Longest Thread! for Everton Discussion

[Hafnia]

My understanding and logic is this:-

the premier league were not very thorough in creating the psl rules.  Whereas the football league were. 
 

the EFL prohibit seasons being reused to calculate PSR when a club has been already punished. Makes sense....

now in the absence of this logical rule being made by the EPL - my logical thinking would suggest that "at worst" if a 10 point deduction was the formulaic answer (yeah right) for £19.5m overspend.   Then my belief is that if we continued to be £19.5m over then the 10 "formulaic" point penalty should be reduced by 75% given that 3 of the 4 years have already been punished = 2.5 points (call it 2 points on the basis that they owe us for the decimal on the first calculation). 

But in all seriousness the whole thing is fucking sham.  The people that caused this shit storm are gone with their payoffs, the EPL let boehly off with all sorts cos he inherited shit by people who aren't there anymore (bit like us really except moshiri kind of is but isn't). Man City have allegations stretching back to 2010 but no sign of that can stopping after being kicked from lands end to John o groats. 
 

I'm optimistic that we will be ok, I think the epl and the people who run it are cut from the same cloth as the idiots we had running our club. So despite our club being destroyed from the inside - we may just have enough on the bellends at corrupt hq to make them realise they've kind of fucked up. 

[Matt]

3 hours ago, Palfy said:

Gylfi being accused of paedophilia never wrote 30 million off the books he remained an Everton player until his 5 year contract expired in 22, we could have played him it was the clubs choice not to. The PL do not sign off the accounts of any team clubs sign off their own accounts. Yes the war in Ukraine cost us our Russian benefactors money, he sponsored the training ground and took an option on the naming rights for the new stadium, 2 years later we haven’t replaced him on either, if we got just 25% of what he was reportedly paying we wouldn’t have been in breach, so why didn’t we look to replace USM and why haven’t we as yet when we are so desperate for funds. So because we are so nice we admitted to been guilty on the day of the hearing when in fact we weren’t guilty because we wanted to appear as nice, I won’t try and get my head round that theory I value my sanity to much

Yes, it did. It meant no one would buy him, regardless of our decision to play him or not. 

It's common knowledge the PL have been reviewing our books, we've collaborated with them for years. 

Moshiri has been looking to sell up for years so why bother wasting time searching for investment when it's going to be someone else's problem.

 

[Hafnia]

11 minutes ago, Formby said:

Just so I've got this right:

If I was to pinch my neighbour's new lawnmower and get done for it, I would serve my sentence for the rotten theft.

Then, in three years' time, I pinch the self-same lawnmower, I can't be punished for it?

Is that really the law?   

The best example would be.....

an average speed check over 4 miles had you 80mph vs 70 limit. 3 points a £100 fine.
 

You are then consequently assessed a further 1 mile down the road and 3 of the 4 miles you had been caught doing 80mph were now being used to find you guilty of being now an average of 75mph over the previous 4 miles. - given the fact that you were possibly 70mph for the newest mile would you think it's fair? 
 

I would be angry. 

[Palfy]

39 minutes ago, London Blue said:

Mate there are soooooo many legally grey areas in criminal law, I could compile a book that would be so heavy it would stun a team of oxen in their tracks. For example for theft, arguably the most simple of crimes the offence is "The dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it". Key word are property, another, dishonest, and permanently.

For the offence to be complete all elements of the crime have to be completed or present.

So lets a shoplifter goes into a supermarket and puts some expensive product into their bag not the basket or trolley, which is seen by staff, security detain the person and the Police are called. Has this person committed theft? Spoiler alert No.

They have not, they have not left the store so we lack the permanent element of the crime, the product is still in the owners venue. Second they have not passed the payment point, ie, the tills so arguably we lack the dishonestly element because they could in theory still pay for it. Now I know this seems mad but I have been to court many times and had many discussions with DPS who say this the law. (Yes any legal bods out their you could arrest under criminal attempts act for attempting to steal, the act says it has to be "more than merely preparatory"  and again until they leave the store you could argue they are still preparing to commit the crime of theft.

