The Official Everton thread - Vol 2
Discussion
Adam. said:
One of the few sensible summaries by the athletic
https://theathletic.com/5072039/2023/11/17/everton...
There is some PH trick around the firewall IIRC
Tryhttps://theathletic.com/5072039/2023/11/17/everton...
There is some PH trick around the firewall IIRC
https://archive.ph/WTLcM
A good read.
johnboy1975 said:
WTF are Leeds suing us for? That if the points had gone on last season, they'd have finished 18th instead of 19th?? I'm not seeing the 100m loss...
Leeds, Leicester and Burnley are suing you because if you weren't allowed to spend on players, then you might have had to sell certain key players, like Pickford, just to stay above board. Thus making Everton weaker that it already were. Yes this is all what ifs but it is understandable. I personally think that this is going to get over turned. Even if it doesn't have you seen how bad the other teams are? How you you get -10 points and still not be bottom when you only had 14 points to start with. A win at the weekend and other results go your way, then you'll be out of the bottom 3 again. Honestly not worth worrying about.
What is a worry is if this follows onto next season, you'd definitely struggle then if you started off with negative points.
The overspend was on accounting and interest payments, the value of an unamed player and a shortfall in the estimated value of Richie. Its not on players, so I can't see any legal case having much in the way of legs.
The case also could not be brought forward any earlier, and that is down to the PL and independent panel. So it's not like we could've been docked points any earlier either
The case also could not be brought forward any earlier, and that is down to the PL and independent panel. So it's not like we could've been docked points any earlier either
Fast Bug said:
The overspend was on accounting and interest payments, the value of an unamed player and a shortfall in the estimated value of Richie. Its not on players, so I can't see any legal case having much in the way of legs.
The case also could not be brought forward any earlier, and that is down to the PL and independent panel. So it's not like we could've been docked points any earlier either
Exactly that. I think it will thrown out due to the PL timing. ITS NOT EVERTONS FAULT we supplied and complied with all asked of us. End of, just cannot see how they can sue us on ifs and buts.The case also could not be brought forward any earlier, and that is down to the PL and independent panel. So it's not like we could've been docked points any earlier either
Ankh87 said:
Leeds, Leicester and Burnley are suing you because if you weren't allowed to spend on players, then you might have had to sell certain key players, like Pickford, just to stay above board. Thus making Everton weaker that it already were. Yes this is all what ifs but it is understandable.
We weren't allowed to spend. Every transfer had to be sanctioned by the PL.Why are Leeds suing though? They were down even if we'd had 20 points deducted (and in a timely manner).
Just checked to see if they finished 18th in one of 3 seasons in the disputed 3 year period. Nope, didn't think so. Last relegation prior to last season (when they finished 19th) was 2004
Another +1 for Fastbugs post
franki68 said:
Not sure how they can sue , it will be lawsuits revolving around ifs and buts with little evidence .
Yep. You can throw in the fact if we'd been deducted points, you can't prove that it wouldn't have galvanized the team and we'd pick up extra points. You can't just subtract 6 or 10 points off our total and say "that's it - you are down".johnboy1975 said:
Yep. You can throw in the fact if we'd been deducted points, you can't prove that it wouldn't have galvanized the team and we'd pick up extra points. You can't just subtract 6 or 10 points off our total and say "that's it - you are down".
I think there's more to it unfortunately, but currently AIUI only Burnley could sue because they were the team relegated ahead of us in the season in question, the other two were doomed in any event. However, it's being rumoured that there's more to come for 2023 season, where we may well have been in breach again but because our accounts have yet to be filed no action has yet been taken. The (very good) Athletic article mentioned a number of contributing factors to the new SCS h but player wise it seems to be:
Sold Richarlison for 60 not 80
Siggurdson issue
Another player you hoped to sell for good money but instead re-contracted
Who was the 3rd one? Seems a bit daft as that might have made the difference
Sold Richarlison for 60 not 80
Siggurdson issue
Another player you hoped to sell for good money but instead re-contracted
Who was the 3rd one? Seems a bit daft as that might have made the difference
Edited by Adam. on Sunday 26th November 10:24
johnboy1975 said:
WTF are Leeds suing us for? That if the points had gone on last season, they'd have finished 18th instead of 19th?? I'm not seeing the 100m loss...
