Jump to content

Cornish Steve

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    11,747

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    55

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Cornish Steve

  5. Longest Thread! for Everton Discussion

    in General Everton Discussion

    Posted

    30 minutes ago, Wiggytop said:

    I’m not feeling  too positive that the points deduction  will be reduced, and I’m hoping that Dyche is saying the same to the squad, and psychologically preparing them for the need to win the points that we need to stay up this season and put this behind us, if they do get reduced it will be great, but let’s not bank on it knowing how wishy washy the PL are.

    As always, hope for the best but plan for the worst.

  6. Longest Thread! for Everton Discussion

    in General Everton Discussion

    Posted

    2 hours ago, RuffRob said:

    I agree, given the magnitude of the punishment, I want clarity of the 'crime', clarity on why our clubs arguments are not being upheld, and clarity on how the 10 point punishment has been calculated.  

     

    I was thinking about this, and it's a key point. The Premier League made this up, completely, with no precedent, no explanation, and no obvious thought. That's no way to run a business.

    What's needed is a clear statement in advance about:

    1) What constitutes a violation, with exceptions clearly defined.

    2) What are the penalties for a violation.

    3) How do penalties and 3-year averages interact so a club can't be charged twice for the same violation.

    For example:

    - The 3-year annual allowed loss is $100m

    - What is excluded (e.g., stadium expenses), specific allowances for surprises (e.g., COVID)

    - A loss exceeding $100m but less than $150m, fine of 10% of loss over $100m and deduction of 3 points

    - A loss exceeding $150m but less than $200m, fine of 20% for the loss over $150m and deduction of 6 points

    - A loss exceeding $200m, fine of 30% for the loss over $200m and a deduction of 9 points

    - Fines etc. are increased for repeat offenders, so the big clubs can't ride rough-shod over financial limits and treat fines as an occupational hazard: doubled for second violation in 10 years, tripled for a third violation in 10 years.

    - Any violation precludes involvement in Europe for the next season.

    - If a club violates the rules three times in a 10-year period, they are automatically relegated.

    - This would apply to all leagues, except that the limits and the fines would vary for each league.

    - The fines are not kept by the PL but distributed to other teams in the league, including those relegated. The amount given to other teams would be in inverse proportion to their final league position (with the three relegated teams receiving the most).

    - Clubs cannot file lawsuits against others.

    Personally, I'd rather the fine be a percentage of the club's annual income so the impact is the same for each club.

    This should be posted somewhere for all to see so there are no excuses, no dragging out proceedings by big clubs, and no making things up as we go along. Everyone is treated fairly. Everyone knows in advance the consequences of their actions. No surprises.

  9. Longest Thread! for Everton Discussion

    in General Everton Discussion

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Gwlad said:

    Not sure what you mean about the Gylfi signing. Maybe missing something, except we paid over the odds for the return. 

    We paid for him about the amount we're assessed to have exceeded the limit averaged over 3 years. Given the accusation made against him, his value dropped to zero - we lost the lot, plus his salary. In our submission to the league, we included this as an example of extenuating circumstances.

  10. Longest Thread! for Everton Discussion

    in General Everton Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, FairWooney said:

    While I agree with all the outrage about our punishment I think some of the details in the report really highlight how foolishly we've been run.

    Sure Moshiri's early spend could have seen us progress up the league and work out well with us earning more revenue through league places and Europe, we over spent on some players, some players didn't meet expectations and some of the signings weren't best thought out so some of that can be excused.  There's was certainly a lot of optimism around some of the signings, especially someone like Klassen who turned out to be a complete failure.  I'd say the failing was not having a great balance in the quality of the signings we made.

    One thing that really got me though was that I read that we budgeted to finish 6th under Benitez!

     We'd finished 10th the previous season under Carlo so I can only assume that budget was based on Carlo still being there, even still that seems madness to budget based on the maximum place that we were likely to be able to finish!  I'd have been budgeting at finishing around 10th though given they'd have known they weren't giving Rafa any money even that would have been a bit of a stretch!

    The other thing I wasn't happy with was that it clearly seems that although the stadium isn't included in the finances and Moshiri has "bankrolled" a large amount of the build what has happened is that because all of his money has gone there we've had to take out a load of loans to cover the clubs shortfall.  Given that we were reliant on MSP and then 777 to give us further loans this year the stadium build is clearly and very sadly crippling us at the moment.  Hopefully once we move in we will see the extra revenue start to turn the finances around in our favour.  I guess this was the price to pay for getting a new stadium at last.

    --

    The Ukraine war and Gylfi were big factors in our losses which were out of our control.  Unfortunately with the Russians we were the one club to majorly suffer from the blocking of their dirty money!  There was always excitement from a lot of fans at getting Usmanov money and it's ended up going against us.

    --

    I don't agree with the 10pt deduction but my thoughts on the "no sporting advantage" would be that any club spending beyond their means is giving themselves an advantage.  Clearly our spending over the years shows that we haven't spent massively at all but had we spent £20 million less somewhere there's probably a reasonable chance it would have been by cutting spend within the squad.

    I think the other reason that they're pushing for point deduction (beyond just making a show of someone, being us) is that a fine just doesn't do much of a job at changing the way that clubs run themselves.  They're quite happy to pay a fine and move on.

    If the fine was of any consequence it would probably just take us closer to the brink!

    Looking at it from a pure numbers perspective, one incident alone could be said to have caused this situation: recruiting Gylfi Sigurdsson. Of course, we can say the same about choosing to work with Usmanov, but I think the Gylfi situation puts the whole thing into perspective. Should a club face such a punishment over the mistaken hire of one player?

