Everton deducted 10 points for PSR breach (reduced to 6) | Deducted further 2 points for second breach

[SilentWitness]

If they stopped your club from breaking rules while you knew you were about tj break rules then the crying from your fanbase would be 100x worse than it is now. But we haven’t even broken rules how can they do this while City etc etc

I doubt it because we wouldn't have point deductions? It would be shit having to scrape by on little money each window but at least we wouldn't have deductions on our record and ongoing legal battles that completely mentally damage a club and team.

You realise that the vast majority of football clubs don't need babysitting and have to be spoon fed information around rule breaking?

It damages the integrity of the competition for clubs like Leicester who sold good players before the start of last season and ended up getting relegated because clubs like Everton didn't comply with the rules.

I think you're missing my point. See below. I know the club has been guilty of horrible mismanagement, but let's not pretend the PL isn't guilty of horrible mismanagement either.

Also the document said we gained no sporting advantage so Leicester being relegated and us surviving is irrelevant.

I'm upset with my club and the board because they've got us into a situation where we are in this mess and I've wanted them out for a couple of years now but I am also upset with the PL because they place sanctions during ongoing seasons which mentally damages fans, players, staff and clubs.

Preventing a club from doing business is a stretch I reckon. They just monitor and check for compliance during a specified time period (which is where I think Everton may have an argument in their favour having been already charged previously for what I think is an overlapping timeframe).

Well apparently our business has been stringently monitored by the PL since the first alleged breaches. We can't do business without first going to the PL and them cross referencing our accounts which is why we have had to be very very careful and we've been doing deals like the Dele and Beto ones which mean we pay little to no initial payments for a player and it's all structure on clauses based on game time or in future seasons. It's also why we had to make a potential loss on Richy in terms of what we could have perhaps got for him - we were in the same situation with him as Forest were with Johnson - we needed to sell pre-deadline so it would count for the financial year. I assume with Forest they were absolutely told they need to sell or risk charges and they stupidly gambled.

If the PL knows all this though and they can see club accounts of those in perilous places, it's better for them to block transfers etc. that would lead clubs to breaking rules because it's worse PR for them if they do break them and it fecks with ongoing competitions which can then lead to all sorts of legal battles. It's much more simpler if it's all attended to at the beginning.

 

[cyberman]

I doubt it because we wouldn't have point deductions? It would be shit having to scrape by on little money each window but at least we wouldn't have deductions on our record and ongoing legal battles that completely mentally damage a club and team.



I think you're missing my point. See below. I know the club has been guilty of horrible mismanagement, but let's not pretend the PL isn't guilty of horrible mismanagement either.

Also the document said we gained no sporting advantage so Leicester being relegated and us surviving is irrelevant.



Well apparently our business has been stringently monitored by the PL since the first alleged breaches. We can't do business without first going to the PL and them cross referencing our accounts which is why we have had to be very very careful and we've been doing deals like the Dele and Beto ones which mean we pay little to no initial payments for a player and it's all structure on clauses based on game time or in future seasons. It's also why we had to make a potential loss on Richy in terms of what we could have perhaps got for him - we were in the same situation with him as Forest were with Johnson - we needed to sell pre-deadline so it would count for the financial year. I assume with Forest they were absolutely told they need to sell or risk charges and they stupidly gambled.

If the PL knows all this though and they can see club accounts of those in perilous places, it's better for them to block transfers etc. that would lead clubs to breaking rules because it's worse PR for them if they do break them and it fecks with ongoing competitions which can then lead to all sorts of legal battles. It's much more simpler if it's all attended to at the beginning.

IMO your fanbase would be complaining about having their spending restricted while oil states can do A B and C. Plus you can’t really restrict spending if you haven’t broken the rules, warnings should really be enough. How can the FA restrict a club that’s in ffp trouble? Its not an ongoing process, you don’t make or break ffp rules until the end of the season (accounting year?) that’s why there’s warnings in place.

 

[MegadrivePerson]

John Cross from the Mirror has absolutely nailed it here.

