The Official Everton thread - Vol 2
Discussion
johnboy1975 said:
Which is why we should appeal the appeal, I thing it’s based on a falsehood that we failed to cooperate and we shouldn’t let it go. All said, it does put the sheer incompetence, bias and arrogance of the games administrators into focus. 
Blue62 said:
johnboy1975 said:
Which is why we should appeal the appeal, I thing it’s based on a falsehood that we failed to cooperate and we shouldn’t let it go. All said, it does put the sheer incompetence, bias and arrogance of the games administrators into focus. Not sure it's incompetence, it's just 3 different sets of 3 people having 3 different views. I'm not sure why our appeal didn't set the precedent though? 6 pts for a breach (which admittedly contradicts my opening paragraph).
3 for a breach isn't much of a disincentive, as I mooted earlier with Newcastle. Yes they can get additional for blatantly taking the piss, but it's limited to 8, and good behaviour gets a 2 pt reduction (apparently). Can they overcome 6 pts with Mbappe and Bellingham and Branthwaite, for eg? And then sponsorship goes through the roof... All a bit moot really as they are changing the formula to wages being a percentage of turnover - not sure where net spend fits into it? (Net spend + wages <= 70% Turnover I guess?? Do we comply with this new model, anyone know? Would largely depend on factors like interest payments I suppose. No doubt we'll be serial offenders if we fail 3 times on the bounce (double jeopardy aside))
Apparently the football bill goes to parliament today and one of the things on it is an independent regulator - the very thing the PL are desperate to avoid (that's why they've handled the whole FFP thing so well
). Not sure of the ins and ours of it, or whether it's beneficial or harmful to us in particular, or the Premiership in general - but anything that Richard Masters doesn't want is a good thing in my book Blue62 said:
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.
https://www.skysports.com/share/13097666
johnboy1975 said:
All a bit moot really as they are changing the formula to wages being a percentage of turnover - not sure where net spend fits into it? (Net spend + wages <= 70% Turnover I guess?? Do we comply with this new model, anyone know?
Hazard a guess? The below is 22/22 season and we've lost a few chunky earners since then and have a few more due off the wage bill at the end of the season
The issue is we'll need to replace those big earners and don't really have a pot to piss in right now...
When we move in to BMD things will improve again, but it's going to be a struggle tbh. We've gone from a tightly run ship with Moyes in charge as Bill had f
k all money to spend, to pissing huge amounts of money up the wall under Being an Everton fan really is like death by 1000 cuts
I didn't realize we were that high that late into Moshiris reign. I thought we'd cut by then, but 21/22 could be when we realized the st had hit the fan.
It's much less now, so we should be comfortably under. Touch wood. Things like Godfrey on 70k a week don't help though
This close season will be interesting. I think we lose five or six players (first teamers, albeit 2 on loan): Coleman, Gueye, Gomes, Danjuma, Harrison, Young (also Deli Alli )
Add in potential sales of Onana and (perish the thought) Branthwaite and we start to lookrather threadbare slightly fked. Especially if sales fund stadium interest rather than incomings (rumoured at 30m pa, but certainly in the tens of millions)
Onana won't raise all that much even at 60m, with a 20% sell on to Lille - about 20m after they get their cut - and that's got to fund a whole new team, almost. So I think Branthwaite will have to go as well which will break my heart.
Gueye would get a 1 year extension for me, Coleman the keys to the city and a pay to play deal with a coaching role (if he wants it). Possibly buy Harrison if the money was right (<15m) but I know opinion is divided on him and can't say I'm really arsed, other than we *need* wingers, and Dyche seems to like him.
We need to start playing to Dom's strengths, get the ball in where he likes it and get him scoring (and Chermiti learning). As such Beto is surplus to requirements for me, anyone want to pay 30m? Anyone???? Maupay should trigger his clause and leave for Brentford in the summer, so that's another chunk of stadium interest paid off
t had hit the fan.It's much less now, so we should be comfortably under. Touch wood. Things like Godfrey on 70k a week don't help though
This close season will be interesting. I think we lose five or six players (first teamers, albeit 2 on loan): Coleman, Gueye, Gomes, Danjuma, Harrison, Young (also Deli Alli )
Add in potential sales of Onana and (perish the thought) Branthwaite and we start to look
ked. Especially if sales fund stadium interest rather than incomings (rumoured at 30m pa, but certainly in the tens of millions)Onana won't raise all that much even at 60m, with a 20% sell on to Lille - about 20m after they get their cut - and that's got to fund a whole new team, almost. So I think Branthwaite will have to go as well which will break my heart.
Gueye would get a 1 year extension for me, Coleman the keys to the city and a pay to play deal with a coaching role (if he wants it). Possibly buy Harrison if the money was right (<15m) but I know opinion is divided on him and can't say I'm really arsed, other than we *need* wingers, and Dyche seems to like him.
