|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 15, 2024 17:34:02 GMT
Plus the ridiculous transfer windows. All need scrapping immediately. Transfer windows were made for TV. There is no justifiable reason for their existence. Round, square or triangle ? |
|
|
|
Post by Scouse on Jan 15, 2024 17:35:48 GMT
There’s rumours that Man City’s have agreed for their case to be heard and decided upon after August , when a rule change is reportedly to come into operation that will nullify their charges Do the rule changes essentially equate to formalizing the current agreement that Man City can do whatever they like as long as the right people get money in the right accounts? Probably not ,🙂 but as I understand it Everton’s case is this charge is 75% loaded from their previous charge , so double jeopardy ..ie if they failed the earlier one they already knew they’d fail this one ..but the forthcoming rule change , whatever the detail of that is , they wouldnt be in breach this time .. And of course Man City’s earlier penalty by UEFA was previously reduced partly because some of the elements had timed out ( not be brought sooner enough ) .. some might say sounds familiar All very complicated … and beyond the average fan , average accountant even perhaps to decipher if playing advantage was sought .. of course there have been breaches of financial fair play regulations where the breach isn’t a loss as such ..the loss element ( amount ) is just the very simplified headline that fans can grasp .. how players and agents fees and sponsorship payments and refunds are accounted for is an even more complicated world and the one that clubs have been brought to task of previously ..but the penalities have been fines .. which is worse ..reporting correctly you’ve made a big loss ..or hiding the fact |
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jan 15, 2024 18:06:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 15, 2024 18:28:34 GMT
Transfer windows were made for TV. There is no justifiable reason for their existence. Round, square or triangle ? Broken |
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Jan 15, 2024 19:49:14 GMT
They posted accounts for the previous two years while in the Championship though. As with Villa a few years back it was so important for them to get promoted or they'd have had a hefty points deduction from the EFL. It's why some clubs break EFL rules in the hope they'll avoid punishment by getting promoted to the Premier where they are allowed to make a much bigger loss. If Forest overspent enough in those two seasons to not even comply with Premier rules then they deserve what they get. I always assumed that the punishments handed out by Premier League and EFL were solely dependent on the league they were in. As said above the whole thing is a farce anyway given the ever rising costs of transfers and salaries. The BBC report says because two of the three seasons for Forest were in the Championship they were allowed to lose £61 million as opposed to the £110 million permitted in the Premier. You would imagine that is made up of two thirds of £30million for the Championship and one third of the Premier allowance. Since promotion they have allegedly spent £250 million on transfers. Seeing as some of those players haven't played a game for them you wonder why they ever spent that much on players the manager didn't want knowing the rules. There was even the story last week of a player turning up to training whom Cooper knew nothing about and hadn't been told Forest had signed. An argument against having a manager who isn't involved in transfer decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Jan 15, 2024 20:01:05 GMT
Transfer windows were made for TV. There is no justifiable reason for their existence. It was supposedly to give managers/head coaches more control it doesn't do that does it get rid of them I guess it also stops teams say challenging for the title , battling relegation etc to bring players in just for that purpose alone in say April . Seem to remember Birmingham getting to a cup semi and trying to bring in top players just for that purpose , they tried to loan Bergomi |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 15, 2024 21:22:09 GMT
Do the rule changes essentially equate to formalizing the current agreement that Man City can do whatever they like as long as the right people get money in the right accounts? Probably not ,🙂 but as I understand it Everton’s case is this charge is 75% loaded from their previous charge , so double jeopardy ..ie if they failed the earlier one they already knew they’d fail this one ..but the forthcoming rule change , whatever the detail of that is , they wouldnt be in breach this time .. And of course Man City’s earlier penalty by UEFA was previously reduced partly because some of the elements had timed out ( not be brought sooner enough ) .. some might say sounds familiar All very complicated … and beyond the average fan , average accountant even