Everton FFP- yes

[chinapig]

20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Seems unduly generous on the face of it.

https://www.premierleague.com/news/3912574

Written Reasons will be interesting to see.

6 points was what I expected the original penalty to be, for what it's worth, given the size of the breach.

If Everton had admitted the breach up front I can't help but think a 6 point deduction could have been agreed with the Premier League.

[Mr Popodopolous]

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

Enter administration -12 points

Cheat -6 points. 

-9 in the PL tbh. Administration iirc

[Mr Popodopolous]

Snippet from the Independent Reasons, at least we can try to work backwards from Allowables and Covid to pre tax losses.

Still doesn't add up because -£58m, -£55m and -£10m is -£123m which is worse than the original disputed higher figure which iirc was-£120.9m?

Unless I am misremembering the original overspend? Which is possible.

Edited February 26 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Henry Winter remains a a typical star f****r.

[frenchred]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Henry Winter remains a a typical star f****r.

The bloke is a deluded *******, always has been a smarmy individual and always will be

[Hxj]

The decision of the Appeal Board is detailed and considered.

There are some interesting statements that Everton will not like in respect of their next case.

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, Hxj said:

The decision of the Appeal Board is detailed and considered.

There are some interesting statements that Everton will not like in respect of their next case.

From memory Birmingham got 1 back for cooperation and 3 added for escalating trends.

Feels like 1 or 2 points too generous an add-back if anything, IMO.

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 Appeal Grounds in effect.

2/9 or 22% upheld and you get 40% of the penalty wiped??

Eh.

[downendcity]

38 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Henry Winter remains a a typical star f****r.

"10 points was clearly excessive, vindictive, inconsistent". Try telling that to the clubs that were relegated but kept their financial house in order by complying with the same set of financial rules that Everton knowingly breached. I remain convinced that Everton chose to breach P&S to give them the best chance of avoiding relegation because the knock on of dropping into the championship with the debt on their new stadium would probably have bankrupted the club. Now it's all about how hard done by they are, poor supporters, everyone's out to get them.

Everton fans and board....

The only glimmer of hope I can see in the Everton situation is that the PL have reduced this penalty in the knowledge that there's another hit coming right down the line! 

Fingers crossed!

[Mr Popodopolous]

One note, Everton fans appear to misinterpret wilfully or otherwise the double jeopardy point EFL v PL.

It isn't that you can't get breached in successive seasons, with the rolling 3 Year Period.

No it's more that if you fail exceed the limits, as we know the furthest back year is replaced by the next as the starting point..then it is looked at individually as follows:

3 Year Adjusted Upper Tariff remains the same..

This max number being after the usual adjustments.

T-1 and T-2 this is above the max (£35m or £13m), reset to this.

T-1 and T-2 this is at the max (£35m or £13m), it remains at this.

T-1 and T-2 this is below the max (£35m or £13m), it remains at this.

The 'resets' or otherwise for T-1 and T-2 form the basis for T and what can be lost.

The take of a lot them for this seems to be that you punished for failure to X, you can't be punished again the next year.

Edited February 26 by Mr Popodopolous

[Hxj]

18 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

2/9 or 22% upheld and you get 40% of the penalty wiped??

It doesn't work like that.

The Appeal Board found that appeal succeeded on two grounds, the others failed.  Having found that the original decision was wrong, the Appeal Board remade the decision.  The primary points on which they hung their hats were, firstly the EPL insolvency penalty, and secondly the structure of the EFL calculations.  It is difficult to meaningfully criticise the Appeal Board decision.

It is also interesting that they also allude to the Brennan Johnson defence via the Sheffield Wednesday case, see paragraph 214.

[Mr Popodopolous]

The Insolvency Policy feels a Red Herring to me. Perhaps they should have a Sanctioning Tariff like EFL but 4 back...I read it but it seems overly generous.

EFL v SWFC was halved iirc as they botched the timing of Ground Sale but had a plan to do it anyway. Based on that perhaps a Nottingham Forest deduction gets halved on Appeal or in general but bids were turned down prior to June 30th 2023.

[Mr Popodopolous]

In respect of one other small bit, seemed to imply that Everton got 2 back for the Admin v PSR which seems bizarre if so, and 1 back per season of falling losses which makes more sense.

