Initial 10, then reduced to 6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Moomin]

Not sure what you mean here. We had a deal in place for the training ground. It clearly caused a projected loss/hole in our accounting when that was pulled.

We will see how it has affected us in the next set of accounts.

By the looks of the last set it seems we got paid in full.

 

[John from Bootle]

? Emirates operates tons of flights out of the UK and worldwide. They're a consumer brand.

I wouldn't think that many Everton supporters had the opportunity to change their metals and mining business to USM companies. Doubt there's much brand growth for the 2nd largest mobile carrier in Russia sponsoring Everton.

I don't really care, I'm just saying these sponsorship deals were not exactly typical and now they're gone.

You de realise that it’s people all over the world who see or hear the sponsors name? Not just Everton fans?

 

[John from Bootle]

We will see how it has affected us in the next set of accounts.

By the looks of the last set it seems we got paid in full.

View attachment 240821

Never knew that. Oh well, still excessive, imo.

 

[MIKE85]

Not quite. We're talking £19 million here. Even if they want to argue the deal was inflated, that figure would still come down. Unless of course you're gonna argue that the deal should have been for about 6 pence a year.

Man City's case s a lot more serious than inflated sponsorships. I wish people stopped comparing us to this lot. It's like we stole cheap sausages in our local Tesco and got caught, while Man City have been drug smuggling for over a decade.

Manchester City 'were paid £30m by a mystery figure from the UAE'

MIKE KEEGAN: According to a 2020 UEFA report, City took two £15m payments from an Abu Dhabi-based individual in 2012 and 2013, sums that should have come from a club sponsor.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Man City's partnership with firm 8xBet is found to have anomalies

The reigning league champions trumpeted a deal with gambling firm 8xBet in the summer as they introduced 'a new regional partnership that will see the brand become the Official Betting Partner.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Man City scandal is not about fair play – it’s about fraud

The Premier League’s bombshell case against Manchester City goes beyond rules of Financial Fair Play and is really about allegations of dishonesty

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Blue Willy]

And another week ticks by.

Just want to be put out of my misery with the appeal/777 takeover, one way or the other.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

And another week ticks by.

Just want to be put out of my misery with the appeal/777 takeover, one way or the other.

Ridiculous that we had a really narrow window to collate and submit our appeal yet once done they can seemingly take as long as they like to even convene and arrange a hearing let alone reach a decision. A mockery of a process from start to finish.

 

[GoldenToffee]

Man City's case s a lot more serious than inflated sponsorships. I wish people stopped comparing us to this lot. It's like we stole cheap sausages in our local Tesco and got caught, while Man City have been drug smuggling for over a decade.

Manchester City 'were paid £30m by a mystery figure from the UAE'

MIKE KEEGAN: According to a 2020 UEFA report, City took two £15m payments from an Abu Dhabi-based individual in 2012 and 2013, sums that should have come from a club sponsor.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Man City's partnership with firm 8xBet is found to have anomalies

The reigning league champions trumpeted a deal with gambling firm 8xBet in the summer as they introduced 'a new regional partnership that will see the brand become the Official Betting Partner.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Man City scandal is not about fair play – it’s about fraud

The Premier League’s bombshell case against Manchester City goes beyond rules of Financial Fair Play and is really about allegations of dishonesty

www.independent.co.uk

£20m financial penalty I reckon, which would equate to about the same amount of money their owners make in around 15 minutes.

Essentially telling them they'll be able to do this over and over again to guarantee success for decades.

Nothing more than gigantic financial times AND kicking them out of the Premier League AND banning then from participating in the Premier League for 5 years will do.

But of course their punishment won't even be as severe as the one we got for spending £19m too much and admitting our guilt.

 

[Jacko93]

Yes possibly but this is where we have to be careful. We are quick to throw accusations at City but the issue is still a breach of the rules regarding FFP. We need to be careful about suggesting that if we still had Usmanov that this would be a non-issue. The reality is that if we did still have that resource, we would still be in breach unless the club took action to disguise the problem... effectively doing what City did with inflated sponsorship deals with related entities.

I disagree slightly here. This sponsorship deal could have happened without Usmanov, the M in USM is Moshiri. Also, Everton had supplied data to satisfy fair value for the sponsorship of Finch Farm. There was also the Megafon sponsorship. Both of these were lost.
We only lost that sponsorship, Finch Farm was £75m over 5 years, (2 of which had passed) due to the Ukraine war and sanctions on working with Russian based businesses.

 

[hallamblue]

It's daft that UEFA and the Premier League have different rules, so the clubs have broken the UEFA FFP rules and paid a fine, but we break the EPL rules and get a points deduction.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

Am I wrong to think that if the FA “do us a favour” and shorten Dom’s ban it will mean they will not be so kind regarding the point deduction. I mean, there’s no way they will do both

 

[blue to the bone]

Am I wrong to think that if the FA “do us a favour” and shorten Dom’s ban it will mean they will not be so kind regarding the point deduction. I mean, there’s no way they will do both

Yes. You are wrong

 

[chrismpw]

Am I wrong to think that if the FA “do us a favour” and shorten Dom’s ban it will mean they will not be so kind regarding the point deduction. I mean, there’s no way they will do both

Explains the sending off if they do.
"The points deduction stands, but to prove we're not bent we'll rescind the red for your out of form striker. Ain't we the nicest?"
Sky: "oh yes, yes, lick lick - imperious and honest as we are"

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

Explains the sending off if they do.
"The points deduction stands, but to prove we're not bent we'll rescind the red for your out of form striker. Ain't we the nicest?"
Sky: "oh yes, yes, lick lick - imperious and honest as we are"

Exactly my point
Paranoid I know but I just can’t see us getting two deals in a month

 

[MikeH72]

Am I wrong to think that if the FA “do us a favour” and shorten Dom’s ban it will mean they will not be so kind regarding the point deduction. I mean, there’s no way they will do both

Yeah you’re probably wrong, they are in no way linked whatsoever.

 

[blueblood]

We will see how it has affected us in the next set of accounts.

By the looks of the last set it seems we got paid in full.

View attachment 240821

Think we got £135m in broadcasting revenue for 22/23 season, as the overseas rights increased, so that’s £20m more than the previous year’s accounts. Plus this years accounts should also include higher gate receipts as most season ticket revenue is in by the end of June and prices went up 10%.