Matt Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 54 minutes ago, Hoof_It_Nev said: I might be wrong but I think he said if City had breached in the last financial records they'd be under the same timeframe as us (and other small clubs!). I guess they submitted 'clean' accounts this year. But it means than none of the 115 are related to PSR or whatever new name they have, right? If so, how can they show clean books if 115 charges are pending which would impact the books accuracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuffRob Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 10 hours ago, Matt said: You think we were going to get £90m for Richarlison?! Not at all, but Forest can factually demonstrated that they got a signficantly bigger fee (30% more) on TDD to what they where turning down in June and will argue it. That become an indicator that a players sale value goes up close to the end of a window. As a fact based arguement we would be perfectly rigth to say we sold a player on the cheap before 31st June becasue we as a club felt we HAD to get a better balance sheet on that given day to satify a third party that is the PL and not becasue it was the best deal for us financially (and everybody knew we had to do a deal by than date). Its a fair argument to say the club lost out on revenue becasue of the effort they made in making their best attempt to meet PL rules with defined date parameters. What I am saying is Forest arguing this fact helps support Evertons arguement that they felt they where somehow forced in to selling him on the cheap due purely to an PL accounting dealline. Matt and London Blue 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 55 minutes ago, RuffRob said: Not at all, but Forest can factually demonstrated that they got a signficantly bigger fee (30% more) on TDD to what they where turning down in June and will argue it. That become an indicator that a players sale value goes up close to the end of a window. As a fact based arguement we would be perfectly rigth to say we sold a player on the cheap before 31st June becasue we as a club felt we HAD to get a better balance sheet on that given day to satify a third party that is the PL and not becasue it was the best deal for us financially (and everybody knew we had to do a deal by than date). Its a fair argument to say the club lost out on revenue becasue of the effort they made in making their best attempt to meet PL rules with defined date parameters. What I am saying is Forest arguing this fact helps support Evertons arguement that they felt they where somehow forced in to selling him on the cheap due purely to an PL accounting dealline. Gotchya, so basically we were forced to sell because of the date which the finances dictated potentially foregoing any premiums that might've developed over the window. It's a good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 Deep joy, if these figures are anywhere near to being close then it’s almost certain we will be in breach again next year! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 26 minutes ago, duncanmckenzieismagic said: Deep joy, if these figures are anywhere near to being close then it’s almost certain we will be in breach again next year! If the PL get their way we won't be in the PL next season anyway, and it'll be the EFL's financial rules we'll have to abide by and they just fine clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 1 hour ago, duncanmckenzieismagic said: Deep joy, if these figures are anywhere near to being close then it’s almost certain we will be in breach again next year! So we need to sell 1 player right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, Matt said: So we need to sell 1 player right? Well we need to bring the loss to below £33m so with all these loans fling around and if 777 deal collapses it may mean a fire sale .Or win the appeal https://theathletic.com/5208105/2024/01/17/everton-ffp-psr-double-jeopardy-efl/?source=user_shared_article Edited January 18 by duncanmckenzieismagic Cos I want to! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 21 minutes ago, duncanmckenzieismagic said: Well we need to bring the loss to below £33m so with all these loans fling around and if 777 deal collapses it may mean a fire sale .Or win the appeal https://theathletic.com/5208105/2024/01/17/everton-ffp-psr-double-jeopardy-efl/?source=user_shared_article Onana going makes the most sense. I'd rather not obviously, hopefully the appeal will be successful. London Blue 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Blue Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 3 hours ago, Matt said: Onana going makes the most sense. I'd rather not obviously, hopefully the appeal will be successful. I can't see the appeal failing to be honest, both on the factual finding and the actual penalty. The PL are corrupt muppets and this is becoming more and more apparent to people in, and out of the game. Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 1 hour ago, London Blue said: I can't see the appeal failing to be honest, both on the factual finding and the actual penalty. The PL are corrupt muppets and this is becoming more and more apparent to people in, and out of the game. I love your optimism but if the league "back down", to a fine for example, they'll be admitting their incompetence globally and we've seen the type of people these lot are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 8 hours ago, duncanmckenzieismagic said: Well we need to bring the loss to below £33m so with all these loans fling around and if 777 deal collapses it may mean a fire sale .Or win the appeal https://theathletic.com/5208105/2024/01/17/everton-ffp-psr-double-jeopardy-efl/?source=user_shared_article The single biggest factor will be final position in the table (TV money). Yes, it's nice to have an FA Cup run, but all our focus must be on gaining every single point we can in the league. I'm mad that we let the League Cup cost us two points against Brighton. Play dull; it doesn't matter. Gain points through hard-fought draws; just fine. But we need to win all games against teams in the bottom half. Romey 1878, Matt and duncanmckenzieismagic 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 5 hours ago, Cornish Steve said: The single biggest factor will be final position in the table (TV money). Yes, it's nice to have an FA Cup run, but all our focus must be on gaining every single point we can in the league. I'm mad that we let the League Cup cost us two points against Brighton. Play dull; it doesn't matter. Gain points through hard-fought draws; just fine. But we need to win all games against teams in the bottom half. How did the League Cup cost us two points against Brighton ? Have the FPL created another Everton only rule, that I don’t know about, in their desire to destroy us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/everton-supporters-submit-case-against-28474925 