6 + 2 Point Deductions

[The T-Dex]

With this fella’s verbal ability to change “I was wrong” to “actually I was right” maybe he should be our legal representation for the next one.

It's mad that people hang off his every word.

 

[JimmyK]

I completely agree that we've already lost the argument on stadium interest costs being allowable. But as I said up-thread, I do think there's still room to argue that spending on said costs does not confer a sporting advantage in any way, which is much more applicable to the second charge than it was the first (where Moshiri admitted that part of the breach came from needing midfielders, ha). Which is why I don't think it's fair for another points deduction to be treated as a foregone conclusion. The case is a little different this time.



I do think there's a difference, though, between being guilty in actuality and being found guilty by a legal proceeding. I'm not saying we are innocent in fact. I don't think anyone's arguing that. You can watch someone commit a crime with your own eyes and know beyond doubt that he's guilty, but you still have to go through the process of proving it to other people. And in civil society, until you do that, you really shouldn't be publicly planning out his punishment.

I'm not saying all this PSR stuff is truly akin to criminal proceedings, but you get my point. It is still a legal-style process that has to play out.

Loads of people are making out like we're innocent i've seen people saying the premier league should have apologised to us and everything I know what you mean though about the rest though.

 

[jazzy]

Oh, never mind. I thought you had some numbers that confirmed our breach was worse than last year’s and we were trending in the wrong direction again as that’s what you suggested, however I can see now that’s clearly not the case and you’re just guessing. As you were lads.

No one in the public domain has those figures. The accounts have been signed off and are with the PL but not published yet. Supposedly will be by the end of March

 

[Frenk]

OK. So are we doomed or what?

 

[Jacko93]

The Man City legal bod on talksport earlier said there is no Double Jeopardy in the Premier lge rules.
But then worded it they can't use them anyway as they have already been used to punish us.

He also said we would get as low as 1 point upto 3 points deducted ( hinting at 2 ).
Same 1-3 for Forest but then said the Brennan Johnson mitigation would be kicked out and that would be added.

It's all very complicated.

Doesn't matter how complicated it all is or isn't, that chump has absolutely no idea.

 

[TraffordBlue]

Where has it been said that the figures were £55m and £10m in the previous periods?

I also don't understand how our trend has likely worsened in 22/23 when as far as I know we sold Richarlison and Gordon within that period? The last 2 Januarys we haven't bought anyone as well.

So what could have caused such a significant loss in 22/23?

 

[Yarrgh]

Some of you lot make me miss the ramblings of Gwladysnight

I've been out for 2 hours... have things deteriorated that badly since then?!?

 

[Frenk]

Where has it been said that the figures were £55m and £10m in the previous periods?

I also don't understand how our trend has likely worsened in 22/23 when as far as I know we sold Richarlison and Gordon within that period? The last 2 Januarys we haven't bought anyone as well.

So what could have caused such a significant loss in 22/23?

I agree, apart from the players who else is syphoning off cash from the club.

 

[ste d' indica]

I'm pretty comfortable about us not getting a second points deduction based on nothing other than gut feeling and the following thought process.

1. The premier league will actively want to avoid the farcical scenario of teams playing vital end of season games not knowing whether they should be holding out for a draw or gambling to go and get a win.
2. The reputational damage to the PL if we don't know who is going down once the season completes and until some opaque administrative process is concluded.
3. The potential and prolonged legal sh1tsh0w that could arise based on the above. Surely even Luton/Brentford etc. would have a case for the first scenario.

To avoid this happening the EPL could/should want to avoid the a likely scenario where Everton go to the ends of the earth to bring legal cases based on the following arguments:
1. Everton have already been punished for two of the three years. While the monitoring period is a 3 year rolling period, I'm pretty sure there's a strong legal argument to be made relating to the double jeopardy punishment based on what is essentially and ill-conceived and badly through out process.
2. The offences relate to two time periods, yet are being applied in the same season which is fundamentally unfair. Yes, the obvious answer to that is that Everton could have been punished/relegated last year, but that didn't happen because of due process and the inefficiency of their system.
3. Everton have gone to great lengths to correct the accounts and return to profitability, by selling key players, reducing their squad size etc. Only Brighton have a better net spend over the past 5 years. Any breach is as a result of historic (already penalised) breaches not having flushed through the system despite corrective action being taken.

A fine or a transfer ban would surely be a much better route for the PL to go for the second charge.

That third point is really key - battering someone for cooperating and working to correct errors is incredibly corrosive to a wider group, it removes the motivation for all to be open and transparent and the drivers to do the right thing.

 

[Jcr1878]

I think the ability to use covid as an excuse for losses was not allowed in the 22/23 financial year, which is why the year before was only a 10 million loss. I'm not entirely sure though

 

[Tony’s Carp]

This can’t be right can it?

The two years going on to the 23 calculation are 55m and 10m. “Capping” it at 70m would actually be 5m worse?

 

[Tony’s Carp]

I think the ability to use covid as an excuse for losses was not allowed in the 22/23 financial year, which is why the year before was only a 10 million loss. I'm not entirely sure though

Think there was 8m of Covid on 21/22’s accounts.

 

[Frenk]

I think the ability to use covid as an excuse for losses was not allowed in the 22/23 financial year, which is why the year before was only a 10 million loss. I'm not entirely sure though

Still doesn’t make sense when you consider how much we have cut the wage bill by, how few players we have purchased and how many we have sold.

 

[Yarrgh]

If they introduce that we should go after it. Those charlatans at the PL are enforcing rules that the league believe should be applied in a different way.

Corrupt

 

[Yarrgh]

With this fella’s verbal ability to change “I was wrong” to “actually I was right” maybe he should be our legal representation for the next one.

Esk's win would be our additional points deducted.