However if they've breached again based on that it goes..

High Loss, Lower Loss, Lower Loss=2 Added back

High Loss, Lower Loss, Higher Loss Again..=Should cancel out??

Edited February 26 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In respect of one other small bit, seemed to imply that Everton got 2 back for the Admin v PSR which seems bizarre if so, and 1 back per season of falling losses whixh makes more sense.

However if they've btrscjrd again based on thst it goes..

High Loss, Lower Loss, Lower Loss=2 Added back

High Loss, Lower Loss, Higher Loss Again..=Should cancel out??

How most fans view how ffp operates and penalties are worked out.....

 

How clubs of clubs that fall foul of ffp ( and especially Everton's) view how it operates....

[Markthehorn]

Saw this elsewhere regarding Forest .

 

This from Martin Ziegler of the Times on Forest

“ Nottingham Forest’s disciplinary hearing for breach of the Premier League financial rules will be on March 7 and 8 - outcome by April 8.
Points deduction looks certain”.

Edited February 26 by Markthehorn

[Sir Geoff]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Henry Winter remains a a typical star f****r.

Pretty sure when this first surfaced that Kieren Maguire questioned the stadium loans as they didn't show up in the accounts as such. Therefore interest payments on those loans was not admissible.

[Mr Popodopolous]

The starting point for the next assessment should be..adjusted losses after Allowables plus Covid.

2019-20 and 2020-21 combined average..-£55m

2021-22..-£10m

Therefore any breach in the period ending 2022-23 would need to be £40m minimum.

However we don't know the prior 2 years and how they will be treated as in do you reset £55m to £35m for one?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Evertonians still like to moan and offer up Special Pleading fwiw.

[BigTone]

I for one am rapidly falling out of love with football and the bollox it creates

Edited February 26 by BigTone

[Hxj]

It is also clear that Everton have vastly overspent in 2022/23.

The club said that the breach that arose in 2022/23 only arose because there are no ability to reduce the losses where there were breaches in earlier years.  Given the published losses of £58m in T-2 and £10m in T-1, the loss in T (2022/23) must have exceeded £37m (58+10+37 = 105).  It must also have been less than £56m (39+10+56 = 105).

So Everton have a significant FFP issue and go out and lose say £40 million in the following period. 

I can’t see a panel not imposing a significant penalty where there is such a cavalier attitude.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Bizarrely seen an Everton fan claim the club wanted to put the 2023 numbers by these as a sign that they're improving but can't find it now.

@Hxj I think it was £55m in the combined Covid year, £58m in 2018-19.

Yes that is some spike to go back up again. I am genuinely surprised they managed to mess up to the extent that they would fail a second time.

[W-S-M Seagull]

6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

9 Appeal Grounds in effect.

2/9 or 22% upheld and you get 40% of the penalty wiped??

Eh.

If you're a club at risk of relegation you may aswell now over spend in years one and two to stay up (and earn the extra prem money) and then reduce your losses in year 3 and you'll only get a slap on the wrist. 

-6 points for a breach over 3 seasons, 2 points a season is ridiculous and does not act as a deterrent. The -10 clearly did as we saw in the Jan window. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

This guy's a lawyer apparently, yes not biased at all clearly.

Apologies he is an Academic I assumed he was a lawyer for some reason.

Edited February 26 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

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

If you're a club at risk of relegation you may aswell now over spend in years one and two to stay up (and earn the extra prem money) and then reduce your losses in year 3 and you'll only get a slap on the wrist. 

-6 points for a breach over 3 seasons, 2 points a season is ridiculous and does not act as a deterrent. The -10 clearly did as we saw in the Jan window. 

I am struggling still to see how it came down to -6. I can account for maybe 2 of the points but the whole Administration v FFP argument if that was one seems bizarre.

It also seems to disregard or push down deterrence as you point our and I would also add, vindication.

[W-S-M Seagull]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I am struggling still to see how it came down to -6. I can account for maybe 2 of the points but the whole Administration v FFP argument if that was one seems bizarre.

It also seems to disregard or push down deterrence as you point our and I would also add, vindication.

All that pain we've been through to avoid breaching FFP and they get rewarded for huge losses woth just a poxy -6.

We may aswell have taken that -6. That wouldn't have relegated us and we'd now be further forward in our progression. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

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

All that pain we've been through to avoid breaching FFP and they get rewarded for huge losses woth just a poxy -6.

We may aswell have taken that -6. That wouldn't have relegated us and we'd now be further forward in our progression. 

It is the first time I've ever seen the Admin vs P&S referenced. However at our level failing it comes with Business Plans, EFL Future Info see Birmingham and Reading and others.

I know exactly what you mean but it seems a bit riskier at our level as Leicester, who may yet have a claim v Everton for past year if found guilty, were under restrictions as soon as this January.

Edited February 26 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Part of this Paragraph by Winter is ridiculous.

"Moaning, biased tossers whine about merited sanction shocker!" Is he for real.

4 back feels too generous and risks setting a bit of a precedent.

Edited February 27 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

How you calculate this next one Idk. Both in fact.

Losses falling accounted for 2 back ie..

Everton (1)

1) 2019-20 and 2020-21 average was an improvement on 2018-19 which gave 1 back.

2) 2021-22 was an improvement on the average of 2019-20 and 2020-21, let alone 2018-19 so you get another back.

-1 and -1

However if they have failed again then...

Everton (2)

2021-22 was an improvement on 2019-20 and 2020-21 combined average therefore one back...

...2022-23, was has to have been by definition worse than 2021-22 otherwise they shouldn't have failed to 2023.

-1 and what??

Do you take one away then readd it, do you subtract one only??

Nottingham Forest

2021-22 seems to have been worse than the combined average for 2019-20 and 2020-21, maybe it was the same I dunno...?

2022-23 however will absolutely have been worse than 2021-22 or the combined average of 2019-20 and 2020-21. If it wasn't then the P&S compliance in the EFL to 2021-22 should've been called into question.

Of course we have no clue as to the quantum of the Breach. If Promotion Bonuses aren't excluded then many clubs past and recent would fail the 3 year Test.

Could be anything from 4 to 8 points IMO. Albeit we have no clue on the Quantum of the Breach for either Everton or Nottingham Forest yet.

Edited February 27 by Mr Popodopolous

[W-S-M Seagull]

56 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Part of this Paragraph by Winter is ridiculous.

"Moaning, biased tossers whine about merited sanction shocker!" Is he for real.

4 back feels too generous and risks setting a bit of a precedent.

Is there a way for a club to take legal action? 

So let's say Everton stay up by between 1-4 points and let's say Luton go down by that difference. Are they able to challange this amended deduction in the courts? 

*putting aside the other ffp charge. 

Winter would be best served to keep quiet. I'm on the side of the clubs who complied but were relegated because of Evertons cheating. In that context -6 doesn't seem just at all.

Also no doubt if Forest get a lesser deduction and stay up at the expense of Everton he'll be back to moaning and saying how unfair it is. Let's hope it happens!

Edited February 27 by W-S-M Seagull

[Hxj]

10 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Do you take one away then readd it, do you subtract one only??

You need to move away from a mathematical model to describe the process of arriving at the deduction, as the Appeal Board themselves stated there is no formula.  They also said that the screeching halt in expenditure for 2022 were little grounds for mitigation.

Bearing in mind that this was the first such case an alternative way of looking at it is that the Appeal Board decided like this:

"The minimum penalty in effect is 3 points, the maximum penalty is 9 points, we think this sits roughly in the middle taking into account all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, so 6 points seems reasonable."

So Forest will be, assuming the same relative size of breach (which is rumoured), so we start from -6 points as in Everton 1.  We should give them some mitigation for the sale of Johnson, see Sheffield Wednesday, and for the admission so say -3. 

Everton 2 will be, there is an admitted breach, but there is no such thing as a 'technical breach' due to applying the EFL rules, as those rules don't apply.  As the Appeal Board stated it is an absolute offence, you either breached or you did not, and if you did breach you can expect a points penalty.  Assuming of the same level, so start at -6. The mitigation is higher than last time with an admission, but there is also an aggravating factor as there appears to have been no attempt to meet FFP under EPL rules in this year, so we remain at -6.  But looking at both cases in the round we reduce the penalty to -4 to reflect to some account the double counting.