Now lets take the case of someone who does their shopping, has an item in their hands, their phone rings, they put the item in their pocket as they get their phone out. They have the call forget they have the item in their pocket, walk out the store without paying, technically theft?

Nope, the theft was by carelessness not dishonesty.

What if the person who takes the item has mental health issues that prevents them from making rational decisions, and has forgot their medication or had an episode, theft? Uh Uh again no dishonesty. 

Then there are the defenses of "Honest held belief they were entitled to it", "thought the owner would not mind in the circumstances". 

These are just the ones I can be arsed to type while watching the American football. Now that's just basic theft, for violent crimes there are many, many more.

Lastly there is the greyest of grey areas "Not in the public interest to prosecute" which covers pretty much everything from a pensioner who threw a stone at a rat in his garden, missed and hit his neighbours car window (technically criminal damage through recklessness) to  a foreign tourist who has a lock-knife on them as they always carry one back home in say the states, and dis not know the UK law was different. (yes technically ignorance is no defence, but is it worth going to the expense of trying someone for a crime that was committed in ignorance with no intent to cause harm to people or property who is leaving the country in a few days?)

Definitely lastly is the caution, depending on the seriousness of the offence if the person committing the offence shows genuine remorse, and has not got recent relevant convictions within a certain time frame, then they can be given a caution so no trial, no sentence. 

Grey, its a fucking pea souper. 

PS: have you considered using paragraphs?

 

I think it’s fairly obvious that a shop lifter has not committed theft until they have left the shop and not paid for the items, then there would be no grey area it would be black and white that they intended to steal and not pay for the items, unless of course they had medical grounds that would make them unaware of their actions such as Alzheimer’s which could be taken into consideration. If you arrested them whilst in the store you have made an assumption that they were not going to pay, by doing so you have created a grey area because they will say I was going to pay for the items but wasn’t given the opportunity, remember innocent until proven guilty, and you wouldn’t be able to prove that they never intended to pay before leaving the premises. And on your offer scenarios ignorance or recklessness is no form of defence the law is black and white on both those scenarios, now if the CPS decides not to prosecute for what ever reasons then that’s a different discussion, but they will at a minimum expect you to accept a formal caution, which could be used as evidence in a later charge for the same offence. I honestly believe the no one as got away with a crime because they said sorry, I accept that showing remorse and pleading guilty in some circumstances will go in your favour when it comes to sentencing, but saying sorry or showing remorse won’t stop you being charged or cautioned for the offence you have committed. Anyway this is all getting off track a bit, anyway Everton were guilty of breaching sustainability rules because they pleaded guilty to doing so at their hearing, unless of course the PL used police tactics of threatening behaviour if they didn’t plead guilty

[Palfy]

50 minutes ago, Matt said:

Yes, it did. It meant no one would buy him, regardless of our decision to play him or not. 

It's common knowledge the PL have been reviewing our books, we've collaborated with them for years. 

Moshiri has been looking to sell up for years so why bother wasting time searching for investment when it's going to be someone else's problem.

 

No one would have bought him even if there wasn’t any suspicious activity regarding his personal life, he was 140k a week and not playing good football who do you think was going to give us any money for him and pay him the sort of money he was on?

[London Blue]

1 hour ago, Formby said:

Just so I've got this right:

If I was to pinch my neighbour's new lawnmower and get done for it, I would serve my sentence for the rotten theft.

Then, in three years' time, I pinch the self-same lawnmower, I can't be punished for it?

Is that really the law?   

Nope, that is two instances of the same offence of theft separated by 3 years.

With Everton the 2 of the 3 years in the new offense were punished in the 1st hearing, so in essence they are being punished twice for those 2 years.

You would also as others have said look at the new year which would be compliant by itself as the club is on a downwards trajectory in terms of debt levels.

