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

The difference is that the City issue has far wider repercussions',
If they get stripped of titles who gets them?
Who gets the cups they won, do you consider every round in every cup competition they took part in.
Did losing to them result in a team being relegated?
Would all the seasons in question have to have the results re-calculated?

Everton have said that they will be watching developments with other clubs with interest, it's almost certain that they will want punishments in relation to their own.
I have a feeling this is a saga that could run longer then Game Of Thrones, and with just as many twists.
 
Maticmaker said:
....and hiring more lawyers
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what people think lawyers are, they're not magicians that can make rock solid evidence go away. There are rules that lawyers have to abide to as well.

If City's case does get thrown out it's not because their lawyers blocked justice from being served, it's because the case was shit enough that an expert lawyer was able to poke holes in it.
 
adexkola said:
I'm not sure what people think lawyers are, they're not magicians that can make rock solid evidence go away. There are rules that lawyers have to abide to as well.

If City's case does get thrown out it's not because their lawyers blocked justice from being served, it's because the case was shit enough that an expert lawyer was able to poke holes in it.
Click to expand...
Miring cases in messy litigation hiring the best lawyers en Masse, isn’t a thing? -_-
 
For anybody wondering why it's ten points,

It was related specifically to the amount of losses over the £105 million threshold. Any amount over at all is an automatic 6 points, and then every £5 million chunk of the overage amount garners one more additional point.

They didn't arbitrarily decide on 10 points from scratch, then. It was based on a standard calculation. £19.7 million / £5m = 4 points + 6 automatic points = 10 point deduction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fortitude
Any chance that they do a Juve and have the punishment rescinded/changed? I believe that happened to Juve last season and other teams were angry because it messed up the table several times.
 
Actually it’s a good time for them to get point deduction … the relegation team are actually worse and they will survive this easily
 
So will City be deducted 50 points? I'm assuming proportionality plays a role here, or do we just blame Everton and say the problem has been dealt with?
 
Fortitude said:
Miring cases in messy litigation hiring the best lawyers en Masse, isn’t a thing? -_-
Click to expand...

It.. is. There are delay tactics that lawyers deploy. Even shit inexpensive ones.

But lawyers can only obstruct for so long. The amount of evidence being submitted is finite. And it's not like the PL is scrimping for funds either! They can organize a whip around at the 3̶ 19 aggrieved clubs and hire their own lawyers.

I don't know who the burden of proof is on in this proceeding. Whether it's City or the PL, if the PL brings rock solid evidence that City has violated some rules, do you think that given enough lawyers the PL will go, "well yes we have a case here but we're just fatigued so alright, you win"... If that's the case then no rich corporation or group should ever be found guilty of anything.

Plus, any club or organization being accused of something this serious, deserves a robust and solid defense, so that if found guilty, their guilt is clear.
 
MegadrivePerson said:
For anybody wondering why it's ten points,

It was related specifically to the amount of losses over the £105 million threshold. Any amount over at all is an automatic 6 points, and then every £5 million chunk of the overage amount garners one more additional point.

They didn't arbitrarily decide on 10 points from scratch, then. It was based on a standard calculation. £19.7 million / £5m = 4 points + 6 automatic points = 10 point deduction.
Click to expand...

Is this written anywhere?
 
Josep Dowling said:
The Premier League doesn’t need Man City and the club is certainly not too big to be punished. Their owners are though. The UK government will be blocking any punishment given to City, the same as they told the FA to allow Newcastle to be bought by the Saudis. This stuff is bigger than football.
Click to expand...
Yes, this was essentially what I was referring to: the FA, like other institutions e.g. the BBC, may have a certain degree of 'formal' independence, but its essentially subservient to the government in a way that goes beyond the special or undeclared interests of individual people on respective governing committees, and which is reflected in decisions each body takes once their ramifications reach a certain level or scale of political importance....
 
Woziak said:
Chelsea are also in the reckoning and they too could get a points deduction this year ?
Click to expand...
In Chelsea's case their current administration found the wrongdoing in the bookkeeping from the Abramovich era and they reported it to the FA. I imagine that will affect sentencing. For them it wouldn't matter that much to get a point deduction this year.
 
