duncanmckenzieismagic Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 9 hours ago, Romey 1878 said: One or two big sales will have to happen in the summer unless we want to be certain to receive another FFP charge. The league are going to get us one way or another it seems, whether it’s with another points deduction and relegation or making it nigh on impossible for us to stay up next season with the transfer ban when we’ve already cut the squad to the bone on their say so. If we get a transfer ban I don’t see how we can let anyone go. As per the Echo article I posted earlier Dele, Gomes,Gueye,Young,Coleman,Lonergan,Harrison & Danjuma are all out of contract in the summer so we could potentially lose all of them We already have a wafer thin squad so if we start selling players we can’t replace then there would be a real danger that we couldn’t fulfil all of our fixtures if we got a couple of injuries Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 Id sell Onana for the daft money touted. For all his athletic potential he lacks heart and can't strike a football. many may disagree but I think he sells himself and us short. I couldn't bare the thought of selling branthwaite as he will be the best if not one of the best centre halves in the world. Matt, Wiggytop and Palfy 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, duncanmckenzieismagic said: If we get a transfer ban I don’t see how we can let anyone go. As per the Echo article I posted earlier Dele, Gomes,Gueye,Young,Coleman,Lonergan,Harrison & Danjuma are all out of contract in the summer so we could potentially lose all of them We already have a wafer thin squad so if we start selling players we can’t replace then there would be a real danger that we couldn’t fulfil all of our fixtures if we got a couple of injuries I agree that it will be bad but I don't see how we can't sell anyone because we'll need to. We're pretty fucked whatever happens tbh. Sell someone so we don't breach again but risk making the squad dangerously thin (if we do get a transfer ban), or don't sell anyone and breach again and then get a points deduction or another transfer ban. Oh the joy . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patto Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 The premier league now are out to make it as tough as possible for us they aren’t happy that we are showing their corrupt way of running the league is wrong. they are dragging out the take over or will not let it happen until the transfer window is closed they if they could relegate us now they would. we are rocking their elite club and they don’t like it one bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 https://www.evertonfc.com/news/3866232/allan-ill-be-back-to-live-a-game-as-an-evertonian StevO, Matt, Palfy and 1 other 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 5 hours ago, duncanmckenzieismagic said: If we get a transfer ban I don’t see how we can let anyone go. As per the Echo article I posted earlier Dele, Gomes,Gueye,Young,Coleman,Lonergan,Harrison & Danjuma are all out of contract in the summer so we could potentially lose all of them We already have a wafer thin squad so if we start selling players we can’t replace then there would be a real danger that we couldn’t fulfil all of our fixtures if we got a couple of injuries We can still take in loan players if we get a transfer ban, as long as our squad doesn’t already have 24 registered first team players, and this is the hard bit we don’t pay a fee for the loan and we don’t pay the player more than he’s getting at the parent club. Not to many hurdles to get over, I think Colin Jackson would have fell at the first. That’s as current as my memory would allow for hurdler’s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 12 minutes ago, Palfy said: We can still take in loan players if we get a transfer ban, as long as our squad doesn’t already have 24 registered first team players, and this is the hard bit we don’t pay a fee for the loan and we don’t pay the player more than he’s getting at the parent club. Not to many hurdles to get over, I think Colin Jackson would have fell at the first. That’s as current as my memory would allow for hurdler’s I think they are the rules for the EFL so don’t necessarily apply to EPL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 2 hours ago, Romey 1878 said: https://www.evertonfc.com/news/3866232/allan-ill-be-back-to-live-a-game-as-an-evertonian He had some great games for us just a shame about the amount of injuries he had in his last season. I think he would have done really well in a Dyche team both their games would have suited each other’s strengths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 3 minutes ago, duncanmckenzieismagic said: I think they are the rules for the EFL so don’t necessarily apply to EPL I didn’t know that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sean-dyche-right-transfers-not-28504800 All The more reason that we should not have received any sporting sanction Matt, Romey 1878 and London Blue 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 On 24/01/2024 at 13:26, duncanmckenzieismagic said: I think they are the rules for the EFL so don’t necessarily apply to EPL So could well be applicable to our situation soon then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 This is pretty damning. I can’t wait to see the response. MikeO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 @Palfy London Blue 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 2 hours ago, StevO said: This is pretty damning. I can’t wait to see the response. Masters surely will be scrambling now. My concern is that the minutes of the meeting could be doctored/made up. Matt and London Blue 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 17 minutes ago, Hafnia said: Masters surely will be scrambling now. My concern is that the minutes of the meeting could be doctored/made up. It's the government verified Twatter account so probably Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 7 hours ago, duncanmckenzieismagic said: @Palfy Exactly as I’ve been saying from day one, we are not appealing against the guilty verdict, we are appealing against the severity of the punishment, and the 1878s have listed a history of previous punishments to clubs found guilty of breaching