The Official Everton thread - Vol 2
Discussion
johnboy1975 said:
Well we've already been punished for the first two years. And showed a positive FFP balance for the third year. Case dismissed yer honour 
Anyone know if the methodology for us getting the 6 points has been published? It can't be "finger in the air".
Presumably the first commission royally f
ked up by issuing 10pts, as to my knowledge we didn't present new evidence - Just repeated them with a more expensive lawyer 
Btw, my "Exoneration" would have been them accepting the overspend was on the stadium and not on the playing squad and all 10 Pts cancelled
The £19m overspend already accounted for the stadium cost apparentlyAnyone know if the methodology for us getting the 6 points has been published? It can't be "finger in the air".
Presumably the first commission royally f
ked up by issuing 10pts, as to my knowledge we didn't present new evidence - Just repeated them with a more expensive lawyer Btw, my "Exoneration" would have been them accepting the overspend was on the stadium and not on the playing squad and all 10 Pts cancelled
pavarotti1980 said:
The £19m overspend already accounted for the stadium cost apparently
Not convinced. Would we really have breached without erecting an 800m stadium?? (I've said before, if that wasn't the question being asked, then it bloody well should have been).Arsenal had trouble with limited funds for players after building the Emirates, Spurs also after building the TH stadium. City got given theirs, ditto West Ham (albeit they rent). Man Utd want a levelling up grant to rebuild Old Trafford....It's an expensive game.
Secondary point, if you allow 20% inflation over 10 years, then we were compliant
Which we don't seem to have raised as an issue...
The appeal only succeeded on 2 points out of 9.
£10m was due to us not sacking 'player X' and standing by his contract and another chunk was because we thought we'd get more for Richie.
There's also the loss of sponsorship from Russia and stadium naming rights. Although I'd argue these 2 are clearly dodgy self sponsorship deals so probably shouldn't be infused any way
There's also the loss of sponsorship from Russia and stadium naming rights. Although I'd argue these 2 are clearly dodgy self sponsorship deals so probably shouldn't be infused any way
johnboy1975 said:
Not convinced. Would we really have breached without erecting an 800m stadium?? (I've said before, if that wasn't the question being asked, then it bloody well should have been).
Arsenal had trouble with limited funds for players after building the Emirates, Spurs also after building the TH stadium. City got given theirs, ditto West Ham (albeit they rent). Man Utd want a levelling up grant to rebuild Old Trafford....It's an expensive game.
Secondary point, if you allow 20% inflation over 10 years, then we were compliant Which we don't seem to have raised as an issue...
The appeal only succeeded on 2 points out of 9.
The whole thing is a bit of a moot point anyway since Everton admitted the breach. Their argument has only ever been the severity of the punishment and not the overspend.Arsenal had trouble with limited funds for players after building the Emirates, Spurs also after building the TH stadium. City got given theirs, ditto West Ham (albeit they rent). Man Utd want a levelling up grant to rebuild Old Trafford....It's an expensive game.
Secondary point, if you allow 20% inflation over 10 years, then we were compliant
Which we don't seem to have raised as an issue...The appeal only succeeded on 2 points out of 9.
They got there in the end when they realised they tried and failed to "chance it" with their original PSR submission
Everton’s Amended Answer
48. In its original Answer Everton asserted that it was not in breach of the PSR, in the alternative that it had substantial mitigation. The mitigation took the
form of the fact that it faced unexpected financial losses (stadium costs, the player termination loss, and Covid expenses), together with the fact that it had cooperated fully with the Premier League’s investigations. It set out the details of that cooperation, which culminated in the August 2021 agreement,
and continued thereafter. Everton maintained that it also took real steps to reduce its losses: it cited detailed examples from the summer 2021 and
January 2022 transfer windows.
49. Everton’s case changed significantly in its Amended Answer. In the Amended Answer Everton admitted a breach of the PSR but disputed the size
of the breach. It asserts that the Premier League has wrongly failed to exclude the Transfer Levy sums (£7.6 million) and the pre-planning stadium interest 17 sums (£4.1 million). The Transfer Levy sums should be excluded because they constitute Youth Development Expenditure. The pre-planning stadium interest sums should be excluded to achieve the same position as if the project had been financed externally. If those sums had been excluded the correct
PSR loss would have been £112.9 million – £7.9 million above the £105
million threshold.
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Tuesday 27th February 09:55
pavarotti1980 said:
johnboy1975 said:
Not convinced. Would we really have breached without erecting an 800m stadium?? (I've said before, if that wasn't the question being asked, then it bloody well should have been).
Arsenal had trouble with limited funds for players after building the Emirates, Spurs also after building the TH stadium. City got given theirs, ditto West Ham (albeit they rent). Man Utd want a levelling up grant to rebuild Old Trafford....It's an expensive game.
Secondary point, if you allow 20% inflation over 10 years, then we were compliant Which we don't seem to have raised as an issue...
The appeal only succeeded on 2 points out of 9.
The whole thing is a bit of a moot point anyway since Everton admitted the breach. Their argument has only ever been the severity of the punishment and not the overspend.Arsenal had trouble with limited funds for players after building the Emirates, Spurs also after building the TH stadium. City got given theirs, ditto West Ham (albeit they rent). Man Utd want a levelling up grant to rebuild Old Trafford....It's an expensive game.
Secondary point, if you allow 20% inflation over 10 years, then we were compliant
Which we don't seem to have raised as an issue...The appeal only succeeded on 2 points out of 9.
They got there in the end when they realised they tried and failed to "chance it" with their original PSR submission
Everton’s Amended Answer
48. In its original Answer Everton asserted that it was not in breach of the PSR, in the alternative that it had substantial mitigation. The mitigation took the
form of the fact that it faced unexpected financial losses (stadium costs, the player termination loss, and Covid expenses), together with the fact that it had cooperated fully with the Premier League’s investigations. It set out the details of that cooperation, which culminated in the August 2021 agreement,
and continued thereafter. Everton maintained that it also took real steps to reduce its losses: it cited detailed examples from the summer 2021 and
January 2022 transfer windows.
49. Everton’s case changed significantly in its Amended Answer. In the Amended Answer Everton admitted a breach of the PSR but disputed the size
of the breach. It asserts that the Premier League has wrongly failed to exclude the Transfer Levy sums (£7.6 million) and the pre-planning stadium interest 17 sums (£4.1 million). The Transfer Levy sums should be excluded because they constitute Youth Development Expenditure. The pre-planning stadium interest sums should be excluded to achieve the same position as if the project had been financed externally. If those sums had been excluded the correct
PSR loss would have been £112.9 million – £7.9 million above the £105
million threshold.
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Tuesday 27th February 09:55
Whoever thought 10 pts was appropriate needs a good shake. I still feel robbed @ 6 but I guess we're out of appeals and so move on...to the next sanction
Odds of getting 6 + 6 and fulfilling Richard Masters vision of 12 points? Bloke must be psychic
(I'll be seriously pissed off if we do get another 6, as already said, we've already been punished for two of the three years, and were compliant with PSR in most recent year...showing a positive trend)
I think Forest get 8 and we get maybe 4...don't want a transfer ban, as well have 100m+ outgoing this summer no doubt (Branthwaite and Onana) and we need to buy to replace. And crucially, buy well.
I think we'll get the same points deduction as Forest. And if we do get a transfer ban, we really can't let any players go.
And does a transfer ban include bosmans? We may need to box clever and pick up a couple of players on a free as there are afew players we could pick up that would bolster the squad and possibly improve the first 11. I need a chat with Kevin Thelwell as I always pick up decent free signings on Football Manager
And does a transfer ban include bosmans? We may need to box clever and pick up a couple of players on a free as there are afew players we could pick up that would bolster the squad and possibly improve the first 11. I need a chat with Kevin Thelwell as I always pick up decent free signings on Football Manager
Liverpool Echoes Everton podcast paints a substantially bleaker picture of our 2nd breach.
First appeal failed on practically everything bar "10 points is too much" and we got credit for "winding it in a bit in 3rd year". All the stadium stuff basically got thrown out
This latest breach appears to show we aren't even going in the right direction, with a suspected 40m+ breach (is that 40m over the 35m limit, or 5m over??) so that mitigation may not be available to us.
Double jeopardy not a convincing argument as thanks to reigning it in we had 1 bad year and 1 good year prior to latest figures, meaning we had a decent cushion for the latest financial year, and have seemingly fked it up. Not entirely sure how given the sales, the reduction in wages, and the amortization of Beto and Chemitri etc. (for me, it comes back to the stadium again, but apparently I'm wrong)
Does that mean we are looking at 8 pts?
Worth a watch, sorry can't seem to embed the link. At least it's clicky...
https://www.youtube.com/live/_H_RzSwoL38?si=N7TZtO...
First appeal failed on practically everything bar "10 points is too much" and we got credit for "winding it in a bit in 3rd year". All the stadium stuff basically got thrown out
This latest breach appears to show we aren't even going in the right direction, with a suspected 40m+ breach (is that 40m over the 35m limit, or 5m over??) so that mitigation may not be available to us.
Double jeopardy not a convincing argument as thanks to reigning it in we had 1 bad year and 1 good year prior to latest figures, meaning we had a decent cushion for the latest financial year, and have seemingly f
ked it up. Not entirely sure how given the sales, the reduction in wages, and the amortization of Beto and Chemitri etc. (for me, it comes back to the stadium again, but apparently I'm wrong)Does that mean we are looking at 8 pts?
Worth a watch, sorry can't seem to embed the link. At least it's clicky...
https://www.youtube.com/live/_H_RzSwoL38?si=N7TZtO...
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff