6 + 2 Point Deductions


Innocent until proven guilty. The FA cannot suspend a player and then accuse us of failing to sell him because he is suspended. This is a farce.
It isn't though. The FA and Everton have a duty of care to young players.

Would you be happy for your child to be taught by a teacher who had been arrested for child sex offences based on him being innocent until proven guilty?
 

The net spend on players over the past 5 years has been chicken feed. There's no sporting advantage gained. Issue mainly surrounds funding of the ground, potential interest relating to that, sponsorship and how all of that was accounted for.

I.e., matters that didn't materially change the performances on the pitch.

It's not as if we had some blue chip players on loan being paid £250k a week that made key contributions to the team performing better than they otherwise would have done.
 
It isn't though. The FA and Everton have a duty of care to young players.

Would you be happy for your child to be taught by a teacher who had been arrested for child sex offences based on him being innocent until proven guilty?
That's fine - but the Premier League cannot then say to Everton that we are hitting you with a 10-point penalty because you have failed to sell a player who we suspended because we have a duty of care. Where is the mitigation? You can blame Everton for a lot of things, but you cannot use a case that effectively put them over the spending limit as the stick to beat them with when they carried out their duty of care.

I'm all for Everton being held accountable. But I'm not for Everton bending over and passing back the lube.

And, yes, suspend the "teacher" - but don't try to close the school then because you're a teacher short and exceeded the budget trying to source a replacement.
 
Last edited:

Top