6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Blue peter]

You are missing the point tho.

People keep saying the PL had it in for us, yet they waved aside 180m in covid loses, which was 3 times the amount of other clubs in the league, without even questioning it.

If they truly had an axe to grind they could have asked WTF we were smoking and gone for us big time.

As it was the PL tried everything they could to give us a pass, but we were simply too incompetent for them to ignore.

Yep, it got to the point were we shamed them into giving us a sanction we were that out of control. They simply couldn’t ignore it. The size of the initial sanction is another matter, but we deserved some form of punishment as do other clubs.

 

[Moomin]

That's because it got delayed due to Covid... And it started in 2021 not 2023 after planning was granted in Feb 2020 weeks before covid, building commenced in July 2021 with the price of transport and materials increasing dramatically.
See Mr Drone Video from 4 years ago 2021


We aren't talking about PSR we are talking about we are talking what the PL allowed as covid write downs.

My mistake, I meant 2022 for when the main build started.

The ground breaking ceremony and infill started in late July of 2021.

The reporting for the 2020/21 season ended on the last day of June.

The 20/21 season we said we lost 170 million due to Covid. No construction happened in that period and no materials bought. The reason why we had so many losses is that all of our turnover was being spent on wages. Only club in Europe with a higher turnover to wages ratio was PSG at the time.

 

[NathDogg]

It's mad. Not only did they not try to bury us, but in fact, "tried to help us". Feel like i'm in the twilight zone

Not sure if it’s not some form of Stockholm syndrome, but it’s a bit bizarre.

We also shamed them into punishing us…..

Type of stuff abuse victims say when they’ve been battered and humiliated for years - it was all my fault, I deserved it!

I don’t mind punishments and sanctions, we need some form of regulation in place, but only if they are fair across all clubs affected and proportionate to the transgressions committed - there was and is none of that however, and certain teams can do whatever they want so it’s a sham - anyone saying different has lost the plot.

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

That makes no sense.

Firstly, there is no PL rule regarding ownership/management stupidity so could not be applied.

Secondly,our breach did not take us into administration of which the maximum punishment is 9 points…how do you go beyond going bust?

Guess they would argue going bust affects the club’s fans and the PL brand, no one else cares. Cheating or at least breaking rules other clubs are (supposedly) following affects 19+ clubs and their fans. Our punishment was for rule breaking, not for nearly going bust. Still far to harsh though, but that is their reasoning.

The oft used “we only breached because we were building a stadium” statement you hear daily on podcasts and fan channels is nuanced as the vast majority of the costs don’t go near the P+L until it’s completed, in use, and starts being depreciated i.e. now. Yes, we got in a mess with interest on the loans used to fund the build, which was largely our own ineptitude, but people think all the money we spent on metal, concrete etc made the breach inevitable.

 

[Blue peter]

Not sure if it’s not some form of Stockholm syndrome, but it’s a bit bizarre.

We also shamed them into punishing us…..

Type of stuff abuse victims say when they’ve been battered and humiliated for years - it was all my fault, I deserved it!

I don’t mind punishments and sanctions, we need some form of regulation in place, but only if they are fair across all clubs affected and proportionate to the transgressions committed - there was and is none of that however, and certain teams can do whatever they want so it’s a sham - anyone saying different has lost the plot.

It boils down broadly to this for me. 1] Do you think we were guilty or not guilty and 2) if guilty do you think we should have been punished?

No one’s saying we weren’t dealt with unfavourably when you see what other clubs are getting away with, I think what some are saying (myself included) was we were guilty (we all knew how much of a joke the club and the chairman/CEO/owner were) and we knew there would be a punishment.

I don’t think there should be any dispute on the above. The questionable bits of it for me were the fact it was a sporting sanction and not a fine, the size of the punishment, the fact other clubs seems to get away with far more egregious systemic cheating and the fact it did not close loopholes allowing other clubs to sue other clubs found guilty. I’m not a victim of Stockholm syndrome - I just have a lot of sympathy as we allowed ourselves to be vulnerable.

I am sure the recent acquisition of us by TFG will have had financial contingencies in there to allow for this action by Burnley. I also believe we should defend this and not settle.

 

[Tipp blue]

My mistake, I meant 2022 for when the main build started.

The ground breaking ceremony and infill started in late July of 2021.

The reporting for the 2020/21 season ended on the last day of June.

The 20/21 season we said we lost 170 million due to Covid. No construction happened in that period and no materials bought. The reason why we had so many losses is that all of our turnover was being spent on wages. Only club in Europe with a higher turnover to wages ratio was PSG at the time.

No but quotes would have been changed. It would have been apparent at the time of presenting Covid losses that we'd been stung by it far more than other clubs. If the PL accepted that as a covid loss then that explains how our losses were by far the highest. I'm just giving a posable explanation as to how our losses eclipsed other clubs.

 

[Blue peter]

It boils down broadly to this for me. 1] Do you think we were guilty or not guilty and 2) if guilty do you think we should have been punished?

No one’s saying we weren’t dealt with unfavourably when you see what other clubs are getting away with, I think what some are saying (myself included) was we were guilty (we all knew how much of a joke the club and the chairman/CEO/owner were) and we knew there would be a punishment.

I don’t think there should be any dispute on the above. The questionable bits of it for me were the fact it was a sporting sanction and not a fine, the size of the punishment, the fact other clubs seems to get away with far more egregious systemic cheating and the fact it did not close loopholes allowing other clubs to sue other clubs found guilty. I’m not a victim of Stockholm syndrome - I just have a lot of sympathy as we allowed ourselves to be vulnerable.

