• 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)

Strummer

Strummer

Socialismo O Muerte!
LTLF Minion
Notcher

Notcher

Stuart Pearce
redodare said:
This panel has drawn explicit comparison to our case.
And is dismissive of our claims that we have been excessivley punished.
That said, they contradict by then admitting comparisons aren't easy.
Of course, another panel or appeal jury could disagree.



Finally, it is necessary to consider the fairness of the sanction when benchmarked
against the Nottingham Forest decision and the Everton FY22 Appeal, in which:
263.1. Nottingham Forest received a four-point penalty where it had breached the
threshold applicable to it by some €34.5 million, or 55.6%. That conclusion was
reached based upon a starting point of six points, which was reduced by two
points to take into account Nottingham Forest's early guilty plea and
exceptional cooperation with the PL (see [14.181); and
263.2. Everton received a six-point penalty in the Everton FY22 Appeal for a breach
of €19.5 million.
Here, Everton submitted that a starting point of five points for its breach was
disproportionate to the penalty imposed in Nottingham Forest, which was much larger
(a) in absolute terms (€34.5 million versus Everton's €16.6 million) and (b) in
percentage terms (55.6% versus Everton's 15.8%). Everton also stressed that
Nottingham Forest had exceeded its Upper Loss Threshold by €34.5 million in one
-57.
reporting period, whereas Everton had exceeded the threshold by a total of £36.1 million
across two reporting periods, for which it had already been penalised.
Notwithstanding those comparisons, we consider our starting point to be appropriate
and justifiable in accordance with the Nottingham Forest decision:
265.1. Considering FY22 and FY23 together, the starting point deductions of points
are as follows: (a) a deduction of six points (Everton FY22 Appeal); and (b) a
deduction of three points (this decision, before other mitigation). That is a total
starting point sanction of nine points across two years.
265.2. It is a result of the approach set out in the Everton FY22 Appeal, with which
we agree, that there should be a sanction of at least three points for every breach
of the PSR. It is natural, and right, that Everton receives a higher penalty than
Nottingham Forest, notwithstanding that the overall amount by which it
exceeded the Upper Loss Threshold was (a) broadly similar in monetary terms
and (b) less in percentage terms, in circumstances where Everton exceeded the
applicable Upper Loss Threshold in two financial years, but Nottingham Forest
exceeded that threshold in only one.
We therefore do not regard the further deduction of points to be excessive, unfair to
Everton, or disproportionate in comparison to the recent Nottingham Forest decision.
In any event, we have set out above that we respectfully disagree with Nottingham
Forest's interpretation of the Everton FY22 Appeal (in relation to aggravating factors).
Any comparison with Nottingham Forest should therefore be undertaken with caution.
Click to expand...
Yet there's a number of factors that it fails to take into account such our permitted losses are far less therefore Everton's actual losses. It's a cataclysmic clusterfuck which completely disregards pertinent points and allows others of a ridiculous nature. I'm flabbergasted that KC's can get it so wrong
 
Last edited:
T

Toffeeman

A. Trialist
MaxiRobriguez said:
Nah.

Everton are cheating. £200m COVID losses give over.

Forest f**ked it as well. The whole purpose of the rules are to make clubs sustainable and Forest took the piss last year and were reliant on payday loans to make amortisation payments this year so we are no angels ourselves.

Both clubs f**ked it. The PL has f**ked it too with their inconsistent rules, which they could have avoided by simply relegating the teams which broke the rules.
Click to expand...
every everton fan knows we have been appallingly managed. Personally i can accept a deduction based on breaching with the following caveats:

1) there are clear guidelines outlining the punishment
2) there is consistency in applying those rules.
3) every club is treated the same

None of those three applied. You say Covid rules but the league set the guidlines for deductibles and we used it to the max. The premier league had no issue with what we deducted. Was it right? of course not but thats the rules they set and its widely accepted every club used it as much as they needed to.

So as you say both us and yourselves broke the rules and have been punished. Where is the punishment for Chelsea who made off the books payments? They admitted this so should be easy to work out surely. City? Everyone knows thats being brushed under the carpet the first chance they get. But our cases had to be rushed through. The whole thing stinks.
 
Flaggers

Flaggers

May not be the best moderator on LTLF, but he's...
LTLF Minion
blue_eyes777 said:
From The Telegraph regarding the third breach:

"
Remarkably, the written reasons revealed that this was not the end of the case against Everton following a dispute between them and the Premier League about the scale of their breach, which the latter asserted was almost £23.2m.

The commission said the additional £6.56m would be considered “at a later time” and that “a further hearing will follow”, suggesting the outstanding matter would not be resolved before the end of the season.

It added: “The commission is acutely aware that there are many stakeholders – to name some: the PL, Everton, the Everton fans, all other Premier League clubs, the public – interested in the speedy determination of these disciplinary proceedings. Nevertheless, in fairness to the parties in these proceedings, the commission decided that the issues which remain cannot be dealt with in accordance with the timetable set out in the Standard Directions. The Standard Directions will not, therefore, apply to the remaining issues.”
Click to expand...
Excuse my French but JESUS H f***ing CHRIST IN A CHICKEN BASKET.

PL: "We have determined that we want this done and dusted before the end of the season."

Also PL: "Actually f*** that we can't be arsed dealing with them - let's kick the can down the road. 6 points more now would probably relegate Everton but if we give them just 2, delay till next season (when we're going to change the rules) our precious Everton will probably survive in the PL."

If you had any..ANY.. lingering uncertainty as to whether or not the system is bent, consider yourselves unburdened
 
M

MaxiRobriguez

Bob McKinlay
Toffeeman said:
every everton fan knows we have been appallingly managed. Personally i can accept a deduction based on breaching with the following caveats:

1) there are clear guidelines outlining the punishment
2) there is consistency in applying those rules.
3) every club is treated the same

None of those three applied. You say Covid rules but the league set the guidlines for deductibles and we used it to the max. The premier league had no issue with what we deducted. Was it right? of course not but thats the rules they set and its widely accepted every club used it as much as they needed to.

So as you say both us and yourselves broke the rules and have been punished. Where is the punishment for Chelsea who made off the books payments? They admitted this so should be easy to work out surely. City? Everyone knows thats being brushed under the carpet the first chance they get. But our cases had to be rushed through. The whole thing stinks.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I just don't have the woe-be-us sympathy for our clubs who are the piss takers and could have avoided the situation by being prudent with their money.
 
eyupmeduck

eyupmeduck

Geoff Thomas
blue_eyes777 said:
From The Telegraph regarding the third breach:

"
Remarkably, the written reasons revealed that this was not the end of the case against Everton following a dispute between them and the Premier League about the scale of their breach, which the latter asserted was almost £23.2m.

The commission said the additional £6.56m would be considered “at a later time” and that “a further hearing will follow”, suggesting the outstanding matter would not be resolved before the end of the season.

It added: “The commission is acutely aware that there are many stakeholders – to name some: the PL, Everton, the Everton fans, all other Premier League clubs, the public – interested in the speedy determination of these disciplinary proceedings. Nevertheless, in fairness to the parties in these proceedings, the commission decided that the issues which remain cannot be dealt with in accordance with the timetable set out in the Standard Directions. The Standard Directions will not, therefore, apply to the remaining issues.”
Click to expand...
So, you told us you breached, we think you breached by more but we will pass judgement on the breach you said and revisit the figures later on.

Shambles.



Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
 
C

Cloughie1975

John Robertson
Robert Learnshaw said:
I don't think we will get any points back,

They got:
-3 Breach
-2 Scale
+2 Double Jeopardy
+1 Cooperation

We got:
-3 Breach
-3 Scale
+1 Cooperation
+1 Early admission

I'd obviously love us to get points back, but on what basis? Doubt they will reduce scale
Click to expand...
I also think Forest will struggle to get any points back and I don’t think Everton will (on this 2nd charge).
I’m afraid the situation is a mess.
 
D

dr_horse

Geoff Thomas
Who is on the independent commission?

Do the same ppl hear every case and the appeals?

Who pays them?

Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk
 
S

Stocky Red

First Team Squad
shearstone said:
(a) the fact that the Club has already been penalised in the Everton FY22 Proceedings for losses in years which overlap with the years at issue in these proceedings; (b) the loss of sponsorship revenue from USM Services Limited; and (c) the fact that Everton admitted its breach of the PSR at the first opportunity. We consider that (a) justifies a reduction to Everton’s penalty of two points, and (b) and (c) together justify a reduction of a further one point.

So rolling 3 years is gone then what a joke.

Lets Spend massive in the summer now and then just immediately admit it and take our 2-4 points.
Click to expand...

I quickly read the summary, the wording appeared to suggest that they got points back because of 2 hits in one season?

Or does the detail effectively say the rolling 3 year period is dead?
 
Strummer

Strummer

Socialismo O Muerte!
LTLF Minion
tomw94 said:
The double jeopardy thing is bullshit. Everton avoided relegation last season by handing in books late and that in turn gives them less punishment this season?
Click to expand...
You have to say, in that case, they’ve played the PL like a fiddle, with the acquiescence of the League of course.

Avoid relegation last season - when they looked bang-to-rights; and this season, cop for a lesser charge that still leaves them outside the bottom three, with their fate in their own hands.
 
Hungry Horace

Hungry Horace

First Team Squad
Project Zeus said:
Didn't Leeds and Leicester sue Everton last season? Nothing ever seems to come of it.

Sent from my SM-G990B using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It’s not Everton’s fault they weren’t punished last season so harsh to get sued. As much as it pains me to stand up for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Gyros Peter

Gyros Peter

Sauce salad?
Strummer said:
You have to say, in that case, they’ve played the PL like a fiddle, with the acquiescence of the League of course.

Avoid relegation last season - when they looked bang-to-rights; and this season, cop for a lesser charge that still leaves them outside the bottom three, with their fate in their own hands.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, and the whole COVID losses thing that's gone completely unchallenged just adds to it. Of course, if you're complicit you aren't being played.
 
Y

YouReds43

Youth Team
Our commission stated an entry level of 3pts, then 3pts for a significant breach. Everton start point was 3pts, They only got 2pts for being in the significant category like us. So 5pts instead of 6pts, They get 2pts back for double jeopardy because they delayed a deduction last season, then 1pt back for early plea and Ukraine. I expect minimum a point back.
 
eyupmeduck

eyupmeduck

Geoff Thomas
Honestly seems bonkers to me that the latest committee disagreed with every other previous committee that disagreed with every other committee before that.

None agree with the EPL though so at least that is consistent. At least its good that the people who have essentially written the rules and decided that this is the season that they will actually apply them are found lacking 100% of the time.

Its led to us having a load of independent individuals making completely independent and conflicting findings about sporting decisions, on financial matters and from a legal standpoint but not based on legal precedent or indeed law.

It seems like its just baked in as an accepted fact that in the entire of world football (Including clubs based in Ukraine and Russia) that Everton suffered the most commercially than anyone because of the war and covid as well. In truth in psr world no one has benefited more in world football than them from covid and its crazy to me that we were allowed £2m losses which isn't anywhere near representative of lost matchday revenue.

They can't even agree what the level of breach is now, for me its quite significant because if its the £16m then essentially losses are shrinking and they are making progress, if its the £23m then losses have grown and they haven't improved.

I don't bear Everton any ill will but their latest experience to me shows how inept the EPL have been for a long while.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom