shackattack
Well-Known Member
We may have or not have the money to fund a fight with the PL but inadvertently they have pulled our fanbase and club together for the first time in years.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Everton Thread - 2023/24
- Thread starter MAG
- Start date
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I've just quickly read the full judgement and it makes interesting reading. Basically, Everton carried on spending on players despite the PL warning them they were breaching the Financial Sustainability Rules by continuing to do so. Everton then tried to claim a number of things should be used to reduce their FSR losses.
These included claiming for interest payments made on loans from Metro Bank that they said were part of the stadium development. However, the agreement with Metro was that these loans would be used purely for working capital. It was Moshiri who was funding the stadium development, interest free. The panel decided that Everton had tried to mislead the PL over this.
They also tried to claim back the 4% Levy on transfers, part of which goes to fund player pensions and some to youth development. They did this on the grounds that it's youth development and that this is regarded as 'good' expenditure. The panel rejected that view as Everton weren't spending it on youth development in their own club.
They tried to claim the £10m a year naming rights deal with Usmanov, which they didn't receive once sanctions were imposed on him. The panel rejected that as, although negotiations were well advanced, no contract had been signed.
There were other rather bizarre claims from Everton, such as not suing a player, which they felt would have added an extra £10m to their coffers had they done so, and overvaluing players they claim they could have sold at those prices but for Covid.
It's all really rather desperate stuff from Everton but the PL were insistent that a points deduction was the right sanction, whereas Everton were asking for a financial penalty as being more appropriate. The panel rejected Everton's argument on the grounds that they had a wealthy owner and a fine really wouldn't be a punishment. I think I can see where that's going!
These included claiming for interest payments made on loans from Metro Bank that they said were part of the stadium development. However, the agreement with Metro was that these loans would be used purely for working capital. It was Moshiri who was funding the stadium development, interest free. The panel decided that Everton had tried to mislead the PL over this.
They also tried to claim back the 4% Levy on transfers, part of which goes to fund player pensions and some to youth development. They did this on the grounds that it's youth development and that this is regarded as 'good' expenditure. The panel rejected that view as Everton weren't spending it on youth development in their own club.
They tried to claim the £10m a year naming rights deal with Usmanov, which they didn't receive once sanctions were imposed on him. The panel rejected that as, although negotiations were well advanced, no contract had been signed.
There were other rather bizarre claims from Everton, such as not suing a player, which they felt would have added an extra £10m to their coffers had they done so, and overvaluing players they claim they could have sold at those prices but for Covid.
It's all really rather desperate stuff from Everton but the PL were insistent that a points deduction was the right sanction, whereas Everton were asking for a financial penalty as being more appropriate. The panel rejected Everton's argument on the grounds that they had a wealthy owner and a fine really wouldn't be a punishment. I think I can see where that's going!
Last edited:
I've just quickly read the full judgement and it makes interesting reading. Basically, Everton carried on spending on players despite the PL warning them they were breaching the Financial Sustainability Rules by continuing to do so.Everton then tried to claim a number of things should be used to reduce their FSR losses.
These included claiming for interest payments made on loans from Metro Bank that they said were part of the stadium development. However, the agreement with Metro was that these loans would be used purely for working capital. It was Moshiri who was funding the stadium development, interest free. The panel decided that Everton had tried to mislead the PL over this.
They also tried to claim back the 4% Levy on transfers, part of which goes to fund player pensions and some to youth development. They did this on the grounds that it's youth development and that this is regarded as 'good' expenditure. The panel rejected that view as Everton weren't spending it on youth development in their own club.
They tried to claim the £10m a year naming rights deal with Usmanov, which they didn't receive once sanctions were imposed on him. The panel rejected that as, although negotiations were well advanced, no contract had been signed.
There were other rather bizarre claims from Everton, such as not suing a player, which they felt would have added an extra £10m to their coffers had they done so, and overvaluing players they claim they could have sold at those prices but for Covid.
It's all really rather desperate stuff from Everton but the PL were insistent that a points deduction was the right sanction, whereas Everton were asking for a financial penalty as being more appropriate. The panel rejected Everton's argument on the grounds that they had a wealthy owner and a fine really wouldn't be a punishment. I think I can see where that's going!
Think points deductions for any team is wrong!
Ban them from buying anyone for 2 years reduce the squad to 22 they have to play 3 youth players every game!
There are other ways you can punish clubs than deducting points!
Find it bizarre that in the lower leagues when a clubs in trouble they dock them points or a fine that in turn puts them in more trouble transfer bans is sufficient enough for me
Last edited:
shackattack
Well-Known Member
In the season's 2011 - 2013 inclusive LFC made losses of 40 million and 48 million respectively yet were allowed to class this as " allowable stadium expenditure "
10 years later we overspend by 19.8 million and are penalised.
10 years later we overspend by 19.8 million and are penalised.
Think points deductions for any team wrong doing is wrong!
Ban them from buying anyone for 2 years reduce the squad to 22 they have to play 3 youth players every game!
There are other ways you can punish clubs than deducting points!
Find it bizarre that in the lower leagues when a clubs in trouble they dock them points or a fine that in turn puts them in more trouble transfer bans is sufficient enough for me
We have spent about £2m in the last 2 seasons. The PL were working with us and had to sign off on any signings.
We had to sell Gordon and Richarlison, nearly got relegated twice due to a shit squad and not being able to spend and then after all that, we get this. We may as well ignored them and bought more players as we could be in a better position to take the max 12 point deduction.
In the season's 2011 - 2013 inclusive LFC made losses of 40 million and 48 million respectively yet were allowed to class this as " allowable stadium expenditure "
10 years later we overspend by 19.8 million and are penalised.
Premier ffp came in season 2013/14 and from then to now been tweaked by that kunt Gill to benefit his team and to try to hamper other clubs!
The mistake you are making is assuming the Premier league is a fair and just sporting entity . Newsflash it's not !!!!In the season's 2011 - 2013 inclusive LFC made losses of 40 million and 48 million respectively yet were allowed to class this as " allowable stadium expenditure "
10 years later we overspend by 19.8 million and are penalised.
shackattack
Well-Known Member
Maybe if we'd have paid the PL £3.1 million like Leicester they'd have let us offWe have spent about £2m in the last 2 seasons. The PL were working with us and had to sign off on any signings.
We had to sell Gordon and Richarlison, nearly got relegated twice due to a shit squad and not being able to spend and then after all that, we get this. We may as well ignored them and bought more players as we could be in a better position to take the max 12 point deduction.