Longest Thread! for Everton Discussion

[RuffRob]

basically saying Forest breach was bigger than ours, but both are significant. This judgement says it's not sure why Everton have 6 points, so they have assumed our total deduction must be becasue we tried to mislead.  

An interesting Extract of interest to us.

"If the context was such and/or the quantum at the lower end of a significant breach, then the starting point might slide down the scale in terms of points and conversely, absent any contextual justification and/or with a higher quantum within the significant breach band, the starting point should slide upwards in terms of points. The Commission notes with Everton, there were a couple of factors that moved it up the scale to a starting point of six points - the size of the breach itself and what was initially termed as “misleading” the Premier League, but on appeal shown to be “incorrect” information being provided to the Premier League. 14.15 In the case at hand, the Commission considered whether there were any additional factors that should be taken into account - the “unique” position and/or the reasons for the excess. The conclusion was that these did not (nor were they mitigating factors, see above) and the only factor driving Forest up the scale will be the size of the breach. It was bigger than Everton’s, but both were in the “significant” breach band. However, there was no additional consideration around incorrect information being provided to the Premier League, as Everton had. The Commission does not know how the three extra points were arrived at by the Appeal Board for Everton, but some part of those three points must relate to the provision of incorrect information. Forest’s breach (not its losses, the Commission is concerned with the breach of the PSR Threshold) was larger than Everton’s and as a result, that alone slides it up the scale by three further points to a starting point of six points"

 

 

[RuffRob]

The whole thing is a fucking joke!!!

[Newty82]

When you bring in rules, but have no guidance as to how to punish breaches of said rules...this is what happens.

A great big guessing game and contradictions.

[Wall Writer]

Everyone involved in these proceedings must be called Joey 

[RuffRob]

Forest breach was £34.5M on a £61M threshold - so 56% breach of the rules.

Everton was £19.5M on £105M threshold - so 19% breach of the rules.

Both fall in the 'signifcant breach' bracket apparently.

[RuffRob]

And this is how you get 2 points knocked of a 6 point punishment. You just have to bendover like a bitch to the Premiership!!! or have the advantage of not being the first to be screwed. 

 

12.104 The Premier League agreed with the Appeal Board in the Everton Appeal, in that there is a level of cooperation that is reasonably expected by all clubs in the Premier League. In this case, it considers that Forest has indeed displayed a level of cooperation which is above the level reasonably expected. Forest has consistently indicated it intended to cooperate and has been very receptive to indications from the Premier League as to what would be required in this regard. Its cooperation commenced prior to the submission of its Annual Accounts at the end of December 2023 and has continued thereafter. By doing so, it has significantly reduced the costs of enforcement and assisted this Commission. It is desirable that such cooperation be recognised and given credit, both because it is deserved, and in order to create appropriate incentives for respondent clubs in future PSR cases.

12.105 The Commission agrees with the Premier League and commends Forest for its early plea and for the cooperative way it has conducted itself throughout this matter. Without this approach, it would not have been possible to conclude the process, including a two-day hearing, in just eight weeks from the Complaint. It is crucially important to the Premier League, all its clubs and the fans around the world that these types of matters are dealt with expeditiously, so the 18-Mar-24 42 competition can be concluded on the pitch.

 

[Matt]

37 minutes ago, RuffRob said:

basically saying Forest breach was bigger than ours, but both are significant. This judgement says it's not sure why Everton have 6 points, so they have assumed our total deduction must be becasue we tried to mislead.  

An interesting Extract of interest to us.

"If the context was such and/or the quantum at the lower end of a significant breach, then the starting point might slide down the scale in terms of points and conversely, absent any contextual justification and/or with a higher quantum within the significant breach band, the starting point should slide upwards in terms of points. The Commission notes with Everton, there were a couple of factors that moved it up the scale to a starting point of six points - the size of the breach itself and what was initially termed as “misleading” the Premier League, but on appeal shown to be “incorrect” information being provided to the Premier League. 14.15 In the case at hand, the Commission considered whether there were any additional factors that should be taken into account - the “unique” position and/or the reasons for the excess. The conclusion was that these did not (nor were they mitigating factors, see above) and the only factor driving Forest up the scale will be the size of the breach. It was bigger than Everton’s, but both were in the “significant” breach band. However, there was no additional consideration around incorrect information being provided to the Premier League, as Everton had. The Commission does not know how the three extra points were arrived at by the Appeal Board for Everton, but some part of those three points must relate to the provision of incorrect information. Forest’s breach (not its losses, the Commission is concerned with the breach of the PSR Threshold) was larger than Everton’s and as a result, that alone slides it up the scale by three further points to a starting point of six points"

 

 

But we didn't try to mislead, that was one of the big points the club were so angry with.