"The Premier League is effectively a collective. The 20 member clubs are shareholders. They vote through the rules, including profit and sustainability rules which have been in place for more than a decade. So, for all that time the vast majority have spent within their means and obeyed the rules. No-one has complained, they’ve all lived within the rules that they voted for. Basically, you can’t lose more than £105m over three years. Many people had their say on the original Everton case clearly without reading the written reasons. Why not take an hour to read them before going on radio and TV to talk about them? You could tell who had and who hadn’t. This time, I’ve got sympathy with Everton as it’s hard to break the cycle in the three years. In fairness, the rules may get tweaked from next season. But the current rules were in place and had been voted through. The clubs didn’t want set tariffs imposed. Each case different. I found the coverage of Newcastle’s frustrations bizarre. PSR was brought in by clubs to ensure competition and so mega wealthy owners couldn’t come in and buy up a league. Those who didn’t want sportswashing suddenly want them to be able to spend more. Er…

The Guardian calculated Forest spent £250m on 43 players since promotion. And yet they’re unhappy about when one sale - Brennan Johnson - was added to their accounts. Seriously?!
What’s the point in clubs like Wolves or Palace trying to conform if others are allowed to break the rules and potentially finish higher than them? Wolves must have been close. So, guess what? They got their house in order, lost a manager over it and didn’t get charged. PSR is a good thing, in my opinion. It means the Prem remains competitive. Why politicians get involved is beyond me. If the club is in their constituency and affects their community then fair enough. But aren’t they busy enough? What next? Rishi Sunak complaining about VAR? PSR is like a tax return. You have to get your figures in by a certain date. It’s relatively simple. It’s totally different to Man City’s case which is way more complex. That’s why it’s taking longer. In all of this, it’s the fans who suffer and have my sympathy. The uncertainty is ridiculous and unfair. But surely it’s the clubs to blame. Not the Premier League. Rant over…

 

[SilentWitness]

IMO your fanbase would be complaining about having their spending restricted while oil states can do A B and C. Plus you can’t really restrict spending if you haven’t broken the rules, warnings should really be enough. How can the FA restrict a club that’s in ffp trouble? Its not an ongoing process, you don’t make or break ffp rules until the end of the season (accounting year?) that’s why there’s warnings in place.

They'd moan, but everyone moans about that in football. It's a reach to then say we would moan 100x about that. The reason we are moaning and upset is because we might be on the verge of our club collapsing. I think that's fair reason to moan and be upset and again, the board is to blame for that, but the PL share some responsibility.

 

[Maluco]

John Cross from the Mirror has absolutely nailed it here.

"The Premier League is effectively a collective. The 20 member clubs are shareholders. They vote through the rules, including profit and sustainability rules which have been in place for more than a decade. So, for all that time the vast majority have spent within their means and obeyed the rules. No-one has complained, they’ve all lived within the rules that they voted for. Basically, you can’t lose more than £105m over three years. Many people had their say on the original Everton case clearly without reading the written reasons. Why not take an hour to read them before going on radio and TV to talk about them? You could tell who had and who hadn’t. This time, I’ve got sympathy with Everton as it’s hard to break the cycle in the three years. In fairness, the rules may get tweaked from next season. But the current rules were in place and had been voted through. The clubs didn’t want set tariffs imposed. Each case different. I found the coverage of Newcastle’s frustrations bizarre. PSR was brought in by clubs to ensure competition and so mega wealthy owners couldn’t come in and buy up a league. Those who didn’t want sportswashing suddenly want them to be able to spend more. Er…

The Guardian calculated Forest spent £250m on 43 players since promotion. And yet they’re unhappy about when one sale - Brennan Johnson - was added to their accounts. Seriously?!
What’s the point in clubs like Wolves or Palace trying to conform if others are allowed to break the rules and potentially finish higher than them? Wolves must have been close. So, guess what? They got their house in order, lost a manager over it and didn’t get charged. PSR is a good thing, in my opinion. It means the Prem remains competitive. Why politicians get involved is beyond me. If the club is in their constituency and affects their community then fair enough. But aren’t they busy enough? What next? Rishi Sunak complaining about VAR? PSR is like a tax return. You have to get your figures in by a certain date. It’s relatively simple. It’s totally different to Man City’s case which is way more complex. That’s why it’s taking longer. In all of this, it’s the fans who suffer and have my sympathy. The uncertainty is ridiculous and unfair. But surely it’s the clubs to blame. Not the Premier League. Rant over…

This is a perfect summation. Rules are voted on, agreed by clubs and PL have no choice but to act. The only problem is that the “complexity” of City’s case is based partly on the fact that they have refused to cooperate. Everton and Forest don’t have the power to do that.

