Everton Thread - 2023/24

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Sorry, what do Girona have to do with rules agreed on by all clubs in Spain and brought in 10 years ago?

Can the conspiracy cranks put down the meth pipe for 2 minutes and stop derailing every conversation on here? Fucking Parry and Gill? Go back to 2010 if you want to row about them.

The point that I'm making is that the PL has shown it isn't fit to regulate football whatever regulations it hides behind and importing a set of regulations from a league which is just as bad won't make it any better. So stop all this crap about meth pipes and conspiracy theorists for two minutes and wake up to the fact that an independent regulator is on his way, that regulation on the Tebas model is not needed and that, as we were recently reminded by the ECJ UEFA has to abide by the law and that football competitions must meet the requirements of competition law, not the wishes of UEFA. Competition law in the UK is still, and will remain, identical to what it is in the EU. So, thank you very much but we can do without any more of your pearls of wisdom.

 

[domalino]

The point that I'm making is that the PL has shown it isn't fit to regulate football whatever regulations it hides behind and importing a set of regulations from a league which is just as bad won't make it any better. So stop all this crap about meth pipes and conspiracy theorists for two minutes and wake up to the fact that an independent regulator is on his way, that regulation on the Tebas model is not needed and that, as we were recently reminded by the ECJ UEFA has to abide by the law and that football competitions must meet the requirements of competition law, not the wishes of UEFA. Competition law in the UK is still, and will remain, identical to what it is in the EU. So, thank you very much but we can do without any more of your pearls of wisdom.

It's hard to know where to start with comments like this, but perhaps the most simple would be to point out that an independent regulator would not stop the PL investigating City, charging City, having arbitration, it won't stop FFP, in fact one of it's main roles would be to guarantee breaches are prosecuted.

It wouldn't stop what's happening to Everton and Forest for breaking the rules.

It's not going to diminish the power of anyone you've decided is evil or give more power to City.

So what is it exactly you think the independent regulator is going to improve here?


Is it worth me going into how Javier Tebas is on the side of the ECJ judgment and delighted with it? Is it worth pointing out how the fact La Liga has had this enforced for a decade proves it's fine with EU law and therefore UK law?

 

[waspish]

It's hard to know where to start with comments like this, but perhaps the most simple would be to point out that an independent regulator would not stop the PL investigating City, charging City, having arbitration, it won't stop FFP, in fact one of it's main roles would be to guarantee breaches are prosecuted.

It wouldn't stop what's happening to Everton and Forest for breaking the rules.

It's not going to diminish the power of anyone you've decided is evil or give more power to City.

So what is it exactly you think the independent regulator is going to improve here?


Is it worth me going into how Javier Tebas is on the side of the ECJ judgment and delighted with it? Is it worth pointing out how the fact La Liga has had this enforced for a decade proves it's fine with EU law and therefore UK law?

Impartiality only thing can think of..

 

[domalino]

Impartiality only thing can think of..

I predict that the fans who've convinced themselves every chairman and executive of the Premier League from 1992 onwards was corrupt and biased will simply add another name and position to their list of people who have it in for City.

 

[waspish]

I predict that the fans who've convinced themselves every chairman and executive of the Premier League from 1992 onwards was corrupt and biased will simply add another name and position to their list of people who have it in for City.

Don't know? if the independent Regulator doesn't show any bias towards any club everyone treated the same can't see a problem.

You want get clubs ganging up on one club and making them go after them!

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

It's hard to know where to start with comments like this, but perhaps the most simple would be to point out that an independent regulator would not stop the PL investigating City, charging City, having arbitration, it won't stop FFP, in fact one of it's main roles would be to guarantee breaches are prosecuted.

It wouldn't stop what's happening to Everton and Forest for breaking the rules.

It's not going to diminish the power of anyone you've decided is evil or give more power to City.

So what is it exactly you think the independent regulator is going to improve here?


Is it worth me going into how Javier Tebas is on the side of the ECJ judgment and delighted with it? Is it worth pointing out how the fact La Liga has had this enforced for a decade proves it's fine with EU law and therefore UK law?

An independent regulator would be well within his rights to ask the courts for a ruling on whether the PL's (and UEFA's) regulations can be enforced in the UK. I suspect that he would be well advised to do so in the light of some bizarre decisions by commissions investigating alleged violations. I'm thinking that a club considered to be in breach of profit and sustainability was also considered to have an owner so rich that he could simply pay a fine without difficulty! What did the points deduction actually have to do with sustainability? The crying need of professional football in England (and Europe) at the present time is investment and redistribution and not brainless regulations about acceptable revenue streams and curbs on spending. The PL has shown it might talk a great deal but does little and recently it has been called to explain why none of the cash promised to the EFL has actually materialised. So, there is scope for an independent regulator to deal with problems in the short, medium and long term. Tasks which those at the PL have shown themselves quite incapable of.

