6 + 2 Point Deductions

[maccavennie]

It is at Premier League level where you only lose 9 pts. It is the same punishment you'd receive at Championship level or lower. I'd say, in general, that Premier League teams should be held to a higher standard. However, that standard needs to be set before play commences and not come along in an arbitrary way like this appears to have done in our case.

Why should the PL be held to a higher standard than the Championship punishment wise? Shouldn't it be the same for all?

 

[maccavennie]

You're not a politician, are you? Why not just answer the question? It only requires a Yes or No.

I'm assuming he can't answer because the rs little prick will have so many people on ignore he won't be able to view all of their questions.

 

[Gilbert..]

If they go into admin then there are penalties.

On another note, UEFA has a threshold of 60M and a spending cap of 70% on wages by 25/26. I've seen some reference to the rules changing in the Premier League in August but from what I could see during the Parliamentary Committee meeting they were talking of trying to align themselves with this in 25/26 and not this year. So, if that is correct, the FFP limit will then be lowered for Prem. teams. Can see more fun and games then!

And it wont make much difference. It very much depends on which side of the fence you sit on. Looking at it on the whole im on the cynical side. Both these systems are there to ensure the most powerful clubs stay there. 90% or 70% it doesnt matter. Its turnover and revenue and you've got a league where bournemouth and man united are both expected to operate within their turnover.
In a perverse way i hope city get away with it. Someone pumped money into the club. So what. Good luck to them. They cooked the books. Again so what. They were forced to do it as the only way of really getting round it to be the team they are today.
All they do is hide behind the ruse of its to protect clubs. The reality is clubs like city have pissed off so many other clubs who didnt like getting blown out of the water. If Everton hadnt been so inept we might have scratched the surface of it. And been hated just as much.

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

And it wont make much difference. It very much depends on which side of the fence you sit on. Looking at it on the whole im on the cynical side. Both these systems are there to ensure the most powerful clubs stay there. 90% or 70% it doesnt matter. Its turnover and revenue and you've got a league where bournemouth and man united are both expected to operate within their turnover.
In a perverse way i hope city get away with it. Someone pumped money into the club. So what. Good luck to them. They cooked the books. Again so what. They were forced to do it as the only way of really getting round it to be the team they are today.
All they do is hide behind the ruse of its to protect clubs. The reality is clubs like city have pissed off so many other clubs who didnt like getting blown out of the water. If Everton hadnt been so inept we might have scratched the surface of it. And been hated just as much.

Masters literally said they “calibrated” the £105m limit so bottom half teams could dream of Europe. Stone-cold admitting that people had to have a meeting to decide how much of a chance to give the “small clubs”. Was it £80m losses, £249m losses. They calibrated the answer of £105m to provide just enough incentive to attract owners and investment, a glimmer hope, but in reality it’s a number that keeps a firm lid on those not already earning UCL money.

 

[HowardsWay]

Why should the PL be held to a higher standard than the Championship punishment wise? Shouldn't it be the same for all?

Well, just my opinion, they are supposed to be elite clubs. They are supposed to set the standard others wish to aspire to. I can see the argunent for the same treatment for all but reality is that Premier League clubs gain more financially than clubs below them. If these clubs are allowed to gain more than others in a financial sense, then I would argue that the punishment for breaking a higher set of rules should be higher.

 

[HowardsWay]

First of all, at this level, 105 million over three years is a drop in the ocean for some. It's 5 years of Salah's wages.

You think every club should budget to finish 17th then? I'll be honest, it wouldn't be a terrible rule to implement, in terms of making it more competitive, and I personally wouldn't be opposed to that, but to be a top team, you have to pay top money, ergo budget to be a top team. That's just the way the game is. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but whilst that is the case, then losses have to be allowed.

A drop in the ocean?

See, this is what I mean. Fans have been conditioned to believe that losing this amount of money is acceptable.

Sorry, but as we have said, clubs at lower levels aren't allowed to do this. All this does is protect the elite few and by that I mean 20 to 30 clubs in English football.

As regards budgets, I'd be budgeting so that any level of finish in the league was a bonus and therefore, profit.

I know that's fantasy world thinking the way football clubs are run in the Prem. but as I said, I find it hard to get my head around any business being allowed to lose 105M in a three year period.

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

A drop in the ocean?

See, this is what I mean. Fans have been conditioned to believe that losing this amount of money is acceptable.

Sorry, but as we have said, clubs at lower levels aren't allowed to do this. All this does is protect the elite few and by that I mean 20 to 30 clubs in English football.

As regards budgets, I'd be budgeting so that any level of finish in the league was a bonus and therefore, profit.

I know that's fantasy world thinking the way football clubs are run in the Prem. but as I said, I find it hard to get my head around any business being allowed to lose 105M in a three year period.

There are lots of very big companies that have never made a profit. Deliveroo and Uber to name just a couple. Ultimately, provided the owners or the clubs lenders are happy to put more money into fund the losses and the club is paying it's debts as they fall due then it really is no one elses business.

 

[Marius57]

The IC's verdict was that Everton had acted recklessly by continuing to sign players even though we knew we had huge PSR issues. The IC's verdict was that we had misled the Premier League over Stadium funding.

The IC made clear that both the PL and EFL have a starting point that significant breaches of PSR mean a points deduction.

The biggest thing is that the way PL PSR works is that it is almost impossible to accidentally breach them. You have to act in a reckless manner.

The IC said it was not a deliberate breach.

 

[ToffeeTim]

A drop in the ocean?

See, this is what I mean. Fans have been conditioned to believe that losing this amount of money is acceptable.

Sorry, but as we have said, clubs at lower levels aren't allowed to do this. All this does is protect the elite few and by that I mean 20 to 30 clubs in English football.

As regards budgets, I'd be budgeting so that any level of finish in the league was a bonus and therefore, profit.

I know that's fantasy world thinking the way football clubs are run in the Prem. but as I said, I find it hard to get my head around any business being allowed to lose 105M in a three year period.

Football isn't like normal industry

Big clubs have spent more than 105m on individual players

Any thresholds that aren't adjusted for inflation aren't fit for purpose

 

[ToffeeTim]

The IC's verdict was that Everton had acted recklessly by continuing to sign players even though we knew we had huge PSR issues. The IC's verdict was that we had misled the Premier League over Stadium funding.

The IC made clear that both the PL and EFL have a starting point that significant breaches of PSR mean a points deduction.

The biggest thing is that the way PL PSR works is that it is almost impossible to accidentally breach them. You have to act in a reckless manner.

How many times are you going to say it was not accidental or a deliberate breach?

The report clearly states there was no allegation that this was deliberate. You keep quoting the report but I'm not sure you have read it!

 

[Moderatelywarmwater]

Football isn't like normal industry

Big clubs have spent more than 105m on individual players

Any thresholds that aren't adjusted for inflation aren't fit for purpose

The target for loses hasn’t changed. It’s still zero. That’s what they expect clubs to aim for. And the value of zero hasn’t changed.
Italy are tightening up their rules, seems like it’s the direction of travel given so many of their clubs have got into financial troubles.

 

[Moderatelywarmwater]

How many times are you going to say it was not accidental or a deliberate breach?

The report clearly states there was no allegation that this was deliberate. You keep quoting the report but I'm not sure you have read it!

Incompetence was the issue. Moshiri couldn't balance a pencil on his finger, let alone a set of books.
The punishment is of course outrageous, but this all comes back to him.

 

[Hangleton]

Masters literally said they “calibrated” the £105m limit so bottom half teams could dream of Europe. Stone-cold admitting that people had to have a meeting to decide how much of a chance to give the “small clubs”. Was it £80m losses, £249m losses. They calibrated the answer of £105m to provide just enough incentive to attract owners and investment, a glimmer hope, but in reality it’s a number that keeps a firm lid on those not already earning UCL money.

It also, conveniently for the “elite clubs”, gives “small clubs” enough lee way to overspend on their cast offs.

 

[Tipp blue]

Seems to me that a lot of people think that losing £105 million every three years is an acceptable way to run a football club. Try doing that lower down the leagues and see where you get. It astonishes me that this threshold is seen as entirely normal and acceptable. Coming from a business environment, I'm puzzled by this as it seems ridiculous that you can continually be sanctioned to lose this amount of money.

I don't think they do think that.. this is supposed to be a competition yet these rules make it the opposite.. wouldn't it be great if a club could be competitive and profitable, unfortunately these rules ensure that if you were wealthy at the time they were introduced you'll remain that way.. Leicester actually won the league and were picked apart by the PL favourite clubs.. Brighton are current the shining light of how things should be done but really how sustainable is it to sell your best preforming players year on year? Their luck in recruitment will eventually turn and signing a few duds will see them slide. These are unfair rules masquerading as fair ones and drastically need to be changed.

 

[WestStandLower]

I think it would be churlish to suggest the breach was “ deliberate “ and I don’t think that there is any suggestion from any that realistically that really is the case. If they are suggesting that then shame on you

What I think you all need to accept otherwise you wont get past first base is that the vast swathe of issues that led to the P&S issues are were as a consequence of decisions and actions taken by management at Everton.

Of course there were some mitigating factors but when it case to the case being heard there were some significant aggravating factors that clearly were key not so much to the base points deduction but stopped that penalty being reduced.