Money ruined the beautiful game a long time ago but when you have little old Everton being slapped with a 10 point deduction for spending a few million more than they were supposed to it really does make you wonder how City and Chelsea get away with it. City won a treble last year and nobody even took notice because it was so riddled with corruption. How anybody can play, work or support a club like that with a clear conscience is beyond me.
 
Josep Dowling said:
The Premier League doesn’t need Man City and the club is certainly not too big to be punished. Their owners are though. The UK government will be blocking any punishment given to City, the same as they told the FA to allow Newcastle to be bought by the Saudis. This stuff is bigger than football.
Click to expand...

This is conspiracy speak honestly

How do the PL justify City being guilty of the charges, but getting a less punishment than City?

And the PL can't influence the verdict, it's been referred to an independent panel.
 
IRELANDUNITED said:
Money ruined the beautiful game a long time ago but when you have little old Everton being slapped with a 10 point deduction for spending a few million more than they were supposed to it really does make you wonder how City and Chelsea get away with it. City won a treble last year and nobody even took notice because it was so riddled with corruption. How anybody can play, work or support a club like that with a clear conscience is beyond me.
Click to expand...

City haven't gotten away with it. The Everton case was a simple allegation and resolved quickly. With City they are having to unpick 15 years of the biggest cheating scandal in sports history.
 
Laurencio said:
So will City be deducted 50 points? I'm assuming proportionality plays a role here, or do we just blame Everton and say the problem has been dealt with?
Click to expand...
sell all the players and stadium disband the club and give the money to charity
 
MegadrivePerson said:
For anybody wondering why it's ten points,

It was related specifically to the amount of losses over the £105 million threshold. Any amount over at all is an automatic 6 points, and then every £5 million chunk of the overage amount garners one more additional point.

They didn't arbitrarily decide on 10 points from scratch, then. It was based on a standard calculation. £19.7 million / £5m = 4 points + 6 automatic points = 10 point deduction.
Click to expand...

Which is arguably still excessive.
 
Snow said:
In Chelsea's case their current administration found the wrongdoing in the bookkeeping from the Abramovich era and they reported it to the FA. I imagine that will affect sentencing. For them it wouldn't matter that much to get a point deduction this year.
Click to expand...

They should not be punished this year - they should have their titles during the cheating years taken from them. That way the current owners would not be punished, justice would be done regarding titles won in an unfair manner! Its time to treat these monsters exactly for what they are, a cancer to english football!
 
cyberman said:
Juve would be a fraction of City though. What wold fair value sponsor dead be for a non league club?
Click to expand...
Doesn't really matter given the core sponsors remain gov linked. There was an article on here about their cheating a while back which said the way the sponsors are structured means City can continuously renegotiate how much the deal is worth and it's completely private. The PL can ask them for details but they just don't share them.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Doesn't really matter given the core sponsors remain gov linked. There was an article on here about their cheating a while back which said the way the sponsors are structured means City can continuously renegotiate how much the deal is worth and it's completely private. The PL can ask them for details but they just don't share them.
Click to expand...
:lol: Ffs.
 
adexkola said:
Don't get me wrong, the rules are stupid (the strongest word I can use on here), but the calculation makes sense from a deterrence POV. It's not supposed to make sense. It's supposed to scare clubs away from that red line.
Click to expand...

Of course but it was an unprecedented time where multiple shit things piled up at once

- COVID losses
- Loss of stadium naming rights issues due to Russian - Ukraine war
- Gylfi being suspended and the loss of his value and then him not being charged of anything and being set to go about his business
- possible loss of further value to players like Richy because of the cloud of all the above issues regarding FFP

Now on that second point you can argue that it is just doing dodgy sponsorship shite that City have been doing and now Chelsea are so we should be getting the book thrown at us anyway but it does feel a wee bit like we are the unlucky ones to have been first in the firing line for any rules broken.

I've also read in some articles that the PL has stated that we didn't break rules to gain a sporting advantage so how is a points deduction fair in that regard!?
 
Good year to take the penalty. Sheffield, Burnley and Luton are pretty awful compared to the more established Prem teams. Bournemouth could go either way too. Everton are not even bottom of the table with the penalty, just keep playing like they have been and they'll be well clear of relegation at the end of the season.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Doesn't really matter given the core sponsors remain gov linked. There was an article on here about their cheating a while back which said the way the sponsors are structured means City can continuously renegotiate how much the deal is worth and it's completely private. The PL can ask them for details but they just don't share them.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that one of their charges though?
 
SilentWitness said:
Of course but it was an unprecedented time where multiple shit things piled up at once

- COVID losses
- Loss of stadium naming rights issues due to Russian - Ukraine war
- Gylfi being suspended and the loss of his value and then him not being charged of anything and being set to go about his business
- possible loss of further value to players like Richy because of the cloud of all the above issues regarding FFP

Now on that second point you can argue that it is just doing dodgy sponsorship shite that City have been doing and now Chelsea are so we should be getting the book thrown at us anyway but it does feel a wee bit like we are the unlucky ones to have been first in the firing line for any rules broken.

I've also read in some articles that the PL has stated that we didn't break rules to gain a sporting advantage so how is a points deduction fair in that regard!?
Click to expand...

You guys suspended him, not the PL! That loss on y'all

Otherwise I agree, and I think the appeal may/should take those extenuating factors into consideration
 
adexkola said:
You guys suspended him, not the PL! That loss on y'all

Otherwise I agree, and I think the appeal may/should take those extenuating factors into consideration
Click to expand...

In the report it states the FA suspended him.
 
cyberman said:
Isn’t that one of their charges though?
Click to expand...
Yes some of the 115 are to do with this. Thing is it will be hard to prove as they’ve continuously done well, they can argue it’s ‘fair’ they kept increasing the value of the deal as their brand kept growing. Obviously no normal company does this but they own the sponsor so…
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Yes some of the 115 are to do with this. Thing is it will be hard to prove as they’ve continuously done well, they can argue it’s ‘fair’ they kept increasing the value of the deal as their brand kept growing. Obviously no normal company does this but they own the sponsor so…
Click to expand...
Not sure that's strictly true, United's deal with Adidas had the reverse built in, the $$ went down if they failed CL qualification a successive number of times, I can easily see there being incentives being built in based on how well they do, it's a common thing in many other areas of business
 
cyberman said:
Why? Their cheating saved them. It’s all been worth it
Click to expand...
Barely any clubs are squeaky clean and the fact the club has been run by morons who have driven it into the ground and now dragged the club through the mud, I feel sorry for them.
 
Red in STL said:
Not sure that's strictly true, United's deal with Adidas had the reverse built in, the $$ went down if they failed CL qualification a successive number of times, I can easily see there being incentives being built in based on how well they do, it's a common thing in many other areas of business
Click to expand...
I have never heard of the ability to increase within the same deal. There’s been lots reported of ‘miss out on the CL for two years and lose money’ etc. but, as far as I know, you would have to renegotiate the sponsor agreement for it to increase (and the PL would then have to clear it). Technically Citu are renegotiating the agreements but just in an open ended agreement.
 
MegadrivePerson said:
For anybody wondering why it's ten points,

It was related specifically to the amount of losses over the £105 million threshold. Any amount over at all is an automatic 6 points, and then every £5 million chunk of the overage amount garners one more additional point.

They didn't arbitrarily decide on 10 points from scratch, then. It was based on a standard calculation. £19.7 million / £5m = 4 points + 6 automatic points = 10 point deduction.
Click to expand...

Don't think that's correct.

The decision lays out that was the PL's proposed formula:

They adopt a fixed starting point of a deduction of 6 points. There would be an increase from that starting point of one point for every £5 million by which the club had exceeded the PSR threshold of £105 million
Click to expand...

But then rejects using that (or any) formula:

Nevertheless, the Commission is concerned that the adoption by it of a structured formula such as is advocated by the Premier League would be inconsistent with the unrestricted powers conferred by Rules W50&51. We consider that it is not for a Commission to introduce such a structured formula even on a case by case basis. We consider that we are required by the Rules to hear and consider the mitigation, after which we have a wide discretion to impose any of the sanctions listed in Rule W51. If the Premier League wishes to impose a mandatory structured formula on a Commission dealing with PSR breaches, it can do so. In that event the Commission would be required to comply with those Rules. But as things stand at present that has not been done: the Commission has the wide discretion conferred by Rules W50&51.
Click to expand...


Plus your maths doesn't really hang together. If it was 1 point for every excess £5m then £19.7m would be worth 3 points, not 4. Being close to £20m isn't the same as being £20m and you can't really round figures up to hit a higher punishment threshold.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.