Too much money and too many political connections means that the PL have failed before they even started. City, quite simple, shouldn’t exist in their current form, and the fact that they do makes a mockery of everything else the PL are trying to accomplish in terms of competition and sporting integrity

 

[MegadrivePerson]

This is a perfect summation. Rules are voted on, agreed by clubs and PL have no choice but to act. The only problem is that the “complexity” of City’s case is based partly on the fact that they have refused to cooperate. Everton and Forest don’t have the power to do that.

Too much money and too many political connections means that the PL have failed before they even started. City, quite simple, shouldn’t exist in their current form, and the fact that they do makes a mockery of everything else the PL are trying to accomplish in terms of competition and sporting integrity

I completely agree.

I've said it before but the Premier League should dock City 30 points for failing to cooperate and suspend them from playing any further league fixtures until they start co operating and accept the charges.

They are the Donald Trump of football!

 

[Hughes35]

From the little I know. Everton and Forrest have quite simple cases. They have messed up their accounts, tried to make the numbers work by making some assumptions over future prize money, player sales etc.

Their cases will be pretty easy to unpick. A professional will sit down, go through their books and then make a report.... Done.

With City it's so much more complicated. Firstly you have the volume of cases, then the complexity. If you sit and look at Citys books, they will look incredibly healthy. But are their benefactors real companies? Are they shell companies or owned by the same owners as City? Are they paying staff off the books through other companies to keep expenditure down?

Figuring out the truth at City is a mammoth task, especially when they won't co-operate, have an army of lawyers and won't let you in with your shovel to start digging. I have huge doubts they will ever get to the bottom of it and if they do it could take years, in which time City will have more trophies, more fans and more power..... absolute mess.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

John Cross from the Mirror has absolutely nailed it here.

"The Premier League is effectively a collective. The 20 member clubs are shareholders. They vote through the rules, including profit and sustainability rules which have been in place for more than a decade. So, for all that time the vast majority have spent within their means and obeyed the rules. No-one has complained, they’ve all lived within the rules that they voted for. Basically, you can’t lose more than £105m over three years. Many people had their say on the original Everton case clearly without reading the written reasons. Why not take an hour to read them before going on radio and TV to talk about them? You could tell who had and who hadn’t. This time, I’ve got sympathy with Everton as it’s hard to break the cycle in the three years. In fairness, the rules may get tweaked from next season. But the current rules were in place and had been voted through. The clubs didn’t want set tariffs imposed. Each case different. I found the coverage of Newcastle’s frustrations bizarre. PSR was brought in by clubs to ensure competition and so mega wealthy owners couldn’t come in and buy up a league. Those who didn’t want sportswashing suddenly want them to be able to spend more. Er…

The Guardian calculated Forest spent £250m on 43 players since promotion. And yet they’re unhappy about when one sale - Brennan Johnson - was added to their accounts. Seriously?!
What’s the point in clubs like Wolves or Palace trying to conform if others are allowed to break the rules and potentially finish higher than them? Wolves must have been close. So, guess what? They got their house in order, lost a manager over it and didn’t get charged. PSR is a good thing, in my opinion. It means the Prem remains competitive. Why politicians get involved is beyond me. If the club is in their constituency and affects their community then fair enough. But aren’t they busy enough? What next? Rishi Sunak complaining about VAR? PSR is like a tax return. You have to get your figures in by a certain date. It’s relatively simple. It’s totally different to Man City’s case which is way more complex. That’s why it’s taking longer. In all of this, it’s the fans who suffer and have my sympathy. The uncertainty is ridiculous and unfair. But surely it’s the clubs to blame. Not the Premier League. Rant over…

Yeah very good summary by him. Sorry for Everton and Forest fans, but their anger should be directed at their clubs.

 

[SilentWitness]

I think we have reason to be upset with both the club and PL, as do Forest.

 

[The Purley King]

I completely agree.

I've said it before but the Premier League should dock City 30 points for failing to cooperate and suspend them from playing any further league fixtures until they start co operating and accept the charges.

They are the Donald Trump of football!

Failure to cooperate and hand over accounts etc surely to feck must equal a suspension from playing until they hand it over.
That needs to be written into the rules as it’s clearly not there right now.
Whole thing is a farce.

 

[SilentWitness]

Appeal to begin tomorrow.

 

[SilentWitness]

The hearing in front of an appeal board is expected to last three days and BBC Sport understands an outcome should be revealed by mid-February.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68141459

 

[duffer]

Appeal to begin tomorrow.

Are they contesting that they are guilty or that the punishment is too harsh?

 

[SilentWitness]

Are they contesting that they are guilty or that the punishment is too harsh?

I think the latter...reviewing some bits of the commission report that they dismissed and we feel both as a club and supporter are unfairly dismissed and I've spoken about in this thread, probably also questioning why the PL proposed punishment was dismissed as being used by the commission but then suspiciously lines up to the punishment we were given etc.

 

[SilentWitness]

https://churchcourtchambers.co.uk/evertons-points-deduction-and-their-legal-path-ahead-yasin-patel/

Interesting read.

 

[MegadrivePerson]

https://churchcourtchambers.co.uk/evertons-points-deduction-and-their-legal-path-ahead-yasin-patel/

Interesting read.

What's the gist of it?

Does it make you feel more or less confident about the appeal?

 

[SilentWitness]

What's the gist of it?

Does it make you feel more or less confident about the appeal?

More confident. They raise the issues I mentioned earlier about how the commission unfairly dismissed the Ukraine situation, stadium, Covid + Player X and the relative objectivity of these dismissals - in respect of them all being tied into a complicated financial mix where one impacts the other and vice versa.

Also questioning the integrity of just how independent was the independent commission etc. It's a good read and raises the arguments far more eloquently than I could and there is certainly enough within it to at least suggest we will reduced the deductions. If not, I'd be baffled.

 

[MegadrivePerson]

More confident. They raise the issues I mentioned earlier about how the commission unfairly dismissed the Ukraine situation, stadium, Covid + Player X and the relative objectivity of these dismissals - in respect of them all being tied into a complicated financial mix where one impacts the other and vice versa.

Also questioning the integrity of just how independent was the independent commission etc. It's a good read and raises the arguments far more eloquently than I could and there is certainly enough within it to at least suggest we will reduced the deductions. If not, I'd be baffled.

The Ukraine war surely cant have impacted them significantly if the sponsorship had been at a rate that was fair in the market? Why didn't they just move on to the second highest bidder?

How is the new stadium project beyond their control? Didn't they lie about a loan being for the stadium when it wasn't?

COVID impacted everyone, so there's nothing unique about that and if it impacted them so much, why did they bring in the following new signings, mostly with fees? Onana, McNeil, Maupay, Garner and Gueye? Just spend less money? Clubs like Leicester and Wolves responded to warnings about going over the threshold by selling some of their best players and taking the hit on the field. Leicester paid the price last season and were relegated because of this.

I don't see how Everton have a leg to stand on?

 

[SilentWitness]

The Ukraine war surely cant have impacted them significantly if the sponsorship had been at a rate that was fair in the market? Why didn't they just move on to the second highest bidder?

How is the new stadium project beyond their control? Didn't they lie about a loan being for the stadium when it wasn't?

COVID impacted everyone, so there's nothing unique about that and if it impacted them so much, why did they bring in the following new signings, mostly with fees? Onana, McNeil, Maupay, Garner and Gueye? Just spend less money? Clubs like Leicester and Wolves responded to warnings about going over the threshold by selling some of their best players and taking the hit on the field. Leicester paid the price last season and were relegated because of this.

I don't see how Everton have a leg to stand on?

You should perhaps read it. It explains all of these things as I said.

 

[TheReligion]

More confident. They raise the issues I mentioned earlier about how the commission unfairly dismissed the Ukraine situation, stadium, Covid + Player X and the relative objectivity of these dismissals - in respect of them all being tied into a complicated financial mix where one impacts the other and vice versa.

Also questioning the integrity of just how independent was the independent commission etc. It's a good read and raises the arguments far more eloquently than I could and there is certainly enough within it to at least suggest we will reduced the deductions. If not, I'd be baffled.