[London Blue]

29 minutes ago, Palfy said:

I think it’s fairly obvious that a shop lifter has not committed theft until they have left the shop and not paid for the items, then there would be no grey area it would be black and white that they intended to steal and not pay for the items, unless of course they had medical grounds that would make them unaware of their actions such as Alzheimer’s which could be taken into consideration. If you arrested them whilst in the store you have made an assumption that they were not going to pay, by doing so you have created a grey area because they will say I was going to pay for the items but wasn’t given the opportunity, remember innocent until proven guilty, and you wouldn’t be able to prove that they never intended to pay before leaving the premises. And on your offer scenarios ignorance or recklessness is no form of defence the law is black and white on both those scenarios, now if the CPS decides not to prosecute for what ever reasons then that’s a different discussion, but they will at a minimum expect you to accept a formal caution, which could be used as evidence in a later charge for the same offence. I honestly believe the no one as got away with a crime because they said sorry, I accept that showing remorse and pleading guilty in some circumstances will go in your favour when it comes to sentencing, but saying sorry or showing remorse won’t stop you being charged or cautioned for the offence you have committed. Anyway this is all getting off track a bit, anyway Everton were guilty of breaching sustainability rules because they pleaded guilty to doing so at their hearing, unless of course the PL used police tactics of threatening behaviour if they didn’t plead guilty

The grey area for Everton is what counted towards the debt, in this case the interest payments on the loan for the stadium, which is a grey area.

[MikeO]

2 hours ago, London Blue said:

PS: have you considered using paragraphs?

 

47 minutes ago, Palfy said:

I think it’s fairly obvious that a shop lifter has not committed theft until they have left the shop and not paid for the items, then there would be no grey area it would be black and white that they intended to steal and not pay for the items, unless of course they had medical grounds that would make them unaware of their actions such as Alzheimer’s which could be taken into consideration. If you arrested them whilst in the store you have made an assumption that they were not going to pay, by doing so you have created a grey area because they will say I was going to pay for the items but wasn’t given the opportunity, remember innocent until proven guilty, and you wouldn’t be able to prove that they never intended to pay before leaving the premises. And on your offer scenarios ignorance or recklessness is no form of defence the law is black and white on both those scenarios, now if the CPS decides not to prosecute for what ever reasons then that’s a different discussion, but they will at a minimum expect you to accept a formal caution, which could be used as evidence in a later charge for the same offence. I honestly believe the no one as got away with a crime because they said sorry, I accept that showing remorse and pleading guilty in some circumstances will go in your favour when it comes to sentencing, but saying sorry or showing remorse won’t stop you being charged or cautioned for the offence you have committed. Anyway this is all getting off track a bit, anyway Everton were guilty of breaching sustainability rules because they pleaded guilty to doing so at their hearing, unless of course the PL used police tactics of threatening behaviour if they didn’t plead guilty

That'll be a no then

[MikeO]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Moshiri has been looking to sell up for years so why bother wasting time searching for investment when it's going to be someone else's problem.

[Matt]

59 minutes ago, Palfy said:

No one would have bought him even if there wasn’t any suspicious activity regarding his personal life, he was 140k a week and not playing good football who do you think was going to give us any money for him and pay him the sort of money he was on?

That's not the point. Pre-accusation he was an asset financially and on the pitch. Post-accusation he has 0 financial value and wasn't going to play (for his own sake as well as ours).

[Palfy]

4 hours ago, Matt said:

That's not the point. Pre-accusation he was an asset financially and on the pitch. Post-accusation he has 0 financial value and wasn't going to play (for his own sake as well as ours).

Maybe he had 0 financial value but his contract carried on exactly as it started until it expired in June 22, and was written down in the accounts exactly as it would have been if there had been no accusations, so accusations or not it made no difference whatsoever to how he was accounted for in the subsequent years that remained on his contract. 

[Palfy]

5 hours ago, London Blue said:

The grey area for Everton is what counted towards the debt, in this case the interest payments on the loan for the stadium, which is a grey area.