[Romey 1878]

One big fucking joke this and, again, makes you think there's an agenda against us.

[RuffRob]

14 minutes ago, Matt said:

But we didn't try to mislead, that was one of the big points the club were so angry with.

I agree, especially as we where pretty much the test case for this type of thing. As you read through it in more detail it appear to be that we have been well and truly screwed as 'the first' case. 

I feel a bit of a shit saying Forest should get more points (in fact part of the judgement says compared to our beach - 8 points would be pro rata punshment give the size of their breach), becasue I don't think us or them should get points taken off them, but it obviolsey effects our league position. We are just clubs battling to try and somehow compeate in this league.

My gut feeling is they have been given a reduced sentance of 4 points to stop them appealing. Judgement hints at 8 points, charges them 6, and reduced in by 2 for Forest holding their hands up and being so co-operative. 

[Sev]

It's clear that these rules was rushed and therefore they're trying desperately to "clean" up things. But it's too late; they habe already showed their incompetence. And if you're not one of the bastard leading clubs owned by sheiks and whatnot, you're fucked.

[Romey 1878]

12 minutes ago, RuffRob said:

I agree, especially as we where pretty much the test case for this type of thing. As you read through it in more detail it appear to be that we have been well and truly screwed as 'the first' case. 

It's like the retrospective punishment for deceiving the official. Did us over Niasse and then one other and then it's never been applied again.

[Palfy]

2 hours ago, Matt said:

Didnt the PL tell us 6 points minimum for any PSR breach as a starting point?

That’s what I believe was said, even though it isn’t or wasn’t written when we faced our first charge, it is reported that the PL league advised the commission who sat on our case that they should, if found guilty deduct 6 points and 1 point for every 5 million over the 105 million. 
Now we have to hope that if found guilty again they don’t give us more than a 4 point deduction, that keeps us in a 3 way battle with Luton and Forest for the last relegation spot, which we should avoid. 

[Romey 1878]

The thing that bothers me the most with Forest's punishment is that their overspend (almost double ours) did actually give them a sporting advantage and they somehow received a smaller punishment than our original one of 10 points and then even had it reduced.

These panels are as much of a joke as the PL.

[Romey 1878]

 

[London Blue]

The Premier League is broken.

[Btay]

I think the whole situation is delicate. The way in which both cases have been communicated however is a farce.

Forest’s spending was a blatant breach of FFP in which they brought in a whole new first team and some. If that is not a clear sporting advantage then what is? How was ours initially deemed as 10 points & theirs 6 (4 received after “cooperation”)

When it comes to our second charge, I think the premier league have given our representatives a loaded gun to wipe the charges with the inconsistency in their rulings.

[Hafnia]

I'm guessing/hoping that our case will be 0-1 point deduction. 
 

absolute joke either way. 

[RuffRob]

Reading Forest reaction to the judgment you can see they are very disappointed that the arse kissing grovelling approach to the PL didn't get them a zero points deduction.

However, even Forest's response is cringingly asre kissing to the PL and commission.

Is this what it's all coming down to.? Should 'small' clubs not stick up for themselves and fight their corner. How dare we!

 

[Romey 1878]

I don’t even disagree that the Johnson transfer should have been a mitigating factor because why should they have to take a lower a fee from another club acting like a vulture. But if something that Forest chose to do was allowed as mitigation why wasn’t the war in Ukraine etc allowed for us when we had zero control over that?

None of this makes any sense and rather than show that an independent regulator isn’t needed all it’s done is shown that it is desperately needed.

Fuck Richard Masters, fuck the Premier League and fuck their farcical panels. 

