Board/Owners Related Stuff

[MikeO]

1 minute ago, Palfy said:

You're right mate but you know those spineless idiots more than most, they will come back when they feel the atmosphere is mellowing due to the team performing. They will take the credit next season for Dyche's appointment if it goes the way we all want. Moshiri hadn't shown any interest in watching the team for well over a year, then he turns up away from home to show solidarity with Bill and Denise over the head lock allegations  and deaths threats. I struggle to see things changing unless new investors make it a condition be for putting their millions in. 

As they appointed him who do you propose should take the credit?

[Palfy]

1 minute ago, MikeO said:

As they appointed him who do you propose should take the credit?

Good point. I suppose I meant more in the way like they always had everything under control and new what they were doing. They won't accept any responsibility for things going wrong but will jump all over anything that goes well. 

[Romey 1878]

I can only see them returning if/when we secure safety.

[StevO]

1 hour ago, MikeO said:

As they appointed him who do you propose should take the credit?

Moshiri didn’t want the credit for hiring Frank, he blamed that on the fans, he didn’t want the credit for firing managers, he blamed that on the fans. So I’m thinking… the fans?

[Romey 1878]

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/everton-shareholders-association-reaffirm-calls-26546096

[Hafnia]

34 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/everton-shareholders-association-reaffirm-calls-26546096

No doubt they are worried about being attacked.

bollocks, they just don’t like being asked questions that allude to them being shit.  The fact agms were binned is a disgrace. 

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

 

[Matt]

 

 

[London Blue]

Which Transfer?

[Goodison Glory]

Continuing the theme that "everything was ok in March" it would have to be our summer activity.

did we sign anyone BEFORE the end of the 21/22 FY? Not sure when that ended...would McNeil or Onana fall into that category??

a complete farce is what it is.

[London Blue]

This is odd, we must have run transfers past the Prem League, Onana did surprise me because of the fee, but it was spread over 5 years.

Have to wait and see I guess.

What makes it worse is because if we had a functioning board that communicated with the fans then the club would have communicated something to the fans, even if its "We had a budget, we stick to it, we informed the premier league all the way, we have done nothing wrong and we will keep you updates every stap of the way"

[Bailey]

21 hours ago, Matt said:

 

 

Is this Maguire feller actually an expert because he sounds as straw-clutchey as the next man to me.

18 hours ago, London Blue said:

This is odd, we must have run transfers past the Prem League, Onana did surprise me because of the fee, but it was spread over 5 years.

Have to wait and see I guess.

What makes it worse is because if we had a functioning board that communicated with the fans then the club would have communicated something to the fans, even if its "We had a budget, we stick to it, we informed the premier league all the way, we have done nothing wrong and we will keep you updates every stap of the way"

Everton Football Club is disappointed to hear of the Premier League’s decision to refer an allegation of a breach of Profit & Sustainability regulations to an independent commission for review.

The Club strongly contests the allegation of non-compliance and together with its independent team of experts is entirely confident that it remains compliant with all financial rules and regulations.

Everton is prepared to robustly defend its position to the commission. The Club has, over several years, provided information to the Premier League in an open and transparent manner and has consciously chosen to act with the utmost good faith at all times.

The Club will not be making any further comment at this time.

So something like this then yeh?

[London Blue]

24 minutes ago, Bailey said:

Is this Maguire feller actually an expert because he sounds as straw-clutchey as the next man to me.

Everton Football Club is disappointed to hear of the Premier League’s decision to refer an allegation of a breach of Profit & Sustainability regulations to an independent commission for review.

The Club strongly contests the allegation of non-compliance and together with its independent team of experts is entirely confident that it remains compliant with all financial rules and regulations.

Everton is prepared to robustly defend its position to the commission. The Club has, over several years, provided information to the Premier League in an open and transparent manner and has consciously chosen to act with the utmost good faith at all times.

The Club will not be making any further comment at this time.

So something like this then yeh?

More detailed, i.e. we were checking our figures with the premier league, we agreed a budget with them.

What the independent advisors said, what their remit was.

More like that yeh.

[StevO]

5 hours ago, London Blue said:

More detailed, i.e. we were checking our figures with the premier league, we agreed a budget with them.

What the independent advisors said, what their remit was.

More like that yeh.

They will save that kind of thing for the hearings I would think. So as to not muddy the waters even more before it begins. 

[Romey 1878]

13 hours ago, StevO said:

They will save that kind of thing for the hearings I would think. So as to not muddy the waters even more before it begins. 

Yeah, I wasn't expecting any more communication around this than what we've already had.

[Palfy]

Apparently Everton claimed that the 2 years were Covid restrictions were in place they lost more than any other team in the PL in lost earnings, through gate receipts and sales ect. 
I find that hard to believe but obviously haven’t seen the figures, I believe the league finds that hard to believe and have sent it for an independent committee to check it. 
From what I can gather the league looks at combined 3 year periods were your combined losses can’t exceed 105 million in any 3 years, ours was if I remember rightly 357 million, any money spent on the stadium as long as it was paid through the club can legitimately be taken out of the losses, the league also said that losses due to Covid would also be taken into consideration, but in our case we are being investigated because we have claimed our losses are greater than City, United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs, they would probably say to get us under 105 million losses. Who knows the truth and what the real figures are, what concerns me is I have no faith in Moshiri or the directors to tell the truth, hope this time I’m wrong and they’ve been honest when submitting their accounts to the PL for the purpose of FFP rules. 