PL rules to show the severity of our punishment, for what could be considered a lesser offence than others that were then given a less severe punishment. So thank you Dunc for addressing it to me, as you can see 1878s take on the appeal is the same as mine. Hafnia and Matt 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post duncanmckenzieismagic Posted January 27 Popular Post Report Share Posted January 27 4 hours ago, Palfy said: Exactly as I’ve been saying from day one, we are not appealing against the guilty verdict, we are appealing against the severity of the punishment, and the 1878s have listed a history of previous punishments to clubs found guilty of breaching PL rules to show the severity of our punishment, for what could be considered a lesser offence than others that were then given a less severe punishment. So thank you Dunc for addressing it to me, as you can see 1878s take on the appeal is the same as mine. Clearly you are not going to be swayed from your opinion no matter what but I don’t think we have pleaded guilty as such We have acknowledged the fact we have gone over the allowable £105m loss barrier over the 4 seasons BUT the main point of the article is that we have only breached because they moved the goal posts regarding the interest on the loans . That is the whole crux of the argument I thought you asked why people believed the first appeal would affect the second charge? Well this is your answer, if we can convince the appeal panel that the loans should have continued to be allowed as add backs then we would be comfortably compliant and therefore not guilty and as the second charge is for 75% of the same accounting period the same would apply to that Yes we are also contesting the severity, and rightly so. The other mitigating factors I also believe are credible. How can they justify saying on one hand that there was no intended wrong doing and no sporting advantage gained then on the other hit us with any sporting sanction at all let alone the most severe in history? The club have worked openly with the EPL since 2021 and can clearly evidence all the efforts they have done to remain compliant so to be hit with such a severe penalty is entirely unjust and it’s quite obvious to most that that they are trying to use us as the sacrificial lamb to prove to the Government that an independent regulator is not needed MikeO, Romey 1878, Matt and 3 others 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 1 hour ago, duncanmckenzieismagic said: Clearly you are not going to be swayed from your opinion no matter what but I don’t think we have pleaded guilty as such We have acknowledged the fact we have gone over the allowable £105m loss barrier over the 4 seasons BUT the main point of the article is that we have only breached because they moved the goal posts regarding the interest on the loans . That is the whole crux of the argument I thought you asked why people believed the first appeal would affect the second charge? Well this is your answer, if we can convince the appeal panel that the loans should have continued to be allowed as add backs then we would be comfortably compliant and therefore not guilty and as the second charge is for 75% of the same accounting period the same would apply to that Yes we are also contesting the severity, and rightly so. The other mitigating factors I also believe are credible. How can they justify saying on one hand that there was no intended wrong doing and no sporting advantage gained then on the other hit us with any sporting sanction at all let alone the most severe in history? The club have worked openly with the EPL since 2021 and can clearly evidence all the efforts they have done to remain compliant so to be hit with such a severe penalty is entirely unjust and it’s quite obvious to most that that they are trying to use us as the sacrificial lamb to prove to the Government that an independent regulator is not needed Yes they are trying to prove to the government that they don’t need to be regulated, and that is without a shadow of doubt that is the why the penalty was severe, and exceeds all punishment’s in the history of the PL. They also planted the seed with the independent panel by suggesting that the penalty if found guilty the penalty should be 6 points plus 1 point for every 5 million over the 105 million, this was never written anywhere as a guide line if you were found guilty of breaching PSR regulations, the independent panel said they would not accept that advice as they didn’t believe it to be fair and would give a penalty that they believed fitted the breach, yet they still came up with the same points deduction had they followed the PL advice. For me this was a smoke screen to say we are an independent committee and did not follow the PL advice, yet came up with the same penalty to make it hard for us to challenge the independence of the decision. We did admit guilt it is recorded in the minutes that we admitted guilt, as was the panels decision to dismiss the PL suggestion of how to come to the final points deduction. We used the mitigating factor of the loans that were not for the stadium and loans that weren’t in the club’s name but used for the stadium, and they were dismissed, we say because they moved the goal post, are we saying that they did this without out ever changing the wording in the rules book, or making that change clear to 20 clubs in the league when it the time it was changed, you don’t know I don’t know, but I would have thought that if they change the ruling or as you say moved the goal posts, without making this change clear to it’s members then we would be challenging the finding of being found guilty, but we are not we are just challenging the severity of the punishment and accepting guilt. Well that’s how I see it anyway, but all will become a lot clearer in a couple of weeks, when hopefully we get most if not all out points back. And on the case of the new charge, all I have said is they are two individuals charges and as such they outcome of the appeal is not a guarantee to have any effect on the second charge no matter the outcome of the appeal, as they are both independent of each other as charges, and we may or may not even be found guilty of the second charge, though I feel that is unlikely if we look at the first breach when the club