6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Tipp blue]

I broadly agree with you but I do wonder whether they can let the second charge drag on so long. Surely there's a huge incentive for everyone to get it wrapped up before the seasons end. This is my hope as to why we may avoid another points deduction.

I think the final decision will be announced very near the end of the season and they'll judge any points deduction based on how far we are ahead.. this mess won't carry on into the summer that would be a PR disaster for them, If they can dock us another 5 points leaving us 3 points ahead of Luton with 1 game to go having a far better goal difference then that's what they'll do, and Everton will say fine we've staied up that will do.

 

[CrimsonToffee]

Yesterday there was a lot of sentiment that because we did still end up with a points deduction post-appeal, we are nailed on to get a second one for the same sort of charge.

But I do wonder this: the argument for the first punishment being a points deduction was that we had gained a sporting advantage from the activities that led to the breach (never mind if that's true or not, Moshiri's "midfielders" nonsense made it hard to argue otherwise).

But as was discussed on here yesterday, with the first year of the breach-cycle coming off, the only way we'd be in breach a second time is if last year's accounts were absolutely horrid. And if last year's accounts were that bad, surely it was solely because of stadium costs and not transfer activity this time.

Which means we should have much more room to argue that a potential second breach - even if found to be the case - would not have resulted in a sporting advantage at all. Hence any punishment should not in fact be of the same type.

I am slightly less inclined now to think that a second deduction is 100% guaranteed.

 

[Tidal]

Yeah, I think the overall reaction outside of Everton would have been markedly different if we had just gotten a 6-point deduction now rather than having had to carry the 10-point deduction in the table for so long already and having it reduced now.

The way they did it gives everyone a sense that we've somehow gained something, even though obviously we've only ever lost it - just in varying amounts. Nothing should have ever been deducted until after the appeals process was exhausted. The way they did it is ludicrous.

I’ve had multiple texts from mates who are fans of other teams like “congratulations bet you’re happy!” and I have to remind them that we’ve actually had 6 points taken off us from the points we’ve earned with our results. It’s crazy.

 

[edge]

Off course taking the Liverpool game away, as thats called off if they beat Saints tomorrow, these are the next 6 games going into md April. for me we have to win our 2 home games, and pretty much all the other home games

West Ham Home - Sat
Man Utd Away - 9th March
Bournemouth Away - 30th March
Newcastle Away - 3rd April
Burnley Home - 6th April
Chelsea Away - 13th April

9 pionts from that will do

 

[Toffe3m4n]

Yesterday there was a lot of sentiment that because we did still end up with a points deduction post-appeal, we are nailed on to get a second one for the same sort of charge.

But I do wonder this: the argument for the first punishment being a points deduction was that we had gained a sporting advantage from the activities that led to the breach (never mind if that's true or not, Moshiri's "midfielders" nonsense made it hard to argue otherwise).

But as was discussed on here yesterday, with the first year of the breach-cycle coming off, the only way we'd be in breach a second time is if last year's accounts were absolutely horrid. And if last year's accounts were that bad, surely it was solely because of stadium costs and not transfer activity this time.

Which means we should have much more room to argue that a potential second breach - even if found to be the case - would not have resulted in a sporting advantage at all. Hence any punishment should not in fact be of the same type.

I am slightly less inclined now to think that a second deduction is 100% guaranteed.

Again, yes, this has to be our main argument. That and the fact that both commissions now have acknowledged that we've actively made progress in balancing the books over the last couple of years.

It's the automatic 'flat' six points for any breach in the first place which concerns me, meaning a second breach opens us up to an additional six points whether suspended or not.

 

[MikeH72]

The numbers are in the report, you've read it:

£59m + £55m + £10m = £124.5m

As the £59m has gone:

£55m + £10m + x = >£105m

Oh, never mind. I thought you had some numbers that confirmed our breach was worse than last year’s and we were trending in the wrong direction again as that’s what you suggested, however I can see now that’s clearly not the case and you’re just guessing. As you were lads.

 

[Gallaeo]

Specifically

Our deduction 8 max:



217. We have taken into account the fact that, under rule E.35, a PL club suffers a nine point deduction on an "Event of Insolvency". Mr Rabinowitz submitted, with some force, that an Event of Insolvency is an inevitably more serious matter for the relevant club in respect of its sustainability, and so for the integrity of the PL as a competition; which is indicative that a nine or more point penalty for the Club in respect of its breach of the PSR would be too high. The two penalties are not, in our view, directly comparable because, as Mr Lewis pointed out, the nine point penalty under rule E.35 is automatic and may be accompanied by other disciplinary sanctions for breaches of other rules which an Event of Insolvency (or the underlying circumstances) may trigger. Nevertheless, we found this submission by Mr Rabinowitz to have some force. It suggests that the ten point penalty here was internally inconsistent within the framework of the PL Rules.



Forest 8 reduced by 50%



214. We have also had regard to the cases which have been determined on the basis of the EFL P&S Rules and Guidelines. Mr Rabinowitz specifically referred us to Sheffield Wednesday (see, e.g., paragraph 91 of the Club's Written Submissions).

In that case, the club had exceeded the EFL upper loss threshold by 46.7% (equivalent of a £49m overspend in the PL, compared with the Club's overspend of just under {20m), and the club had a worsening trend of losses. The club offered no explanation for its losses, having spent 168.1% of its entire turnover in the last year of the relevant period on wages alone.

The case, it was submitted, was

therefore in every respect more serious than this case; but a deduction of only six points was made. However, that submission fails to take into account that the Commission in that case was minded to deduct 12 points, but for the mitigation of the club having sold its ground shortly after the relevant period which, had the ground been sold less than three weeks earlier, would have meant that the P&S Rules would not have been breached at all. That was the reason why the Commission reduced the deduction from 12 points to six (see [113]). We deal with the mitigation relied on by the Club below (see paragraphs 220-224); but the Club has no golden mitigation point such as that.

But they told us where to go when we said we had to take a reduced payment for Richy to get done by end of June.

Johnson played three matches for them. What if he got injured? It was reckless and got them a sporting advantage by playing him

 

[DanB90]

Some of you lot make me miss the ramblings of Gwladysnight

 

[RD2910]

Oh, never mind. I thought you had some numbers that confirmed our breach was worse than last year’s and we were trending in the wrong direction again as that’s what you suggested, however I can see now that’s clearly not the case and you’re just guessing. As you were lads.

Twisting yourself in circles here Mike.

 

[Tilling]

Might come across as a bit defeatist, but a 3 point deduction maximum on our breach for this period would be absolutely huge for us (in comparison to the 12 for breaching it twice, 6 points each).

 

[CrimsonToffee]

Might come across as a bit defeatist, but a 3 point deduction maximum on our breach for this period would be absolutely huge for us (in comparison to the 12 for breaching it twice, 6 points each).

I really don't like the implication in that statement, though, that a deduction of any kind is a foregone conclusion. Hardly seems like a fair and impartial process we've got going here, where the focus is already on what the punishment will be before the defendant has even been tried, much less found guilty.

Granted, that could just be the media angle of a pro-Red journalist, but still. We as a club have to be geared up more for the fight this go-around to deal with nonsense like this.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Off course taking the Liverpool game away, as thats called off if they beat Saints tomorrow, these are the next 6 games going into md April. for me we have to win our 2 home games, and pretty much all the other home games

West Ham Home - Sat
Man Utd Away - 9th March
Bournemouth Away - 30th March
Newcastle Away - 3rd April
Burnley Home - 6th April
Chelsea Away - 13th April

All of those are winnable, if the manager addresses our goal phobia.

 

[Gardocki]

I'm pretty comfortable about us not getting a second points deduction based on nothing other than gut feeling and the following thought process.

1. The premier league will actively want to avoid the farcical scenario of teams playing vital end of season games not knowing whether they should be holding out for a draw or gambling to go and get a win.
2. The reputational damage to the PL if we don't know who is going down once the season completes and until some opaque administrative process is concluded.
3. The potential and prolonged legal sh1tsh0w that could arise based on the above. Surely even Luton/Brentford etc. would have a case for the first scenario.

To avoid this happening the EPL could/should want to avoid the a likely scenario where Everton go to the ends of the earth to bring legal cases based on the following arguments:
1. Everton have already been punished for two of the three years. While the monitoring period is a 3 year rolling period, I'm pretty sure there's a strong legal argument to be made relating to the double jeopardy punishment based on what is essentially and ill-conceived and badly through out process.
2. The offences relate to two time periods, yet are being applied in the same season which is fundamentally unfair. Yes, the obvious answer to that is that Everton could have been punished/relegated last year, but that didn't happen because of due process and the inefficiency of their system.
3. Everton have gone to great lengths to correct the accounts and return to profitability, by selling key players, reducing their squad size etc. Only Brighton have a better net spend over the past 5 years. Any breach is as a result of historic (already penalised) breaches not having flushed through the system despite corrective action being taken.

A fine or a transfer ban would surely be a much better route for the PL to go for the second charge.

 

[b-rad]

Oh, never mind. I thought you had some numbers that confirmed our breach was worse than last year’s and we were trending in the wrong direction again as that’s what you suggested, however I can see now that’s clearly not the case and you’re just guessing. As you were lads.

Which bit are you struggling with?

£59m to £55m to £10m is trending in the right direction.
For us to be in breach again, and with £59m falling off, our latest loss must be at least £40m

£10m to £40m is not trending in the right direction. We don't know what that £40m number actually is, but it must be in that range or bigger for us to be facing a second PSR charge.

 

[Victus]

How can double jeopardy come into mitigation and then they do us anyway, that makes no sense to me.