The fact that La Liga has enforced its regulations for a decade does not prove "it's fine with EU law and therefore UK law" but that it has not been challenged in court. I point out that that it was not until the Bosman ruling that recognised the right of players to move clubs on the expiry of their contracts, even though football regulations insisted clubs could retain them until a transfer fee was paid, and had done for many years. I add that the blocking of the right of players to move clubs on the expiry of their contracts was an infringement of the principle of free movement. This shows that it is the law football must obey, not just competition law.

 

[domalino]

An independent regulator would be well within his rights to ask the courts for a ruling on whether the PL's (and UEFA's) regulations can be enforced in the UK. I suspect that he would be well advised to do so in the light of some bizarre decisions by commissions investigating alleged violations.

Go on then, which bizarre decisions are these...

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Go on then, which bizarre decisions are these...

We have a decision that Everton should be deducted 10 points because they have been found to have failed regulations designed apparently to make clubs sustainable. They spent more than allowed from revenue from sponsorship, TV and gate receipts. Yet the owner cannot invest his own money to meet expenditure even though he is so rich that fining the club is pointless. Instead the club is deducted 10 points, which is likely to do real damage to the sustainability of the club. And months later it is to be punished, presumably in the same way, for the same thing. If you want to know how long it can take to come back from relegation you have only to ask their "partners in crime - Nottingham Forest. Bizarre? These rules have nothing to do with sustainability or competitive balance or any other attempt to get to grips with football's problems but are simply ill considered meddling.

 

[domalino]

We have a decision that Everton should be deducted 10 points because they have been found to have failed regulations designed apparently to make clubs sustainable. They spent more than allowed from revenue from sponsorship, TV and gate receipts. Yet the owner cannot invest his own money to meet expenditure even though he is so rich that fining the club is pointless. Instead the club is deducted 10 points, which is likely to do real damage to the sustainability of the club. And months later it is to be punished, presumably in the same way, for the same thing. If you want to know how long it can take to come back from relegation you have only to ask their "partners in crime - Nottingham Forest. Bizarre? These rules have nothing to do with sustainability or competitive balance or any other attempt to get to grips with football's problems but are simply ill considered meddling.

Genuine question - do you even know what Everton did to get deducted 10 points?

In case you don't, they used their owners massive wealth to take out loans against the club. They were borrowing money to keep the club going (hint not sustainable), but when they filed their accounts, they claimed they were stadium loans, which conveniently is out of the PSR calculations.

The PL looked at the loans, realised they weren't being used specific to building the stadium and correctly adding the interest and costs of those loans to their balance sheet took them over the £105m limit.

That limit is the bit you seem to be missing. They have been allowed to invest (Moshiri has invested £500m over the last 10 years) and they are allowed to lose over £30m a year in perpetuity purely off the back of their owner financing them. That's allowed. You can run a club at a £30m deficit every year forever if the owner wants.

So yes, they were deducted 10 points for cheating, trying to hide their losses, and when that happened they kicked up a huge fuss about how long it had taken to deliver the punishment, so the PL clubs including Everton voted for a rule which mean all punishments had to be handed down before the season ends, within 12 weeks in fact.

So they failed the next reporting period and are getting the expedited judgement they asked for. But now they're complaining about that as well, because they'd rather get punished at a more convenient time.



Finally your point about sporting punishments for financial crimes and crying about how Everton will get relegated. You do realise that Burnley, Watford, Norwich, Leicester, Leeds and Southampton DID GET RELEGATED? Because they spent what they were allowed to within the rules, and that meant they couldn't keep up with Everton's spending, and now they're stuck in the bottom tier with no exit date.

 

[shackattack]

Genuine question - do you even know what Everton did to get deducted 10 points?

In case you don't, they used their owners massive wealth to take out loans against the club. They were borrowing money to keep the club going (hint not sustainable), but when they filed their accounts, they claimed they were stadium loans, which conveniently is out of the PSR calculations.

The PL looked at the loans, realised they weren't being used specific to building the stadium and correctly adding the interest and costs of those loans to their balance sheet took them over the £105m limit.

That limit is the bit you seem to be missing. They have been allowed to invest (Moshiri has invested £500m over the last 10 years) and they are allowed to lose over £30m a year in perpetuity purely off the back of their owner financing them. That's allowed. You can run a club at a £30m deficit every year forever if the owner wants.

So yes, they were deducted 10 points for cheating, trying to hide their losses, and when that happened they kicked up a huge fuss about how long it had taken to deliver the punishment, so the PL clubs including Everton voted for a rule which mean all punishments had to be handed down before the season ends, within 12 weeks in fact.

So they failed the next reporting period and are getting the expedited judgement they asked for. But now they're complaining about that as well, because they'd rather get punished at a more convenient time.



Finally your point about sporting punishments for financial crimes and crying about how Everton will get relegated. You do realise that Burnley, Watford, Norwich, Leicester, Leeds and Southampton DID GET RELEGATED? Because they spent what they were allowed to within the rules, and that meant they couldn't keep up with Everton's spending, and now they're stuck in the bottom tier with no exit date.

If Everton had been deducted 10 points at the end of the 21/22 season Watford and Norwich would still have been relegated
In the 22/23 season had they been deducted 10 points at the end of the season Southampton would have still been relegated.