perhaps to decipher if playing advantage was sought .. of course there have been breaches of financial fair play regulations where the breach isn’t a loss as such ..the loss element ( amount ) is just the very simplified headline that fans can grasp .. how players and agents fees and sponsorship payments and refunds are accounted for is an even more complicated world and the one that clubs have been brought to task of previously ..but the penalities have been fines .. which is worse ..reporting correctly you’ve made a big loss ..or hiding the fact It is indeed very complicated ! It is always worth remembering a couple of things. First, the PL is a membership organisation, whose rules are made by its members, the clubs themselves. In Everton's first case, 5 of those members lodged a complaint. Any membership organisation has to have a proper process for hearing such complaints by members against other members of breach of its own rules, or to consider prima facie evidence of breaches revealed by returns. Second, the cases are determined by an independent panel, charged with applying the members own rules and guidelines, not by executive staff or other clubs. I read the 41-page Everton judgement. For those with the interest and patience, below are a few thoughts I had. The PL have sanctions guidelines for rule breaches. The PL Board adopted a sanctions policy in August 2023, which was before the Everton hearing but after the period in which the admitted breaches occurred. The guidelines start with the presumption that there will be a sporting sanction in the form of a points deduction. There is a starting point of a deduction of 6 points, from which there would be an increase of 1 point for every £5 million over the threshold. There would then be further adjustments based on aggravating or mitigating factors. The Commission concluded that the excess was £19.5m (although Everton dispute the quantum) which would give a deduction of either 9 or 10 points (depending on whether you round up or use an absolute threshold), before aggravating or mitigating factors were considered. That said, the Commission pointed out that the PL hasn't included those guidelines in its rules which gave the Commission wide discretion, and they explicitly declined to adopt the PL formula (even though they imposed the same points deduction as the formula would do if aggravating and mitigating factors were deemed to balance each other out). Everton argued for a financial not sporting sanction but the Commission adopted the conclusions on this of the panel in the Sheffield Wednesday case, advancing the reasoning that ".....a breach of PSR will confer a sporting advantage on the defaulting club, to the detriment of competing clubs who have managed their finances more responsibly. The fact that sporting advantage cannot be quantified but must be inferred underlines the need for a proper punishment. Anything less would encourage default to the expense of compliant clubs", and " A financial penalty for a club which enjoys the support of a wealthy owner is not a sufficient penalty". Personally I think those are strong arguments. The 41 pages set out and analyse the evidence and the arguments advanced by both the PL and Everton in the context of the P & S rules. I think it is an impressive judgement (which also educated me quite a lot on how P & S works). I found some of it quite difficult to get my head round on first reading, but that's because the subject is inherently complex not because the report is vague or unclear. It is quite the reverse. A few specific thoughts :- a) I didn't previously know that there was a preliminary hearing in May 23 about whether 5 complainant clubs should be joined (in the legal sense) in these proceedings. In refusing this, the judgement concluded "It is the role of the Premier League to bring and prosecute complaints. The presence of interested parties as additional prosecutors, even if restricted by directions, would lead to procedural chaos". This underlines the point made above about sporting sanctions, that Everton's breach is a matter which affects all the clubs in the PL, not just Everton. b) Everton advanced 6 mitigating factors which the independent Commission considered in detail. Some of them were unexpected to me and also felt like throwing the kitchen sink at it. For example, Everton wanted to claim a financial allowance against P & S for not suing a player ( not named in the report) who was arrested and was suspended, allegedly to protect his psychological well-being. I'm not a lawyer but as he was never charged with anything, let alone found guilty, I would think the chances of success in such an action would be minimal, and the Commission also found that in any case it wasn't an appropriate type of thing for mitigation. Others also seemed odd - like the war in Ukraine, and transparency and co-operation with the PL. You really can't claim credit for co-operating with an investigation by a body of which you are a