We need to start playing to Dom's strengths, get the ball in where he likes it and get him scoring (and Chermiti learning). As such Beto is surplus to requirements for me, anyone want to pay 30m? Anyone???? Maupay should trigger his clause and leave for Brentford in the summer, so that's another chunk of stadium interest paid off
Ruskie said:
I’m not sure we are on the same page Ruskie. My limited understanding is that we were awarded additional punishment because of non compliance, but there’s no substance to that claim, in fact there’s evidence to the contrary. Blue62 said:
Ruskie said:
I’m not sure we are on the same page Ruskie. My limited understanding is that we were awarded additional punishment because of non compliance, but there’s no substance to that claim, in fact there’s evidence to the contrary. The page above (for Forest) should be a pre requisite for any hearing. A nice concise summary
If they are finding their feet as they go along, then so be it but you'd think someone, somewhere could explain our 6 points in a clear manner, and retrospectively issue a page like above if one doesn't exist already.In a way it might just be a misunderstanding....our 6 could be identical to Forest's "3 minimum, plus 3 for severity" - IF you deem a 19.5m overspend in the same bracket as a 33m one. Which isn't that unreasonable IMO. What is unreasonable is we've been fined more points for a smaller breach, and conferred less of a sporting advantage - which, whilst there's nothing per se in the rules about, Richard Masters and the PL have been banging the drum about for 3 months. More made up nonsense :clowns:
Then I'd just like to know how you qualify for a 2 point discount, as as far as I'm concerned we did everything Forest did, plus you need to consider the ""inconvenience "" of being deducted the wrong amount of points for 3 months. The PL should come out and say "you cooperated, so we'll add two points back on, so the punishment is proportionate to Forests". Or "you didn't cooperate, so it's still 6" - and let's have the argument out in the open.
Bet they don't
Our second charge is looking like 3+3-x (cooperation) - y (double jeopardy). So we are inching nearer a framework...and I can't see how we get more than Forest (unless it's a massive breach)
Edited by johnboy1975 on Tuesday 19th March 20:48
Blue62 said:
Ruskie said:
I’m not sure we are on the same page Ruskie. My limited understanding is that we were awarded additional punishment because of non compliance, but there’s no substance to that claim, in fact there’s evidence to the contrary. Fast Bug said:
I see Forest are appealing their points deduction. It's going to be tight if we get a deduction and then appeal it, I cam honestly see the season ending and a couple of teams not knowing if they've avoided the drop or not.
Shambles springs to mind
They should have done ours at the same time. Different panels, so that's not an issue.Shambles springs to mind
Guess they are appealing on the grounds their mitigations were "ignored". For me, they were considered, and thrown out. Might as well allow our mitigations for stadium interest if they allow Forests...
Hopefully we hear the appeal result within the window for our IC's appeal. 2 day hearing (Forest was 3, think our first was 3??) so hopefully that's because we cooperated, and any token 2 pt penalty (4pts, 2 off for Double Jeopardy) is therefore wiped out for being "good boys".
Think we stay up regardless unless we get absolutely hammered. Providing we can win some games of football
I can't see what Forest will gain in this appeal. They clearly broke the rules and even agreed to it.
They can't argue about the sale of a player earlier or later because all clubs have to do this if they are close to P&S breach. To me they should have got -6 points as its a breach and that way it is fair.
Forest also didn't need to buy a load of players, that were their choice. They can argue that they needed to, to ensure survival but that isn't always the case. I'm hoping the appeal happens and then they get -6 instead, won't happen though. The process needs to hurry up because both clubs need to know where they are at well before the end of the season.
They can't argue about the sale of a player earlier or later because all clubs have to do this if they are close to P&S breach. To me they should have got -6 points as its a breach and that way it is fair.
Forest also didn't need to buy a load of players, that were their choice. They can argue that they needed to, to ensure survival but that isn't always the case. I'm hoping the appeal happens and then they get -6 instead, won't happen though. The process needs to hurry up because both clubs need to know where they are at well before the end of the season.
I see it both ways, Forest could have loaned players in for their first season in the PL. They could have bought less and/or lower value players.
However more than likely both of those options would have seen them go back down again. The system is flawed and skewed towards the bigger clubs, but we know that already
However more than likely both of those options would have seen them go back down again. The system is flawed and skewed towards the bigger clubs, but we know that already
The G Kid said:
That's not really correct. A large percentage of players that got promoted were on loan, so players had to be bought.
They didn't have to pay stupid wages. They brought in like 25 players. Bought and loaned high end players on big wages. They didn't have to but they did. Now paying the price. Ankh87 said:
The G Kid said:
That's not really correct. A large percentage of players that got promoted were on loan, so players had to be bought.
They didn't have to pay stupid wages. They brought in like 25 players. Bought and loaned high end players on big wages. They didn't have to but they did. Now paying the price. Whilst I agree partly with the G Kid, they also bought badly, and overpaid on wages. Which sounds depressingly familiar
Which might be a failing of FFP...if you buy badly you're toast, as you are stuck with a player on huge money no one else wants, and who barely warms your bench. Whilst it isn't just luck, there's definitely an element of good fortune involved, else everyone would just buy a Mo Salah for 30m or a Branthwaite for a couple of million. (So that's one we got very right
)I wouldn't believe everything you read about wages. A huge amount of fiction on loads of the players we signed, in particular "J-Lingz". The worst signing was Shelvey but even that wasn't hugely costly. Most of the others that have already gone were for a small loss, and there are big paper profits on a lot of signings.
Forest also spent less than Everton over the previous 3 years, yet finished above them. And I presume less than Leeds, Saints and Leicester. It's obviously no defence against breaking the rules but it should add a bit of perspective.
Forest also spent less than Everton over the previous 3 years, yet finished above them. And I presume less than Leeds, Saints and Leicester. It's obviously no defence against breaking the rules but it should add a bit of perspective.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff