6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Jacko93]

What I think is wrong is that the City case has dragged on and on and they have continued to win trophies in that time. Talk about gaining a sporting advantage.

Wasn't that long ago when City were in the same financial state as the rest of football. Obviously some financial manipulating has been taking place to get them to where their turnover is now. The problem is, the gate appears to be closing way too late.

The talk about taking the trophies off them is a bit stupid though isn't it. Imagine saying that you have X number of trophies because of a technicality, it'd be really really embarrassing.

This is it though with me, you can't take those nights away from the City fans. They've had night and games that many other fans will never get. If, as a lot of Loverpool.fans are asking for, which is for them to be give the league trophy if they're found guilty..... what's the point? For who? It ain't for the fans, cause the still haven't had the games or the nights. Belated trophy parade? What a joke. Just do them, for as much as it deserves and go from there. Much of the media are only arsed about this so they can maintain a narrative on Liverpool.

We as Everto fans also need to stop bringing Man City into this conversation.

 

[Toffeepot]

The talk about taking the trophies off them is a bit stupid though isn't it. Imagine saying that you have X number of trophies because of a technicality, it'd be really really embarrassing.

This is it though with me, you can't take those nights away from the City fans. They've had night and games that many other fans will never get. If, as a lot of Loverpool.fans are asking for, which is for them to be give the league trophy if they're found guilty..... what's the point? For who? It ain't for the fans, cause the still haven't had the games or the nights. Belated trophy parade? What a joke. Just do them, for as much as it deserves and go from there. Much of the media are only arsed about this so they can maintain a narrative on Liverpool.

We as Everto fans also need to stop bringing Man City into this conversation.

Totally agree. The city talk is for the other cartel fans that are upset City got one over on them. They cry foul when the deck is in anyway stacked against them but call it the way of things when it is in their favour.
I think the Chelsea example is much more significant in our case, in that the war sanctions enabled new ownership and a whitewashing of breaches whereas war sanctions crippled our cash flow and our change of ownership is being held up while they make an example of us

 

[joebocop]

The talk about taking the trophies off them is a bit stupid though isn't it. Imagine saying that you have X number of trophies because of a technicality, it'd be really really embarrassing.

This is it though with me, you can't take those nights away from the City fans. They've had night and games that many other fans will never get. If, as a lot of Loverpool.fans are asking for, which is for them to be give the league trophy if they're found guilty..... what's the point? For who? It ain't for the fans, cause the still haven't had the games or the nights. Belated trophy parade? What a joke. Just do them, for as much as it deserves and go from there. Much of the media are only arsed about this so they can maintain a narrative on Liverpool.

We as Everto fans also need to stop bringing Man City into this conversation.

You're 100% right that alot of the "what about city?" Is because so much of the media is biased towards the RS and they see this as a way for them to rule supreme.

But the city and Chelsea cases show that the current system is not working. It shows incompetence and a level of unfairness which shows they aren't fit to govern the game. That shows they're not fit to be dolling out points deductions which does make it valid towards our case.

 

[Sheedy's right knee.]

City aren’t calling for our heads but them gobshites from over the park are.

 

[Moomin]

If the PL say that City's case is complex then it isn't. They lie about everything and blatantly protect 6 'big' clubs and don't give a toss about 14 'small' clubs. If they wanted to deal with City then they would have got in whatever resources they required and done it, end of. They don't want to punish them because they class them as elite.

Masters has literally just sat in front of a governmental committee and lied. Just as if they are honest behind closed doors.

Complex in City are doing what they can to delay and not co-operate.

 

[John from Bootle]

Complex in City are doing what they can to delay and not co-operate.

Isn't that just further proof that they're not fit for purpose then? How exactly are they delaying? If I get taken to court, I'll be given a trial date fairly early, and will have no alternative but to establish the case for my defence by that date.

 

[Nymzee]

This rolling 3 years thing with PSR. Is it 3 years, for example 21/22, 22/23 & 23/24 which can't have a loss greater than £105m, and then the year after (24/25) does that new year become the new 3rd year of a "new" cycle (22/23, 23/24 & 24/25)? Or it a block 3 years like 21/22, 22/23 & 23/24 then 24/25, 25/26 & 26/27?

Reason I ask, and I know it's not just to do with transfer fees, but Chelsea's 3 year cycle from 21/22, 22/23 & 23/24 has over £700m negative transfer net spend... how isn't that in breach of the 3 year rolling loss limit of £105m?

 

[John from Bootle]

This rolling 3 years thing with PSR. Is it 3 years, for example 21/22, 22/23 & 23/24 which can't have a loss greater than £105m, and then the year after (24/25) does that new year become the new 3rd year of a "new" cycle (22/23, 23/24 & 24/25)? Or it a block 3 years like 21/22, 22/23 & 23/24 then 24/25, 25/26 & 26/27?

Reason I ask, and I know it's not just to do with transfer fees, but Chelsea's 3 year cycle from 21/22, 22/23 & 23/24 has over £700m negative transfer net spend... how isn't that in breach of the 3 year rolling loss limit of £105m?

Chelsea will still be paying some of that 700 mill in 3.4,5,6,7 years time. It will affect their balance incrementally until then.

They obviously have incomings too, and they've sold a lot of homegrown players which goes on to the books in full immediately.

No idea what position they're in PSR wise to be honest, but it's not just as simple as how much their gross transfer fees add up to in the now.

 

[Nymzee]

Chelsea will still be paying some of that 700 mill in 3.4,5,6,7 years time. It will affect their balance incrementally until then.

They obviously have incomings too, and they've sold a lot of homegrown players which goes on to the books in full immediately.

No idea what position they're in PSR wise to be honest, but it's not just as simple as how much their gross transfer fees add up to in the now.

Oh I knew it would never be as simple as that I just don't understand how it seems fine for them for now. I thought those amortised transfer fees got knee-capped? Or does it not apply to Chelsea's 8 year deals done prior?

Not Everton of course was just curious as we're in Jan and just waiting for Todd to dust off the cheque book.

 

[RD2910]

This rolling 3 years thing with PSR. Is it 3 years, for example 21/22, 22/23 & 23/24 which can't have a loss greater than £105m, and then the year after (24/25) does that new year become the new 3rd year of a "new" cycle (22/23, 23/24 & 24/25)? Or it a block 3 years like 21/22, 22/23 & 23/24 then 24/25, 25/26 & 26/27?

Reason I ask, and I know it's not just to do with transfer fees, but Chelsea's 3 year cycle from 21/22, 22/23 & 23/24 has over £700m negative transfer net spend... how isn't that in breach of the 3 year rolling loss limit of £105m?

The first one. Everton's first charge was for 2018-2022, the second charge for 2019-2023. These were four year cycles because of covid, it's back to three year cycles in the handbook now.

Chelsea's transfer spend is a bit misleading because the expenditure is spread over those crazy eight year contracts they've been handing out (the rules have changed for that now but that won't apply to the contracts Chelsea gave out at the time). They've also sold a lot of homegrown players for decent money, and of course take a lot more income than the likes of Everton. If they continue not qualifying for Europe, they'll be in trouble. They probably don't want to sell Conor Gallagher because he's actually starting to prove himself a decent player, but they will when it comes to it purely for PSR reasons.

 

[John from Bootle]

Oh I knew it would never be as simple as that I just don't understand how it seems fine for them for now. I thought those amortised transfer fees got knee-capped? Or does it not apply to Chelsea's 8 year deals done prior?

Not Everton of course was just curious as we're in Jan and just waiting for Todd to dust off the cheque book.

Yeah, far as I know, they worked the system and got away with it. Won't be able to do it going forward though.

 

[Gilbert..]

You're 100% right that alot of the "what about city?" Is because so much of the media is biased towards the RS and they see this as a way for them to rule supreme.

But the city and Chelsea cases show that the current system is not working. It shows incompetence and a level of unfairness which shows they aren't fit to govern the game.

Absolutely. Amazed some people are saying stop mentioning man city when charges against them are for failure to disclose accurate financial information. Until any charges are brought then Everton should be using everything they can in what you said.

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

Chelsea could genuinely be fine. Selling £400m of kids and overinflated dodgy transfers to Saudi versus only 1/8th (in each year) of their massive new contracts. Obviously they haven’t got infinite players to sell each year to offset the 1/8th of the big contracts. More importantly some of the new incomings have so far been gash. Probably fine in the very short term despite all the hyperbole, but they could go proper Everton with the odd twist of fate.

Getting away with the historic stuff is the issue with Chelsea. Totally irrelevant the owners changed from a sporting perspective.

 

[PITA]

The cartel are the clubs you mentioned
The top6 only temporarily changes because of FFP etc (see Villa and Newcastle unable to buy)
They are a cartel because they cooperated to get themselves the best deals by using their position of dominance to gain an unfair advantage
They used this position to blackmail UEFA to improve CL standing based on a new coefficient with Super League
They blackmailed the Premier League with the Super League reminding them that the PL depend on them, even though that is the other way round in reality
They used their position to get favourable treatment from other clubs in the PL such as 5 subs, less Carabou cup minutes, next removing FA cup replays, increased TV income and the creation of a glass ceiling to limit the progress of other clubs.
Any vote to change the inequality can be easily outvoted by the 6 and the buying of a vote from another club with promises of loan deals etc.
They have already shown themselves to cooperate behind closed doors by signing up to the super league
Hope that helps
Cartel 6

The refs on the pitch and VAR do their best to ensure the Sky6 are also the top 6 but even then they can't guarantee if when teams, e.g. Chelsea, make poor choices.

 

[IllinoisBlue]

So we were close to loosing 90 mill in 21/22, Richarlisons sale brought it down to 40 mill odd.

If we brought in close to 70 mill in Gordon and Kean, that’s a 20 mill loss, + 20 mill for new players, + 10 mill for Lampard and team, + 19.5 mill in the interest issue.

That has us at a loss of 69.5 mill, stull can’t work out how we don’t comply, unless they are counting the 19.5 mill twice - surely we made the adjustment.

There surely has to be another cost we aren’t factoring in, maybe it’s interest, we have borrowed a lo at a high rate.

Loose figures I know mate, but just trying to get my head around it.

Firstly thank you for a well-thought-out out and reasoned reply.

I think you are right and there is an element of truth in what you have posted. The thing is though that it was far less competitive before FFP. The big 4 were Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and Man United. Between 05 and 12 those big 4 teams featured in 7 out of 8 CL finals.

If you look back to the start of the PL we were one of the big 4 and one of the chief protagonists in the formation of the breakaway League. Have Spurs overtaken us because of a cartel or just because they have been far better run?

For us old people, Chelsea were always an inferior side spending most time in the 2nd tier in the 80’s and a bottom half team for much of the nineties. They were the first of the false teams to be elevated to undeserved heights by oligarch money. They are not there on merit. Same as Man City.