PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[terraloon]

I think Everton are looking to reduce the deduction for pleading guilty, saying 10 points are far too many, as it spells relegation for half of the teams in the PL.

I think they might get it reduced to six points, or two victories, with the 4 point difference being a big deal.

Without a clear penalties laid out beforehand, it could seem arbitrary and capricious.

Perhaps a schedule, for example, $0-25M shortfall being a 3 point penalty, $26-50M being 6 points, $51-75M being 9 points, etc… might have made the Everton penalty feel less shocking.

It was only very late in the day that Everton put their hands up indeed up to that point in time they had been economical with the truth when it came to interest on stadium loans and some of their mitigation claims were bound to be dismissed.

Like most if not all the rules surrounding FFP/PSR there are so many flaws and for me one of the craziest is the £105 million maximum.

To some clubs that equates to circa 25% of their turnover others like say city over a 3 year cycle it is less than 10%.

Everton were, despite what they would have you believe, afforded significant concessions they claimed the most in respect of any club when it came to COVID losses , won a significant dispensation when it came to pre planning expenditure, and kept signing players for fees despite the PL telling them that it was their responsibility to make sure that the managed their own finances.

The PL was assured by Everton officials that they would be under the £105 million and that would have been the case had the PL made yet further concessions and agreed that say £4 million of the transfer levy should be claimed as being youth expenditure ( no club has ever claimed that) that a player suspended for alleged sexual offence’s caused a loss and that players that they had planned to sell hadn’t moved on one ironically was awarded a squeaky new lucrative contract. Many of the claims for mitigation weren’t creative they were flawed.

They , Everton, then threw in Steel Costs had gone up , that they lost income as a consequence of the Russian invasion that may be a justified exception in 22/23 but certainly not in 21/22 and prior.

Do I believe that Everton should be deducted points ? No I don’t and of course the sanction list for breaking the limit should be in place prior to any charges and sporting sanction don’t just need to revolve around points . For instance transfer bans, squad limits etc would be far more balanced .

Having said all that if we didn’t have the nonsense that is FFP them their would be far more adherence to the rules and requirements without clever people constantly trying to find work arounds

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

The PL proposed a 'tariff' starting at a 6 point deduction for failing FFP and another point deducted for each £5m a team failed by. So 10 points deducted for failing by £20m, which would probably have been Everton's punishment.

The independent commission rejected that however, saying it should be up to them to decide any penalty. And then imposed a 10-point penalty.

But did the PL leadership communicate the proposed tariff to the clubs before the season started or was it made up on the hoof by Masters and his cronies? I think there may be a get-out for Everton if the sanctions weren’t agreed by all the clubs.

 

[Ric]

Does seem strange that we still haven't heard the outcome of Everton's appeal. It's dragging on far too long.

 

[remember arthur mann]

Does football need all this ffp etc ? Why cant it just be about football clubs being run as the owners wish. Why cant it be a free market.

Has ffp improve football ?

How are Wrexham allowed to spend shed loads but Newcastle cant ?

Don't worry, now the rags are struggling it'll be removed, pronto.

 

[M18CTID]

Does football need all this ffp etc ? Why cant it just be about football clubs being run as the owners wish. Why cant it be a free market.

Has ffp improve football ?

How are Wrexham allowed to spend shed loads but Newcastle cant ?

As I understand it, Wrexham can’t just spend what they want as they’re bound by the EFL’s FFP rules which in some ways are arguably stricter than the PL’s regs. They were allowed to spend what they want in the National League as there is no FFP in that league, but once promoted they’re bound by the same FFP rules as all the other EFL clubs.

 

[hello]

But did the PL leadership communicate the proposed tariff to the clubs before the season started or was it made up on the hoof by Masters and his cronies? I think there may be a get-out for Everton if the sanctions weren’t agreed by all the clubs.

