Everton FFP- yes

[Hxj]

2 hours ago, Sir Geoff said:

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.

I think having a both a KC and a junior barrister acting for you along with Pinsent Masons LLP in the first hearing is usually considered to be 'lawyered up'.

Edited January 30 by Hxj

[Sir Geoff]

22 minutes ago, Hxj said:

I think having a both a KC and a junior barrister acting for you along with Pinsent Masons LLP in the first hearing is usually considered to be 'lawyered up'.

Bit over the top for a Guilty plea imo.

Obviously they would be 'lawyered up' (I probably used the wrong term) but there is a discrepancy in that they have been charged with breaching years 1 and 2 of the cycle, so theoretically can not be charged again for those years. This fact just complicates matters and will play in to the hands of the KC defending them, which is why I think they will get a smaller punishment for this cycle.

[Mr Popodopolous]

17 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Bit over the top for a Guilty plea imo.

Obviously they would be 'lawyered up' (I probably used the wrong term) but there is a discrepancy in that they have been charged with breaching years 1 and 2 of the cycle, so theoretically can not be charged again for those years. This fact just complicates matters and will play in to the hands of the KC defending them, which is why I think they will get a smaller punishment for this cycle.

They can though, this is just not true. Am I missing something?

If this was the case Reading would not have fallen foul of their Business Plan as it still contained prior years and then Birmingham would not have been referred over Che Adams.

When the charges v Derby came out in January 2020, they were charged for breaching consecutive years..Paragraph 5 and 6 in particular.

I don't know what principle of reset existed there. The aggregate adds up to 21 points though.

Edited January 30 by Mr Popodopolous

[Sir Geoff]

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

They can though, this is just not true. Am I missing something?

If this was the case Reading would not have fallen foul of their Business Plan as it still contained prior years and then Birmingham would not have been referred over Che Adams.

When the charges v Derby came out in January 2020, they were charged for breaching consecutive years.

Yes they can be charged but obviously very messy and one the silver tongued ones will be all over, so no quick resolution.

You keep quoting EFL clubs and decisions where there were set guidelines. The PL rules re punishments are vague to non existent which is the problem with Everton's second charge.

I agree they are totally guilty but legally it will get messy.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Sir Geoff said:

Yes they can be charged but obviously very messy and one the silver tongued ones will be all over, so no quick resolution.

You keep quoting EFL clubs and decisions where there were set guidelines. The PL rules re punishments are vague to non existent which is the problem with Everton's second charge.

I agree they are totally guilty but legally it will get messy.

Well there will be a quick resolution by the end of this season. Timetable is quite clear.

It's not in the interests of Everton to drag it out as there is no suspension of Sanction pending appeal.

However I do agree that it could get very messy.

[W-S-M Seagull]

5 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Yes they can be charged but obviously very messy and one the silver tongued ones will be all over, so no quick resolution.

You keep quoting EFL clubs and decisions where there were set guidelines. The PL rules re punishments are vague to non existent which is the problem with Everton's second charge.

I agree they are totally guilty but legally it will get messy.

It's not a problem tho really because unless the rules say they can't be charged again for those years then that means they can be, like they have been. 

Everton voted for the rules. They competed under those rules knowing what those rules are. A defence of "I don't think this should be the rules" isn't a defence. 

In my opinion the second breach should be more severe than the 1st breach as I consider it an aggravated breach because despite the first breach they carried on spending. 

Evertons claims that they don't think a sporting sanction is fair just shows how they view financial controls and unless the book is thrown at them, they'll continue to overspend. 

Edited January 30 by W-S-M Seagull

[Hxj]

14 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Bit over the top for a Guilty plea imo.

The first hearing was a 'not guilty' plea - the second one is a 'guilty' plea.

16 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

there is a discrepancy in that they have been charged with breaching years 1 and 2 of the cycle, so theoretically can not be charged again for those years.

That isn't the basis of the charge.  I appreciate that it is semantics but it is important.  They were charged for a breach in the period to 2021/22 (and were found guilty) and subsequently they admitted a breach in the period to 2022/23.  

 Under the EPL rules these are separate and equal charges.  They could get the same penalty for each offence, or they could get a higher one on the basis that this is a second offence.  Or as you say the panel could provide additional mitigation, but for what?  If you read the original decision the panel were pretty robust.

 

[1960maaan]

12 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The first hearing was a 'not guilty' plea - the second one is a 'guilty' plea.

That isn't the basis of the charge.  I appreciate that it is semantics but it is important.  They were charged for a breach in the period to 2021/22 (and were found guilty) and subsequently they admitted a breach in the period to 2022/23.  

 Under the EPL rules these are separate and equal charges.  They could get the same penalty for each offence, or they could get a higher one on the basis that this is a second offence.  Or as you say the panel could provide additional mitigation, but for what?  If you read the original decision the panel were pretty robust.

 

I did wonder , as it's a rolling 3 year thing , how Everton would get away with things after the points deduction.

