6 + 2 Point Deductions

[DanB90]

Interesting.... I don't know why we'd negotiate a settlement, certainly not with three clubs. If those clubs thought they'd win compensation at the commission I highly doubt they'd want to negotiate a settlement at all....feels like a bluff to hope we cough up.

Anywhere else reporting this other than the Mail?

I Find their website proper unreadable.
Looks like a kid with ADHD designed their webpage.

 

[WestStandLower]

Great post. A club like United can be a billion in debt, a club like Chelsea can spend a billion in two transfer windows. Arsenal and Spurs have built brand new stadiums. Liverpool have expanded their stadium twice, United have a 75k seater stadium. Chelsea have already breached ffp and been handed a transfer ban. All of the above clubs wanted to leave and start their own league, all stayed, and got a 3m fine each.

Brighton you are correct to use. Only a 32k stadium which never looks full. They will soon have teams ripping them off for players because now clubs understand their model. Buy low price, do well, and sell for high. Bissouma left, Caiedo left, Burn left, next will be Mitoma, Ferguson and Estupian. They are a feeder club and will have to be that in order to stay where they are.

United are a money machine and ironically they started the over commercialism of football in England. Debt should be but it isn’t the main driver when it comes to FFP/PS .

Arsenal did indeed build a new stadium but FFP wasn’t the drain some think . Wenger was a genius in the transfer market but once he failed to qualify for the CL.

I really don’t like defending Spurs but Levy has managed their finances with a fist of iron. Spurs had one of the lowest ratio % of wages to income in Europe and he managed to unearth diamonds when it came to transfers and in terms of negotiating he has been a master. They managed to fund the pre development costs from income and cheap borrowings

Liverpool have borrowed significantly from their owners but again their income has grown significantly so it seems isn’t impacting on them

Chelsea have never been charged with breaching FFP. The transfer ban was Imposed by FIFA and revolved around under 18 year olds from outside the EU. Not so much that they signed under age players but played them in trials which FIFA argued constitutes signing players.

After the new owners took over during DD they discovered that certain information submitted via the PL appeared incomplete.

A settlement has already been reached with UEFA and we wait to see what charges are levied. It’s unlikely that they will be under P&S Regulations Initially if at all. But the regulations under which the matter will be viewed under can and often does lead to points deduction.

That said it’s possible, although unlikely ,that due to the matter being self reported that financial settlement will be agreed which is an option. When the new owners bought the club they withheld £100 m from the proceeds of sale pending settlement of regulator matters”

Transfer market isn’t anywhere near the best source of information re transfer fees nor to a degree is the sum you pay the important thing to factor in when it comes to affordability the main number to focus in on is the charge to amortisation.

As most will know any transfer fee is written off over the term of the contract. So sign a player for £100million on a 5 year deal £20 million per annum appears in the accounts. Sign that same player on a 8 year deal then the sum reduces to £12.5 million. It’s one of the reason Bohleys policy has been to sign players on long deals al a IEFA rule change will now restrict amortisation to 5 years and it’s likely that the PL will follow.

 

[davek]

SuperHoops!!

Shamrock Rovers?

 

[Goat]

What does the article say mate?

Dunno sorry.

 

[FirstGameWimbledon1994]

If they are withdrawing their claims it's not out of the goodness of their hearts, it's because they've been advised that they won't be able to establish causation between our overspend and their relegation, particularly when three of them are trying to claim it.

At most we should be offering them 1 place worth of prize money as compensation.

New poster here but I agree 100%, I sincerely doubt all three clubs would all be minded to drop this (assuming it’s correct that they were minded to sue in the first place) for some altruistic reason. Hard to believe.

Either they’ve been advised the legal fees wouldn’t be worth the shot, that they don’t have any kind of a claim that would get past any early stage, and/or they otherwise suspect it would blow back on them somehow.

The causation was never made out in my opinion anyway. Gloating fans of other clubs on Twitter see “Everton have done something wrong” and gleefully jump on the idea we can be sued into oblivion for being “cheats” (albeit some of them are just enjoying the trolling), but in reality it would be extremely hard to show Everton’s failure to comply with fairly arbitrary rules “caused” any team to go down.

 

[pfim]

Dunno sorry.

You’re welcome



Premier League officials are taking a more critical look at the 777 Partners takeover now that it has emerged that the money behind the bid is from Goat and davek.

The source is quoted as saying that “We did not think Pasko and Wander had the cash to consummate the deal, and we’re certain that Goat and davek do not.”

The revelation casts even more doubt on Everton’s future as they continue to battle against relegation after they were robbed of 10 points by the Premier League image machine.

Sources close to the Premier League indicate that they no longer want dirty Russian oligarch money in the game, and instead prefer blood oil money, neither of which Goat and davek have.

 

[davek]

Grass clubs seeing their arses now.

 

[jonnyg]

Does anyone know why player x was banned by the Premier League without even being charged, while other clubs like Sunderland were allowed to play Adam Johnson when he was literally guilty?

As well as other players down south, who have been questioned about sexual allegations?

Margaret Byrne quits as Sunderland chief over Adam Johnson abuse case

Chief executive admits she made ‘serious mistake’ letting footballer continue to play despite admitting sexual activity with girl

www.theguardian.com

Not to mention their CEO knew about what he'd done and continued playing him. Utd do their best to shield their offenders as well.

 

[Gilbert..]

Suggesting innocence isnt the course of action here, we are very guilty.

But pursuing a legal case regarding damaged reputation would be similar to a murderer doing the same.

As ive said, any legal team with any sense should be able to present a better case in any appeal.

Whether the "independent" commission take any notice of it is another matter.

We're not up for murder fella. Though you'd think we are they way they've gone for this club.
Keep it in perspective. "We are very guilty" its a 19m overspend. Not 390m.
The whopping 10 point deduction is a fking joke.

 

[Shevin Keedy]

It’s 100% not happening.

So ... you're saying there's a chance?

 

[Gilbert..]

Oh the irony , but yes You're right.
Clearly the rules as currently framed don't work .
So you either have a free for all or really do try to level up by bringing in a salary cap

I cant see why a transfer ban isnt used more. Im not a fan of P&S anyway as i think clubs should be allowed to just run themselves and if they do overspend then its up to themselves to sort it. Start flogging more than buying.
But if you do have to have restrictions then put a ban on transfers. It will prevent overspending and also force more clubs to promote for the first team within.
Of course this isnt going to happen. Look at transfer deadline day and everyone foaming at the mouth to who's coming in. Its another money maker for the PL. Sky, agents, players....

 

[Moderatelywarmwater]

Ordinarily I'd agree but football is a completely different proposition. If you've got a billionaire that wants to put the cash in then they can sustain losses like that without blinking an eye, which is what the problem is with the rules as they stand, football appears to be the only "business" where the owner can't put in as much cash as he wants.

We did vote for these rules.

 

[DrEFC]

 

[pfim]

Oh the irony , but yes You're right.
Clearly the rules as currently framed don't work .
So you either have a free for all or really do try to level up by bringing in a salary cap

A salary cap makes the most sense, with a cap on transfer fees. It regulates a clubs largest expense and is ignorant to spending in other areas like academies and fixed assets, which is what the P&S is trying to do but it’s too convoluted.

Unfortunately what makes the PL so good is the ability to outspend 99% of all the other clubs in the world.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

A salary cap makes the most sense, with a cap on transfer fees. It regulates a clubs largest expense and is ignorant to spending in other areas like academies and fixed assets, which is what the P&S is trying to do but it’s too convoluted.

Unfortunately what makes the PL so good is the ability to outspend 99% of all the other clubs in the world.

Exactly, the whole ethos of the league is SPEND SPEND SPEND, ENHANCE THE PRODUCT, BEST LEAGUE IN THE WORRRLLLLLDDD.

Then a non Sky 6 club goes a quarter of an Antony over some arbitrary number and it's WOAH WOAH WOAH THERE SMALL FRY, TEN POINTS OFF FOR YOU.

An absolute farce.