I am sure the recent acquisition of us by TFG will have had financial contingencies in there to allow for this action by Burnley. I also believe we should defend this and not settle.

@TrachyBlue what was so funny? Do you want to respond intelligently rather than just laugh at someone’s post?

 

[Moomin]

No but quotes would have been changed. It would have been apparent at the time of presenting Covid losses that we'd been stung by it far more than other clubs. If the PL accepted that as a covid loss then that explains how our losses were by far the highest. I'm just giving a posable explanation as to how our losses eclipsed other clubs.

So we forecast losses on the build before it started and the premier league accepted it???

The main reason for price rises for the build happened after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The price rise of gas caused the energy prices to go through the roof and the price of Steel went high when supply from Ukraine was stopped.

We got charged for period ending June 2021, 8 months before the invasion.

 

[allen]

Looking forward to the relitigation of this sorry period in our history being put to bed again.

In the meantime, I suppose it's nice to have something pointless to pour our arguing into ahead of an Anfield derby.

 

[Iana]

Guess they would argue going bust affects the club’s fans and the PL brand, no one else cares. Cheating or at least breaking rules other clubs are (supposedly) following affects 19+ clubs and their fans. Our punishment was for rule breaking, not for nearly going bust. Still far to harsh though, but that is their reasoning.

The oft used “we only breached because we were building a stadium” statement you hear daily on podcasts and fan channels is nuanced as the vast majority of the costs don’t go near the P+L until it’s completed, in use, and starts being depreciated i.e. now. Yes, we got in a mess with interest on the loans used to fund the build, which was largely our own ineptitude, but people think all the money we spent on metal, concrete etc made the breach inevitable.

We broke the PSR threshold which is self-evident by approx £20m over a rolling 3 year period which is hardly the crime of the century given the monies involved in the game.
The PL rule book at the time allowed for a range of sanctions including a points deduction but the punishment was left in the hands of the supposed Independent Commission. This is where it gets messy.
We broke financial rules but the IC(influenced behind the scenes by PL?) decided that a sporting sanction worse than going into administration should apply immediately rather than suspended awaiting appeal.

The club’s ineptitude showed throughout the hearings but the punishment was excessive for the “crime” and handed out without thought to potential consequences down the line such as Burnley’s claim for compensation.

All done to try and prevent an independent football regulator being created.

 

[TrachyBlue]

@TrachyBlue what was so funny? Do you want to respond intelligently rather than just laugh at someone’s post?

Nah

 

[Jacko93]

You are missing the point tho.

People keep saying the PL had it in for us, yet they waved aside 180m in covid loses, which was 3 times the amount of other clubs in the league, without even questioning it.

If they truly had an axe to grind they could have asked WTF we were smoking and gone for us big time.

As it was the PL tried everything they could to give us a pass, but we were simply too incompetent for them to ignore.

I would love to know what these additional losses were, and if they even remotely correlate to the size of our charitable outgoings. Did Eitc require additional support? Did the club provide it? Did we provide extra furlough support beyond what other clubs did.

Iher clubs went very quiet over this very quickly and it hasn't been raised again. Something which, if they had reason too, many wouldn't shut up about. There must be something plausible in our reasonings.

 

[brieverton]

We broke the PSR threshold which is self-evident by approx £20m over a rolling 3 year period which is hardly the crime of the century given the monies involved in the game.
The PL rule book at the time allowed for a range of sanctions including a points deduction but the punishment was left in the hands of the supposed Independent Commission. This is where it gets messy.
We broke financial rules but the IC(influenced behind the scenes by PL?) decided that a sporting sanction worse than going into administration should apply immediately rather than suspended awaiting appeal.

The club’s ineptitude showed throughout the hearings but the punishment was excessive for the “crime” and handed out without thought to potential consequences down the line such as Burnley’s claim for compensation.

All done to try and prevent an independent football regulator being created.

All this. We had two points deductions, lost income in league placement, and no doubt eye-watering legal costs. They wanted us docked a total of 17 points if I recall correctly.

Not content with all of that the Chairman of the commission gave carte blanche for litigation against us by multiple clubs.

We did transgress and took the consequences. It's not enough clearly.

 

[ChoccieStarfish]

We broke the PSR threshold which is self-evident by approx £20m over a rolling 3 year period which is hardly the crime of the century given the monies involved in the game.
The PL rule book at the time allowed for a range of sanctions including a points deduction but the punishment was left in the hands of the supposed Independent Commission. This is where it gets messy.
We broke financial rules but the IC(influenced behind the scenes by PL?) decided that a sporting sanction worse than going into administration should apply immediately rather than suspended awaiting appeal.

The club’s ineptitude showed throughout the hearings but the punishment was excessive for the “crime” and handed out without thought to potential consequences down the line such as Burnley’s claim for compensation.

All done to try and prevent an independent football regulator being created.

Exactly this!

Why we have not sued the bejesus out of them already is beyond me! Especially given the complete and utter lack of action for certain other clubs far far far more egregious offences that they have done nothing on in years now

 

[Ivo]

My mistake, I meant 2022 for when the main build started.

The ground breaking ceremony and infill started in late July of 2021.

The reporting for the 2020/21 season ended on the last day of June.

The 20/21 season we said we lost 170 million due to Covid. No construction happened in that period and no materials bought. The reason why we had so many losses is that all of our turnover was being spent on wages. Only club in Europe with a higher turnover to wages ratio was PSG at the time.

A lot of clubs do things differently to us as well. My mate's daughter was working in hospitality at both goodison and anfield at the time, Everton paid her during COVID because she was employed by Everton, however the RS outsourced their hospitality so she didn't get a bean off them (or the company providing the service).