they're found guilty, they will surely be absolutely clobbered. Relegation- more than one relegation? Chelsea A) It's complex. Todd Boehly and Clewelake reportedly flagged up irregularities that they found when they took over. This is currently under investigation, charges could follow. A key question then is two-fold. What sanctions should such off the book payment yield if proven and b) Does it tip Chelsea over PL FFP over the relevant periods. If yes that is potentially a double punishment or should be. B) Irrespective of this and totally separate the expectation is that complying to FFP to this season and perhaps beyond will be a huge challenge. At best if true they have until June 30th to put matters right, otherwise they stand to be charged and referred to an Independent Disciplinary Commission for excess losses/breaching the £105m. Swiss Ramble respected Football Finance Blogger reckons a £96m hole to this season. We'll see but that would using the mooted formula equate to a 25-26 point deduction. To clarify my 25-26 point deduction not that season but the number they could be deducted if SwissRamble is correct and the Everton case sets a precedent! Edited January 23 by Mr Popodopolous 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said: I haven't read the whole thread so please excuse if this has been covered already but why are Everton being deducted points / have been already yet Man C, Chelsea and Forest haven't? Surely the same rules apply to City, Chelsea etc yet they've had no penalties. Could anyone explain this for me as surely consistency is necessary? Thanks. Basically it's because the charges against Everton are very different to the charges against Man City. Everton have spent too much and so they have breached the P&S Rules (aka FFP). That's a fact that they have admitted, and basically there is now an argument about how much punishment they should receive. Man City are basically accused of cooking the books and fraud. They have, of course, not admitted this. So there the case need to first be proven before they can be punished. As the accusations against them are covered by some 115 separated allegations, this is taking a very very long time. The Forest case is similar to Everton, and my boss is chairing the panel running their case and has to issue a decision by April. That will be sorted quickly. My understanding is that Chelsea currently have no formal allegations to answer. But they are under investigation and have a lot of suspicion and informal allegations swirling so are more a case of watch this space. Btw all - the Football Governance Bill is expected to be published in the next fortnight, so expect the PL PR machine to go into overdrive on this stuff very soon. Edited January 23 by ExiledAjax 1 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ska Junkie Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 (edited) Thanks fellas, not as black and white as described by some then? To check I now understand it, please tell me if the below is correct? Everton have been flouting the rules for some time and are being punished accordingly, but, setting a precedent. Convenient that any potential deduction from Chelsea would be applied in the close season, then appealed for 25-26, plus I would assert that Forest haven't done anything wrong as they spent on promotion. As for Man City, proving anything would mean a huge legal fight and with MC having a seemingly bottomless cash reserve......If proven, they are in deep dodo. Edited January 23 by Ska Junkie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said: Everton have been flouting the rules for some time and are being punished accordingly, but, setting a precedent. Basically yes. However, each case is considered on its own facts by a different panel of experts. Whilst each panel will use the same rule book, and will aim for consistency, there is no concept of one decision setting a concrete precedent for future decisions. So be careful about declaring that one decision is a precedent for others. 24 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said: Convenient that any potential deduction from Chelsea would be applied in the close season plus I would assert that Forest haven't done anything wrong as they spent on promotion. Chelsea may get punished, or they may not be. When their case will be decided I don't know. Forest have admitted to a breach. They are now trying to explain why they did that, and are essentially saying that the rules forced them into the breach it by not allowing them to wait to sell Johnson for extra £. Personally I'd say that the knew the rules, knew the time brackets, and should have thought about this when they signed 42 players in a year. But that's for my boss and his panel to decide. 24 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said: As for Man City, proving anything would mean a huge legal fight and with MC having a seemingly bottomless cash reserve...... Exactly. Man City also have a dedicated in house legal team of about 9 people, and they need to be kept in gainful employment don't they! Edited January 23 by ExiledAjax 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ska Junkie Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 (edited) 2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said: Basically yes. However, each case is considered on its own facts by a different panel of experts. Whilst each panel will use the same rule book, and will aim for consistency, there is no concept of one decision setting a concrete precedent for future decisions. So be careful about declaring that one decision is a precedent for others. Chelsea may get punished, or they may not be. When they're case will be decided I don't know. Forest have admitted to a breach. They are now trying to explain why they did that, and are essentially saying that the rules forced them into the breach it by not allowing them to wait to sell Johnson for extra £. Personally I'd say that the knee the rules, knew the time brackets, and should have thought about this when they signed 42 players in a year. But that's for my boss and his panel to decide. Exactly. Man City also have a dedicated in house legal team of about 9 people, and they need to be kept in gainful employment don't they! Cheers Exiled, much appreciated. None of that bodes well for the surely needed fairness to all by treating clubs differently for, possibly, the same things. Stinks of favouritism. Edited January 23 by Ska Junkie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 1 minute ago, ExiledAjax said: Basically yes. However, each case is considered on its own facts by a different panel of experts. Whilst each panel will use the same rule book, and will aim for consistency, there is no concept of one decision setting a concrete precedent for future decisions. So be careful about declaring that one decision is a precedent for others. Chelsea may get punished, or they may not be. When they're case will be decided I don't know. Forest have admitted to a breach. They are now trying to explain why they did that, and are essentially saying that the rules forced them into the breach it by not allowing them to wait to sell Johnson for extra £. Personally I'd say that the knee the rules, knew the time brackets, and should have thought about this when they signed 42 players in a year. But that's for my boss and his panel to decide. Exactly. Man City also have a dedicated in house legal team of about 9 people, and they need to be kept in gainful employment don't they! I'd just that Chelsea are subject to multiple investigations going back years, quite separately from and much more serious than whether they have just breached P&S limits. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/15/chelsea-fc-face-new-questions-over-how-roman-abramovich-funded-success 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 1 minute ago, chinapig said: I'd just that Chelsea are subject to multiple investigations going back years, quite separately from and much more serious than whether they have just breached P&S limits. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/15/chelsea-fc-face-new-questions-over-how-roman-abramovich-funded-success Yes. And it's probably even messier than the Man City case. But still, so far as I know there are no actual charges against the Club right now. Investigate all you like boyo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 23 Author Report Share Posted January 23 I'll get onto more specific stuff later but in respect of Nottingham Forest and their argument. I can only see the basis and that isn't the same as a successful defence but the basis for a successful defence if there is a valid and properly constructed binding deal to sell Brennan Johnson to Tottenham by 30th June, perhaps wirh a minimum Purchase Price. Not a backdated one but one agreed between the clubs no later than 30th June 2023. With the final price to be haggled by the end of the summer Window but a minimum baseline say £35m. If there isn't then I don't see how they can rebut the charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 13 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said: Yes. And it's probably even messier than the Man City case. But still, so far as I know there are no actual charges against the Club right now. Investigate all you like boyo. Indeed it is exceedingly complex perhaps even involving criminal activity. As Kieran Maguire said yesterday, football is up there with crypto and property as the best ways to launder money. Though nobody could suspect Abramovich of that of course. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said: Cheers Exiled, much appreciated. None of that bodes well for the surely needed fairness to all by treating clubs differently for, possibly, the same things. Stinks of favouritism. Ska, this panel from David Squires piece today is a nice succinct summary of Forest's mildly ludicrous defence imo. Edited January 23 by ExiledAjax 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 25 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said: Cheers Exiled, much appreciated. None of that bodes well for the surely needed fairness to all by treating clubs differently for, possibly, the same things. Stinks of favouritism. Except they're not the same thing since the facts of every case are different. Which is one reason, as @ExiledAjax has pointed out, why tribunals (in this case the Independent Commission) do not set precedents. Everton fans like to claim favouritism but since the Man City case has not been heard yet that doesn't stack up. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 23 Author Report Share Posted January 23 (edited) Two examples of the system perhaps taking effect. Newcastle going into this window were heavily linked with Kalvin Phillips on loan but have incurred heavy losses in each of the last 2 seasons. Everton were also linked albeit dunno how seriously. He could well be off to West Ham on loan. Who have made moderate losses, lower still with Covid add-backs, just banked £100m for Rice etc. No rules and he would go to a big spender. Sheffield United who are limited but compliant are in the market for centre backs. I'd say more cash flow than the Upper Loss limit for them. They are linked with Holgate and Worrall, may get some joy. From Everton and Nottingham Forest. Both charged with FFP. How in favour they are different debate but if money no object.. Edited January 23 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldyman Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Yes, ironically I wonder about their compliance to the present season in respect of the 3 year rule..mainly but not 100 pct due to their major loss in 2021-22. 2014 They failed and there were wider questions pertaining to a sponsorship arrangement with Trestellar. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/11/leicester-city-finances-football-league-financial-fair-play-investigation One that confuses me is how Bournemouth the to their income net of TV cash and Fulham due to their seemingly regularly free spending ways/big losses seem to comply at all times. (I know they failed the old rules, fine and embargo respectively). I can’t get my head around Bournemouth at all . They have league 1 attendances the same TV income as clubs like Everton . Don’t gain any income from alternative uses of their stadium and spend £30-50m every season on players without selling on any home grown talent to the “ big boys” . How the hell are they within FFP rules ??? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ska Junkie Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Two examples of the system perhaps taking effect. Newcastle going into this window were heavily linked with Kalvin Phillips on loan but have incurred heavy losses in each of the last 2 seasons. Everton were also linked albeit dunno how seriously. He could well be off to West Ham on loan. Who have made moderate losses, lower still with Covid add-backs, just banked £100m for Rice etc. No rules and he would go to a big spender. Sheffield United who are limited but compliant are in the market for centre backs. I'd say more cash flow than the Upper Loss limit for them. They are linked with Holgate and Worrall, may get some joy. From Everton and Nottingham Forest. Both charged with FFP. How in favour they are different debate but if money no object.. On the subject of the Blades, and given they'll receive parachute payments if they come down, which set of FFP rules apply to them, PL or EFL? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 23 Author Report Share Posted January 23 10 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said: On the subject of the Blades, and given they'll receive parachute payments if they come down, which set of FFP rules apply to them, PL or EFL? The rules are somewhat harmonised so it will be 2 years Championship and 1 year PL if they drop this season. The Upper Loss limit plus Allowables. £13m + £35m + £13m to next if they drop. To this it will be £13m + £13m + £35m. The rules are somewhat harmonised, the maximum Upper Loss limit differs. E.g. Leicester for so many years as consistently PL £105m are now £83m as you subtract £22m for each EFL season. Also I'm unsure how Promotion Bonuses are counted in the 2 divisions. I assume exempt but.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRoss Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Baldyman said: I can’t get my head around Bournemouth at all . They have league 1 attendances the same TV income as clubs like Everton . Don’t gain any income from alternative uses of their stadium and spend £30-50m every season on players without selling on any home grown talent to the “ big boys” . How the hell are they within FFP rules ??? That's true but your not thinking about wages. Everton we're/are big payers. Bournemouth will hover around the 30/40/50 grand a week whereas Everton are hovering around the 80/90/100 grand plus a week on players. Edited January 23 by RedRoss 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 23 Author Report Share Posted January 23 Just now, RedRoss said: That's true but your not thinking about wages. Everton we're/are big payers. Bournemouth will hover around the 30/40/50 grand a week whereas Everton we're hovering around the 80/90/100 grand plus a week on players. Also @Baldyman Bournemouth though..they're one I struggle with. Pre tax Loss or Profit 2019-20..-£60m 2020-21..£17m Profit (For FFP you average and halve so it's-£21.5m). 2021-22..-£55.5m. Their Upper Loss limit to last season was £72m plus allowables, Covid and Promotion Bonuses, they surely don't have big Allowables given their Category of Academy was 3 until recently, the £100m rise we need to subtract the gap between that and Year 2 Parachutes and they haven't made any decent sales for a good 2 seasons by the look. They also sacked 2 managers last season albeit dunno their terms of contract. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldyman Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Also @Baldyman Bournemouth though..they're one I struggle with. Pre tax Loss or Profit 2019-20..-£60m 2020-21..£17m Profit (For FFP you average and halve so it's-£21.5m). 2021-22..-£55.5m. Their Upper Loss limit to last season was £72m plus allowables, Covid and Promotion Bonuses, they surely don't have big Allowables given their Category of Academy was 3 until recently, the £100m rise we need to subtract the gap between that and Year 2 Parachutes and they haven't made any decent sales for a good 2 seasons by the look. They also sacked 2 managers last season albeit dunno their terms of contract. So basically ….. watch this space ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 23 Author Report Share Posted January 23 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Baldyman said: So basically ….. watch this space ? Hopefully. Could well be. Maybe their lack of sales will catch up with them to this season, £83m their Upper Loss limit..sure they turned down bids for Kelly too. Edited January 23 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 25 Author Report Share Posted January 25 https://efc-fanadvisoryboard.com/2024/01/19/fab-sends-witness-statement-to-pl-apppeal-board/ Everton have been unlucky in some ways down the years, do a lot in the Community and West Ham got away with it big time over Tevez Taken in isolation, (the links provided within the link) there are some compelling arguments.. ..The problem is however to take it in isolation! It's of wider importance to the whole division plus the Championship! Possibly elements of Special Pleading too. Possibly not but either way I don't see that the arguments carry that much weight in respect of an Appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 25 Author Report Share Posted January 25 Read the while thing. Everton Fan Advisory Board appear to have spectacularly missed a salient point in some of their analysis. The premise is that the Regulator won't hand out Sporting Sanctions such as Points Deductions for breaches. This is correct. Why? Because the League(s) will still have thst power!! They perhaps take it to mean that you shouldn't get deductions for failing FFP etc as the Regulator won't do it!! It remains a matter for the League! It's painful to see how wrong they got that, but I've seen that argument elsewhere on Social media in the last few months along tbe lines of "No more points deductions for failing financial rules as the Regulator won't do it". Indeed the Regulator can assist with information gathering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 25 Author Report Share Posted January 25 They've highlighted some key bits. They either gloss over, misinterpret or reframe the argument to suit their point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.