Everton

[oishiiniku_uk]

14 hours ago, Zatman said:

The points deduction might stop the takeover from happening which means if they get sued(the ruling actually said 3 teams have a good case for compensation) then they will go into administration

It's written into the deal that 777 get Everton for a lower price if there's a points deduction, apparently. Not sure how much cash flow the new owners would have anyway so administration is a possibility if they get sued/relegated regardless of who the owners are. 

[OutByEaster?]

They've gone full Liverpool on the "Premier league are corrupt" madness.

There's an Everton bloke on twitter encouraging people to close down their accounts with Barclays bank.

They're cancelling Sky, making banners, planning marches, 'ratio-ing' any post the Premier League make anywhere and screaming and screaming and screaming until they're sick.

Oddly, they're also shocked at the rest of us for not supporting them - comparing it to when the superleague was proposed and wondering why the whole of football was against that but isn't out on the streets marching against Everton getting a punishment for breaking the rules.

[villa4europe]

I'd have thought that the general consensus was that people are fuming Chelsea and especially man City haven't been punished... But that is not the same as wanting everton not to be punished

I want the book thrown at all of them

[oishiiniku_uk]

I wonder if this penalty is a roundabout way of punishing Everton for their claimed Covid losses (228 million which was 20% of all PL clubs reported losses due to the pandemic). More scrutiny should have been put on that creative accountancy cos they took massive liberties there. 

Edited November 20, 2023 by oishiiniku_uk

[Villaphan04]

On 19/11/2023 at 11:47, Zatman said:

The points deduction might stop the takeover from happening which means if they get sued(the ruling actually said 3 teams have a good case for compensation) then they will go into administration

 

16 hours ago, oishiiniku_uk said:

It's written into the deal that 777 get Everton for a lower price if there's a points deduction, apparently. Not sure how much cash flow the new owners would have anyway so administration is a possibility if they get sued/relegated regardless of who the owners are. 

The 777 group is just as dodgy, if not more than their current owners. 

 

[bannedfromHandV]

What is it with scousers and their constant self-perceived sense of injustice every time something doesn’t go their way?!

Now taking this points deduction into the political space, like the country doesn’t have better, more important stuff to be debating in parliament.

They broke rules, seemingly quite intentionally and have been punished. It’s all a storm in a teacup anyway as they won’t go down unless they deserve to from this point on with 3 or 4 really shite teams in the division this season.

[bobzy]

FWIW, 10 points seems a tad harsh.

Beyond that, though, they’ve just been caught out. 

[Kiwivillan]

12 minutes ago, bobzy said:

FWIW, 10 points seems a tad harsh.

Beyond that, though, they’ve just been caught out. 

Extra points coming when they get sued and go into administration

[Zatman]

They have gone mad. They are fuming at Spurs who they feel took advantage of them and paid 20 million less for Richarlison than the asking price

They should be grateful they got 60 million for him

[TheMelvillan]

24 minutes ago, Zatman said:

They have gone mad. They are fuming at Spurs who they feel took advantage of them and paid 20 million less for Richarlison than the asking price

They should be grateful they got 60 million for him

That cant be right. If anything spurs overpaid by about £30m.

Translated crudely into punishment points (1 pt for every £5m) then they should really have had a 16 point penalty imposed!

[ender4]

1 hour ago, bobzy said:

FWIW, 10 points seems a tad harsh.

Beyond that, though, they’ve just been caught out. 

Yes, 10 points is a little harsh. £19m over the limit over the 3 year period. A similar amount was the interest payments for the stadium that didn't used to be counted towards FFP when Everton took out the loan but the rules were then changed afterwards. That's basically 10 point penalty for an accounting discrepancy rather than any overspend on footballing matters.

The rest of their appeal is pretty much rubbish though. 

[PieFacE]

For people who think 10 points is too harsh (which is a perfectly valid opinion), what do you feel would be a fair punishment? 

[oishiiniku_uk]

5 minutes ago, ender4 said:

Yes, 10 points is a little harsh. £19m over the limit over the 3 year period. A similar amount was the interest payments for the stadium that didn't used to be counted towards FFP when Everton took out the loan but the rules were then changed afterwards. That's basically 10 point penalty for an accounting discrepancy rather than any overspend on footballing matters.

The rest of their appeal is pretty much rubbish though. 

The £19m overspend due to an accounting error leading to this level of deduction may be harsh, but the massively over-inflated covid losses (which stopped them falling foul of the rules sooner, and maybe to a greater degree) were not. I have sympathy to an extent, but this is ultimately a reckless regime's actions catching up to them.

Edited November 21, 2023 by oishiiniku_uk

[oishiiniku_uk]

4 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

For people who think 10 points is too harsh (which is a perfectly valid opinion), what do you feel would be a fair punishment? 

10 points this season or 2 points last season. 

[bobzy]

25 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

For people who think 10 points is too harsh (which is a perfectly valid opinion), what do you feel would be a fair punishment? 

Depends what we're trying to achieve with FFP.