[Matt]

17 hours ago, Palfy said:

Apparently Everton claimed that the 2 years were Covid restrictions were in place they lost more than any other team in the PL in lost earnings, through gate receipts and sales ect. 
I find that hard to believe but obviously haven’t seen the figures, I believe the league finds that hard to believe and have sent it for an independent committee to check it. 
From what I can gather the league looks at combined 3 year periods were your combined losses can’t exceed 105 million in any 3 years, ours was if I remember rightly 357 million, any money spent on the stadium as long as it was paid through the club can legitimately be taken out of the losses, the league also said that losses due to Covid would also be taken into consideration, but in our case we are being investigated because we have claimed our losses are greater than City, United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs, they would probably say to get us under 105 million losses. Who knows the truth and what the real figures are, what concerns me is I have no faith in Moshiri or the directors to tell the truth, hope this time I’m wrong and they’ve been honest when submitting their accounts to the PL for the purpose of FFP rules. 

Considering how bad our commercial deals are, I think it could be accurate. 

[Romey 1878]

6 minutes ago, Matt said:

Considering how bad our commercial deals are, I think it could be accurate. 

Denise learnt everything she knows from Elstone.

[Bailey]

On 28/03/2023 at 14:41, London Blue said:

More detailed, i.e. we were checking our figures with the premier league, we agreed a budget with them.

What the independent advisors said, what their remit was.

More like that yeh.

I understand that fans always want more information but this stuff is commercially sensitive and as far as I am concerned they have said all they need to say. Say nothing and leave it to the lawyers. As a copper, you should know all about that!

[London Blue]

8 hours ago, Bailey said:

I understand that fans always want more information but this stuff is commercially sensitive and as far as I am concerned they have said all they need to say. Say nothing and leave it to the lawyers. As a copper, you should know all about that!

Trouble is, as the caution says "It may harm your defence if you fail to mention now something you later rely on in court".

And then there are Special Warnings which can lead the court to infer that silence is an admission of guilt.

I think the court of public opinion will matter greatly in this case, and since the Premier League have all the accounts and information already a more detailed public defense would be useful. 

[Romey 1878]

Apparently, our accounts will show we've made 'only' a £50m loss and that has only been possible due to the players we've sold.

This board is not fit for purpose.

[Formby]

2 hours ago, Romey 1878 said:

Apparently, our accounts will show we've made 'only' a £50m loss and that has only been possible due to the players we've sold.

This board is not fit for purpose.

Can the board plead diminished responsibility (for killing the football club) and get off with a fine?

I think it's pretty obvious there has been a breach. My main issue is why the PL are bringing it up now (anti-Everton bias?) and why they let the club operate under their noses knowing that?    

[Palfy]

17 hours ago, London Blue said:

Trouble is, as the caution says "It may harm your defence if you fail to mention now something you later rely on in court".

And then there are Special Warnings which can lead the court to infer that silence is an admission of guilt.

I think the court of public opinion will matter greatly in this case, and since the Premier League have all the accounts and information already a more detailed public defense would be useful. 

If the PL operated like the CPS there would be no charges

[Matt]

4 hours ago, Formby said:

Can the board plead diminished responsibility (for killing the football club) and get off with a fine?

I think it's pretty obvious there has been a breach. My main issue is why the PL are bringing it up now (anti-Everton bias?) and why they let the club operate under their noses knowing that?    

I'll be surprised if any of it is true. If it is, they're accountable too since we worked under their guidance. All I can think is that this is use us to keep City at bay, so they can say they're not picking on them. 

[Romey 1878]

6 minutes ago, Matt said:

I'll be surprised if any of it is true. If it is, they're accountable too since we worked under their guidance. All I can think is that this is use us to keep City at bay, so they can say they're not picking on them. 

It won't be anything to do with City at all. It's much more likely that they're trying to show the government that they can look after things themselves, rather than have the government stick their noses in.

[Romey 1878]

 

[Bailey]

19 hours ago, London Blue said:

Trouble is, as the caution says "It may harm your defence if you fail to mention now something you later rely on in court".

And then there are Special Warnings which can lead the court to infer that silence is an admission of guilt.

I think the court of public opinion will matter greatly in this case, and since the Premier League have all the accounts and information already a more detailed public defense would be useful. 

All good in theory but when you get to court and have to prove something beyond reasonable doubt saying less can be better than more. 

I completely disagree. The club should say nothing more than they already have and just deal with in behind closed doors through the appropriate channels. Public opinion is going to be negative regardless.

These lot talk out of their arse at the best of times too. Could you imagine Bill or Mohsiri trying to say something about a matter as important as this?! 

[Matt]

2 hours ago, Romey 1878 said:

It won't be anything to do with City at all. It's much more likely that they're trying to show the government that they can look after things themselves, rather than have the government stick their noses in.

Well flat out lying and misdirection then won't do them much good. Normally. However with the tories in charge, it'll probably be respected. 

[Palfy]

With the 21/22 accounts being published our losses for a 3 year period have come down to 430 million, still 325 million over the 105 million allowed for any 3 year period. Personally I can’t think how we are not guilty of breaking FFP rules, what concerns me more is what sort of punishment they are going to give us, like many I fear they are going to try and make some sort of example of us. 

[Matt]

6 minutes ago, Palfy said:

With the 21/22 accounts being published our losses for a 3 year period have come down to 430 million, still 325 million over the 105 million allowed for any 3 year period. Personally I can’t think how we are not guilty of breaking FFP rules, what concerns me more is what sort of punishment they are going to give us, like many I fear they are going to try and make some sort of example of us. 

Where did you see 430 million?