member. On the contrary, even though the Commission didn't find that Everton had acted dishonestly, it did find that it hadn't complied with the obligation in the PL rules to act with "utmost good faith" ( allegedly misleading the PL was one of the 6 PL's claimed aggravating factors). It's a very fine distinction !. c) The evidence showed that the PL was closely monitoring the situation and in August 2021 reached an agreement with Everton which imposed certain obligations on Everton including PL approval for player purchases. Such approvals were given but were always accompanied by warnings about breaching P & S. The PL cite disregard of these warnings as an aggravating factor, but it also raises the question of why the PL required approval of player purchases, but then always gave such approval. d) On the 6 alleged mitigating factors submitted by Everton and the 6 alleged aggravating factors submitted by the PL, the Commission did not always find for one side or the other - which suggests independence. e) I had understood that under P & S, clubs were "allowed" to make a loss of £15m. In fact the P & S target is not to make a loss. It's just that up to £15m loss the consequence is small. Between £15m and £105m loss, there are greater consequences. Over £105m the PL rules require that it lodges a complaint with an independent Commission. Did Everton oppose that rule ? The matter is then entirely in the hands of the Commission. The club itself provides the relevant financial figures to the PL, so any suggestion that there is some sort of maltreatment of Everton by the PL as an organisation has no foundation. f) Having read the full judgment, I had little sympathy with the tone of the Parliamentary EDM. Even if you disagree with the nature or level of the sanction ( and we must remember both the requirements of the PL rules and that Everton pleaded guilty), to say that it was "lacking any legal or equitable foundation or justification for the level of sanction"; that there was " improper dismissal of extraordinary mitigating circumstances" and that the Commission "had a cavalier approach to points deduction" is simply wrong in my view. If the MP signatories had actually read the judgement before drafting their EDM, it would be particularly disappointing. The EDM reference to the good work Everton do for the vulnerable is absolutely correct but irrelevant to the task before the Commission. Everton didn't even cite it as a mitigating factor. The EDM reference to the Commissions "cavalier approach to points deduction necessitates the acceleration of the introduction of the Government's proposed Independent Regulator" is, if nothing else, a novel argument of the introduction of a new regulator. The argument has always been that regulation by the leagues is the Clubs marking their own homework, and that action against owners and executives who break the rules isn't strong enough, not that a new regulator will be more lenient ! The PL might cite this case as evidence that self-regulation works. The lack of any reference in a long EDM to the responsibility by the Everton owner and senior executives for what has happened as a direct and sole result of their admitted breach of the rules is very disappointing. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Jan 15, 2024 21:31:37 GMT
I’m sure this is has been explained elsewhere, so apologies if I’ve missed it.
But why have Everton now been charged twice for the same period?
With seemingly the same charges?
Or has it actually rolled on another year? So it is a different period?
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 15, 2024 22:27:15 GMT
I’m sure this is has been explained elsewhere, so apologies if I’ve missed it. But why have Everton now been charged twice for the same period? With seemingly the same charges? Or has it actually rolled on another year? So it is a different period? I don't know the answer to your question but my advice is not to assume anything from headline summaries in the media, even less from social media, or the reaction of Everton itself. One thing I am sure of is that no independent Commission would agree to hearing the same charge a second time or to impose a double sanction for the breach which has already been sanctioned. |
|
|
|
Post by Glory Hunter on Jan 15, 2024 23:00:51 GMT
I’m sure this is has been explained elsewhere, so apologies if I’ve missed it. But why have Everton now been charged twice for the same period? With seemingly the same charges? Or has it actually rolled on another year? So it is a different period? It’s not precisely the same period. The gauge is over a three period, so 2 of the same three years roll into the following 3 year assessment. They knew it, saw it coming and ignored it. Throw the book at them and all the others who don’t even try to observe the rules. They couldn’t risk being in the Championship with their new stadium - but let’s hope it’s exactly what they will need to face come the end of the season. |
|
|
|
Post by Scouse on Jan 15, 2024 23:39:05 GMT
I always assumed that the punishments handed out by Premier League and EFL were solely dependent on the league they were in. As said above the whole thing is a farce anyway given the ever rising costs of transfers and salaries. The BBC report says because two of the three seasons for Forest were in the Championship they were allowed to lose £61 million as opposed to the £110 million permitted in the Premier. You would imagine that is made up of two thirds of £30million for the Championship and one third of the Premier allowance. Since promotion they have allegedly spent £250 million on transfers. Seeing as some of those players haven't played a game for them you wonder why they ever spent that much on players the manager didn't want knowing the rules. There was even the story last week of a player turning up to training whom Cooper knew nothing about and hadn't been told Forest had signed. An argument against having a manager who isn't involved in transfer decisions. The allowance is reduced by £22m for each year you’ve spent in the Championship I find it interesting , not because I’ve anything for or against any of the clubs , but only to be as informed as possible should we ever find ourselves once again at the top table .. clearly despite what some think even on promotion you can’t go totally mad , not least in your first few years when you’re probably building other revenue and sponsorship streams .. our fans will do well to remember this should the miracle of promotion ever happen .. and we don’t spend 500m Though my book keeping skills only stretch as far as a ONC in Business Studies .. and a Charted Institute of Secretaries study that was curtailed 5 months into a 5 year course .. a hundred years ago at Liverpool Poly ..the word Poly and the fact that others on the course included people from Tate and Lyle , Plesseys and BICC .. tells you how long ago and what a different world it was |
|
|
|
Post by independent on Jan 16, 2024 0:38:21 GMT
Probably not ,🙂 but as I understand it Everton’s case is this charge is 75% loaded from their previous charge , so double jeopardy ..ie if they failed the earlier one they already knew they’d fail this one ..but the forthcoming rule change , whatever the detail of that is , they wouldnt be in breach this time .. And of course Man City’s earlier penalty by UEFA was previously reduced partly because some of the elements had timed out ( not be brought sooner enough ) .. some might say sounds familiar All very complicated … and beyond the average fan , average accountant even perhaps to decipher if playing advantage was sought .. of course there have been breaches of financial fair play regulations where the breach isn’t a loss as such ..the loss element ( amount ) is just the very simplified headline that fans can grasp .. how players and agents fees and sponsorship payments and refunds are accounted for is an even more complicated world and the one that clubs have been brought to task of previously ..but the penalities have been fines .. which is worse ..reporting correctly you’ve made a big loss ..or hiding the fact It is indeed very complicated ! It is always worth remembering a couple of things. First, the PL is a membership organisation, whose rules are made by its members, the clubs themselves. In Everton's first case, 5 of those members lodged a complaint. Any membership organisation has to have a proper process for hearing such complaints by members against other members of breach of its own rules, or to consider prima facie evidence of breaches revealed by returns. Second, the cases are determined by an independent panel, charged with applying the members own rules and guidelines, not by executive staff or other clubs. I read the 41-page Everton judgement. For those with the interest and patience, below are a few thoughts I had. The PL have sanctions guidelines for rule breaches. The PL Board adopted a sanctions policy in August 2023, which was before the Everton hearing but after the period in which the admitted breaches occurred. The guidelines start with the presumption that there will be a sporting sanction in the form of a points deduction. There is a starting point of a deduction of 6 points, from which there would be an increase of 1 point for every £5 million over the threshold. There would then be further adjustments based on aggravating or mitigating factors. The Commission concluded that the excess was £19.5m (although Everton dispute the quantum) which would give a deduction of either 9 or 10 points (depending on whether you round up or use an absolute threshold), before aggravating or mitigating factors were considered. That said, the Commission pointed out that the PL hasn't included those guidelines in its rules which gave the Commission wide discretion, and they explicitly declined to adopt the PL formula (even though they imposed the same points deduction as the formula would do if aggravating and mitigating factors were