Show me the evidence that’s a grey area.  I would have thought if that was a grey area even the idiots who run our club would have pleaded not guilty and sighted that as the reason, the facts are Everton’s owners may have thought genuinely that all the interest payments should have counted towards their debt, but that wasn’t the case and the PL explained the reasoning for that, which the club accepted and offered a guilty plea, so let’s not forget that ignorance in the eyes of the law forms no part of defence. Everton were a poorly run club and still are and ther lack of respect, care, or knowledge of the rules sent them into a breach of sustainability rules, no grey areas guilty as charged due to negligence which forms no defence. Now what’s so hard about getting your head around that.  

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

I think for everybody’s sanity we need to pause this thread until after the appeal. Clearly mitigation is not in Palfys vocabulary so no matter how many people try to explain why we have a case he isn’t going to accept it

Lets just hope Palfy doesn’t get appointed to the panel for the appeal hearing or we are all fucked !

[Matt]

 

 

[Matt]

4 hours ago, Palfy said:

Maybe he had 0 financial value but his contract carried on exactly as it started until it expired in June 22, and was written down in the accounts exactly as it would have been if there had been no accusations, so accusations or not it made no difference whatsoever to how he was accounted for in the subsequent years that remained on his contract. 

He had 0 market value so regardless of how long his contract was down for (and i know what you mean, normally that would be correct) he was still no longer an asset as no one was going to buy him. No buyers, no value, no asset on the books. Prior to that, he had a minimum of 12 months on his contract (if I've read correctly) and was a key player so his asset value would've been high despite the length of time remaining. 

[Formby]

10 hours ago, London Blue said:

Nope, that is two instances of the same offence of theft separated by 3 years.

With Everton the 2 of the 3 years in the new offense were punished in the 1st hearing, so in essence they are being punished twice for those 2 years.

You would also as others have said look at the new year which would be compliant by itself as the club is on a downwards trajectory in terms of debt levels.

Yes, I do get the point!

I was merely clarifying the first part of Matt's original post -

On 19/01/2024 at 20:07, Matt said:

You don't punish a thief for stealing the same object twice, why should we be punished for accounts already penalised?

- by stating just what you have just said - you do punish a thief twice for the same offence if the offence of theft was separated by 3 years!

Hence:

On 21/01/2024 at 09:41, Formby said:

I get the point, of course, but if there was a gap of several years between the thefts, he would be charged! 

  

[Hafnia]

5 hours ago, Palfy said:

Show me the evidence that’s a grey area.  I would have thought if that was a grey area even the idiots who run our club would have pleaded not guilty and sighted that as the reason, the facts are Everton’s owners may have thought genuinely that all the interest payments should have counted towards their debt, but that wasn’t the case and the PL explained the reasoning for that, which the club accepted and offered a guilty plea, so let’s not forget that ignorance in the eyes of the law forms no part of defence. Everton were a poorly run club and still are and ther lack of respect, care, or knowledge of the rules sent them into a breach of sustainability rules, no grey areas guilty as charged due to negligence which forms no defence. Now what’s so hard about getting your head around that.  

Palfy - I totally get where you are coming from...... the chickens have come home to roost and this is a lesson for all the people who were happy to do nothing while the club was mismanaged. 
 

The reality is that this isn't a mutually exclusive scenario, we don't need to flog ourselves to be vindictive and say I told you so. 
 

yeah the club have been mismanaged and as I've said many people have slept walked into this. The fact is that there absolutely is mitigating factors in spite of the appalling way we have been run. So we can be annoyed at the club and we can be appalled at the way we've been treated.

 

we sold top quality players to try and correct the awful way we have been run.  That was punishment in itself that nearly seen us relegated.  Selling Richarlison to replace with Maupay?! That's draconian. 

The fact is - the EPL had us on special measures yet we breached PSL and that was because of how stadium interest charges were treated - end of story. It's an abuse of process. The way the points were calculated was back of a fag packet.

yeah the club have been run appallingly, so too are the EPL and we shouldn't be accepting their kangaroo court findings. 

