6 + 2 Point Deductions


gwladysnight said:
That is completely and utterly wrong. Basic accounting procedures mean that expenditure cannot be capitalised until something is probable. Something is not probable until planning is granted. That isn't a Premier League rule it is the cornerstone of FRS 102.

We breached PSR rules two years ago and could have been charged with non-compliance.

What actually happened is that the Premier League and the club came to an agreement that the Premier League would not invoke rule E.51.2.. That meant we avoided being charged and a probable points deduction.


The 13 August 2021 agreement contained the following
(amongst other) terms.
1.2 During the Club's financial years 2017-2020 (inclusive), prior to the
financial year when planning permission for the Stadium was obtained,
the Club incurred costs of approximately £39,346,000 in respect of the
Stadium (the “Stadium Costs”). Given that the Stadium Costs were
incurred in the financial years prior to planning permission being
granted, under applicable accounting regulations, these costs cannot be
capitalised and must therefore be included in the Club’s PSR
Calculation.
1.3 The Club is forecast to be non-compliant with Rule E.51 of the Rules
by:
1.3.1 having a PSR Calculation with losses in excess of £105 million
(the “Threshold”) for Season 2020/21; and
1.3.2 potentially Season 2021/22 and 2022/23
(together the “Potential Non-Compliance”).
1.4 Subject to compliance by the Club with the conditions set out in
paragraph 2 of this Agreement (the “Conditions”), the Premier League
agrees that it will not, either during the Term or at any time after (i)
exercise its powers set out in Rule E.15 in respect of the Potential Non-
Compliance and/or (ii) refer the Potential Non-Compliance to a
Commission pursuant to Rule E.51.2.
2.1 The Club’s PSR Calculation for Seasons 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23
(after the application of any mitigation or reduction by the Board in
accordance with the guidance it has issued in relation to the impact of
COVID-19) must not exceed the Threshold plus such portion of the
Costs as falls to be reported in the relevant period (the “Threshold
Condition”). For the avoidance of doubt, the relevant period is the
financial year in question and the two preceding financial years.


So instead of this being a witch hunt against us the Premier League actually helped us out. They also allowed us to include much bigger COVID losses £170m almost double the next biggest losses which was Arsenal at £86m followed by Villa at £56m.

They also allowed us to include £30m from Usmanov for an OPTION for naming rights despite no one else being interested. The Premier League bent over backwards to help us. When we failed PSR because of the long wait for planning they let us off. When we were going to fail again they allowed us ludicrous COVID losses. When we going to fail a third time Usmano was allowed to write a £30m cheque for an OPTION.

We were given chance after chance. Instead of heeding those chances Moshiri and the board ignored the warnings and tried to claim interest for working capital loans that were not used for the Stadium. Not only that but he tried to back date them.

32. In February 2022 Everton decided to pass on the interest charges payable
under the Rights & Media Funding Ltd and Metro Bank PLC loans by levying
interest on the inter-company loan to Everton Stadium Development Ltd.
The intention was that that interest would be calculated retrospectively from
FY 2018 and all charged in the FY 2022 accounts.


He tried to roll up years of interest charges for working capital and looked to pretend they were for the Stadium. This is despite there being documents that showed that the Stadium was funded by interest-free loans from Moshiri himself. The charge documents from the loans also stated that they were not for the Stadium.

Here are the documents in question.

Use of Funds
If the facility is successfully completed, the funds will be used for working capital facility
purposes. Hence, in the same way as the Rights and Media Funding Limited facility this
additional financing support will be used for operational purposes during the 2020/21
season.
We do not intend to use any of the funds for the new stadium project or to buy players in
the transfer window. These funds will be used to continue to support the Club and all of the
activities that the Club are involved in for the term of the facility.
That representation is incorporated into the Metro Bank PLC loan agreement
dated 29 April 2021. Clause 2.3 reads –
Purpose
The Borrower shall apply all amounts borrowed by it…towards the payment of
indebtedness and its working capital requirements



So there was no moving of the goalposts and there was no new rule. If anything the Premier League has been incredibly lenient with us. Instead of looking at things rationally and coming to the obvious conclusion that the club had pushed things too far we have a PR campaign calling the Premier League corrupt because they finally had enough of our ludicrous attempts to ride a coach and horses through PSR regulations.
Click to expand...
So sad you petending to be one of Us. You really need to get out more.
 
