The Official Everton thread - Vol 2

[johnboy1975]

Challo said:

its an independent panel that issue out the penalties depending on the punishments. Depending on the charges means how many points are issued to the club.

I presume Everton had a couple of charges which why they got 10 reduced to 6. Forest must have a single charge which is why they got 4 points.

All charges were singular: "you've breached PSR over the 3 year time period"

If you are going to have specific rules for Championship clubs coming up (allowed to lose less - which tbf is st) you surely can't use that in mitigation

[Challo]

johnboy1975 said:

Challo said:

its an independent panel that issue out the penalties depending on the punishments. Depending on the charges means how many points are issued to the club.

I presume Everton had a couple of charges which why they got 10 reduced to 6. Forest must have a single charge which is why they got 4 points.

All charges were singular: "you've breached PSR over the 3 year time period"

If you are going to have specific rules for Championship clubs coming up (allowed to lose less - which tbf is st) you surely can't use that in mitigation

They havent though. The EFL losses are different but thats taken into account for Yr1. They had a threshold of 61m and premier league teams is 105m.

[TikTak]

johnboy1975 said:

Need to read up on the details but on the face of it, an absolute fking stitch up.

It's somewhat this and also so that they aren't punishing a promoted club too harshly as they're trying to bring the club to the next level to compete and not show that entering the PL is a futile endeavour.

It's a very delicate situation and regardless there are going to be some losers here which ever way the pendulum swings. Likely not you guys as you'll probably stay up.

[Challo]

TikTak said:

johnboy1975 said:

Need to read up on the details but on the face of it, an absolute fking stitch up.

It's somewhat this and also so that they aren't punishing a promoted club too harshly as they're trying to bring the club to the next level to compete and not show that entering the PL is a futile endeavour.

It's a very delicate situation and regardless there are going to be some losers here which ever way the pendulum swings. Likely not you guys as you'll probably stay up.

There is also an issue that the Premier League tried to introduce a set of rules with clear points punishments depending on the breaches so its clear to everyone. You break said rule this is the punishment.

The premier league clubs voted against these clear guidelines and punishments, so now its up to an independent panel to review the case, and make a decisions based on the outcome of the case and what the points deduction should be.

Its not a stitch up.

[Fast Bug]

In the ruling for our initial 10 point deduction, point 229 states 'we consider that a six point deduction is the minimum but sufficient sanction required to achieve the aims of PSR'.

Next up Forest, 4 point deduction.

[The G Kid]

Fast Bug said:

In the ruling for our initial 10 point deduction, point 229 states 'we consider that a six point deduction is the minimum but sufficient sanction required to achieve the aims of PSR'.

Next up Forest, 4 point deduction.

Think we got 6 points but 2 given back for early plea and co-operation.

[alfa phil]

Would we take 4 points deducted same as forest .
Then they appeal, then we appeal .
Little old Luton must be pleased .

[Blue62]

I don’t profess to fully grasp this minefield of rules and regulations around FFP, but it appears to my untrained eye that Forest have been docked 4 points for breaching the relevant PSR threshold of £61m by £34m while we have been docked 6 points for breaching the relevant threshold of £105m by £19.5m.

Have I got that right? If so surely we should appeal again.

[Ruskie]

Blue62 said:

I don’t profess to fully grasp this minefield of rules and regulations around FFP, but it appears to my untrained eye that Forest have been docked 4 points for breaching the relevant PSR threshold of £61m by £34m while we have been docked 6 points for breaching the relevant threshold of £105m by £19.5m.

Have I got that right? If so surely we should appeal again.

They got 2 x 3 points but got 2 points back for being honest or something made up like that.

[johnboy1975]

Ruskie said:

They got 2 x 3 points but got 2 points back for being honest or something made up like that.

By that logic we should have got 2 x 3 pts (1 year we didn't breach) then 2 back. But it's a 3 year cycle, not a 3 pt penalty per year.

What's that leave us with this time, think we breached on 1st and last year (not in public domain yet?) so 6 pts, minus 2 for cooperation, and 3 wiped for double jeopardy on the first year? I'd take a point . Or something else completely different?

I hear Challo that the clubs didn't want a set framework, but you need to follow precedent, or at least be guided by them in some shape or form.

(Edit)

There are now 4 Independent Commissions that have Sat. 1st gave us 10 pts (WTF!!!?). The appeal (IC2) gave us 6 pts. The third IC (Forests first) gave 4. Wonder what the IC (4// our 3rd) will do to us???

