Initial 10, then reduced to 6 + 2 Point Deductions

[HalfTimeSayers]

I don't mean to be pedantic, but 2018-22 and 2019-23 are not literally the same periods. The 2022-23 losses have to be pretty bad for Everton to have breached. It's not an upward curve.

Didn’t have time to hurriedly reduce those losses because by the time we were found guilty and 5 out of 6 mitigations ignored, the 22/23 period had already closed.

The fact the regs don’t say how to handle successive breaches (and that makes them unworkable in practice) is our only argument isn’t it. As you say, on paper, both rolling period are in breach.

 

[windymiller]

lol what the hell

He was being sort of normal for 24 hours, I feel a lot better that he is back to his nonsensical self.

 

[HowardsWay]

12 players i believe while still in the Championship mate.

Jorge Mendes and Wolves: how deep does the agent’s influence run? | David Conn

Mendes’s first client is the Wolves manager, the club’s Chinese owners have a stake in the agent’s company and his influence has been clear in some signings

www.theguardian.com

Again, of no consequence to Premier League spending and FFP. The article talks of the likes of Helder Costa who joined them in 2016 and Roderick Miranda in 2017. It talks of 12 players joining after the takeover in 2016. Only 4 were Portuguese. So yes, they exploited the relationship between Nuno and Mendes but who wouldn't?

The spending Wolves did in 2022/23 was the concern when they bought Nunes for 45M, Guedes for 27M, Collins for 22M, Kalajdzic for 18M, Hwang for 16M and Lemina for 5M. They ended up getting rid of all but Hwang and Lemina although Guedes and Kalajdzic went on loan.

The point is though, that they saw an issue coming and took action. They were among the favourites to go down when Lopetegui left.

 

[gwladysnight]

Hi Bailey. Can you follow up on your earlier point about Moshiri appointing loads of his yes men to the board and sacking all the people that disagreed with him regarding the charges? Can you name these board members?

Stop pretending I am another poster, and stop bombarding me with aggressive PM's and you will get a reply. Until then can you please go and aggressively stalk someone else?

Maybe you should go to the game tonight and shout at a mounted Police officer. You could accuse him of being Elvis and ask him to take Shergar back.

 

[MikeH72]

Stop pretending I am another poster, and stop bombarding me with aggressive PM's and you will get a reply. Until then can you please go and aggressively stalk someone else?

Maybe you should go to the game tonight and shout at a mounted Police officer. You could accuse him of being Elvis and ask him to take Shergar back.

Please name the board members in question who we should be protesting against and their role in our FFP breach Bails.

 

[Goat]

Please name the board members in question who we should be protesting against and their role in our FFP breach Bails.

Well, 1 of them is dead, the other is in Monaco sitting on his yacht.

So good luck.

 

[MikeH72]

Well, 1 of them is dead, the other is in Monaco sitting on his yacht.

So good luck.

Stop giving him clues.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Didn’t have time to hurriedly reduce those losses because by the time we were found guilty and 5 out of 6 mitigations ignored, the 22/23 period had already closed.

The fact the regs don’t say how to handle successive breaches (and that makes them unworkable in practice) is our only argument isn’t it. As you say, on paper, both rolling period are in breach.

Said it yesterday but the timing of the first verdict has to be a massive part of the second hearing.

Not just our mitigations but they ruled on our method of calculating the interest in November 23. Our final PSR figure for 21/22 was also decided in Nov 23- after the conclusion of 22/23.

Given it was impossible by then to adjust our methodology used for 22/23, and given that we didn't know during 22/23 that our 21/22 figure was wrong and therefore couldn't plan around the alteration, our argument will be that the 22/23 breach is simply a knock-on from the unknowable 21/22 verdict which has already been covered by a sanction. It'll come down to numbers but if 22/23 has run close I think it's a decent argument that any further punishment should be minimal if anything.

Basically- if our 22/23 number would be compliant BUT FOR the effects of the 21/22 verdict we have a strong case I think, since the 21/22 verdict was delivered on the PLs own very slow timeline after the 22/23 period was over, leaving nothing we could do about it.

It also helps our argument that by now speeding up the process they have demonstrated that our first case could've been dealt with much quicker to allow us to factor in the effects of the verdict in the following year, but they chose not to.

 

[Juissi]

Mate, this will be the 6th time I've asked you now: Do you think a 10 point penalty is fair?

Almost seems like you don't want to answer that question...

please don't feed the troll. That keyboard warrior lives for our attention.

 

[RD2910]

Didn’t have time to hurriedly reduce those losses because by the time we were found guilty and 5 out of 6 mitigations ignored, the 22/23 period had already closed.

The fact the regs don’t say how to handle successive breaches (and that makes them unworkable in practice) is our only argument isn’t it. As you say, on paper, both rolling period are in breach.

Yeah that's fair, if anyone had known there was going to be such a penalty I doubt they would have been sailing so close to the £105m limit. But the 2023 losses will be quite damning in themselves, it definitely doesn't show the club straightening itself out.

I hope the fact there's already been a punishment will come into play, reflecting that at least part of the losses have already been considered. However, I don't think the league could have written it off.

 

[gwladysnight]

Stop giving him clues.

Never mind giving clues. You need a 50/50, ask the audience, and a phone the samaritans. If you did get in the Who Wants to be a millionaire hot seat you would probably accuse Clarkson of being Adolf Hitler.

 

[ashwuk76]

As @ForeverBlue92 put it yesterday - football is the opium of the masses.

Too many doped up to see the woods from the trees. As for the likes of Mr Cross, he supports one of the 6 cabal clubs and instead of having some dignity plays to the gallery of betas who are happy with a pat on the heed for being "good" boys by selling the family silver to guarantee midtable in the PL.

Sooner we're out of this shambles of a competition the better. Beg Perez to let us join his euro super league - anything must be more legitimate than the current pantomime that is the PL.

I think someone forgot to log into the multi you meant to post this on... tagging yourself in a post is weird lol lol lol

 

[COYBL25]

As @ForeverBlue92 put it yesterday - football is the opium of the masses.

Too many doped up to see the woods from the trees. As for the likes of Mr Cross, he supports one of the 6 cabal clubs and instead of having some dignity plays to the gallery of betas who are happy with a pat on the heed for being "good" boys by selling the family silver to guarantee midtable in the PL.

Sooner we're out of this shambles of a competition the better. Beg Perez to let us join his euro super league - anything must be more legitimate than the current pantomime that is the PL.

Good to see that you’ve recovered from that concussion you had yesterday and things are back to normal with you.

 

[ashwuk76]

Good to see that you’ve recovered from that concussion you had yesterday and things are back to normal with you.

not sure he has recovered... forgot to log into his multi to post it lol

 

[gwladysnight]

Didn’t have time to hurriedly reduce those losses because by the time we were found guilty and 5 out of 6 mitigations ignored, the 22/23 period had already closed.

The fact the regs don’t say how to handle successive breaches (and that makes them unworkable in practice) is our only argument isn’t it. As you say, on paper, both rolling period are in breach.

The board was informed that the PSR deductions would not be allowed on the 9th of December 2022. That was half a year before the end of the accounting period.