If they got the - points for 20/21 , which I understand was the 3rd year of £100m losses.
Then even £0 loss would add up to £200M for the 3 years , breaking the limit again. As it was they lost about£45M, so does that mean they stand to get a penalty every year until they get the losses down to that 3 year £105M ?

[W-S-M Seagull]

15 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I did wonder , as it's a rolling 3 year thing , how Everton would get away with things after the points deduction.

If they got the - points for 20/21 , which I understand was the 3rd year of £100m losses.
Then even £0 loss would add up to £200M for the 3 years , breaking the limit again. As it was they lost about£45M, so does that mean they stand to get a penalty every year until they get the losses down to that 3 year £105M ?

Should do. See what they could do is sell their players to raise funds which would help them to comply. But as they are choosing not to do that they are instead gaining a competitive advantage by not complying so a heavy punishment for each breach is just. 

We cut our costs and sold Semenyo to clear us of ffp. No excuse for them to not do the same. That Branthwaite could command quite a large and substantial fee. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

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

Should do. See what they could do is sell their players to raise funds which would help them to comply. But as they are choosing not to do that they are instead gaining a competitive advantage by not complying so a heavy punishment for each breach is just. 

We cut our costs and sold Semenyo to clear us of ffp. No excuse for them to not do the same. That Branthwaite could command quite a large and substantial fee. 

Sell players and spend less would be my slight addition to your point. Aka restraint in the market.

Garner, Onana, McNeil, Maupay for 4 in summer 2022.

Patterson, Mykolenko, loans for Van De Beek and El Ghazi in Janaury 2022 plus the deal for Alli which if nothing else huge wages.

Then we add the cost of sacking Benitez and replacing Lampard, £10-11m iirc and sacking Lampard for Dyche, while cheaper will have added a cost too.

Edited January 30 by Mr Popodopolous

[1960maaan]

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

Should do.

I thought so, but started doubting myself after seeing some of the "mitigation" from different places. Some saying 'we've already been done for 2021 ' etc.  

I don't see how they can say it's harsh or unfair when they didn't just break the limits, they smashed them . 3 times the allowed losses is taking the piss on a massive scale.
I have their 3 year losses at £245M-ish , with last year down by £70m+. Even if they could cut their losses by the same again , they would still be over the £105m by about £25-£30M .

This is going to run and run isn't it.

[Hxj]

54 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

If they got the - points for 20/21 , which I understand was the 3rd year of £100m losses.

The -10 for was for a determined total losses sum to 2021/22 of £129.5 million.

The decision states that the annual losses were falling throughout that period, but rose again in 2022/23.  As far as I can tell it doesn't say if the 2022/23 losses were larger than 2021/22 losses, or all four years used in 2021/22 loss calculation.

[Hxj]

23 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

This is going to run and run isn't it.

A club such as Everton could easily enter into a 'Death Spiral'.

Relegation into the Championship, can't cut its wages, or dispose of players (the contracts are too good), new stadium is too expensive to run with no massive crowds, fail EFL FFP, get relegated again, crowds crash, costs cannot be absorbed, hello administration.

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, Hxj said:

A club such as Everton could easily enter into a 'Death Spiral'.

Relegation into the Championship, can't cut its wages, or dispose of players (the contracts are too good), new stadium is too expensive to run with no massive crowds, fail EFL FFP, get relegated again, crowds crash, costs cannot be absorbed, hello administration.

Leicester albeit without the administration side of the doom-loop/'Death Spiral' intrigue me.

I've made some conservative estimates that their total wage bill is around £90m and that their income is £100m down from 2 years ago of £214m so about £114m then.

I wonder if they are set to comply to the present sesson ie the £83m adjusted loss limit. They did lose £92.4m pts tax in a season that as a them finish 8th in PL, reach Europa Conference League semi final etc.

Edited January 30 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

What a weird take. Why is a points deduction unsustainable for any club? Can someone explain this.

Edited January 31 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

On 30/01/2024 at 17:19, Hxj said:

A club such as Everton could easily enter into a 'Death Spiral'.

Relegation into the Championship, can't cut its wages, or dispose of players (the contracts are too good), new stadium is too expensive to run with no massive crowds, fail EFL FFP, get relegated again, crowds crash, costs cannot be absorbed, hello administration.

We can but hope!

I've long felt that it needs a big club to crash and burn for the game to come to it's senses financially.

Having said that, the types of owner we now have at the top end of the game probably still won't give a toss, and whatever financial rules are in place they will try to find ways to circumvent them. 

Would an independent regulator run a tighter ship?

 

[downendcity]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What a weird take. Why is a points deduction unsustainable for any club? Can someone explain this.

I guess because it could cause relegation?

It can't be right that a punishment for breaking rules is punitive, can it? 

[W-S-M Seagull]

@Mr Popodopolous Everton equalise against Spurs with probably their most valuable player Branthwaite scoring the equaliser and earning them a point.

This is where my issue is with the cheating. To comply with ffp they could have sold players such as him. But instead they choose to cheat and are gaining a competitive advantage from that cheating. Their cheating has impacted Spurs who are ffp compliant in this game and the point they have gained have taken them above Luton who are also ffp compliant. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

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

@Mr Popodopolous Everton equalise against Spurs with probably their most valuable player Branthwaite scoring the equaliser and earning them a point.

This is where my issue is with the cheating. To comply with ffp they could have sold players such as him. But instead they choose to cheat and are gaining a competitive advantage from that cheating. Their cheating has impacted Spurs who are ffp compliant in this game and the point they have gained have taken them above Luton who are also ffp compliant. 

Excellent point that. Luton don't spend enough anyway but yes hopefully this first deduction largely sticks and a 2nd follows this season.

Technically I suppose they would argue if a sale is needed pertaining to FFP they have until end of June but it doesn't feel enough.

The arrogance and the whining is nauseating by Everton and Evertonians.

[Mr Popodopolous]

More Mental Gymnastics on Merseyside.

This isn't fan though, this isn't even an Everton fan who is also credible like the Esk.

This is an apparent Professional trained Journalist.  

On a superficial level yes he is right but it is utterly devoid of context or the reason they are in that position, how they put themselves into it.

Edited February 4 by Mr Popodopolous

[1960maaan]

57 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

More Mental Gymnastics on Merseyside.

This isn't fan though, this isn't even an Everton fan who is also credible like the Esk.

This is an apparent Professional trained Journalist.  

On a superficial level yes he is right but it is utterly devoid of context or the reason they are in that position, how they put themselves into it.

I guess he has to fill copy, or whatever the modern term is.

I wonder if he commented on QPR, who trough losing so much money were fined £40M , make sense out of that then !

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I guess he has to fill copy, or whatever the modern term is.

I wonder if he commented on QPR, who trough losing so much money were fined £40M , make sense out of that then !

 

Copy to fill, clicks to get I suppose. Maybe he's an Everton fan too, but Idk

Yes that was my favourite, a World record Sporting fine for overspending.

If memory serves it was £50-55m that the EFL wanted, maybe even £57m.

Edited February 4 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Evertonians are genuinely insufferable I must say.

I'm usually quite civil but it's quite simple you ****.

*Sell as many players as you need.

*Show as much spending restraint as you need.

*Don't sack so many managers adding £10s of millions to your losses over me years.

To comply..a higher wage bill usually means a Sporting Advantage, they had one window of attempted restraint then spent again albeit more balanced. We had 18 months to 2 years!!

Insufferable gobshites at best.

Edited February 6 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://archive.is/2024.02.06-145144/https://theathletic.com/5254302/2024/02/06/everton-appeal-psr-ffp/

[1960maaan]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Evertonians are genuinely insufferable I must say.

I'm usually quite civil but it's quite simple you ****.

*Sell as many players as you need.

*Show as much spending restraint as you need.

*Don't sack so many managers adding £10s of millions to your losses over me years.

To comply..a higher wage bill usually means a Sporting Advantage, they had one window of attempted restraint then spent again albeit more balanced. We had 18 months to 2 years!!

Insufferable gobshites at best.

Spending 3X what you are allowed on your sporting team, is bound to give a sporting advantage over the teams that complied . 

I'd love to know what he's said about Man City's spending over the years , wonder if he thinks they should spend what they want.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, 1960maaan said:

Spending 3X what you are allowed on your sporting team, is bound to give a sporting advantage over the teams that complied . 

I'd love to know what he's said about Man City's spending over the years , wonder if he thinks they should spend what they want.

I think he is an Everton fan.

The Sporting Advantage thing.. 

Assume that they didn't sack Benitez for Lampard for a random bet but to try and obtain a Sporting Advantage. £10-11m.

Digne sale mid season sure but inbound Patterson, Mykolenko, Alli free but high wage, loans for Van De Beek and El Ghazi.

His argument is that it's invalid or whatever as the PL cannot prove a Sporting Advantage but that is cynical because a Sporting Advantage was clearly sought.

They even budgeted for an 8th place finish so I assume it was with this at least in mind..what is that if not seeking a Sporting Advantage?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Apologies got it wrong, they budgeted for a 6th place finish.

Hopefully they didn't try and use that as any form of mitigation! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Listened to Kieran Maguire on BBC Merseyside.

Putting aside the wider discussion is maybe reduction to -6 with 4 suspended.. 

My query there is that if there is a breach to the period ending 2023, could that suspended penalty  kick in then on top of any sanction if proven for 2023?

Would be pretty strange if it didn't. Perhaps they should like Reading have pleaded guilty and gone for an Agreed Decision when charged.

Edited February 8 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

I'm all for punishing Everton, Nottingham Forest and anyone else but..

..Does FFP apply to Bournemouth at all? Another £20m (amortised sure) set to be added to their Cost Base. Sinisterra to be made permanent, sold nobody of note since 2020-21 or 2021-22 at best.

No huge Allowables, £72m to last season and £83m to this the Upper Loss limit.

3rd manager in 18 months.

Edited February 8 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

On a side note, Premier League clubs have voted by 12 to 6 with 2 absentions to tighten the rules on associated party transactions (sponsorships and transfers).

One club is rumoured to be threatening legal action. You guessed it, it's Man City.