Initial 10, then reduced to 6 + 2 Point Deductions

matty1878 said:
if therye doing us for the second charge
what’s the point then in giving us the points back?
Click to expand...
Because this is the first charge for the -10, could change the figure for the 2nd charge. But i still dont get what these idiots in control trying to do with the new rules after that even more clear to help the so called top 6 after they have even found it hard to spend.
 
Toffeeslam said:
What I don’t understand is that we were working with the premier league and open our books to them as early as 2020/2021 season. They essentially okayed all of our transfers then said we were warned about potential breaches.

No matter how you slice it or dice it that alone sounds fishy why did they approve any transfers then ?

Also I was given to believe that stadium costs were outside of PSR calculations and the club sort clarity on that from the start of the 2021/22 season and didn’t get a response until the September of tgat year by which point the rules changed to include the stadium costs.

If that’s the case then that’s a huge concern and leaves the premier league with questions of their own to answer.

Not saying the club were squeaky clean on this but the idea that we decided to breach again when if the stadium build cost are now in the calculations we are left with no choice but to breach as when we took out those loans they were at the time Within the rules.

Essentially we will be in breach for every season unless we play the youth team every season on low wages or pay of those loans.

I think your being disingenuous to the club if that’s what happen with the club’s interactions with the EPL.

Let’s see what super silk does to those rulings yeah mate ?
Click to expand...
The Premier League we're monitoring, not managing. We have to take ownership of our own finances. We we're purchasing players and then expecting to sell them/ other on. When it didn't work, we gout ourselves in a mess.

Again from the hearing documentation.

The 13 August 2021 agreement imposed certain obligations on Everton, one of which was to obtain the Premier League’s approval of purchases of new players. The Premier League approved each such request but when doing so cautioned Everton that it (the Premier League) was not managing Everton’s finances, and that it was for Everton to ensure that it complied with the PSR. The Premier League asserts that for Everton to have persisted in player purchases in the face of such plain warnings was recklessness that constitutes an aggravating factor.103. The Commission considers that it was unwise for Everton not to have curtailed player purchases. It was aware of potential PSR difficulties but pressed ahead in the hope that it would make sales of players that would enable it to achieve PSR compliance. Events have proved that to be a poor judgment.
 
sam17 said:
There is a bit of a misconception around the stadium loans argument. PL argument isn't that we're funding the stadium, its that we are attributing interests costs to the stadium, that our own documents suggest weren't related to the stadium.

From the hearing document:

The Premier League argued that the pre-planning stadium interest charges had not been incurred in respect of the Stadium because the stadium had not been funded by the commercial loans from Metro Bank PLC and Rights & Media Funding Ltd but by the interest free loans made by Mr Moshiri. In support of that factual assertion the Premier League pointed to a large number of Everton’s own documents, all of which showed that Mr Moshiri’s funds had been used to fund the stadium development.
Click to expand...
That was also my understanding, whereby our brilliant defence was along the lines of “ yeah but, no we didn’t borrow for the stadium, but we could have done and if we had, that would have been allowed. So we should be allowed to offset these other loans, that were nothing to do with the stadium.”

Also, the actual loans we did take out during the period under review, apparently had terms attached, stating that they could not be used for stadium construction.

The time to send in our star barrister was the first time, before we tried to defend that crock of Mosh magic accounting.
 
Last edited:
Goat said:
Maybe we should have thought about that before we decided to breach again Matty mate.
Click to expand...
But if we thought we hadn’t breached first time round (or not breached by as much as the PL said), by the time we were charged and told how much the breach was, it was too late to do anything about breaching a second time as we had planned with figures we thought were correct.
 
Tony’s Carp said:
The hearing finished on Friday, it’ll take time to reach an agreed position let alone to then produce a reasoned verdict before it’s communicated to the parties. There’s no leaks because there’s nothing to leak yet.
Click to expand...
mike-tyson-laughing-hysterically-uh0bzno7lqqvgh1v.webp
 

Similar Threads

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top