Gallaeo said:
if we had gotten that then it would have applied with the latest breach
Click to expand...
Then it would have been deserved.

From what I can see we breached a 2nd time cos we submitted accounts that had already been told were wrong.

Its very possible that im wrong, cos I have yet to see actual figures, but thats my current POV, happy to be corrected with facts.
 

Drico said:
It's all on the appeal. Win that and the second charge falls away.

They should consider spending the difference between relegation and survival on this Super Silk fella. That's basically what's in play now.
Click to expand...
We are banged to rights.

We have admitted that most of our PSR exclusions were false. The two we are clinging to are the Stadium interest and the transfer levy. The Premier League has documentation showing two things. That the terms of the loan state it was not for Stadium funding and secondly that Moshiri was providing interest-free loans for the Stadium.

The transfer levy is even more ludicrous. It primarily goes to top-up pension funds and is not for youth development.

You can pay for the best Barrister on the planet but it is pointless if he has no grounds to challenge the decision of the Independent panel.
 
gwladysnight said:
We are banged to rights.

We have admitted that most of our PSR exclusions were false. The two we are clinging to are the Stadium interest and the transfer levy. The Premier League has documentation showing two things. That the terms of the loan state it was not for Stadium funding and secondly that Moshiri was providing interest-free loans for the Stadium.

The transfer levy is even more ludicrous. It primarily goes to top-up pension funds and is not for youth development.

You can pay for the best Barrister on the planet but it is pointless if he has no grounds to challenge the decision of the Independent panel.
Click to expand...

ha ha get off here you horrible man
 

matty1878 said:
ha ha get off here you horrible man
Click to expand...
You cannot even put together a coherent sentence. Please try and I know it will be tough for you and come up with a counterargument, please.

One of us is putting forward a well-researched point of view backed up by the actual findings from the report. Instead of engaging in a debate you are just throwing around unfounded, inaccurate insults.
 
WestStandLower said:
1) It was Damien Green that inferred Everton was a” small “ Masters made reference to the early reply that FFP( P&S) applies to all clubs and had any club broken the allowable sum they would have been charged

2) Didn’t get that at all the point he kept making is the City charges aren’t under the P&S regulations. That’s a point I tried to make the other day

3) He didn’t say it won’t be this season but he did say in essence was that the proceedings aren’t under his jurisdiction annd are controlled by the independent head.

4) The reason there is a requirement for the rules changing ( although the clubs will have to agree) is driven by UEFAs changes and will almost for certain be around squad cost ratios .

5) No one seems to have picked up the point that according to Masters said that the PL wanted the 2022 charge to be dealt with in the 22/23 season but Everton objected and the IP agreed with Everton.
The charges that were faced by Everton and now Everton and Forest are single charges. Cities really are far more complex and we’re always going to take longer particularly as City took matters to the High Court , have failed to release documents indeed blocked matters at every step
Click to expand...

- It’s not true that City’s charges don’t fall under PSR. The charges include allegations that they broke PSR regulations between 2015 and 2018.

- City face 115 charges. It’s inconceivable that they’re all ‘too complex’ to have tackled a long time ago.

There is no acceptable reason for City to be behind Forest and Everton in the queue.
 
d0rk said:
Can't see getting any points back to be honest... Is there precedent for that ever happening before for other clubs that have had point sanctions?
Click to expand...
It’s more blind hope than anything because of the way they came up with the ‘1 extra point for every £5m over’ rule. Nobody knows though, eh? Maybe we won’t get any for the second one because we already had them for the first one? Who knows?
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top