Edited by johnboy1975 on Monday 18th March 21:19

[Blue62]

Ruskie said:

They got 2 x 3 points but got 2 points back for being honest or something made up like that.

That’s not the case and I know you alluded to it. From what I can see there’s an accusation around the provision of incorrect information, but there’s no substance to the accusation.

In fact the two commissions appear to have provided inconsistent messaging which carry a false implication that EFC provided incorrect information. From my blue angle it looks as though they’re justifying our bigger penalty on a falsehood, if I’m right I trust the club will appeal the appeal. What a mess, I’m rapidly losing interest in football, I watch fewer games these days and find the whole thing more of a turn off with every new season. I’m probably in the minority, but I don’t love the game anymore.

[Challo]

johnboy1975 said:

By that logic we should have got 2 x 3 pts (1 year we didn't breach) then 2 back. But it's a 3 year cycle, not a 3 pt penalty per year.

What's that leave us with this time, think we breached on 1st and last year (not in public domain yet?) so 6 pts, minus 2 for cooperation, and 3 wiped for double jeopardy on the first year? I'd take a point . Or something else completely different?

I hear Challo that the clubs didn't want a set framework, but you need to follow precedent, or at least be guided by them in some shape or form

Have a listen to the podcast i mentioned. Goes into lots of detail about it. Also Kieren Maguire goes into more information today https://youtu.be/MpF0XA5Z4QM?si=o4KdBmxULzD5lKaw

It seems as though Forest and Everton got 3pts for breaching the rules, plus another 3pts for the amount of the over spend. Forest then got 2pts back for cooperation with the inquiry and get this resolved. I can only presume Everton didn’t and got 6pts.

The initial 10pts was wrongly administered and should have been 6pts anyway

[johnboy1975]

Challo said:

johnboy1975 said:

By that logic we should have got 2 x 3 pts (1 year we didn't breach) then 2 back. But it's a 3 year cycle, not a 3 pt penalty per year.

What's that leave us with this time, think we breached on 1st and last year (not in public domain yet?) so 6 pts, minus 2 for cooperation, and 3 wiped for double jeopardy on the first year? I'd take a point . Or something else completely different?

I hear Challo that the clubs didn't want a set framework, but you need to follow precedent, or at least be guided by them in some shape or form

Have a listen to the podcast i mentioned. Goes into lots of detail about it. Also Kieren Maguire goes into more information today https://youtu.be/MpF0XA5Z4QM?si=o4KdBmxULzD5lKaw

It seems as though Forest and Everton got 3pts for breaching the rules, plus another 3pts for the amount of the over spend. Forest then got 2pts back for cooperation with the inquiry and get this resolved. I can only presume Everton didn’t and got 6pts.

The initial 10pts was wrongly administered and should have been 6pts anyway

That makes a degree of sense. I'd only argue to that we cooperated fully, and any obstructions or misdirections found by the first IC were cleared by the appeal, who said we acted in good faith throughout.

I thought the appeal said "6pts is a reasonable minimum punishment for breaching" - I thought that's what we got?? Either that, or we got 8 (as it had to be less than 9 - the punishment for administration) and then 2 off for good behavior.

We've got the results in from 3 ICs now, and we are no nearer reaching a consensus - albeit your explanation makes sense in isolation

Re our first charge - Our overspend was less, so should have been: 3pts (breach) + 2 pts (for breaching by 19.5m), less 2 pts for cooperation, so 3 pts (if this particular IC had looked at it, at any rate )

Looks like a 2nd 6pt deduction is on the cards then if we've overspent by circa 30m. No reduction, as it's Everton (obviously)

And re the first charge, the first IC looked at all the evidence and said "yep, 10 pts is fair and reasonable" despite knowing it was more than the punishment for administration. Brushing it off as a mistake doesn't really cut it IMO

[Blue62]

Challo said:

Have a listen to the podcast i mentioned. Goes into lots of detail about it. Also Kieren Maguire goes into more information today https://youtu.be/MpF0XA5Z4QM?si=o4KdBmxULzD5lKaw

It seems as though Forest and Everton got 3pts for breaching the rules, plus another 3pts for the amount of the over spend. Forest then got 2pts back for cooperation with the inquiry and get this resolved. I can only presume Everton didn’t and got 6pts.

The initial 10pts was wrongly administered and should have been 6pts anyway

It there’s no substance to the claim that we didn’t cooperate, in fact the two independent commission’s have stated they don’t know how the three extra points were deducted, as Everton complied.

[hilly10]

Blue62 said:

I’m rapidly losing interest in football, I watch fewer games these days and find the whole thing more of a turn off with every new season. I’m probably in the minority, but I don’t love the game anymore.

I too watch less Pro games, and never watch us on TV as it’s to painful. I have two local teams in tier 8 and watch them most weekends, also one of the clubs is were WBA play some of their Und 21s games in midweek night games.

[johnboy1975]

This is the reasoning on Forests 4 pt deduction:




Note the entry point is different to our appeals entry point of 6


So I repeat:

johnboy1975 said:

Our first charge - Our overspend was less, so should have been: 3pts (breach) + 2 pts (for breaching by 19.5m - 2/3 of Forests breach, therefore 2/3 of the points), less 2 pts for cooperation, so 3 pts (if this particular IC had looked at it, at any rate )

This second breach, by the above rules could be either

(A) 3 pts + 1/2/3 pts (depending on scale of breach) - 2 pts for cooperation

Or

(B) 3 pts + 1/2/3 pts (depending on scale of breach) - 2 pts for cooperation - x pts for double jeopardy on first year

(Assuming we cooperated - appeal threw the non cooperation out for first offense)

Or (C) "Let's make something up completely different"

Heard a rumour "cooperation" includes not appealing, so Forest could get the 2 pts added back on if they appeal and aren't successful. Sneaky

If I were Newcastle I'd be planning a 500m buying spree based on the jpg I attached

[Fast Bug]

I'm going for option C as the PL clearly don't have a fking clue and seem to making it up as they go along

[Challo]

johnboy1975 said:

This second breach, by the above rules could be either

(A) 3 pts + 1/2/3 pts (depending on scale of breach) - 2 pts for cooperation

Or

(B) 3 pts + 1/2/3 pts (depending on scale of breach) - 2 pts for cooperation - x pts for double jeopardy on first year

(Assuming we cooperated - appeal threw the non cooperation out for first offense)

Or (C) "Let's make something up completely different"

Heard a rumour "cooperation" includes not appealing, so Forest could get the 2 pts added back on if they appeal and aren't successful. Sneaky

If I were Newcastle I'd be planning a 500m buying spree based on the jpg I attached

As you advised i think the ideal situation would be the following:

1. 3pts for initial breach

2. Addtional points then added for the scale of the breach. So 1pt for just over, and then more points the bigger the overspend.

That would give clubs clear guidance on what happens when you have a breach and how many points they would get. I think the issue is that the Premier League clubs voted against it, so its back to the independent panel.

1. 3pts for a breach
2. Another 3 pts for significant overspend (Everton and Forest both fall into this)

Everton initially got the extra 4 points because independent panel claimed they deliberalty mislead but on appeal it was reduced to 6pts.

If Newcastle went out and overspent by 500m then I suspect it wont just be 6points it would be alot more.

[alfa phil]

Challo said:

johnboy1975 said:

This second breach, by the above rules could be either

(A) 3 pts + 1/2/3 pts (depending on scale of breach) - 2 pts for cooperation

Or

(B) 3 pts + 1/2/3 pts (depending on scale of breach) - 2 pts for cooperation - x pts for double jeopardy on first year

(Assuming we cooperated - appeal threw the non cooperation out for first offense)

Or (C) "Let's make something up completely different"



Heard a rumour "cooperation" includes not appealing, so Forest could get the 2 pts added back on if they appeal and aren't successful. Sneaky

If I were Newcastle I'd be planning a 500m buying spree based on the jpg I attached

As you advised i think the ideal situation would be the following:

1. 3pts for initial breach

2. Addtional points then added for the scale of the breach. So 1pt for just over, and then more points the bigger the overspend.

That would give clubs clear guidance on what happens when you have a breach and how many points they would get. I think the issue is that the Premier League clubs voted against it, so its back to the independent panel.

1. 3pts for a breach
2. Another 3 pts for significant overspend (Everton and Forest both fall into this)

Everton initially got the extra 4 points because independent panel claimed they deliberalty mislead but on appeal it was reduced to 6pts.

If Newcastle went out and overspent by 500m then I suspect it wont just be 6points it would be alot more.

Sorry cant keep up now . :
I am finding the absent of fixtures for us the last few days and coming weekend a lot less stressful mind.
Its come to this that im enjoying my football more when we are not playing than when we are.

[johnboy1975]

Forests IC don't know how our IC got to 6 points