the club told us not to worry we are innocent. And whether this is liked or not the total mismanagement of the clubs finances has got us into this position and still is today. I’ve said it before and I will say it again, I can not believe we haven’t after 2 years not found a replacement sponsor for the stadium and the training ground, honestly what the fuck is going on within our club, if we could have found someone who only paid 20% of what USM were paying for naming rights we could have generated 40 million, and if we could have found someone to pay 50% of what USM were paying for sponsorship towards Finch Farm that could have generated somewhere in the region of 20 million a year. Those 2 figures combined would have comfortably taken us out of any breach, yet we haven’t raised a single penny in sponsorship to replace the USM money, that alone should help you see why this club is financially failing and in such a shit position, because for me it’s mind boggling and as someone who runs his own business I just can’t comprehend how this situation is allowed to continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 7 hours ago, Palfy said: Exactly as I’ve been saying from day one, we are not appealing against the guilty verdict, we are appealing against the severity of the punishment, and the 1878s have listed a history of previous punishments to clubs found guilty of breaching PL rules to show the severity of our punishment, for what could be considered a lesser offence than others that were then given a less severe punishment. So thank you Dunc for addressing it to me, as you can see 1878s take on the appeal is the same as mine. It’s not funny Matt it’s true Everton FC are appealing against the severity of the 10 points deduction, can you please show me or tell me where you have seen the club say they are appealing against the guilty verdict, because I have just seen the club say that they have made an appeal against the severity of the punishment, so unless you know differently it would suggest that they still admit their guilt, because I have seen nothing from the club since the hearing suggesting they are going to fight the guilty verdict on appeal only the severity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Blue Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 The Premier League changed the goalposts as to what could be written off. So according to the new rules we are overspent. Therefore are appealing the punishment and saying we were ok until the PL moved the goalposts and here are other mitigating factors. Hafnia and Matt 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 39 minutes ago, Palfy said: It’s not funny Matt it’s true Everton FC are appealing against the severity of the 10 points deduction, can you please show me or tell me where you have seen the club say they are appealing against the guilty verdict, because I have just seen the club say that they have made an appeal against the severity of the punishment, so unless you know differently it would suggest that they still admit their guilt, because I have seen nothing from the club since the hearing suggesting they are going to fight the guilty verdict on appeal only the severity. Can you please show me where the club say they are only appealing against the severity of the punishment? Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 1 hour ago, StevO said: Can you please show me where the club say they are only appealing against the severity of the punishment? Doesn't exist mate and he won't be able to paste the link anyway Not sure how else to break it down for you, Palfy, unless you're just bored and are trolling a bit. Under the leagues supervision, we were operating within the limits. Then, during the project, when loans and contracts where all in place they changed the rules and said now we're not. So we must acknowledge and accept that we broke the current rules, because we did. However we only did so because those rules were changed by the people who had signed off on everything mid process. Last attempt at an analogy... Ref blows for kick-off, each side knows which goal is theirs. Then, during an attack we're through on goal, all the while the linesman and ref waving advantage and letting the attack continue. We end up scoring but the ref awards the goal as an own goal against. We weren't informed that the ends had changed mid attack, we had officials waving us on saying its all OK. But the 4th official has told the ref to give it as an own goal because they'd decided it'd be best for the game to update the rules mid match and not really explain why or how. So, despite us going along with what we were initially told, being encouraged by the officials effectively by them waving us on, we end up losing the game and it's that we are appealing. They literally moved the goal posts. Personally I'd be taking the league to court. StevO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 2 hours ago, Palfy said: Yes they are trying to prove to the government that they don’t need to be regulated, and that is without a shadow of doubt that is the why the penalty was severe, and exceeds all punishment’s in the history of the PL. They also planted the seed with the independent panel by suggesting that the penalty if found guilty the penalty should be 6 points plus 1 point for every 5 million over the 105 million, this was never written anywhere as a guide line if you were found guilty of breaching PSR regulations, the independent panel said they would not accept that advice as they didn’t believe it to be fair and would give a penalty that they believed fitted the breach, yet they still came up with the same points deduction had they followed the PL advice. For me this was a smoke screen to say we are an independent committee and did not follow the PL advice, yet came up with the same penalty to make it hard for us to challenge the independence of the decision. We did admit guilt it is recorded in the minutes that we admitted guilt, as was the panels decision to dismiss the PL suggestion of how to come to the final points deduction. We used the mitigating factor of the loans that were not for the stadium and loans that weren’t in the club’s name but used for the stadium, and they were dismissed, we say because they moved the goal post, are we saying that they did