[RuffRob]

19 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

I don’t even disagree that the Johnson transfer should have been a mitigating factor because why should they have to take a lower a fee from another club acting like a vulture. But if something that Forest chose to do was allowed as mitigation why wasn’t the war in Ukraine etc allowed for us when we had zero control over that?

None of this makes any sense and rather than show that an independent regulator isn’t needed all it’s done is shown that it is desperately needed.

Fuck Richard Masters, fuck the Premier League and fuck their farcical panels. 

I don't think the Johnson argument held any water as a mitigation factor in the final.judgement.

The way I have read the judgement it is that Forest reduction from 6 points to 4 point is due only to the mitigating factor that Forest was being up front and basically admitted everything and rolled over to the PL and the commission. 

what annoys me in Forests judgement is it tries to make out that Everton where less than frank in our charge. However, in our appeal one of the two 9 points upheld was that the original hearing was wrong to state that Everton have been 'less than frank'.

Forest appear to have 2 points (33%) knocked off their punishment for being frank.

 

[Romey 1878]

24 minutes ago, RuffRob said:

I don't think the Johnson argument held any water as a mitigation factor in the final.judgement.

The way I have read the judgement it is that Forest reduction from 6 points to 4 point is due only to the mitigating factor that Forest was being up front and basically admitted everything and rolled over to the PL and the commission. 

what annoys me in Forests judgement is it tries to make out that Everton where less than frank in our charge. However, in our appeal one of the two 9 points upheld was that the original hearing was wrong to state that Everton have been 'less than frank'.

Forest appear to have 2 points (33%) knocked off their punishment for being frank.

 

And yet when we tried to use being open and honest to get leniency we were told that clubs should be that way anyway.

It’s all been as consistent as the refs in this corrupt league. 

[StevO]

Fair play to Forest for their statement. Very strong words. 
 

 

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/everton-points-deduction-farce-exposed-28843770

[Matt]

7 hours ago, StevO said:

Fair play to Forest for their statement. Very strong words. 
 

 

Well, kinda. They did go and sign 26 players so it not like they even tried to stay within the regulations. To get uppity after signing 26 players is a little daft. 

[RuffRob]

 

14 hours ago, Palfy said:

That’s what I believe was said, even though it isn’t or wasn’t written when we faced our first charge, it is reported that the PL league advised the commission who sat on our case that they should, if found guilty deduct 6 points and 1 point for every 5 million over the 105 million. 
Now we have to hope that if found guilty again they don’t give us more than a 4 point deduction, that keeps us in a 3 way battle with Luton and Forest for the last relegation spot, which we should avoid. 

The three learned people in the Forest Commisson couldn't figure out why Everton actually got 6 points. Paragraph 14.15 is extracted below. 

 

14.15 In the case at hand, the Commission considered whether there were any additional factors that should be taken into account - the “unique” position and/or the reasons for the excess. The conclusion was that these did not (nor were they mitigating factors, see above) and the only factor driving Forest up the scale will be the size of the breach. It was bigger than Everton’s, but both were in the “significant” breach band. However, there was no additional consideration around incorrect information being provided to the Premier League, as Everton had. The Commission does not know how the three extra points were arrived at by the Appeal Board for Everton, but some part of those three points must relate to the provision of incorrect information. Forest’s breach (not its losses, the Commission is concerned with the breach of the PSR Threshold) was larger than Everton’s and as a result, that alone slides it up the scale by three further points to a starting point of six points"

What is very frustration is that 'incorrect infomation' (or being 'less than frank' as was the term used in Evertons hearings) refers to our original hearing only - for which we where given 10 points (not 6 points). 

However, in our appeal the hearing found that Everton's original hearing was wrong to say Everton had been 'less than frank' and our claim on this was upheld in the appeal. So we got some of the 10 points back, helping to bring our punishment down to 6 point from the original 10. Not up from 3 to 6.  

Another frustration is that a £19.5m and £34.5m are somehow classed in the very same bracket of ' a significant' breach. Convinient!

I went on a few Forest fan forums yesterday, although they are pissed off at having point taken off them, pretty much all of they saying they through it would be more points taken off them, and the club should just take the 4 and do without the shadow of an appeal hanging over the fans, club and players for the rest og their games, maybe to possibley get 1 point back.  A fucking luxury Everton have not had for four months as we had massive 10 points deduction around our neck for the best part of this season, so had no choice but to go through the internal stress of an appeal (and turns out justifibly so). 