Yeah but you have to question the sanity of clubs voting for the psr method to be introduced without any kind of breach matrix to accompany it. That kind of leaves it open to whatever masters or in actual fact rags and dippers want rather than predefined unambiguous guidelines. Whilst I used to have loads of sympathy for Everton fans sharing a city with that lot, its kind of waned drastically with all the shite since Lescott and subsequently the incessant victim hood behaviour of "its not fair what about 115 " They voted for the fucking amendments, broke the amendments despite not knowing what any punishment would be and pleaded fucking guilty so if they fuck off the the championship with 2 sets of points deductions then sobeit. At least we wont have to witness antifootball Dyche for a season or 5.

 

[Bloominmarvellous]

Don't worry, now the rags are struggling it'll be removed, pronto.

I reckon the opposite. With the new spending ratio to turnover and the fact that ineos may actually put money in means they probably are in a better position than when it was just the glazers.

 

[willipp]

Does seem strange that we still haven't heard the outcome of Everton's appeal. It's dragging on far too long.

If there is any truth in the recent rumors that the charges against us are crumbling around the PL's feet, they are going to find it very hard sticking with Evertons punishment as their credibility will be at an all time low.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Thanks for the tariff info.

Seems like, given the large amounts that can change hands at the last minute with transfers, the financial margins are creating penalties that are simply too large.

10 points is an enormous impediment, dooming half the teams in the League to relegation. And, while I’m not against points being a final penalty, it seems like it’s a draconian result. Perhaps a transfer embargo until in compliance for one reporting period, followed by a 3 pt penalty for each subsequent exceedance, etc…

I think the thing that has outraged fans is that they get deeply harmed by the actions of the mgmt of their club, and this 10 point penalty FEELS like it came out of left field to most people.

Again, I appreciate your fact-based contributions on Bluemoon.

The points penalty was based on the commission's view that (a) the excess spending brought Everton an unfair advantage and (b) a financial penalty wasn't appropriate for a club with a wealthy owner. At first I thought a smaller points deduction was the appropriate penalty but I've changed my mind, thinking about it.

In 2022 and 2023, Everton would have been relegated with a 10-point deduction. Yet in 2021 they finished 10th, with 59 points and they were 12th the season before. Therefore you'd have to question what advantage this additional spending brought them? Clearly none, plus you'd have to look at teams like united and Chelsea, who have spent fortunes and can't get out of their group or even get into the CL/EL.

Point b was nonsensical, as I'm sure the majority of clubs have wealthy owners. The punishment should fit the crime.

 

[hgblue]

The points penalty was based on the commission's view that (a) the excess spending brought Everton an unfair advantage and (b) a financial penalty wasn't appropriate for a club with a wealthy owner. At first I thought a smaller points deduction was the appropriate penalty but I've changed my mind, thinking about it.

In 2022 and 2023, Everton would have been relegated with a 10-point deduction. Yet in 2021 they finished 10th, with 59 points and they were 12th the season before. Therefore you'd have to question what advantage this additional spending brought them? Clearly none, plus you'd have to look at teams like united and Chelsea, who have spent fortunes and can't get out of their group or even get into the CL/EL.

Point b was nonsensical, as I'm sure the majority of clubs have wealthy owners. The punishment should fit the crime.

The Everton and Forest cases have been great for us because they've woken people up to the reality of FFP and the motivations behind it.

 

[Cassandra]

The points penalty was based on the commission's view that (a) the excess spending brought Everton an unfair advantage and (b) a financial penalty wasn't appropriate for a club with a wealthy owner. At first I thought a smaller points deduction was the appropriate penalty but I've changed my mind, thinking about it.

In 2022 and 2023, Everton would have been relegated with a 10-point deduction. Yet in 2021 they finished 10th, with 59 points and they were 12th the season before. Therefore you'd have to question what advantage this additional spending brought them? Clearly none, plus you'd have to look at teams like united and Chelsea, who have spent fortunes and can't get out of their group or even get into the CL/EL.

Point b was nonsensical, as I'm sure the majority of clubs have wealthy owners. The punishment should fit the crime.

Doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence concerning the competence of the “Independent” Commision.

 

[Rochdale Blue]

What a twatty thing for the vicar to say to a youngster !

Looks a cert for the chief mumbo jumbo job at Canterbury and joining the unelected parasites in the lords.