[Hafnia]

5 hours ago, Palfy said:

Show me the evidence that’s a grey area.  I would have thought if that was a grey area even the idiots who run our club would have pleaded not guilty and sighted that as the reason, the facts are Everton’s owners may have thought genuinely that all the interest payments should have counted towards their debt, but that wasn’t the case and the PL explained the reasoning for that, which the club accepted and offered a guilty plea, so let’s not forget that ignorance in the eyes of the law forms no part of defence. Everton were a poorly run club and still are and ther lack of respect, care, or knowledge of the rules sent them into a breach of sustainability rules, no grey areas guilty as charged due to negligence which forms no defence. Now what’s so hard about getting your head around that.  

Saying we were guilty does not say we agree with the rules that we were found guilty by. 
 

based on how the epl included the £19.5m interest charge meant we were guilty - they changed this rule midway through the year. We were guilty - that's a fact.  The reality is that how the epl changed this rule is open to scrutiny.  Spurs had their interest charges excluded from psl but they changed it so ours were? - mid season and at a time where interest rates were increasing. 
 

 

 

[Palfy]

Then to all of you why are we just appealing the severity of the punishment and not appealing the verdict of being found guilty?

[Palfy]

5 hours ago, duncanmckenzieismagic said:

I think for everybody’s sanity we need to pause this thread until after the appeal. Clearly mitigation is not in Palfys vocabulary so no matter how many people try to explain why we have a case he isn’t going to accept it

Lets just hope Palfy doesn’t get appointed to the panel for the appeal hearing or we are all fucked !

I have clearly stated on numerous occasions that we have a case to appeal the severity of the punishment, which is what we are appealing against, but we are guilty of the charge we admitted guilt and were found guilty so the boat has sailed on that one, and we aren’t appealing against the judgment just the punishment. So why do you keep saying we are innocent when we admitted to being guilty and we aren’t appealing against that decision, that’s where I don’t understand your logic. 

[Matt]

39 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Then to all of you why are we just appealing the severity of the punishment and not appealing the verdict of being found guilty?

Because we can't argue against the verdict. They changed the rules and dismissed the mitigating factors so we are guilty. But the punishment process is being made up as they go along and that's got actual implications to the club. 

[Palfy]

23 minutes ago, Matt said:

Because we can't argue against the verdict. They changed the rules and dismissed the mitigating factors so we are guilty. But the punishment process is being made up as they go along and that's got actual implications to the club. 

Exactly Matt we are guilty that’s all I’ve been saying when people are still saying we weren’t guilty. We are guilty through negligence and the PL league explained why we couldn’t use the interest payments to go against our losses , and that was that loans weren’t in the clubs name, not that they had changed any rules when it came to loans, just that the way we structured our loans didn’t meet the criteria required to off set them against our over spend. 

[StevO]

I’m not sure we are saying we are guilty as such, as we said the mitigating factors should be taken into consideration and then putting us under the threshold. 
So we admit that the figures are the figures, but the reasons behind the figures should put us in a position of compliance. 
Maybe. 

[Hafnia]

Palfy, if you got caught speeding when a road goes from 30mph to 20mph and the camera had you doing 30mph - then you are guilty. There is no escaping that fact.

if you have issue with the fact that there wasn't clear markings to advise this then you can contest the penalty due to mitigation. 

[Matt]

2 hours ago, Palfy said:

Exactly Matt we are guilty that’s all I’ve been saying when people are still saying we weren’t guilty. We are guilty through negligence and the PL league explained why we couldn’t use the interest payments to go against our losses , and that was that loans weren’t in the clubs name, not that they had changed any rules when it came to loans, just that the way we structured our loans didn’t meet the criteria required to off set them against our over spend. 

Ok, we're not guilty if we apply the rules we started the construction under. We are guilty following the PL changing those rules mid construction. 

If you were building a block of flats and the planning permission was signed off, then a couple years later the planning department refer you to the courts for breach of regulation without informing you, would you be guilty? 

