6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Jacko93]

It's the wrong argument though. any award probably doesn't happen in FYE 2022, and EFC can't predict the outcome of a court action that would have been contested.

The better argument is that the PL unjustly suspended one of our most important players for something he was not convicted of, which either affected our league standing or made the asset unsellable.

I get what your saying, but that is not what they are saying. they are stating that they are not considering it as a mitigating factor partly because he may not have been able to pay it. That shouldn't be considered at all as part of any discussion as to validity of mitigation. They also shouldn't be disregarding our concern for a players mental wellbeing, especially one that they state themselves has evidenced mental wellbeing issues in the very recent past, unless they seek expert counsel.

 

[bcblue1878]

Both players were wanted by plenty clubs prior to them joining.

Everton for example were being linked with Caicedo before brighton and apparently we could have signed him months before -- per media reports.

Lucky the players chose them and others didnt pull the trigger

That’s not luck though, if anything it highlights (once again!) Everton’s delay and dithering in the transfer market, a reflection of the way the club has been run over recent years! Is it any wonder the likes of Caicedo, Ferguson etc go to Brighton rather than come here?

 

[Jacko93]

We did, to a point. But they warned us we were very close to a limit, then Moshiri ignored them.

Not sure of ignored, as for 12 months we were making calculations based upon accounting that had been signed off by the PL, then retracted. It may well be that Moshiri etc. believed that they were OK, and only fell foul in our eyes once the change had happened.

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

But since those statements, we've had 2 negative net spends so it's clear he hasn't ignored them. It's looks more like he's obeyed. (Not defending Moshiri btw the fashion clown!)

We could always have had a more negative net spend if we really really wanted to get under the limit and be totally safe. In reality since purchases are spread over the contract, whereas sales are recognised in full on completion, the new players they were authorising had a much smaller impact on our breach than NOT selling one more half decent player.

 

[roydo]

Not sure of ignored, as for 12 months we were making calculations based upon accounting that had been signed off by the PL, then retracted. It may well be that Moshiri etc. believed that they were OK, and only fell foul in our eyes once the change had happened.

Maybe. Its effing messy thats for sure.

 

[Jacko93]

Goes round in circles this. We admitted breaching limits. But we are appealing the severity of the points, and some stuff that was ignored in mitigation.

We admitted a breach that became apparent after the PL jibbed some of our addbacks. We had, wrongly it seems, carried on in the assumption that our addbacks would be removed from the PRS calculation, they weren't. That's why it wasn't adjudged as a deliberate breach.

 

[JLW]

How the bleedin hell has a billionaire owner and an experienced chairman of over 2 decades got us into this mess?

Its beyond scandalous.

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

Latest from the Guardian’s Andy Hunter.

It’s a tough ask that from the FAB. Pretty much impossible to impose something on a football club that hurts it, feels like a penalty, acts as a deterrent AND doesn’t affect the fans due to the football product being worsened. All about the severity of course. A £30m fine instead would probably mean no new signings until we get to BMD, or JB is sold. So still could affect our PL survival. Transfer ban the same. Fans all put through the ringer again due to the actions of owners that the PL themselves deemed fit and proper.

Just highlights the stupidity of trying to structure FFP/P&S rules in this way in the first place.

 

[roydo]

We admitted a breach that became apparent after the PL jibbed some of our addbacks. We had, wrongly it seems, carried on in the assumption that our addbacks would be removed from the PRS calculation, they weren't. That's why it wasn't adjudged as a deliberate breach.

I know. Lob in a liberal dose of political stuff, (Govt regulator, yay or nay) and here we are. I mean, iirc, the "independent" panel, , dismissed the Ukraine war and the effect on USM/us as not valid as mitigation.

Like I have said, we admitted stuff. Usually that is a good thing to do according to me Ma.

 

[Jacko93]

Wasnt one of the claims against City regarding Mancini's contract, they were paying him say 100k per week but on the books it was 50k and the other 50k was going to an offshore account or something like that.

I believe that the charge is that he was paid a large sum of Money as a consultant to another company to make up a larger salary package than was audited and reported, but that company was a subsidiary of the clubs owners.

 

[pfim]

I get what your saying, but that is not what they are saying. they are stating that they are not considering it as a mitigating factor partly because he may not have been able to pay it. That shouldn't be considered at all as part of any discussion as to validity of mitigation. They also shouldn't be disregarding our concern for a players mental wellbeing, especially one that they state themselves has evidenced mental wellbeing issues in the very recent past, unless they seek expert counsel.

Only partly, and frankly they panel didn't even need to mention that. They didn't pursue it, and the process would have been fraught with difficulties (as the panel states). Secondly, players lose value all of the time for many reasons, it doesn't mean you can claim a credit back without a judgment.

Again, the club made the wrong argument. It should have focused on the availability of the player being taken away, not by some spurious potential recovery the club chose to forgo. It's a flimsy argument from the club.

 

[DuuuncanHadaPigeon]

How the bleedin hell has a billionaire owner and an experienced chairman of over 2 decades got us into this mess?

Its beyond scandalous.

Not just any billionaire, a bloody accountant billionaire!

 

[JLW]

Not just any billionaire, a bloody accountant billionaire!

*Facepalms

 

[pfim]

We could always have had a more negative net spend if we really really wanted to get under the limit and be totally safe. In reality since purchases are spread over the contract, whereas sales are recognised in full on completion, the new players they were authorising had a much smaller impact on our breach than NOT selling one more half decent player.

Correct. The club could have also spread the amortization further by extending contracts, but again that will have a smaller impact than actually selling a player above his remaining amortization.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Pleased the club has finally stood up and is appealing, did have this awful feeling we would just role over and accept the outcome in the "Everton doing the right thing" crap.