Romey 1878 and Gwlad 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 6 hours ago, Cornish Steve said: The single biggest factor will be final position in the table (TV money). Yes, it's nice to have an FA Cup run, but all our focus must be on gaining every single point we can in the league. I'm mad that we let the League Cup cost us two points against Brighton. Play dull; it doesn't matter. Gain points through hard-fought draws; just fine. But we need to win all games against teams in the bottom half. You're consistent, I'll give you that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Blue Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 15 hours ago, Matt said: I love your optimism but if the league "back down", to a fine for example, they'll be admitting their incompetence globally and we've seen the type of people these lot are. I think the appeal will show this. Under the current random collection of letters that make up todays rules, if clubs in the league spending continues then you could have 6 or more clubs being deducted points. Then to add to it they will more than likely be deducted points in the following season. They have admitted to writing the rules on the fly, any set of rules and their interpretation and application has to be consistent. Clearly is not at the moment, I expect this to come out in the appeal. Hope and reality and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 I don’t understand why or how as some seem to be saying that if we win our appeal and get a points deduction on the original 10 points deduction, we won’t get a penalty on the 2nd charge and it will be more than likely be dismissed, can anyone explain why this would be the case. I may be wrong but aren’t they both independent charges so will stand on there own merit, and any reduction of points on appeal is not a saying we weren’t guilty and will have no effect on the outcome of the 2nd charge of PSR if found guilty of that as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 21 minutes ago, Palfy said: I don’t understand why or how as some seem to be saying that if we win our appeal and get a points deduction on the original 10 points deduction, we won’t get a penalty on the 2nd charge and it will be more than likely be dismissed, can anyone explain why this would be the case. I may be wrong but aren’t they both independent charges so will stand on there own merit, and any reduction of points on appeal is not a saying we weren’t guilty and will have no effect on the outcome of the 2nd charge of PSR if found guilty of that as well. I think there are a number of reasons. In the first hearing we admitted the breach but put forward a lot of mitigating circumstances such as the war in. Ukraine which cost us a £200m naming rights deal for BMD among other things. Then there was the argument about them moving the goal posts and saying the interest on the loans we took out for BMD were not eligible as add backs The two charges are intrinsically linked as 75% of the accounts under scrutiny are the same accounts so if the appeal committee side with Everton on the mitigation in the first case then that also applies to the second charge and may in fact make us compliant so the second charge gets dropped Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 1 hour ago, duncanmckenzieismagic said: I think there are a number of reasons. In the first hearing we admitted the breach but put forward a lot of mitigating circumstances such as the war in. Ukraine which cost us a £200m naming rights deal for BMD among other things. Then there was the argument about them moving the goal posts and saying the interest on the loans we took out for BMD were not eligible as add backs The two charges are intrinsically linked as 75% of the accounts under scrutiny are the same accounts so if the appeal committee side with Everton on the mitigation in the first case then that also applies to the second charge and may in fact make us compliant so the second charge gets dropped I feel that is very much wishful thinking to think that they won’t view the 2nd breach and deal with it in the same way as the first if we are found guilty or admit guilt again. I understand the need to appeal the severity of the first 10 points deduction it would seem to be totally out of context and I hope they agree and return a minimum of 4 points in our favour. But should we be found guilty on the 2nd charge of PSR I have no doubt we will be punished, and as a few financial analysts have said we will be in the dock again for 23/24 and so it will go on until we are either bankrupt or we can find a buyer/ investor who will make all our money woes disappear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 4 minutes ago, Palfy said: I feel that is very much wishful thinking to think that they won’t view the 2nd breach and deal with it in the same way as the first if we are found guilty or admit guilt again. I understand the need to appeal the severity of the first 10 points deduction it would seem to be totally out of context and I hope they agree and return a minimum of 4 points in our favour. But should we be found guilty on the 2nd charge of PSR I have no doubt we will be punished, and as a few financial analysts have said we will be in the dock again for 23/24 and so it will go on until we are either bankrupt or we can find a buyer/ investor who will make all our money woes disappear. You don't punish a thief for stealing the same object twice, why should we be punished for accounts already penalised? StevO and London Blue 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 19 Report Share Posted January 19 2 hours ago, Matt said: You don't punish a thief for stealing the same object twice, why should we be punished for accounts already penalised? We are being charged with the any 3 consecutive years of over spending, I agree that it is harsh that 2 of those years were part of the previous 3 years that we were charged and admitted to breaking the rules, but they are the rules as written down I believe, and not that you can’t be charged using any years that had formed part of a previous charge. I know it’s not fair on the fans it’s out of our control we have an owner who doesn’t want to play by the rules and certainly doesn’t give a shit about you me or the club, I’ve been calling Moshiri a cunt for 5 years because of what he had done to this club and what I could see was on the horizon with the way he was running our club. He got us what he deserved and we didn’t, now he’s become the invisible man for almost 2 years because that’s how much he gives a shit about all the mayhem he has caused in his name, but we can’t take it out on him he’s not around to face questions or here or see the protests against him, so instead to vent our anger and frustration we blame the PL for all of our problems because blaming the true culprit doesn’t work when he’s not there and doesn’t give a flying fuck, because if he did he would be standing shoulder to shoulder with us at Goodison where he hasn’t been seen for nearly 2 years. Yes I’m angry and frustrated about our position but I’m also realistic enough to know that it was of our own making as a club and as supporters we left high and dry by the cunt that is Moshiri. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted January 20 Report Share Posted January 20 https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/premier-league-should-also-duty-28481711 Romey 1878 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted January 20 Report Share Posted January 20 3 hours ago, duncanmckenzieismagic said: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/premier-league-should-also-duty-28481711 Rules that were put into pace to stop situations like Leeds and Portsmouth are going to actually create that situation. Hw nice of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 20 Report Share Posted January 20 2 hours ago, duncanmckenzieismagic said: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/premier-league-should-also-duty-28481711 That is probably the best piece of journalism I’ve read on what is happening to us and why. For me I’ve always accepted we have broken sustainability rules I’ve never held the theory that the PL have an agenda against us and are wilfully trying their best to destroy us. As the writer of the article says we need help from the PL to find a solution to our financial problems and penalties aren’t helping us recover and find a fair way forward. Firstly the club need to accept their breaches and ask for more of a solution to the way out, and secondly the PL need to be more helpful to any club who is admitting to it’s failures and is seeking a solution to move forward to sustainability. But what concerns me is that we may have been given a direction from the PL and we didn’t take heed of the advice, but if that is not the case then let’s try and find common ground and solution that helps us instead of the punishments that are making our future unsurvivable in our present circumstances, brought on possible by the worst owner in PL history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted January 20 Report Share Posted January 20 On 19/01/2024 at 03:29, duncanmckenzieismagic said: How did the League Cup cost us two points against Brighton ? Have the FPL created another Everton only rule, that I don’t know about, in their desire to destroy us? We tired in that game because the same team had played Burnley a few days earlier. Instead of claiming 3 points, our tiredness toward the end of the game meant we took away just one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted January 20 Report Share Posted January 20 On 19/01/2024 at 05:12, Matt said: You're consistent, I'll give you that True, but this is our reality. Money carries the most sway in today's league, so our goal this season must be to maximize it, and that means winning the most TV money that we can. Apologies to sound this beating drum too often, but we really must focus and not be distracted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted January 20 Report Share Posted January 20 The entire case for supposed over-spending is based on two decisions by the league that ought to be contestable in court. 1) Change the rules about stadium spending. 2) Change the cycle for annual calculation. There's little a team can do when the league changes the rules either at a moment's notice or after the fact. The stadium is a long-term and costly project, and everyone knew that. Not only is the league being unfair to Everton, but it's going to make every team think twice about making such an investment themselves. Frankly, extraordinary financing for stadiums should be separated from regular spending and not be counted. Applying the same penalty twice in the same season is without precedent and a totally arbitrary decision. Why do that now? Why do it in a season when you know a team will suffer twice? We can all argue about the number of points to be deducted, or applying a fine instead of a deduction, but I don't see this changing. It's a power play at this point, and league officials will do anything not to lose face - or be subject to an independent commission. Our best recourse, in my opinion, is to take the league to court over these two fundamental issues. Sue them for hundreds of millions. Sue league executives personally. Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted January 20 Report Share Posted January 20 6 hours ago, Palfy said: That is probably the best piece of journalism I’ve read on what is happening to us and why. For me I’ve always accepted we have broken sustainability rules I’ve never held the theory that the PL have an agenda against us and are wilfully trying their best to destroy us. As the writer of the article says we need help from the PL to find a solution to our financial problems and penalties aren’t helping us recover and find a fair way forward. Firstly the club need to accept their breaches and ask for more of a solution to the way out, and secondly the PL need to be more helpful to any club who is admitting to it’s failures and is seeking a solution to move forward to sustainability. But what concerns me is that we may have been given a direction from the PL and we didn’t take heed of the advice, but if that is not the case then let’s try and find common ground and solution that helps us instead of the punishments that are making our future unsurvivable in our present circumstances, brought on possible by the worst owner in PL history. We differ on this. I do NOT accept that we broke rules - because those rules were changed after the fact, after we'd committed to building a new stadium, after we invested in the community affected by the move, after interest rates soared, and after we lost some funding due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Do correct me if I'm wrong on this point. MikeO, Matt and Formby 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 20 Report Share Posted January 20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 20 Report Share Posted January 20 22 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said: We differ on this. I do NOT accept that we broke rules - because those rules were changed after the fact, after we'd committed to building a new stadium, after we invested in the community affected by the move, after interest rates soared, and after we lost some funding due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Do correct me if I'm wrong on this point. That and dismissing the missing Gylfi valuation (which would've kept us within) and dismissing stadium loan interest costs not being part of the stadium costs whilst the loans were. StevO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.