RuffRob Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 I think 6 points is still a fairly harsh punishment overall. Saving grace is that we got the penalty this year and not last season. So thank fuck the club didn't allow the PL to fast tracked this charge last season. Otherwise we would have been playing championship football. We have a dozon games to go, and another charge against us to come. Everton will have a very good idea now of what the new charge looks like and how its calculated, they will know the details the accounts submitted, and they also know what the penalty points wise will be. For arguments sake lets say ther club could be confident it could be another 6 points. Club has to play out the remainer of this season on the assumption of another 6 point deduction (or whatever Everton calculate the deduction will be) is coming. We need to play to be 6 points above what 18th place team is going to be. Based on todays announcment Dyche should have a very good idea of what this goal should be. Matt, Sibdane and chicagoblue 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sev Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 Predictable. Actually, I'd say a tad too predictable. And the show is not over yet. Another prediction is we'll get something between 14-19 points more in this season. I really hope it'll be enough for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Btay Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 1 hour ago, Romey 1878 said: Even though 4 is what I expected I think it should have been 6 back at the least, but 4 back certainly makes our position look a lot better in terms of the table and hopefully that will lift some of the weight that clearly been on the players' shoulders. In regards to the second charge - the fact we used an argument in our case about how the football league deals with these things and it was accepted gives me hope that they'll realise they'd be punishing us twice for the same thing and the second charge will be thrown out after our case has been heard. Agree. With the second charge "IF" we get a points deduction I cannot see how it can be more than 2 points given that 2 of seasons we have been punished for already. I'm over the moon with getting the points back. 15th and a late charge for the champions league spot is on. StevO, Matt and Romey 1878 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badaids Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 1 game and 1 draw extra. Thank fuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 Luton are going down. It is either them or Forrest after the points deduction. I also think Luton schedule is unfavorable and their run of form seems to be over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 1 hour ago, Btay said: Agree. With the second charge "IF" we get a points deduction I cannot see how it can be more than 2 points given that 2 of seasons we have been punished for already. I'm over the moon with getting the points back. 15th and a late charge for the champions league spot is on. What I was getting at is that the football league don't do you twice for the same years if you've already been charged and punished over those years. So my reasoning is that this appeals panel accepted us using the FL rules as an argument, so I would expect us to use that argument (FL rules around double jeopardy this time) again when the panel is held for our second charge. I feel we'll be pushing heavily for the whole second charge to be rejected on that basis. Btay, Newty82 and Matt 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 Anyone hoping this triggers the bid for the mystery prospect? Maybe Moshiri has towed 777 along to foot the bill in the interim and actually has a better option who's been holding back until this was resolved? Palfy and Newty82 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Romey 1878 Posted February 26 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 26 Just now, Matt said: Anyone hoping this triggers the bid for the mystery prospect? Maybe Moshiri has towed 777 along to foot the bill in the interim and actually has a better option who's been holding back until this was resolved? He's not that clever. AlbanyNYToffee, dunlopp9987, Sev and 2 others 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Btay Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 7 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said: What I was getting at is that the football league don't do you twice for the same years if you've already been charged and punished over those years. So my reasoning is that this appeals panel accepted us using the FL rules as an argument, so I would expect us to use that argument (FL rules around double jeopardy this time) again when the panel is held for our second charge. I feel we'll be pushing heavily for the whole second charge to be rejected on that basis. Yeah I think we will to however seeing as there is 1 year in the second charge that we haven't been punished for I would assume that the penalty couldn't be more than 2 points given that we just got 6. Hopefully we do push for it to be completely rejected. Between Luton and Forest I really hope it is Forest that go down. Romey 1878 and RuffRob 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 4 minutes ago, Btay said: Yeah I think we will to however seeing as there is 1 year in the second charge that we haven't been punished for I would assume that the penalty couldn't be more than 2 points given that we just got 6. Hopefully we do push for it to be completely rejected. Between Luton and Forest I really hope it is Forest that go down. Surely there's a good chance we didn't go over in our third year though with all the cost cutting, selling players and buying players on Klarna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 7 minutes ago, Matt said: Anyone hoping this triggers the bid for the mystery prospect? Maybe Moshiri has towed 777 along to foot the bill in the interim and actually has a better option who's been holding back until this was resolved? You couldn’t with certainty discount that theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 11 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said: He's not that clever. Ssssssh Romey 1878 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Btay Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 4 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said: Surely there's a good chance we didn't go over in our third year though with all the cost cutting, selling players and buying players on Klarna. I would think not & it shows the grey areas in these rules. I would like to think when you have been punished for period of 3 years, none of those years can be accounted for again in a 3 year period. Newty82, Matt and Romey 1878 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newty82 Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 You shouldn't be getting punished again if it's based mainly on a single year, which I think it is. Let's say a club, over 3 years, is sound for the first 2 of those years. Then the owner goes nuclear, so spends like fuck in the 3rd year. If that 3rd year stays being 'the one', you get done for another 3 seasons. Each season, losing points and places in the league...therefore losing more money. They've just got no fucking clue how to apply it logically. Hence, they're changing it next season. Romey 1878 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicagoblue Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 4 hours ago, Newty82 said: Yep. What's the bets we get another 6 taken off in April?! Shite really. What are $$ losses for the next review period? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicagoblue Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 35 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said: He's not that clever. Has always felt like he was Usmanov's little nephew brought along for work experience and stumbled into a pot of cash. Haven't see a thing except his supposed bank account to suggest he has any idea what he's doing. Romey 1878 and StevO 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 2 minutes ago, Newty82 said: You shouldn't be getting punished again if it's based mainly on a single year, which I think it is. Let's say a club, over 3 years, is sound for the first 2 of those years. Then the owner goes nuclear, so spends like fuck in the 3rd year. If that 3rd year stays being 'the one', you get done for another 3 seasons. Each season, losing points and places in the league...therefore losing more money. They've just got no fucking clue how to apply it logically. Hence, they're changing it next season. Not unless the seasons after the season that owner went nuclear, are used to balance the nuclear season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newty82 Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 31 minutes ago, Palfy said: Not unless the seasons after the season that owner went nuclear, are used to balance the nuclear season. Yeah, I was thinking that. But let's say they weren't. Mind, you'd be up shit creak either way I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 38 minutes ago, chicagoblue said: What are $$ losses for the next review period? 0 Probably lots of ££ loses though... dunlopp9987 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palfy Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 4 minutes ago, Newty82 said: Yeah, I was thinking that. But let's say they weren't. Mind, you'd be up shit creak either way I guess. Definitely, when you sell your better players and you are already down to the bare bones, you have to bring something in to fill the gap, even if it does mean you’re flirting PSR, because if you don’t you are probably going down anyway. Newty82 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trigger Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 All I want for this season is we stay up, get new owner/sort finances out and get stadium finished. Some ridiculous big earners should also be off the books (holgate/gomes). That gives us the platform we need to come back to our best. Don't care whether its 0, 6 or 10 points as long as the outcome at the end of the season is we stay up. StevO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 46 minutes ago, Trigger said: All I want for this season is we stay up, get new owner/sort finances out and get stadium finished. Some ridiculous big earners should also be off the books (holgate/gomes). That gives us the platform we need to come back to our best. Don't care whether its 0, 6 or 10 points as long as the outcome at the end of the season is we stay up. Is that all? Trigger, Palfy and Newty82 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuffRob Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 reading through the finding of he commissio and looking at this charge it looks like financially year 1 £55m loss year 2 £53 loss and year 3 (£124.5 - £55m -£53m) so must be -£16..5m. loss. now if we look at this with regard to the up coming charges. year 2 - £53m, year 3 -£16.5m so year 4 must be (£105m - 53 -16.5) giving-£35m. now we all know that we don't have net player spending in year 4 or increase in wages, in fact it must be the opposite. I think we should be in a much better position for arguing any losses in year 4, because this is the year that the Ukrainian war broke out and the Russian sactions actually kicked in and overnight we lost our major sponsorship. its not realistic to replace this kind of major sponsorship in a matter of months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newty82 Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 28 minutes ago, RuffRob said: reading through the finding of he commissio and looking at this charge it looks like financially year 1 £55m loss year 2 £53 loss and year 3 (£124.5 - £55m -£53m) so must be -£16..5m. loss. now if we look at this with regard to the up coming charges. year 2 - £53m, year 3 -£16.5m so year 4 must be (£105m - 53 -16.5) giving-£35m. now we all know that we don't have net player spending in year 4 or increase in wages, in fact it must be the opposite. I think we should be in a much better position for arguing any losses in year 4, because this is the year that the Ukrainian war broke out and the Russian sactions actually kicked in and overnight we lost our major sponsorship. its not realistic to replace this kind of major sponsorship in a matter of months. Year 4 will be last season won't it? Aug 22 - May 23? Russian sanctions started in Feb 22, so the 21-22 season...so year 3??? Because we've already put that forward as an argument. And it was rejected. Romey 1878 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 6 hours ago, Haiku said: Luton are going down. It is either them or Forrest after the points deduction. I also think Luton schedule is unfavorable and their run of form seems to be over. I think Luton will be safe. Forest are the ones in deep trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 4 hours ago, Romey 1878 said: He's not that clever. Oh yes he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuffRob Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 I thing the argument put forward regarding Russian sactions was that Moshiri had a gentleman's agreement about getting some more money from USM for naming rights while the stadium was under construction. PL and commission stated that there is no documentation of this, so not having any of it. In the appeal document just issued, this was fairly specific and did not cover our general sponsorship deals with USM. Sanction in March 22, and losing a major 'suger daddy' sponser going forward will have majorly hit us July 22 onwards. We still has USM on board for most of 21/22. only lost them for April, May and June in that accounting year. What else would have caused us to lose so much more money in 22/23 if we are actually spending less on transfers and wages? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodison Glory Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 8 hours ago, Romey 1878 said: Surely there's a good chance we didn't go over in our third year though with all the cost cutting, selling players and buying players on Klarna. My understand from Esk documents is that we were borderline break even in the last accounting year. if we can escape this 2nd charge we should be very healthy as we've had one mediocre year (21/22) and then two strong ones (including 23/24). just got to stay in the league. Open the new stadium and get a new owner....simples! StevO and Romey 1878 2 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.