this without out ever changing the wording in the rules book, or making that change clear to 20 clubs in the league when it the time it was changed, you don’t know I don’t know, but I would have thought that if they change the ruling or as you say moved the goal posts, without making this change clear to it’s members then we would be challenging the finding of being found guilty, but we are not we are just challenging the severity of the punishment and accepting guilt. Well that’s how I see it anyway, but all will become a lot clearer in a couple of weeks, when hopefully we get most if not all out points back. And on the case of the new charge, all I have said is they are two individuals charges and as such they outcome of the appeal is not a guarantee to have any effect on the second charge no matter the outcome of the appeal, as they are both independent of each other as charges, and we may or may not even be found guilty of the second charge, though I feel that is unlikely if we look at the first breach when the club the club told us not to worry we are innocent. And whether this is liked or not the total mismanagement of the clubs finances has got us into this position and still is today. I’ve said it before and I will say it again, I can not believe we haven’t after 2 years not found a replacement sponsor for the stadium and the training ground, honestly what the fuck is going on within our club, if we could have found someone who only paid 20% of what USM were paying for naming rights we could have generated 40 million, and if we could have found someone to pay 50% of what USM were paying for sponsorship towards Finch Farm that could have generated somewhere in the region of 20 million a year. Those 2 figures combined would have comfortably taken us out of any breach, yet we haven’t raised a single penny in sponsorship to replace the USM money, that alone should help you see why this club is financially failing and in such a shit position, because for me it’s mind boggling and as someone who runs his own business I just can’t comprehend how this situation is allowed to continue. I can’t believe you think it’s that easy to find a stadium sponsor especially as it’s not even built yet, just ask Spurs! So explain to me what happens if the appeals committee sides with Everton on the loan interest being permissible or that they can’t change the rules part way through the process and stadium build? If they are taken out of the equation then we are comfortably compliant in both reporting periods and so there is no case to answer and therefore we are not guilty. Or am I missing something? The two charges are intrinsically linked because they cover 75% of the same accounts/ reporting periods and it’s already been pointed out by top barristers that this goes against natural justice StevO, Matt and London Blue 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Blue Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 What @Matt and @duncanmckenzieismagic said. Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 2 hours ago, StevO said: Can you please show me where the club say they are only appealing against the severity of the punishment? The club came out with statement a few days after the first hearing to say that they were appealing against the severity of the punishment, and if my memory serves me right it was Chong who released the statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 4 minutes ago, London Blue said: What @Matt and @duncanmckenzieismagic said. TTs I’m a PC so I know everything about laws and rules as spoken And that was said as joke before you start throwing your dummy out the pram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 38 minutes ago, duncanmckenzieismagic said: I can’t believe you think it’s that easy to find a stadium sponsor especially as it’s not even built yet, just ask Spurs! So explain to me what happens if the appeals committee sides with Everton on the loan interest being permissible or that they can’t change the rules part way through the process and stadium build? If they are taken out of the equation then we are comfortably compliant in both reporting periods and so there is no case to answer and therefore we are not guilty. Or am I missing something? The two charges are intrinsically linked because they cover 75% of the same accounts/ reporting periods and it’s already been pointed out by top barristers that this goes against natural justice 2 years and nothing for the Stadium that’s been touted as going to be the best stadium in the country, come on Dunc do me a favour mate and accept the board are inept at running a football club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 54 minutes ago, Palfy said: 2 years and nothing for the Stadium that’s been touted as going to be the best stadium in the country, come on Dunc do me a favour mate and accept the board are inept at running a football club. Refer you back to Spurs who actually do have the best stadium in the country and the added bonus of being London and it’s been a lot longer StevO and Matt 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post London Blue Posted January 27 Popular Post Report Share Posted January 27 1 hour ago, Palfy said: TTs I’m a PC so I know everything about laws and rules as spoken And that was said as joke before you start throwing your dummy out the pram And I'm Palfy and can write thousands of words and not use a single paragraph....Yay... Romey 1878, Palfy, Matt and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 7 minutes ago, duncanmckenzieismagic said: Refer you back to Spurs who actually do have the best stadium in the country and the added bonus of being London and it’s been a lot longer Spurs are in a more enviable position than us because they are not desperate for the money to save their PL status, according to Levi they have received interest from companies wanting to secure the naming rights for the stadium, but Levi as said they need to find someone who is compatible with the club before making a decision. It is also believed that Spurs are trying to attract NFL team to play games at the stadium where they feel they would be able to attract a sponsor to pay in excess of 500 million for naming rights, as stadium’s have for teams in the NFL. 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.