deemed to balance each other out). Everton argued for a financial not sporting sanction but the Commission adopted the conclusions on this of the panel in the Sheffield Wednesday case, advancing the reasoning that ".....a breach of PSR will confer a sporting advantage on the defaulting club, to the detriment of competing clubs who have managed their finances more responsibly. The fact that sporting advantage cannot be quantified but must be inferred underlines the need for a proper punishment. Anything less would encourage default to the expense of compliant clubs", and " A financial penalty for a club which enjoys the support of a wealthy owner is not a sufficient penalty". Personally I think those are strong arguments. The 41 pages set out and analyse the evidence and the arguments advanced by both the PL and Everton in the context of the P & S rules. I think it is an impressive judgement (which also educated me quite a lot on how P & S works). I found some of it quite difficult to get my head round on first reading, but that's because the subject is inherently complex not because the report is vague or unclear. It is quite the reverse. A few specific thoughts :- a) I didn't previously know that there was a preliminary hearing in May 23 about whether 5 complainant clubs should be joined (in the legal sense) in these proceedings. In refusing this, the judgement concluded "It is the role of the Premier League to bring and prosecute complaints. The presence of interested parties as additional prosecutors, even if restricted by directions, would lead to procedural chaos". This underlines the point made above about sporting sanctions, that Everton's breach is a matter which affects all the clubs in the PL, not just Everton. b) Everton advanced 6 mitigating factors which the independent Commission considered in detail. Some of them were unexpected to me and also felt like throwing the kitchen sink at it. For example, Everton wanted to claim a financial allowance against P & S for not suing a player ( not named in the report) who was arrested and was suspended, allegedly to protect his psychological well-being. I'm not a lawyer but as he was never charged with anything, let alone found guilty, I would think the chances of success in such an action would be minimal, and the Commission also found that in any case it wasn't an appropriate type of thing for mitigation. Others also seemed odd - like the war in Ukraine, and transparency and co-operation with the PL. You really can't claim credit for co-operating with an investigation by a body of which you are a member. On the contrary, even though the Commission didn't find that Everton had acted dishonestly, it did find that it hadn't complied with the obligation in the PL rules to act with "utmost good faith" ( allegedly misleading the PL was one of the 6 PL's claimed aggravating factors). It's a very fine distinction !. c) The evidence showed that the PL was closely monitoring the situation and in August 2021 reached an agreement with Everton which imposed certain obligations on Everton including PL approval for player purchases. Such approvals were given but were always accompanied by warnings about breaching P & S. The PL cite disregard of these warnings as an aggravating factor, but it also raises the question of why the PL required approval of player purchases, but then always gave such approval. d) On the 6 alleged mitigating factors submitted by Everton and the 6 alleged aggravating factors submitted by the PL, the Commission did not always find for one side or the other - which suggests independence. e) I had understood that under P & S, clubs were "allowed" to make a loss of £15m. In fact the P & S target is not to make a loss. It's just that up to £15m loss the consequence is small. Between £15m and £105m loss, there are greater consequences. Over £105m the PL rules require that it lodges a complaint with an independent Commission. Did Everton oppose that rule ? The matter is then entirely in the hands of the Commission. The club itself provides the relevant financial figures to the PL, so any suggestion that there is some sort of maltreatment of Everton by the PL as an organisation has no foundation. f) Having read the full judgment, I had little sympathy with the tone of the Parliamentary EDM. Even if you disagree with the nature or level of the sanction ( and we must remember both the requirements of the PL rules and that Everton pleaded guilty), to say that it was "lacking any legal or equitable foundation or justification for the level of sanction"; that there was " improper dismissal of extraordinary mitigating circumstances" and that the Commission "had a cavalier approach to points deduction" is simply wrong in my view. If the MP signatories had actually read the judgement before drafting their EDM, it would be particularly disappointing. The EDM reference to the good work Everton do for the vulnerable is absolutely correct but irrelevant to the task before the Commission. Everton didn't even cite it as a mitigating factor. The EDM reference to the Commissions "cavalier approach to points deduction necessitates the acceleration of the introduction of the Government's proposed Independent Regulator" is, if nothing else, a novel argument of the introduction of a new regulator. The argument has always been that regulation by the leagues is the Clubs marking their own homework, and that action against owners and executives who break the rules isn't strong enough, not that a new regulator will be more lenient ! The PL might cite this case as evidence that self-regulation works. The lack of any reference in a long EDM to the responsibility by the Everton owner and senior executives for what has happened as a direct and sole result of their admitted breach of the rules is very disappointing. Not so odd really. A Russian Oligarch's continued sponsorship (Usmanov,I think) had to be discontinued due to sanctions. This obviously had financial repercussions and couldn't have been foreseen. |
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Jan 16, 2024 2:45:19 GMT
It is indeed very complicated ! It is always worth remembering a couple of things. First, the PL is a membership organisation, whose rules are made by its members, the clubs themselves. In Everton's first case, 5 of those members lodged a complaint. Any membership organisation has to have a proper process for hearing such complaints by members against other members of breach of its own rules, or to consider prima facie evidence of breaches revealed by returns. Second, the cases are determined by an independent panel, charged with applying the members own rules and guidelines, not by executive staff or other clubs. I read the 41-page Everton judgement. For those with the interest and patience, below are a few thoughts I had. The PL have sanctions guidelines for rule breaches. The PL Board adopted a sanctions policy in August 2023, which was before the Everton hearing but after the period in which the admitted breaches occurred. The guidelines start with the presumption that there will be a sporting sanction in the form of a points deduction. There is a starting point of a deduction of 6 points, from which there would be an increase of 1 point for every £5 million over the threshold. There would then be further adjustments based on aggravating or mitigating factors. The Commission concluded that the excess was £19.5m (although Everton dispute the quantum) which would give a deduction of either 9 or 10 points (depending on whether you round up or use an absolute threshold), before aggravating or mitigating factors were considered. That said, the Commission pointed out that the PL hasn't included those guidelines in its rules which gave the Commission wide discretion, and they explicitly declined to adopt the PL formula (even though they imposed the same points deduction as the formula would do if aggravating and mitigating factors were deemed to balance each other out). Everton argued for a financial not sporting sanction but the Commission adopted the conclusions on this of the panel in the Sheffield Wednesday case, advancing the reasoning that ".....a breach of PSR will confer a sporting advantage on the defaulting club, to the detriment of competing clubs who have managed their finances more responsibly. The fact that sporting advantage cannot be quantified but must be inferred underlines the need for a proper punishment. Anything less would encourage default to the expense of compliant clubs", and " A financial penalty for a club which enjoys the support of a wealthy owner is not a sufficient penalty". Personally I think those are strong arguments. The 41 pages set out and analyse the evidence and the arguments advanced by both the PL and Everton in the context of the P & S rules. I think it is an impressive judgement (which also educated me quite a lot on how P & S works). I found some of it quite difficult to get my head round on first reading, but that's because the subject is inherently complex not because the report is vague or unclear. It is quite the reverse. A few specific thoughts :- a) I didn't previously know that there was a preliminary hearing in May 23 about whether 5 complainant clubs should be joined (in the legal sense) in these proceedings. In refusing this, the judgement concluded "It is the role of the Premier League to bring and prosecute complaints. The presence of interested parties as additional prosecutors, even if restricted by directions, would lead to procedural chaos". This underlines the point made above about sporting sanctions, that Everton's breach is a matter which affects all the clubs in the PL, not just Everton. b) Everton advanced 6 mitigating factors which the independent Commission considered in detail. Some of them were unexpected to me and also felt like throwing the kitchen sink at it. For example, Everton wanted to claim a financial allowance against P & S for not suing a player ( not named in