Everton Thread - 2023/24

Playing devil's advocate
By overspending against the FSR they maintained their PL status which, meant the fans benefited by watching PL football, how else would they have seen the PL , European and World Champions? Whereas other clubs fans had to endure Championship football and miss out on seeing "the best team in the land and all the world" because their clubs abided by the rules
playing devil's advocate, they could have maintained being small not tried to progress by building a new bigger stadium and they would have passed the test then.
 
We admitted the charge, the argument was always that the punishment was way over the top.

No idea what this means for the second breach, however one of the commissions points was about using the EFL as they were the closest guidelines available. If thats the case, the EFL doesnt have double jeopardy. Two of our big overspend years have already been punished in the 6 points. Be interesting to see what happens next.

Also, a lot of our ITK's have said Forests overspend was a lot more than our £19.5m and there were no off field factors so they maybe hit hard.
 
We admitted the charge, the argument was always that the punishment was way over the top.

No idea what this means for the second breach, however one of the commissions points was about using the EFL as they were the closest guidelines available. If thats the case, the EFL doesnt have double jeopardy. Two of our big overspend years have already been punished in the 6 points. Be interesting to see what happens next.

Also, a lot of our ITK's have said Forests overspend was a lot more than our £19.5m and there were no off field factors so they maybe hit hard.

the punishment is still way over the top, no doubt about it
 
And how they failed FFP but got a joke token fine compared to Evertons point deduction.
As others have said, making it up as they go

I think that was Uefa FFP and a small fine

I think they could be in trouble very soon with the Premier League FFP because they have failed to break even and made losses over the benchmark over 3 years and also their debt has grown
 
If it’s for the same thing, they have to get the same punishment.

Do we know if it's the same sort of thing?
I heard it's more about a sponsorship fudging and inflated the deal ? something in my head says it was over £200 million and they used the money on new players when they should have not been spending
 
Do we know if it's the same sort of thing?
I heard it's more about a sponsorship fudging and inflated the deal ? something in my head says it was over £200 million and they used the money on new players when they should have not been spending
The breach will be the same, as in they’ve lost more than £105m in the 3 year rolling period.

Why that happened might be different though, but it seems unlikely to be that different as they were still disputing the original breach well into this financial year.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.