.
118. The Commission considers that Everton has the better case on this issue. We
agree with the Premier League that it is inappropriate to attempt to import
isolated provisions from the EFL, but we consider that a consistent improving
trend is something that can be credited as a matter of principle. A specific
provision is not required to enable a Commission to find that a club which is
attempting to improve may be able to have such improvement stand as
mitigation. We consider it is wholly appropriate for Everton to follow the
Covid provisions and to average the PSR figures for FYs 2020/2021: indeed,
as that averaging was introduced by the Premier League to meet one of the
challenges created by Covid, it would be strange not to do so. Finally, we
consider that it is appropriate for us to look at the trend over the years
included in the PSR submission. The position in subsequent years is a matter
for those years.
119. For these reasons we conclude that the improving trend is a feature that goes
some limited way to diminish Everton’s culpability
Thats just a pat on the head you have got your house in order but,
It chose not to agree that Everton took a loan for the stadium, because it came about before they had officially got planning permission ?
And had incurred intrested On such loans according to the club?
No they chose to say Moshiri had the money and didn't need to take loans out to fund the stadium (despite him setting up the stadium company as a separate entity)
And as such couldn't count the millions of pounds interest as club debt towards stadium building in that years figure.
So according to that line of thought you get planning permission at no cost,
don't have to prove you have the money in place to move forwards on the building of the stadium?
Despite that being part of the planning process, put in place by Liverpool City Council.
Which if you follow Moshiri line of though on making a separate stadium entity to fund the costs , makes sence
The Premier league added the loans intrest to club general expenditure , not to stadium cost which if they had done would have left us able it offset those figures into that year which would have left us well below the threshold of losses for the year in question
That's an assumption
It looks like they are basing that assumption on the fact that the loans went into a general payment vehicle for the club , instead of into a separate stadium account nothing more.
Its like me paying a car loan into my general account and buying a car , then the bank saying you have used that to pay off other stuff prove you havnt?
Well i have a car outside,
thats not good enough you have enough money to buy one anyway.
its fraud you got a car loan under false pretences, see you in court .
They completely overlook the fact Moshiri had set up a funding vehicle, totally unessasery according to the Premier league line of thought as he could have just funded it out of the goodness of his heart i presume, bit of a waste of time that really wasn't it.
the cost of which would have been helped by a naming rights deal that was stopped in its tracks because of the Ukrainian war, a event that has no bearing according to the panel.
Covid counts any other world event no, ok we will remmber that in future.
It's like the stadium , just appeared out of the mist and you cannot use it's cost before a certain date, because it doesn't fit are narritive, so we choose to ignore , its a joke a technically to get the outcome they wanted
Amateur antics by Everton to even sail that close to the wind , but that outcome is way overboard.