the report) who was arrested and was suspended, allegedly to protect his psychological well-being. I'm not a lawyer but as he was never charged with anything, let alone found guilty, I would think the chances of success in such an action would be minimal, and the Commission also found that in any case it wasn't an appropriate type of thing for mitigation. Others also seemed odd - like the war in Ukraine, and transparency and co-operation with the PL. You really can't claim credit for co-operating with an investigation by a body of which you are a member. On the contrary, even though the Commission didn't find that Everton had acted dishonestly, it did find that it hadn't complied with the obligation in the PL rules to act with "utmost good faith" ( allegedly misleading the PL was one of the 6 PL's claimed aggravating factors). It's a very fine distinction !. c) The evidence showed that the PL was closely monitoring the situation and in August 2021 reached an agreement with Everton which imposed certain obligations on Everton including PL approval for player purchases. Such approvals were given but were always accompanied by warnings about breaching P & S. The PL cite disregard of these warnings as an aggravating factor, but it also raises the question of why the PL required approval of player purchases, but then always gave such approval. d) On the 6 alleged mitigating factors submitted by Everton and the 6 alleged aggravating factors submitted by the PL, the Commission did not always find for one side or the other - which suggests independence. e) I had understood that under P & S, clubs were "allowed" to make a loss of £15m. In fact the P & S target is not to make a loss. It's just that up to £15m loss the consequence is small. Between £15m and £105m loss, there are greater consequences. Over £105m the PL rules require that it lodges a complaint with an independent Commission. Did Everton oppose that rule ? The matter is then entirely in the hands of the Commission. The club itself provides the relevant financial figures to the PL, so any suggestion that there is some sort of maltreatment of Everton by the PL as an organisation has no foundation. f) Having read the full judgment, I had little sympathy with the tone of the Parliamentary EDM. Even if you disagree with the nature or level of the sanction ( and we must remember both the requirements of the PL rules and that Everton pleaded guilty), to say that it was "lacking any legal or equitable foundation or justification for the level of sanction"; that there was " improper dismissal of extraordinary mitigating circumstances" and that the Commission "had a cavalier approach to points deduction" is simply wrong in my view. If the MP signatories had actually read the judgement before drafting their EDM, it would be particularly disappointing. The EDM reference to the good work Everton do for the vulnerable is absolutely correct but irrelevant to the task before the Commission. Everton didn't even cite it as a mitigating factor. The EDM reference to the Commissions "cavalier approach to points deduction necessitates the acceleration of the introduction of the Government's proposed Independent Regulator" is, if nothing else, a novel argument of the introduction of a new regulator. The argument has always been that regulation by the leagues is the Clubs marking their own homework, and that action against owners and executives who break the rules isn't strong enough, not that a new regulator will be more lenient ! The PL might cite this case as evidence that self-regulation works. The lack of any reference in a long EDM to the responsibility by the Everton owner and senior executives for what has happened as a direct and sole result of their admitted breach of the rules is very disappointing. Not so odd really. A Russian Oligarch's continued sponsorship (Usmanov,I think) had to be discontinued due to sanctions. This obviously had financial repercussions and couldn't have been foreseen. In March 2022 Everton announced the following: **Everton suspend all commercial and sponsorship activities with Russian companies USM, Megafon and Yota; Toffees will remove signage of all three companies in £500,000 move** Not sure if the sum's involved or even the date they acted on this hinders or assists their case regarding FFP for the time scale they are alledged to be in breach of. |
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jan 18, 2024 10:29:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 18, 2024 10:50:21 GMT
That's £65m a year between them |
|
|
|
Post by cheadlestokie on Jan 18, 2024 10:58:16 GMT
If the Man C case is complicated due to the number of charges, why not take just one of the more serious charges against them and deal with that offence. The rest could follow.
It seems as though there is more than one charge against Everton and the League has chosen to deal with one.
|
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 26, 2024 13:17:04 GMT
Now 6 points......