Also depends whether or not a club has acted in good or bad faith, to me.  By all accounts, Everton have cooperated with enquiries (Man City have not) and given "reasonable" accounts of why they have breached FFP (war in Ukraine impacting on a Russian sponsor not being able to get funds out etc).  So it could be argued that they've definitely overspent, but 'accidentally' or 'carelessly' rather than 'maliciously'.

To me, for that level of overspend (**** all in the grand scheme of PL clubs finances), maybe a 6 point deduction?  Portsmouth were given a 9 point deduction for heading into administration - it doesn't feel like Everton are anywhere near this.

But, as I started with, it depends what we're trying to achieve with FFP.

[OutByEaster?]

I think with Everton it looks like they've pleaded guilty to a lesser charge in order to clear house and the Premier league have gone along with it in order to get a punishment into precedent and speed the process through.

Everton's initial overspend was something like £200m and there were big questions about the way they'd tried to write that down using Covid, there were also big questions about the huge sponsorship deal for Finch farm which was being arranged with a company owned by their owner, and further questions on whether their Russian owner was in fact still owning and running Everton with Moshiri simply acting as a front.

They've got rid of all of that by pleading guilty to a minor overspend - for me, they've done well here - they won't go down and it's a deal that works for the league and works for Everton.

 

[oishiiniku_uk]

I've just been listening to the latest episode of Talking The Blues (they seem very clued up about what's happening within Everton).It goes into detail on the mitigating factors that Everton submitted, including:

- Claiming that they had drawn up a list of players that would have sold for £80m if covid hadn't happened (The commission rejected their valuations of these players)
- Claiming that Usmanov's stadium naming rights deal (£10m a year for 20 years) would have been brought forward, were it not for the invasion of Ukraine, from 2025 to 2022  (Everton could produce no evidence that this was going to happen)
- Claiming that they would have sold player 'Y' if he'd not been charged and that they chose not to sue him for breach of contract to the tune of £10m due to the player's mental health (the commission disputed the size of the figure)
- Telling the Premier League that they were willing to sell 'Player X' (assumed to be DCL) but then his name disappeared from the list (apparently because Kenwright was handling the sale personally, though not sure why that should change things - this was accepted by the Commission)

Everton lost in their attempts to have most of their mitigating factors taken into account. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by oishiiniku_uk

[Mic09]

38 minutes ago, oishiiniku_uk said:

I've just been listening to the latest episode of Talking The Blues (they seem very clued up about what's happening within Everton).It goes into detail on the mitigating factors that Everton submitted, including:

- Claiming that they had drawn up a list of players that would have sold for £80m if covid hadn't happened (The commission rejected their valuations of these players)
- Claiming that Usmanov's stadium naming rights deal (£10m a year for 20 years) would have been brought forward, were it not for the invasion of Ukraine, from 2025 to 2022  (Everton could produce no evidence that this was going to happen)
- Claiming that they would have sold player 'Y' if he'd not been charged and that they chose not to sue him for breach of contract to the tune of £10m due to the player's mental health (the commission disputed the size of the figure)
- Telling the Premier League that they were willing to sell 'Player X' (assumed to be DCL) but then his name disappeared from the list (apparently because Kenwright was handling the sale personally, though not sure why that should change things - this was accepted by the Commission)

Everton lost in their attempts to have most of their mitigating factors taken into account. 

''Mr HSBC, I am sorry I am in overdraft and can't pay up the mortgage. My business was supposed to do better than I thought it did, I had Virgin Media on the phone (my phone broke) but I was hoping that would turn into a business opportunity. Plus, you know, I did hire some poor employees like Alex Iwobi, and I was going to outsource him to make a profit but that didn't work out. I think that Putin might have caused his valuation to go down a fair bit, it was definately Putin. If not Putin, it was Covid. One or the other.

Anyway, can we call it even and not take the matter any further? Surely, you must understand?!'

[villa89]

Rumours that the punishment is so severe in order to try to stop the UK government from bringing in an independent football regulator. The idea is to show the the premier League can handle administration of football on their own, which they clearly can't. 

I imagine that the points lost will be reduced to a lower amount on appeal. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by villa89

[ender4]

50 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think with Everton it looks like they've pleaded guilty to a lesser charge in order to clear house and the Premier league have gone along with it in order to get a punishment into precedent and speed the process through.

Everton's initial overspend was something like £200m and there were big questions about the way they'd tried to write that down using Covid, there were also big questions about the huge sponsorship deal for Finch farm which was being arranged with a company owned by their owner, and further questions on whether their Russian owner was in fact still owning and running Everton with Moshiri simply acting as a front.

They've got rid of all of that by pleading guilty to a minor overspend - for me, they've done well here - they won't go down and it's a deal that works for the league and works for Everton.

 

Yes if that was the case then 10 points is fair. 

1 hour ago, PieFacE said:

For people who think 10 points is too harsh (which is a perfectly valid opinion), what do you feel would be a fair punishment? 

Purely for the £19m overspend on an accounting technicality and ignoring the issues that  @OutByEaster? posted about (which the commission didn't rule on)... 

4 points seems fair. Someone posted about the PL discussing 1 point per £5m overspend which is a good standardised metric to deal with it.

Alternatively, as the commission ruled it didn't have any footballing advantage, maybe a 10% fine of the overspend and no point deduction.