Project Zeus
Steve Chettle
But we're no longer in breach, and Everton are and have been for years.
A lot will depend on how the commission views that in relation to the size of the breach.
Sent from my SM-G990B using Tapatalk
Last edited:
-
All - as you will understand, the forum is exceptionally busy at this time. The admins and moderators simply don't have time to read every post in every thread. Could you PLEASE use the "Report" option below a post to flag any content that you feel we need to be aware of. We'll review everything reported as a priority and deal with it accordingly. Thank you.
Financial Fair Play (FFP)
- Thread starter Hawkeye1947
- Start date
A lot will depend on how the commission views that in relation to the size of the breach.
Sent from my SM-G990B using Tapatalk
Alf-engelos Mindminackers
The Artiste formally known as "Wanksy"
chaospunx
Geoff Thomas
Unfortunately I think it will be 10-12 reduced on appeal to 7-9 if journalists are hearing our breech is more than Everton and Unfortunately that will be curtains for us
Alf-engelos Mindminackers
The Artiste formally known as "Wanksy"
Have to agree, I'm braced for a similar impact.
We've no-one to blame but ourselves though. Whatever we get we deserve and need to take it on the chin and crack on.
Dr Sheldon Cooper
Grenville Morris
Everton have been punished for overspending and have then overspent again.
The punishment should be greater not smaller.
The punishment should be greater not smaller.
Masuka
Jack Burkitt
It’s never going to be 10 points the reason Everton’s was reduced below that was because the appeal board said it should be less than the 9 point deduction for insolvency
Bob Fossil
Nottingham's dirty secret
Talk of 10 points or more is daft.
It's already been established that Everton's initial deduction was out of kilter as administration gets you 9 points (1 less than they got). Think about that.
We've got lots more mitigating factors than Everton- who also had a hell of a lot more aggravating factors.
3-6 is nailed on.
And put it this way- the club will be fuming with 6 and definitely appeal. A nightmare situation of epic proportions for the PL.
It's already been established that Everton's initial deduction was out of kilter as administration gets you 9 points (1 less than they got). Think about that.
We've got lots more mitigating factors than Everton- who also had a hell of a lot more aggravating factors.
3-6 is nailed on.
And put it this way- the club will be fuming with 6 and definitely appeal. A nightmare situation of epic proportions for the PL.
Last edited:
Alvar Hanso
Jack Burkitt
Everton had one aggravating factor (being "less than frank"), which they successfully appealed
Bobby The Brain
Weasel
I think we have a strong defence.
We we’re allowed less of a loss due to the championship years. We also had our COVID losses capped at £5m whereas Everton’s COVID loss was accepted at around £200m. Even with that, we’re no longer in breach Everton are. This is our first offence.
Whatever the reality, the Premier league won’t want it to look like a closed shop. Regardless of the reasons behind it they’re in real danger of appearing to have 2 different rulesets for the two clubs.
I think it’ll be closer to 3 points than 9.
We we’re allowed less of a loss due to the championship years. We also had our COVID losses capped at £5m whereas Everton’s COVID loss was accepted at around £200m. Even with that, we’re no longer in breach Everton are. This is our first offence.
Whatever the reality, the Premier league won’t want it to look like a closed shop. Regardless of the reasons behind it they’re in real danger of appearing to have 2 different rulesets for the two clubs.
I think it’ll be closer to 3 points than 9.
Alvar Hanso
Jack Burkitt
That's the original judgement which threw out 3 of the 4 proposed aggravating factors.
The fourth was thrown out by the appeal
REDDERS78
Jack Armstrong
Okay Omar
Robertson
Viv Anderson
OK fair enough, thanks.
Redemption
Agenda Benda
Have they?
The impact of years 1 and 2 in this rolling period could still see them breach the £105m even if they lost less than £35m in year 3, or indeed made some profit.
So while there might be a breach, they may not have overspent again. This is why the case of 'double jeopardy' is being widely stated as a mitigation.
Bobby The Brain
Weasel
If it’s a rolling 3 year period I don’t see how they can claim double jeopardy as it’s a separate measure.
Gyros Peter
Sauce salad?
A look at their transfers suggests they likely have.
Edit: may not be the case though granted.