|
|
|
|
Post by rickyfullerbeer on Feb 26, 2024 13:20:18 GMT
Now we have to wait and see what comes of their next case, along with Forest. |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 26, 2024 13:23:45 GMT
Now we have to wait and see what comes of their next case, along with Forest. Knowing the Premier League they'll probably deduct them 4 points........ |
|
|
|
Post by rickyfullerbeer on Feb 26, 2024 13:24:19 GMT
Now we have to wait and see what comes of their next case, along with Forest. Knowing the Premier League they'll probably deduct them 4 points........ I'm fairly certain that's exactly what they'll do. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Feb 26, 2024 13:25:30 GMT
Rather than having to appeal after this was applied, why was it not just right in the first place? This now changes the face of the league, Luton are 5 adrift and with a mountain to climb. Not that I don't agree with the points deduction being lessened, but you're fucking around with the league table and other clubs in it as well. |
|
|
|
Post by chad on Feb 26, 2024 13:29:54 GMT
I’d be fuming if I was a Luton fan
Couldn’t possibly let Everton get relegated void they
|
|
|
|
Post by rickyfullerbeer on Feb 26, 2024 13:34:27 GMT
Rather than having to appeal after this was applied, why was it not just right in the first place? This now changes the face of the league, Luton are 5 adrift and with a mountain to climb. Not that I don't agree with the points deduction being lessened, but you're fucking around with the league table and other clubs in it as well. It's almost a bit of a formality isn't it, having an appeal heard. Puts Luton 4 points from safety with Forest above them and a similar goal difference. Brentford right in it now. Expecting a points deduction for both Forest and Everton to come - Luton are still in with a fantastic chance of survival. They've been exceptional. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Feb 26, 2024 13:37:02 GMT
Rather than having to appeal after this was applied, why was it not just right in the first place? This now changes the face of the league, Luton are 5 adrift and with a mountain to climb. Not that I don't agree with the points deduction being lessened, but you're fucking around with the league table and other clubs in it as well. It's almost a bit of a formality isn't it, having an appeal heard. Puts Luton 4 points from safety with Forest above them and a similar goal difference. Brentford right in it now. Expecting a points deduction for both Forest and Everton to come - Luton are still in with a fantastic chance of survival. They've been exceptional. Is it fair that it's done as the season is in progress though? I know that wouldn't help other clubs this season, but start clubs on -10 or whatever from 24/25 season. It can't be right having deductions and appeals going on mid-season. Nobody knows where they stand. |
|
|
|
Post by rickyfullerbeer on Feb 26, 2024 13:40:52 GMT
No later than 7th April for the Forest/Everton hearings. It seems perilously close to the end of the season when you can almost guarantee an appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by rickyfullerbeer on Feb 26, 2024 13:41:44 GMT
It's almost a bit of a formality isn't it, having an appeal heard. Puts Luton 4 points from safety with Forest above them and a similar goal difference. Brentford right in it now. Expecting a points deduction for both Forest and Everton to come - Luton are still in with a fantastic chance of survival. They've been exceptional. Is it fair that it's done as the season is in progress though? I know that wouldn't help other clubs this season, but start clubs on -10 or whatever from 24/25 season. It can't be right having deductions and appeals going on mid-season. Nobody knows where they stand. Agrees but then it becomes a legal issue for those relegated in the affected season. |
|
olias
Academy Starlet
Posts: 228
|
Post by olias on Feb 26, 2024 13:49:55 GMT
Those that bet that Everton were going to get relegated, are going to be a tad miffed.
|
|
|
|
Post by rickyfullerbeer on Feb 26, 2024 14:00:16 GMT
Those that bet that Everton were going to get relegated, are going to be a tad miffed. I'm on Luton and Sheffield Utd to go down across various bets, and have been since the markets were made available. I'm more miffed than those bozos who jumped on at the rumour of a mid-season points deduction. |
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Feb 26, 2024 14:02:28 GMT
Those that bet that Everton were going to get relegated, are going to be a tad miffed. They must of been mental given Everton were always going to appeal and get it reduced |
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Feb 26, 2024 14:02:46 GMT
This stinks that they gave Everton a 10 point deduction because they thought the bottom three were too shit to cause them an issue. Now that Luton are putting a fight up though they've shat the bed bringing Forest and Brentford more into the equation.
Luton have games v Palace (a); Bournemouth (h&a); Forest (h) with their last two home games Everton and Fulham so just being a point behind Everton they'd have fancied their chances surely although they have winnable games too.
Anyone who put a few quid on Brentford going down might have got a bit of a bargain!
|
|
