Everton Thread - 2023/24

[domalino]

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.

If Everton hadn't broken the spending rules they'd not have been able to afford to fire Benitez for Ferguson or hire Dyche, and maybe been a lot worse than 10 points off, or one of those clubs would have gotten him instead.

The important thing is this is not just a financial mishap with financial consequences. It impacts the football as well.

 

[BlueLou82]

Sums it up.

 

[shackattack]

If Everton hadn't broken the spending rules they'd not have been able to afford to fire Benitez for Ferguson or hire Dyche, and maybe been a lot worse than 10 points off, or one of those clubs would have gotten him instead.

The important thing is this is not just a financial mishap with financial consequences. It impacts the football as well.

Ifs and buts, if the teams you mentioned had performed better they'd have been further up the league. We messed up financially but does the punishment fit the crime so be it? Had we gone into administration we would have I believe only got a 9 points deduction.
So where did the PL get a 10 points deduction from. The lack of transparency in their process is alarming, and you get the impression they're making it up as they go along.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

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.

Genuine question do you know that Everton are not the only club to do this? And do you know they haven't all been sanctioned in any way? And do you know that it isn't against the law? And that the PL can have an opinion on what these loans were used for but it is just an opinion. And that the limit on owner investment has no basis in law, but is just a figure the PL has dreamt up. And the teams you cite have indeed been relegated, just as teams have been relegated over the years - for losing football matches and finishing in the relegation places. What they have NOT been relegated for are "financial crimes" which aren't crimes at all and which have no demonstrable connection with success on the pitch. The rules to which you allude as though quoting the ten commandments or the sermon on the mount are the product of an organisation which is not a sovereign body, which has a seedy past and even seedier present and now presumes to dictate on the commercial affairs of its members. And independent regulation is coming and NOT because of satisfaction with the way the PL is regulating itself. And its not hard to see why.

 

[domalino]

Ifs and buts, if the teams you mentioned had performed better they'd have been further up the league. We messed up financially but does the punishment fit the crime so be it? Had we gone into administration we would have I believe only got a 9 points deduction.
So where did the PL get a 10 points deduction from. The lack of transparency in their process is alarming, and you get the impression they're making it up as they go along.

So let’s not have any rules?

You can pay off referees. If the other teams were good enough they’d still win.

 

[domalino]

Genuine question do you know that Everton are not the only club to do this?

Yes they are. Don’t bring the Liverpool comparison they’re completely different rules and governing bodies.

And do you know that it isn't against the law?

Literally no one has claimed it is. People break contracts all the time for things that aren’t illegal and get punished. Zero defence at all.

And that the PL can have an opinion on what these loans were used for but it is just an opinion

Uh no, The Premier League looked at the contracts for the loans to work out they weren’t for the stadium as claimed.

And that the limit on owner investment has no basis in law

Again, no one is bringing the law into this expect you. Everyone else understand that you agreed to rules and laws of the game that go beyond English Law, which by the way doesn’t make handballs illegal, but they still get punished in football, how unfair!

And the teams you cite have indeed been relegated, just as teams have been relegated over the years - for losing football matches and finishing in the relegation places. What they have NOT been relegated for are "financial crimes" which aren't crimes at all and which have no demonstrable connection with success on the pitch.

Yes, and mostly likely you’ll be one of them.

The fact you’re the first to get caught punished for cheating really isn’t a defence.

The rules to which you allude as though quoting the ten commandments or the sermon on the mount are

They are rules that EFC has agreed to and has voted for and to great comedic effect that includes FFP.

If Everton thought the PL rules were uncompetitive they have had 30 years (10 in the case of PSR) to challenge them legally, but they didn’t have a problem with them.

You don’t get to break all the rules you signed up to and then claim they’re not fair after you’ve been caught. I said the same thing all through our UEFA battle. If you want to change rules you challenge them, don’t cheat. Which fortunately City were not found to have done.

Everton didn’t have to vote for FFP but they did.

Everton didn’t have to vote against specific punishments for specific breaches, but they did,

Everton didn’t have to vote for the covid seasons being condensed into one for the calculations, but they did.


And now you’re facing the consequence of those decisions.

 

[shackattack]

The PL change its sanctions policy to suit - look at Paragraphs 84, 86 and 90 of their guidelines regarding breaches of PSR
It's akin to a government handing new sentence guidelines to a judge in the middle of a particular trial. We already have the PL saying that the Chair of the last hearing will also be selecting the individuals to sit on an appeals hearing. Fairness and impartiality? Why is there no mention of the current sanctions regime in the PL handbook. Where these sanctions shared with the PL clubs and endorsed by them. It seems they weren't even aware of them until they read about it in the findings.
It will be interesting once the legal teams get to grips with it all.

 

[domalino]

The PL change its sanctions policy to suit - look at Paragraphs 84, 86 and 90 of their guidelines regarding breaches of PSR

What is it you disagree with in those paragraphs?

Also a link so everyone can read would be good.

 

[shackattack]

Paragraph 84 - reference made to 5 years earlier that the EFL adopted sanctioning guidelines for breaches of it's PSR
Paragraph 85 - the PL has not incorporated any such guidelines in it's rules
Paragraph 86 - in August 23 - the PL board adopts a PSR sanctions policy which the Chief Executive presents to the Commision.
So they clearly changed the process and sanctions in order to present a case against Everton.
Paragraph 89 - registers the Commisions concern that it was set up on this basis by the PL and that there was an attempt to change it in the middle of the case

I would say there is evidence of an inappropriate attempt to influence due process.
I would also question how independent the Commission actually is. We end up with an arbitrary decision which appears to result from pressure applied by the PL.
Anyone can download the Commission report it's easy enough to do.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

It may be a matter of embarrassment to Everton fans that their club voted in favour of these regulations but it's of no significance. The law is the law and subject to change only by votes in Parliament. And this is the nub of the matter. I am not outlining a dream world of what I see in the future but a clear statement of what the situation is at the moment and what is likely to remain the situation in the long term. That is, that the PL is not a sovereign body and its existence does not I believe, have any statutory basis. Whether we like it or not it is subject to the law of the land and its activities are regulated by that law. It is unlikely to be a cause of conflict if the PL were to try and change the handball rule or what is offside: it may cause trouble if the PL were to say that only teams in red could have a team of 11 players while teams in blue could only have 10 since this would offend against legal principles of fair competition.

Much more contentious are questions of commerce. Enshrined in UK law are principles of equal and fair competition and protection for the rights of investors. The market is to be free, though there is also regulation but regulation by Parliament to protect these vital principles. What is evident is that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the activities of the PL: at the treatment of Nottingham Forest and especially Everton, but also with the way the investigation into City's affairs seems to be dragging on interminably. These "cases" have in common that these cases are based on accusations that the clubs have broken rules which are clearly at odds with the law of the land - and matters which legal opinion holds to be no business of football authorities.

Now this could open a real can of worms. If a club/owner can demonstrate that he/his club has suffered material loss from these regulations the consequences for the PL could be serious. From the threat of litigation by Leeds and Leicester we could move to litigation by Everton and Forest. These will be problems demanding the independent regulator's immediate attention. The future may be problematic to say the least.