 

[Joe Donachie]

Noel Gallagher wasn’t so sure when he was giving my lad his guitar lesson yesterday.

Funny you should say that, because Johnny marr told me the same when I knocked on for a bag of sugar this morning

 

[MillionMilesAway]

The points penalty was based on the commission's view that (a) the excess spending brought Everton an unfair advantage and (b) a financial penalty wasn't appropriate for a club with a wealthy owner. At first I thought a smaller points deduction was the appropriate penalty but I've changed my mind, thinking about it.

In 2022 and 2023, Everton would have been relegated with a 10-point deduction. Yet in 2021 they finished 10th, with 59 points and they were 12th the season before. Therefore you'd have to question what advantage this additional spending brought them? Clearly none, plus you'd have to look at teams like united and Chelsea, who have spent fortunes and can't get out of their group or even get into the CL/EL.

Point b was nonsensical, as I'm sure the majority of clubs have wealthy owners. The punishment should fit the crime.

That was my thinking when I thought about it.

10 pts is usually enough to (very roughly)

drop a top-2 team out of the top 2
drop a 3rd/4th team out of the CL places
drop a 5th/6th team out of European contention
(doesn't do a great deal for 8th-11th)
drops 12th-15th into the edge of relegation
drops 16th-17th into the relegation zone.

So it affects almost every position where it has significance.

 

[jonah62]

In the village i live they have a christmas festival where they close the road one night and all the shops, churches, takeways etc open up and they have stalls n rides …

Anyway, a couple of years ago i was there with the kids, one who had a city bobble hat on. Was just about to walk into one of the churches that had something going on and the vicar was stood at the door and on seeing the kids hat said , “ooh here they are. emtyhad are in”.
I stopped , looked at him and said, “you have just lost any chance you ever had of me turning up for sunday service” and turned away back out the door.

Made me feel better anyway

Should have called him a paedo!

 

[hgblue]

Does football need all this ffp etc ? Why cant it just be about football clubs being run as the owners wish. Why cant it be a free market.

Has ffp improve football ?

How are Wrexham allowed to spend shed loads but Newcastle cant ?

The way I think of FFP is a method for elite clubs to stifle competition, it all falls into place once you understand this.

 

[johnnytapia]

Oh ! That's your lad ?

Funny you should say that, because Johnny marr told me the same when I knocked on for a bag of sugar this morning

You should have known Johnny wouldn’t have any sugar.

Johnny Marr reveals how Naughty By Nature inspired him to be the best version of himself

Johnny Marr has revealed that it was rap group Naughty By Nature who inspired him to be a healthier version of himself.

www.nme.com

 

[Didsbury Dave]

The Everton and Forest cases have been great for us because they've woken people up to the reality of FFP and the motivations behind it.

They've also woken the whole world up to the fact that we could get even bigger punishements and brought the accusations to a crescendo.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The points penalty was based on the commission's view that (a) the excess spending brought Everton an unfair advantage and (b) a financial penalty wasn't appropriate for a club with a wealthy owner. At first I thought a smaller points deduction was the appropriate penalty but I've changed my mind, thinking about it.

In 2022 and 2023, Everton would have been relegated with a 10-point deduction. Yet in 2021 they finished 10th, with 59 points and they were 12th the season before. Therefore you'd have to question what advantage this additional spending brought them? Clearly none, plus you'd have to look at teams like united and Chelsea, who have spent fortunes and can't get out of their group or even get into the CL/EL.

Point b was nonsensical, as I'm sure the majority of clubs have wealthy owners. The punishment should fit the crime.

Correct. And I would imagine clarity of punishment is fundamental in law. If it isn't, it should be. You can't tell someone if you commit a crime you will either be fined or get a death penalty. If the PL was going to punish PSR breaches with sporting sanctions, they should have made that clear at the beginning imho. Having a cover all rule that says what sanctions (effectively from fine to "death" penalty) can be imposed for any breach doesn't cut it for me.

It's just another poor rule, imho.

 

[hammocity]

he only went in for a tin of beans

And came out with Alphonse Groendyke (one for those who remember the Peter Reid era, I’ve used a bit of artistic licence as well)