Hxj Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 That is not a witness statement, I hope that the barrister didn't charge them! It's simply a whine dressed up as something formal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 25 Author Report Share Posted January 25 Yeah it doesn't carry much legal weight does it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 On 23/01/2024 at 17:54, 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 ??? They spend 50 to 60 million but also get 90 to 100 million just in broadcast revenue, that leaves them well with in ffp rules Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fgrsimon Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 (edited) 8 hours ago, Hxj said: That is not a witness statement, I hope that the barrister didn't charge them! It's simply a whine dressed up as something formal. Good God! 363 pages of whining!!! that's a herculean effort but it can be summarised as:- "Always the victim, it's never their fault..." One question re: Man City, if they can go back 10 years or whatever for their breaches, does that open the door for more retrospective charges. e.g. Leicester, Bournemouth, Villa? Edited January 26 by fgrsimon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 On 25/01/2024 at 01:17, Mr Popodopolous said: It's of wider importance to the whole division plus the Championship! This is key for me. The whole division has a massive head start and all financials are skewed in Prem favour, that's bad enough. But to allow anyone to then bend/break rules cannot be allowed. As long as they treat everyone the same, and I'd love to see one of the big guys get hammered , it's fine. The fine that QPR had affected them for years , Luton got smashed by points deduction there has to be accountability at the top too. It would seem unfair if Everton got 2 points deductions, when others seem as bad if not worse. But it seems that the Powers that be can only deal with one thing at a time. Man City will be a long running series by the seem of it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 FFP regulations were introduced by the Premier League in 2013. Yet only once it became clear that an independent regulator is going to happen did they take substantial and timely action against any big clubs. If this is a complete coincidence we are being asked to believe that no such club has breached the limits until now. Given the profligacy of clubs this seems unlikely. It's hard not to be cynical about such a cynical organisation. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 8 hours ago, fgrsimon said: One question re: Man City, if they can go back 10 years or whatever for their breaches, does that open the door for more retrospective charges. e.g. Leicester, Bournemouth, Villa? No. The current case against Manchester City is based on the club giving the Premier League incorrect financial information, hence going back. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 17 hours ago, Hxj said: That is not a witness statement, I hope that the barrister didn't charge them! It's simply a whine dressed up as something formal. It would have been a lot cheaper to just get the barrister to write "It's not fair". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, Hxj said: No. The current case against Manchester City is based on the club giving the Premier League incorrect financial information, hence going back. Agreed, albeit IMO the Aston Villa case..seemingly cleared but I have an issue with the way it sits and has been sitting on the Balance Sheet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 26 Author Report Share Posted January 26 11 hours ago, fgrsimon said: Good God! 363 pages of whining!!! that's a herculean effort but it can be summarised as:- "Always the victim, it's never their fault..." One question re: Man City, if they can go back 10 years or whatever for their breaches, does that open the door for more retrospective charges. e.g. Leicester, Bournemouth, Villa? Bournemouth and Leicester were settled in 2018 iirc. Some wrangling. Fined less than the EFL wanted. Under the 3 year rule if Promotion Bonuses are not exempt from the limit I reckon you could go back and find Aston Villa, Wolves, maybe Leeds and quite possibly Fulham more than once, Cardiff 2018, Bournemouth 2022 guilty too. As in they would all exceed the Upper Loss limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted January 26 Admin Report Share Posted January 26 On 23/01/2024 at 17:54, 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 ??? A quick search online has their wage bill estimated to be be between £30m-35m lower than the likes of Forest and Everton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 25 minutes ago, Ian M said: A quick search online has their wage bill estimated to be be between £30m-35m lower than the likes of Forest and Everton. I was looking earlier, although true figures are hard to find , it looks like whatever the actual amount they are bottom 6 budget. One site did have Lloyd Kelly on £35k a week while Scott was apparently on £53k , like I said figures are a bit random. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 Interesting piece from Winter here. The "small Clubs" thing is telling and something that many have thought for a while. I wonder if it will make any difference. Strong stuff. Culture, Media and Sport Committee has today written to @premierleague ceo Richard Masters “asking him to clarify remarks made to the Committee last week about ‘small clubs’ and the league’s role in the Profit and Sustainability Rules and sanction regime”. “Richard Masters’ implication that nine-times league title winners Everton and double European Cup winners Nottingham Forest are ‘small clubs’ will have raised eyebrows with fans,” says Dame Caroline Dinenage MP, Chair of the CMS Committee. “To suggest clubs are categorised according to size raises wider questions about whether every member of the league truly does receive treatment that is fair and consistent. “Equally puzzling was his insistence that the charges and punishment regime is entirely independent of the Premier League, when there is documentary evidence of an attempt to move the goalposts with a proposal for a structured policy for sanctions. If Mr Masters was a referee, the VAR control room may well now be having a word in his ear to look again at his evidence to the committee.” The Committee has also written to Minister for Sport Stuart Andrew “urging the Government to bring forward the Football Governance Bill as soon as possible”. The Bill would establish an independent regulator “which would have backstop powers to impose a financial deal on the Premier League and Football League if they fail to reach agreement themselves”. Dinenage adds, “Overall, given what we heard last week from both the Premier League and EFL, it now seems more important than ever that the Government gets on with establishing the independent football regulator that can step in to safeguard the health of the game beyond the monied world of the top flight.” 