Trents
John Robertson
My entry is 6 points, reduced to 3
youreds1986
Geoff Thomas
It's 100% correct that whatever punishment we get is entirely our own fault. We knew the losses, we went over them. That's either reckless or incompetent (or both).
But that doesn't mean the rules are fair, or do what they claim to be designed to. It also doesn't make it fair that bigger clubs have repeatedly made a mockery of them.
The only way I think we can not blame our Board is if the PL gave clear indication that delaying the Johnson sale was permissable, which it looks like they didn't (or we would have already been very, very public about it).
Given the appeal ruling I don't think it can possibly be more than 9. And given that 9 is for financial ruin, this surely has to be looked at under the lens of it being affordable for our owners, an isolated incident, and one that we rectified in a matter of weeks. I maintain it will be some kind of 3-6 point deduction with possibly 2-3 points being suspended.
Our biggest saving grace is the league won't want us being relegated on the back of the points deduction as the resulting legal battles will be horrific for everyone. A 3 or 4 point deduction probably keeps us up but demonstrates they have taken action and noone really loses too much.
But that doesn't mean the rules are fair, or do what they claim to be designed to. It also doesn't make it fair that bigger clubs have repeatedly made a mockery of them.
The only way I think we can not blame our Board is if the PL gave clear indication that delaying the Johnson sale was permissable, which it looks like they didn't (or we would have already been very, very public about it).
Given the appeal ruling I don't think it can possibly be more than 9. And given that 9 is for financial ruin, this surely has to be looked at under the lens of it being affordable for our owners, an isolated incident, and one that we rectified in a matter of weeks. I maintain it will be some kind of 3-6 point deduction with possibly 2-3 points being suspended.
Our biggest saving grace is the league won't want us being relegated on the back of the points deduction as the resulting legal battles will be horrific for everyone. A 3 or 4 point deduction probably keeps us up but demonstrates they have taken action and noone really loses too much.
Robertson
Viv Anderson
Yeah, although wasn’t part of their argument that their losses were reducing over the three years they’ve already been charged for? I.e big losses in 2020 and 2021, then a much smaller loss in 2022. So the (big loss?) 2020 figure slides out the window replaced by whatever was lost/gained in 2023. And yet they have still apparently failed. So surely they must have made some excess losses in 2023 as well?
Are these annual numbers published anywhere?
Cortez the Killer
Impressive member
There is only one person "less than Frank" and he hasn't managed Everton.
Yet.
Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk
Project Zeus
Steve Chettle
Considering we send a letter to PGMOL every other week I imagine we'll appeal the decision whatever it is!
Sent from my SM-G990B using Tapatalk
Alvar Hanso
Jack Burkitt
There is only one person "less than Frank" and he hasn't managed Everton.
Yet.
Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk
He’s definitely an aggravating factor with a built in points deduction
Listen 'ere young man
Jack Burkitt
Worst case of 6 points, reduced to 4 or 3 on appeal.
Forest only missed the target by a couple of months, as with a loan not being repaid on time.
What's the APR (Annual Points Rate) here? 10 (6 minimum plus 4 for a 20m beach). 2 months pro rata gives under 2 points.
Everton might get another 4 after appeal so effectivity all of Luton, Forest and Everton are more or less on 20 points with 12 games left.
I'll take it and be reasonably confident of survival.
Forest only missed the target by a couple of months, as with a loan not being repaid on time.
What's the APR (Annual Points Rate) here? 10 (6 minimum plus 4 for a 20m beach). 2 months pro rata gives under 2 points.
Everton might get another 4 after appeal so effectivity all of Luton, Forest and Everton are more or less on 20 points with 12 games left.
I'll take it and be reasonably confident of survival.
Last edited:
trentside69
Viv Anderson
From the start it's been reported that everton were deliberately trying to fool the inquiry and I think that is why they were punished severely with 10 points taken.
Their appeal got them 4 points back and I think thats why Forest are different because we have not been dishonest and we reported that we had gone over the limit.
So it should be a maximum 6 deducted for us and could be less
Monkman
Grenville Morris
According to that Athletic article the feeling in the club is that it'll be around 3 points. Obviously no one knows, but the club will know the scale of the breach and will be able to gauge how the PL have reacted so far regarding the mitigating factors.
I think it'll be 3 points on the condition that we don't appeal, and I think we'll accept that.
I think it'll be 3 points on the condition that we don't appeal, and I think we'll accept that.