[Palfy]

57 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

Palfy, if you got caught speeding when a road goes from 30mph to 20mph and the camera had you doing 30mph - then you are guilty. There is no escaping that fact.

if you have issue with the fact that there wasn't clear markings to advise this then you can contest the penalty due to mitigation. 

Very true, but you would be contesting the fact that you are not guilty because you would have had no indication that the speed limit had changed, we aren’t contesting our guilt we are contesting the severity of the penalty, if we are using some of the mitigating factors that some have mentioned then we could easily lose because if they prove that no rules had changed in the 3 years in question, then we would be negligent and negligence doesn’t form part of a defence, but if we are appealing solely that the 10 point penalty was excessive and unjustified based on case history of previous penalties handed out in other cases, and the impact such a penalty is unfairly having on the club and supporters then I believe we have a better chance of a result, because they have to justify why they gave us the most harshest penalty in PL history without committing the biggest crime in PL history. 

[Cornish Steve]

20 hours ago, Hafnia said:

The best example would be.....

an average speed check over 4 miles had you 80mph vs 70 limit. 3 points a £100 fine.
 

You are then consequently assessed a further 1 mile down the road and 3 of the 4 miles you had been caught doing 80mph were now being used to find you guilty of being now an average of 75mph over the previous 4 miles. - given the fact that you were possibly 70mph for the newest mile would you think it's fair? 
 

I would be angry. 

To make the analogy a little closer...

The traffic cop notes your time as you pass by various mile markers. Local statutes demand that they measure your average speed over three miles. On this stretch of road, the speed limit is 65mph. Only if you exceed 65mph over three miles can you be charged with speeding. Here's what they observe:

Mile marker 1: 45 seconds
Mile marker 2: 90 seconds
Mile marker 3: 135 seconds

The police note your total time over 3 miles: 135 seconds. This means you've been doing 80mph. On come the blue lights. You immediately slow down to 60mph (a mile a minute). The police car isn't behind you yet. Maybe you got away with it.

Mile marker 4: 195 seconds
Mile marker 5: 255 seconds

Now they've caught up and pulled you over.

"Sir. From when we started monitoring your speed, we measured it at 80mph over three miles. Did you know the speed limit is 65mph? That'll be a £200 fine." You take out your wallet and hand over the cash. Before you can drive off, the police officer continues: "But we also started monitoring your speed after Mile Marker 1. For the next three miles, you averaged 72mph. That's a second offense. That'll be a £400 fine." You're annoyed. "But from the moment I spotted your blue lights, I slowed to 60mph." The officer smiles as he thinks what he'll do with that £600. "Sorry sir, but the law states that we must measure your speed over a 3-mile stretch of road." Now you're angry: "But you can't fine me twice for speeding over the same stretch of road! Anyway, national law is different." The officer considers this for a moment before continuing: "What matters is my patch, not national law. Now, we also measured your speed for three miles starting at Mile Marker 2. From there, you averaged 65.5mph. Now, I was going to be kind and overlook it, but since you've taken umbrage... that will be £600 for a second repeat offense."

This points out just how ridiculous the whole scenario is. We're being threatened with a second fine when we were already fined for much of the same stretch of road. Either they restart the measurement after three miles or they calculate over one mile. It's ridiculous that they claim the right to fine potentially three times for overspending in just one year.

[Cornish Steve]

20 hours ago, Hafnia said:

The best example would be.....

an average speed check over 4 miles had you 80mph vs 70 limit. 3 points a £100 fine.
 

You are then consequently assessed a further 1 mile down the road and 3 of the 4 miles you had been caught doing 80mph were now being used to find you guilty of being now an average of 75mph over the previous 4 miles. - given the fact that you were possibly 70mph for the newest mile would you think it's fair? 
 

I would be angry. 

I see you made the same point!

[Matt]

31 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

I see you made the same point!

Much easier to read too, which is even more impressive since it's Haf; it was much more concise

 

[Hafnia]

1 hour ago, Cornish Steve said:

I see you made the same point!

I did.... could have saved you a job