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
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
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.
Grassland Blue
Well-Known Member
I
I think that this message needs sharing with a wider audience.Because they only went over by a few million whereas the rags are hundreds of million in debt yet continue to spend with impunity.
This forensic examination of clubs’ finances was orchestrated by Utd because they feared they could no longer just outspend everyone, other clubs were catching up and overtaking them. Sky and the PL wanted a one club league, with their rag cash cow prevailing each season over one of their other favourites, Liverpool or Arsenal, with one of those winning it occasionally to keep it ‘interesting’.
Chelsea came along and fucked that up for them, then us, now Newcastle. The rag cunts and their sycophants are running scared and looking for ways to drag football back to the 90s. Everton are an easy first target, no threat, not a huge overspend, but a warning to others that this financial witch-hunt has some teeth. These ‘rules’ are just contrived to help Utd. Every other club should be fighting this arbitrary financial bollocks.
How can it be ok to be £400m in debt but not ok to overspend by less than a third of what the rags paid for Maguire?
Pezzer2
Well-Known Member
City fans have said this for years and I wish the likes of Everton, Villa and Newcastle fans can understand how pathetic FFP is and was formed to protect the elite clubs at the time the so called G14. I think the penny has dropped with Newcastle fans now at least.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.
FFP was never introduced for the protection of clubs , never has been and never will. Its a farce in my opinion and a lot of clubs can only grow so far and have been hindered . Yet United nearly a billion in debt and are fine.
Elbow beards
Well-Known Member
Welcome to our world mate. How else do you think we won the treble. Nothing fires you up better.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.
They cant even apply the rules consistently to 2 clubs from the same City. Liverpool had a £50 mil loss miraculously put against a new Stadium (that was never ever getting built) and walked away scot free without punishment!!The point is that the rules are slanted in favour of certain clubs who it appears can do what they want, the PL need to apply their rules evenly or not have them at all.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 70,085
So we went over by £19m.
But the 10pts deduction could be the difference in 5 or 6 places, which is £12-15m. Then if other clubs sue it could cost millions more.
Where is the incentive to work with the PL? If I was Newcastle now, i'd be saying fuck the rules, go for it and we will buy that much quality the 12pt max deduction wont matter.
But the 10pts deduction could be the difference in 5 or 6 places, which is £12-15m. Then if other clubs sue it could cost millions more.
Where is the incentive to work with the PL? If I was Newcastle now, i'd be saying fuck the rules, go for it and we will buy that much quality the 12pt max deduction wont matter.
Grassland Blue
Well-Known Member
The points deduction would matter though - as it would probably mean no C/L for them and one of the 'favoured' clubs (rags) getting their spot.So we went over by £19m.
But the 10pts deduction could be the difference in 5 or 6 places, which is £12-15m. Then if other clubs sue it could cost millions more.
Where is the incentive to work with the PL? If I was Newcastle now, i'd be saying fuck the rules, go for it and we will buy that much quality the 12pt max deduction wont matter.
standupifyouhatemanu
Well-Known Member
You play in blue they play in redIn 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.
The points deduction would matter though - as it would probably mean no C/L for them and one of the 'favoured' clubs (rags) getting their spot.
Not if they get to your level, the level they want. 12 points to you now may mean a struggle for the title but you would still piss the CL spots.
Cant see them making CL as it stands. It will take them 5 or 6 years to get to where you are due to the restraints. All the while, yourselves, Arsenal, Spurs etc can still spend on quality players too. So they will always be playing catch up really if the follow the rules.
Well, they were hell bent to get us.
Whole thing is absolute bullshit hope you fight it both as fans and a club.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.