Forest have dodged a bullet in my eyes and Everton have had the shitty end of the stick. 

 

[Romey 1878]

Something else that absolutely boils my piss about this is that the ruling clearly states that Forest knew they were in trouble in terms of FFP and then still went and spunked a shit load of money bringing in even more players.

So to then get points knocked off the deduction for cooperation and being up front (things that we were told in our appeal couldn't be used to reduce the points deduction) is fucking ludicrous.

Basically, they knowingly caused this clusterfuck for the club but them telling the panel they knew we were going to do it means it's all ok.

Everton should be all over this shite and threatening all sorts.

I mean, by the sounds of it Forest's panel think that our punishment started at 3 points and was moved up to 6 from there (which is why they started at that for Forest and then worked up from there) when the reality is that ours started at fucking 10 and then we pushed it down to 6. 

[Romey 1878]

The Fail reporting that if Forest appeal then the deduction could increase.

Which would make sense as it was reduced due to cooperation and that cooperation would obviously be gone if they appeal.

[Palfy]

2 hours ago, RuffRob said:

 

The three learned people in the Forest Commisson couldn't figure out why Everton actually got 6 points. Paragraph 14.15 is extracted below. 

 

14.15 In the case at hand, the Commission considered whether there were any additional factors that should be taken into account - the “unique” position and/or the reasons for the excess. The conclusion was that these did not (nor were they mitigating factors, see above) and the only factor driving Forest up the scale will be the size of the breach. It was bigger than Everton’s, but both were in the “significant” breach band. However, there was no additional consideration around incorrect information being provided to the Premier League, as Everton had. The Commission does not know how the three extra points were arrived at by the Appeal Board for Everton, but some part of those three points must relate to the provision of incorrect information. Forest’s breach (not its losses, the Commission is concerned with the breach of the PSR Threshold) was larger than Everton’s and as a result, that alone slides it up the scale by three further points to a starting point of six points"

What is very frustration is that 'incorrect infomation' (or being 'less than frank' as was the term used in Evertons hearings) refers to our original hearing only - for which we where given 10 points (not 6 points). 

However, in our appeal the hearing found that Everton's original hearing was wrong to say Everton had been 'less than frank' and our claim on this was upheld in the appeal. So we got some of the 10 points back, helping to bring our punishment down to 6 point from the original 10. Not up from 3 to 6.  

Another frustration is that a £19.5m and £34.5m are somehow classed in the very same bracket of ' a significant' breach. Convinient!

I went on a few Forest fan forums yesterday, although they are pissed off at having point taken off them, pretty much all of they saying they through it would be more points taken off them, and the club should just take the 4 and do without the shadow of an appeal hanging over the fans, club and players for the rest og their games, maybe to possibley get 1 point back.  A fucking luxury Everton have not had for four months as we had massive 10 points deduction around our neck for the best part of this season, so had no choice but to go through the internal stress of an appeal (and turns out justifibly so). 

Forest have dodged a bullet in my eyes and Everton have had the shitty end of the stick. 

 

There’s got to be a simpler way of addressing PSR, even the new format based on UEFAs rules which we are going to mirror are flawed. 

[RuffRob]

1 hour ago, Romey 1878 said:

I mean, by the sounds of it Forest's panel think that our punishment started at 3 points and was moved up to 6 from there (which is why they started at that for Forest and then worked up from there) when the reality is that ours started at fucking 10 and then we pushed it down to 6. 

Thats what is grinding me - original sanction was 10 points, brought down to 6. People on these panels are surposed to be intelligent yet they cherry pick from original hearing and then appeal. 

Origianl hearing - Everton are liars so 10 points sanction (Forest commission choose to used 'Everton are liars' in there assessment, but ignore the 10 points)

Appeal hearing - Everton are not liars reduced to 6 points. (Forest commission choose to ignore the fact Everton are not liars but then adopt the 6 points).

Totally ignore the appeal findings on THE key points (i.e one of only two of items that where upheld in the appeal, so not exactely hidded),  but latch on to the concluded points deduction in the appeal. 

Its just plainly wrong.

 

[Matt]