  12. Sean Dyche

    in General Everton Discussion

    Posted

    I'd better give the correct answers. Left to right, the shoes belong to...

    Top row: Martinez, Koeman, Allardyce
    Middle row: Dyche, Lampard, Silva
    Bottom row: Moyes, Benitez, Ancelotti

    Allardyce's shoes, worn during an interview, were outrageous. Ancelotti's appear to be made of Italian leather. Martinez, Moyes, and Benitez all wore brown.

  17. Longest Thread! for Everton Discussion

    in General Everton Discussion

    Posted

    This is one of the biggest mistakes ever made by the Premier League, and it's going to create a huge backlash. Looking at the situation objectively, there are some positives here...

    - Certainty is better than uncertainty. While the decision is extreme, at least we now know what it is and can deal with it.

    - It's going to put a huge spotlight on the big teams. I don't see them continuing to get away with their financial shennanigans.

    - This is the right time and the right season to face a points deduction since, on the pitch, we're on the up and up.

    - If we appeal or even sue for lost TV revenues, it will bring a level of accountability the league has been sorely missing.

    Oh how I wish we'd secured three points against Brighton and not just one. We wouldn't even be in the bottom three.

  22. Definition of the classes in society

    in Off Topic Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Hafnia said:

    It is a load of bollocks because if people were fluid in their thinking then they should realise that most geniuses are very individual and eccentric. I worked with a lad with Asperger’s (undiagnosed, my diagnosis!) - holes all over his jumper, splits in shoes,

    He got treated like shit cos he didn’t look the part - he had a job on the phones but said he understood Microsoft and wanted to try to see if he could work on our team. Slight understatement, the fucker invented ethical hacking from what I could see. 
     

    I recommend him to a manager in the business, he came back a few months later and said “fook me, he’s incredible”.   Still sat at his desk rolling ciggies and wearing jumpers that you wouldn’t wipe a car down with.   People judged him for what he wore - not what he could do.

    there are exceptions to the rules. In my bouts of depression I look a mess, will wear anything, not brush my hair etc.

    I agree with your reasoning and your thinking; I'm simply pointing out my experiences in Britain and with British companies. It's quite different in the US.

    Years ago, I was selling to a technology company in Massachusetts and meeting with their executive team. When the meeting started, we're all wearing suits, including four VPs from that company. After about 20 minutes, the door opened, and this scruffy guy in jeans wheeled in a tray with coffee and snacks. Surprisingly, he hung around for a few minutes until we stopped to take a break. I always make a point of saying "hello" to people and thanking them when appropriate, so I did the same to this guy. He shook my hand and said "I'm Andy XXX, the CEO. I own this company." As you rightly say, appearances can be deceiving.

    In contrast, I met with a VP of technology at BT. Since I'd heard his name, I went over and said "Hello. You must be Dave." His response was "No. I'm Doctor David XXX." With great pleasure, I responded: "Nice to meet you. I'm Doctor Steve" (since I, too, have a PhD). Sometimes it's possible to put an immediate end to snobbery. :)

  23. Definition of the classes in society

    in Off Topic Discussion

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Palfy said:

    You moved to America where they have the same criteria as here when it comes to working class, I read that in America you are considered working class if you do a menial job such as stacking shelves in a store or working as a lower scale office clerk, which I assume means menial admin, then it goes on to say don’t have a college degree. So not a lot of difference to the terminology used here.  

    It's very very different in Britain. In London, I initially worked with a team of people who were all Oxbridge graduates. While they were very nice and welcoming guys, I was always aware that I came from the wrong place, spoke with the wrong accent, and went to the wrong university. A few years later, I led a multinational project involving a team in Britain and had to speak with the principal consultant about using the same editing tools as everyone else. His response was "Lord so-and-so is my uncle. I do things my way, OK?". The fact that I was leading the project was immaterial; he pulled rank based on class. I've never experienced anything like that in the US.

  24. Definition of the classes in society

    in Off Topic Discussion

    Posted

    How does this play out in practice?

    After completing my PhD, I started my first real job in central London. The closest I could afford to live was in the suburbs of Rugby. It was during the time when Mrs Thatcher pursued a policy whereby families could purchase their council house at a discount, leading to mixed estates where some houses remained council houses and others were now private homes. My wife and I purchased a terraced house in such an estate. Every day, I would cycle to the railway station, take the 92-mile train journey to Euston, and then walk 30 minutes to my office just off Oxford Street, leaving home in the morning when it was dark and arriving home at night when it was dark.

    Some on the railway station knew that I lived on a council estate, so I was shunned and looked down on. My neighbors saw me leaving for work in a suit, so I was shunned by them as well for not being working class. Frankly, life was miserable and hard. When you took into account the cost of daily train fare, I was earning significantly less than a next-door neighbor who lived solely on unemployment benefit. Indeed, some suggested I quit my job and go on the dole since it would mean a significant "pay raise". That neighbor had a car; we couldn't afford one. That neighbor took holidays; we never could.

    How does class work in situations like this? Was my education or my income the best judge of class? Does wearing a suit preclude one from being accepted by neighbors in a working class neighborhood? Does living on a council estate stop someone from being accepted as a professional working in the big city? Class is a complicated thing, but the implications on a person's life in Britain, at that time, were significant. I found the pressure on my family so unreasonable that class structure was one of two principal reasons why I chose to leave the country.

×
×
  • Create New...