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 16 minutes ago, 1960maaan said: Interesting piece from Winter here. The "small Clubs" thing is telling and something that many have thought for a while. I wonder if it will make any difference. Strong stuff. Culture, Media and Sport Committee has today written to @premierleague ceo Richard Masters “asking him to clarify remarks made to the Committee last week about ‘small clubs’ and the league’s role in the Profit and Sustainability Rules and sanction regime”. “Richard Masters’ implication that nine-times league title winners Everton and double European Cup winners Nottingham Forest are ‘small clubs’ will have raised eyebrows with fans,” says Dame Caroline Dinenage MP, Chair of the CMS Committee. “To suggest clubs are categorised according to size raises wider questions about whether every member of the league truly does receive treatment that is fair and consistent. “Equally puzzling was his insistence that the charges and punishment regime is entirely independent of the Premier League, when there is documentary evidence of an attempt to move the goalposts with a proposal for a structured policy for sanctions. If Mr Masters was a referee, the VAR control room may well now be having a word in his ear to look again at his evidence to the committee.” The Committee has also written to Minister for Sport Stuart Andrew “urging the Government to bring forward the Football Governance Bill as soon as possible”. The Bill would establish an independent regulator “which would have backstop powers to impose a financial deal on the Premier League and Football League if they fail to reach agreement themselves”. Dinenage adds, “Overall, given what we heard last week from both the Premier League and EFL, it now seems more important than ever that the Government gets on with establishing the independent football regulator that can step in to safeguard the health of the game beyond the monied world of the top flight.” Nice of the DCMS to ask the government to soon publish a bill that it is already planning to publish in the next week or so. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 28 Author Report Share Posted January 28 (edited) Everton fan with quite a few followers. Public sentiment deems it way too harsh.. Special pleading? Edited January 28 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 28 Author Report Share Posted January 28 Another day, another thread worth of Special Pleading.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted January 29 Report Share Posted January 29 You are allowed to spend £X Everton (and others) spent £XXX So against any team that stayed within, or even tried to stay within the rules they manufactured a £XX advantage. AKA cheating . I've said before , I have a soft spot for Everton but I also yearn for the olden days of (almost) genuine meritocracy . So because of that, and because money shouldn't buy you a place outside the relegation spots , something has to be done. I'd love to see what some of these people said about Tevez etc, it amounts to the same thing. Did they moan about Luton ? Swindon? Doubtful . The only difference it makes, it being your team is it hurts more. The rules don't change however much you may look for a way out, they should be imposed the same whoever breaks them. The sooner there is a proper, independent body , that everyone signs up to obey , the better. Also, not holding my breath. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markthehorn Posted January 30 Report Share Posted January 30 (edited) Appeal hearing this week . Edited January 30 by Markthehorn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 30 Author Report Share Posted January 30 Thanks. Surely the best they can hope for is a modest reduction. No new evidence can be presented in an Appeal like this so their whole restating their Accounts seems interesting... Hope it's upheld and they get punished for the 2nd alleged breach too. Any overspend is worth-6 points as a possible baseline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Geoff Posted January 30 Report Share Posted January 30 Fwiw I think it will be reduced from 10 to 6, but they have more serious financial worries looming than just this. The £150m loan from 777 just for starters. Probably lose another 4 points for the second breach, although that is a bit more complicated owing to being already charged for 2 of those 3 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 30 Author Report Share Posted January 30 (edited) Why should it be reduced out of interest. What has fundamentally changed post the first case. Why should the 2nd deduction be only 4 when a second fail is indication that they have not amended their ways and the suggested baseline was -6 for any overspend at all. Edited January 30 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted January 30 Report Share Posted January 30 6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Why should it be reduced out of interest. What has fundamentally changed post the first case. Why should the 2nd deduction be only 4 when a second fail is indication thst they have not amended their ways and the suggested baseline was -6 for any overspend at all. It should be reduced because Everton fans think it's unfair and whataboutManCity! They were found guilty of a breach by way of their own accounts for goodness sake. I reckon they are banking on the fact that there is no precedent regarding points deduction for breach of p&s in the prem. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 30 Author Report Share Posted January 30 1 minute ago, downendcity said: It should be reduced because Everton fans think it's unfair and whataboutManCity! They were found guilty of a breach by way of their own accounts for goodness sake. I reckon they are banking on the fact that there is no precedent regarding points deduction for breach of p&s in the prem. The Special Pleading is truly nauseating isn't it. Maybe it would be the same with any club but the mental gymnastics, the whining has really destroyed any sympathy that I may have had for Everton and their fans. The Witness Statement, the stuff I put from fans, even seemingly sensible fans. Hope it is upheld and they get a 2nd deduction this season given their admission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Geoff Posted January 30 Report Share Posted January 30 21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Why should it be reduced out of interest. What has fundamentally changed post the first case. Why should the 2nd deduction be only 4 when a second fail is indication that they have not amended their ways and the suggested baseline was -6 for any overspend at all. Not saying it should be, just a gut feel. Don't think the Premier League handled the original case particularly well and should have had rules in place indicating what the points deduction would be per £5 million of breach (as per the EFL). They seemed to be making it up as they went along. Everton will be lawyered up for the second breach and will tie the PL up in knots due to being charged already for 2 of the 3 years, even though we all know it is a rolling three years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 30 Author Report Share Posted January 30 5 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said: Not saying it should be, just a gut feel. Don't think the Premier League handled the original case particularly well and should have had rules in place indicating what the points deduction would be per £5 million of breach (as per the EFL). They seemed to be making it up as they went along. Everton will be lawyered up for the second breach and will tie the PL up in knots due to being charged already for 2 of the 3 years, even though we all know it is a rolling three years. Agree to some extent. The 2nd bit is interesting, unprecedented. However failure for a second successive period doesn't preclude punishment. See Birmingham, Reading, Derby had it been enforced in real time. What happens in the EFL and possibly UEFA is that any individual prior year that exceeds the Upper Loss limit is reset down to the max..if it fails below it remains at that. E.g. Adjusted Loss T-2 £60m T-1 £45m T £20m Becomes for P&S/FFP. T-2 £35m T-1 £20m Meaning that the adjusted allowable loss cannot exceed £50m. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted January 30 Report Share Posted January 30 25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: The Special Pleading is truly nauseating isn't it. Maybe it would be the same with any club but the mental gymnastics, the whining has really destroyed any sympathy that I may have had for Everton and their fans. The Witness Statement, the stuff I put from fans, even seemingly sensible fans. Hope it is upheld and they get a 2nd deduction this season given their admission. Their fans need to learn to accept that their club ADMITTED to both breaches. It's really annoying me that they can't get their head around this basic concept. They are appealing the sentence rather than being found to be guilty. I have absolutely zero sympathy for their fans. My sympathy is with the fans of clubs who complied but were victims of Evertons cheating AND continued cheating. Let's talk about how at clubs such as Burnley, decent normal hard working people would have lost their jobs due to their relegation. Thats the consequence of relegation. Those at the bottom are first out of the door when costs needs to be cut. Considering the impact Evertons cheating had on other clubs in the competition, I see no reason for there to be a lesser punishment. In fact I'd go as far as saying they should recieve a harsher punishment if the appeal fails. Just like how it works with red card appeals. There should be some jeopardy involved in appeals to filter out frivolous appeals. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 30 Author Report Share Posted January 30 A little bit of the legal element from the Times. No new evidence, no CAS, albeit I did read something about Arbitration as a final final backstop if errors in Law eg but that is fairly remote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted January 30 Report Share Posted January 30 I also think that a -6 punishment isn't really much of a punishment. I know its hard to quantify what impact the cheating has on results but lets say you overspent by 30 million cos you signed a striker, that striker is probably going to win you more than 2 games. So the punishment needs to be harsh to put other clubs off from taking that gamble. I'm annoyed that we drew with FFP cheats Forest. Again it's difficult to quantify what impact their cheating had on their game against us but it never less had some sort of impact. Its great that they too will be punished, however that doesn't have any benefit to us. It leaves even more of a spur taste considering we have spent the last few years watching shit football with little prospect of success due to us making an effort to comply. When we do get a sniff at success (in the fa cup) we potentially lose out to a club that's cheated. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted January 30 Author Report Share Posted January 30 The year Nottingham Forest went up I really do doubt their compliance, moreso than 2023 IMO given the unusual escalation in their Covid losses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted January 30 Report Share Posted January 30 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said: Not saying it should be, just a gut feel. Don't think the Premier League handled the original case particularly well and should have had rules in place indicating what the points deduction would be per £5 million of breach (as per the EFL). They seemed to be making it up as they went along. The Premier League Board proposed a sliding scale of sanctions. The clubs, including Everton, rejected it. Edited January 30 by chinapig 1 1 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.