As a Leeds fan I tend to agree; we survived in 2021/22 and would have been relegated in 2022/23 regardless of whether or not Everton had received a points deduction. Therefore, the only claim we have is we'd have finished higher in those two seasons if Everton had had a points deduction applied and would therefore have been entitled to receive more "prize money" from the Premier League. However, the difference for finishing a place higher is more like £2m (so £4m or £5m for the two seasons combined, not £100m).I think Burnley and Leicester have stronger claims though - they went down because Everton avoided a points deduction in either 21/22 or 22/23 and the financial impact of relegation from the PL is obviously much more significant than the increased prize money associated with finishing a place higher.
Edited by JNW1 on Sunday 26th November 09:48
hilly10 said:
I cannot see how they have a retrospective claim as it’s not Everton’s fault the punishment was dished out late, plus we had completely complied with the PL dates and requirements.
This. I'm not sure what the delay was, or if this is as fast as it could go? I think we were in breach by 21/22 (3 yr period 19-22) so hard to see why it couldn't have been applied last year. Although that doesn't mean we'd have gone down as everyone seems to assume (as we stayed up by a point IIRC) - providing it was done early doors rather than with 3 games to go (which would have been fatal). Plus if they'd sorted their s
t out, City's 1000 pt docking could have been done last season and Everton and Leicester would be safe regardless? (Possibly where Leeds's complaint comes in, thinking about it? IDK)In essence the claim should be against the PL so hopefully they will say "no case to answer"
Not sure why some of the stadium spend wasn't allowed to be taken into account?
The other mitigations weren't accepted either, possibly because there was a generous allowance already?
And I don't get how we worked with the PL to ensure we didn't go over, and yet still went over?
Anyhoo...there's a game to play today. Made even more crucial by Luton's win yesterday, currently we are 5 adrift rather than the two we were before yesterday.
Can't see how Sly will be happy with the crowd noise given it's 5 hours before the watershed. Apparently the rumours of "piped in" crowd noise was untrue? Let's wait and see...
And saw this, which would be the absolute icing on an already s
tty cake (but I can't see how they would do this without just coming out and saying "fk you Everton"):Can't find the relevant tweet from The Athletic if anyone could post a link??
said:
The Athletic has been told that the (Premier League) sanction framework was only meant to be used for Everton’s case.
It's understood no such league-wide policy is in the pipeline at the moment
It's understood no such league-wide policy is in the pipeline at the moment
johnboy1975 said:
Not sure why some of the stadium spend wasn't allowed to be taken into account?
And I don't get how we worked with the PL to ensure we didn't go over, and yet still went over?
It’s in the Athletic article, it was only a tiny piece of the spend that was disallowed.And I don't get how we worked with the PL to ensure we didn't go over, and yet still went over?
“Everton argued that £14.5million could be excluded, primarily “in respect of interest incurred on inter-company loans used to fund” the overhaul of the Bramley-Moore Dock site.”
Not surprised you couldn’t claim interest cost on an inter-company loan. Don’t charge the interest in the first place if you’re sailing so close to the FFP wind
hilly10 said:
I cannot see how they have a retrospective claim as it’s not Everton’s fault the punishment was dished out late, plus we had completely complied with the PL dates and requirements.
But didn't Everton continue to deny any wrong doing and thereby contribute to a delay in any potential punishment being applied? Regardless, it's worked out well for them as I think a 10 point deduction would have more than likely seen them relegated in 21/22 or 22/23 whereas this season I think they'll be able to absorb it and still survive quite easily....
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff