Jump to content

dudevillaisnice

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, VillaChris said:

Not a good look for the Premier league that these independent commissions keep on ignoring their recommendations for points deductions.

Apparently with this latest charge premier league wanted to deduct five further points from Everton. Fairly sure aswell any proven breach would be -3 so for the commission to actually find the club guilty but then insist they get a much lower punishment than what the premier league want isn't a great look for them and I'm fairly sure given who it's gone this season pretty much all the premier league clubs will be voting to scrap this so the status quo will remain even more tightly snug over the next decade.

Everton's biggest challenge now is not to fall into administration as they're in danger of that if this 777 takeover doesn't happen for them soon. And that will be a fixed -9 points deduction for next season.

Weren't Forest net looses greater than those of Everton and thr fact they had already be done for the same crime before (2 of the 3 years) had an impact.  8 point penalty seems just but they have to do the same to every other team that breaks the rules. We have to be careful who we side with here as it could impact us in the next year or two. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, VillaChris said:

Not a good look for the Premier league that these independent commissions keep on ignoring their recommendations for points deductions.

It comes from a] the clubs appealing any deduction, no matter what it is or whether they've already pleaded guilty, and b] the clubs (and independent commissions) insisting on taking various mitigations into account, which is what leads to the differing point deductions. 

If you read the reports from the Premier League and from the independent panels, their arguments are reasonable and make sense, even if their conclusions differ sometimes. But the problem is no one is reading these long documents - even journalists who are paid to report on this stuff seem ignorant of their contents - so the impression created for the average fan is 'they' are just plucking random numbers out of the air. Unsurprisingly, that has created a crisis of legitimacy. 

In hindsight, there should have been a standard punishment of say 8 points that occurred no matter what the situation, and absolutely no consideration of mitigating circumstances, even big ones like 'the war in Ukraine'. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, punkiller1981 said:

Looks like the 777 deal could be circling the drain because they don’t have any money. I can see administration on the cards 

777 is very unlikely to happen. Unless they find another buyer, administration might be the only option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said:

777 is very unlikely to happen. Unless they find another buyer, administration might be the only option.

Administration will open them up to all kinds of Xia-level chancers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, desensitized43 said:

Administration will open them up to all kinds of Xia-level chancers.

I can think of one guy with a proud Everton history that might be open to a role.

Spoiler

3e8abd22-1899-4430-a373-85a43ee60615.jpg

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/04/2024 at 14:52, HanoiVillan said:

It comes from a] the clubs appealing any deduction, no matter what it is or whether they've already pleaded guilty, and b] the clubs (and independent commissions) insisting on taking various mitigations into account, which is what leads to the differing point deductions. 

If you read the reports from the Premier League and from the independent panels, their arguments are reasonable and make sense, even if their conclusions differ sometimes. But the problem is no one is reading these long documents - even journalists who are paid to report on this stuff seem ignorant of their contents - so the impression created for the average fan is 'they' are just plucking random numbers out of the air. Unsurprisingly, that has created a crisis of legitimacy. 

In hindsight, there should have been a standard punishment of say 8 points that occurred no matter what the situation, and absolutely no consideration of mitigating circumstances, even big ones like 'the war in Ukraine'. 

I think aswell when this was voted through at one of the meetings the premier league clubs collectively agreed there wouldn't be a standard points deduction for any proven FFP breach and it would just be decided on a case to case basis as we're now seeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm....

Everton paid £30m in interest to lender with links to tax exile, documents suggest

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/12/everton-paid-30m-interest-lender-rights-media-funding-links-with-tax-exile-documents-suggest

Quote

Everton has paid about £30m in interest charges to an opaque lender associated with a tax exile, corporate records suggest.

 

The charges appear to have reached about £438,000 a week, according to the troubled Premier League club’s most recent set of accounts, a figure more than three times the reported wages of the Everton and England goalkeeper Jordan Pickford.

 

However, most of that cash outflow has now been excluded from Everton’s most recent profit and loss account after a controversial change in accounting policy by the club that has allowed it to report lower losses – and which may give rise to a further points deduction by the Premier League.

 

The change in how the club accounts for debt interest comes amid intense scrutiny of its finances by the Premier League. On Monday, Everton was deducted points for the second time in the season for breaches of profitability and sustainability (PSR) rules.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, T-Dog said:

Man, football is complicated enough, let's not bring politics into it too! 

Politics? I don't see any politics in that story. I see a club trying to obfuscate significant payments such that they didn't feel they needed to report them in a season when they were already breaching the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Politics? I don't see any politics in that story. I see a club trying to obfuscate significant payments such that they didn't feel they needed to report them in a season when they were already breaching the rules.

I just meant the tax exile side, apologies if was communicated well. **** Everton anyway, they're literally the shadow of us when we went down and they've been lucky to survive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, T-Dog said:

I just meant the tax exile side, apologies if was communicated well. **** Everton anyway, they're literally the shadow of us when we went down and they've been lucky to survive

Oh right ok. I figured that tax exile status was integral to the dodginess of the payments, but maybe it's not really.

Anyway, I wonder if there's much more stuff they've "creatively accounted" away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I've missed something, and I know he can call himself whatever he wants, but when did Dele Alli lose his surname? According to sky they have 'special guest Dele', has he checked down the back of the sofa? that's where I tend to find things I lose.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HallGreenVillan said:

Maybe I've missed something, and I know he can call himself whatever he wants, but when did Dele Alli lose his surname? According to sky they have 'special guest Dele', has he checked down the back of the sofa? that's where I tend to find things I lose.

Annoying as he might be and the biggest fall from grace in footballing history I think he dropped the Alli part due to it having links back to being abused as a child 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â