I can’t see them going back and changing the points deduction already given? Infact they certainly won’t. That said you may be referring to the new allegations?

 

[SilentWitness]

I can’t see them going back and changing the points deduction already given? Infact they certainly won’t. That said you may be referring to the new allegations?

Think the article I posted sets out that there is sufficient arguments to suggest they may reduce the points in the ongoing appeal.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

More confident. They raise the issues I mentioned earlier about how the commission unfairly dismissed the Ukraine situation, stadium, Covid + Player X and the relative objectivity of these dismissals - in respect of them all being tied into a complicated financial mix where one impacts the other and vice versa.

Also questioning the integrity of just how independent was the independent commission etc. It's a good read and raises the arguments far more eloquently than I could and there is certainly enough within it to at least suggest we will reduced the deductions. If not, I'd be baffled.

Don’t know if true, you probably will.

When this first started, I read something about Everton turning down transfer sales (that would have resolved the issue) because they felt the fee offered was below their view on fair value?

 

[SilentWitness]

Don’t know if true, you probably will.

When this first started, I read something about Everton turning down transfer sales (that would have resolved the issue) because they felt the fee offered was below their view on fair value?

If it's what I'm thinking of and can recall, it will likely be because we imagined that the mitigating circumstances which have been described, would be accepted by the PL. We did also take a fee for Richy that was lower than we probably would have been able to get due to having to get it over the line before June 30th and the finance deadline.

 

[TheReligion]

Think the article I posted sets out that there is sufficient arguments to suggest they may reduce the points in the ongoing appeal.

I would be very surprised if they go back on the 10 that have been issued. It would create chaos. Unless it’s happened before in other leagues and there’s some kind of precedent?

Usually a punishment would be suspended pending any appeals.

 

[Needham]

If it's what I'm thinking of and can recall, it will likely be because we imagined that the mitigating circumstances which have been described, would be accepted by the PL. We did also take a fee for Richy that was lower than we probably would have been able to get due to having to get it over the line before June 30th and the finance deadline.

El Deductio on April 20. Who wins in a straight footballing fight between you and Forest?

 

[MegadrivePerson]

The outcome of the appeal is expected to be announced in the next 24 hours.

Some speculation that Everton will get between two and five points back.

 

[SilentWitness]

The outcome of the appeal is expected to be announced in the next 24 hours.

Some speculation that Everton will get between two and five points back.

Yep. Seen some speaking about it and it looks like the rumours are positive.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Yep. Seen some speaking about it and it looks like the rumours are positive.

If Everton are guilty then it's not positive at all and sets a bad example. Would say the same if it was United. Bored of teams cheating and getting off lightly.

 

[Berbaclass]

The outcome of the appeal is expected to be announced in the next 24 hours.

Some speculation that Everton will get between two and five points back.

What 3.5 points?

 

[MegadrivePerson]

What 3.5 points?

Ha ha!

They'd be the first club to finish a season on a number and half!

No, the latest speculation is that it will be five points back, three suspended but then they are likely to get hit by another deduction for a second charge.

 

[Maluco]

Could they get back 2-5 points, and then get charged again and lose more points this season? It’s a bit of a mess.

 

[SilentWitness]

If Everton are guilty then it's not positive at all and sets a bad example. Would say the same if it was United. Bored of teams cheating and getting off lightly.

Not really. We are still punished. 10 points is/was a wildly over-proportionate deduction.

 

[SilentWitness]

Could they get back 2-5 points, and then get charged again and lose more points this season? It’s a bit of a mess.

Perhaps but if we are getting points back I imagine the lawyers involved would be able to appeal further suspended points or argue that it's all tied in. It's a bit complicated.

 

[Samid]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Fr. Todd Unctious]

That's them safe. They'll be consitent enough more than the others to stay up. It's really only one spot left anyway. Burnley and Sheff United are as good as gone

 

[RedDevil@84]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Are they not facing an additional FFP charge?
Edit: Never mind, thats the 2nd charge.

 

[TheReligion]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I’m quite surprised.

What a shambles though by the FA. Taking away their points only to give them back.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

That won’t help @Dirty Schwein ?

 

[SilentWitness]

Did think we would get some back. Still not safe yet.