6 + 2 Point Deductions

[kenada_blue]

I could be wrong, but I could have sworn that the appeal decision report referenced that our 22/23 losses had shown an upward trend (in other words losses were higher) but that they couldn't/shouldn't be using that as an aggravating factor in the 21/22 decision

Can't recall.

But it is noted in the original case that as part of mitigation we argued that the PSR calculation showed a downward trend for losses going forward. The Commission rejected all the Club’s other submissions in mitigation apart from the one on reduction of losses.

Super Silk always used the downward trend in losses again in the appeal. Could be wrong on the boards response

 

[Titus Bramble]

I could be wrong, but I could have sworn that the appeal decision report referenced that our 22/23 losses had shown an upward trend (in other words losses were higher) but that they couldn't/shouldn't be using that as an aggravating factor in the 21/22 decision

I though the wording was 'positive trend', implying our losses were coming down?

 

[Tony’s Carp]

I could be wrong, but I could have sworn that the appeal decision report referenced that our 22/23 losses had shown an upward trend (in other words losses were higher) but that they couldn't/shouldn't be using that as an aggravating factor in the 21/22 decision

The phrase they used was our loss trend taking an "upward turn" in 22/23. This was initially interpreted as a good thing but I think it's now being interpreted as the opposite:

Firstly, our loss trend was reducing in 21/22. An upward turn is the opposite of that downward trend, ie the losses increase in 22/23. It's a bad turn of phrase because ordinarily people would associate an upward turn as being a good thing but I guess it's literally correct that when losses are decreasing, an upward turn is in fact an increase in losses ie a bad thing.

Also, logically when our PSR loss for 21/22 was only 10m, giving us 40m of wiggle room for 22/23, our losses can only be substantially bigger in 22/23 for us to have been anywhere close to breaching.

 

[toffeeblue9]

The phrase they used was our loss trend taking an "upward turn" in 22/23. This was initially interpreted as a good thing but I think it's now being interpreted as the opposite:

Firstly, our loss trend was reducing in 21/22. An upward turn is the opposite of that downward trend, ie the losses increase in 22/23. It's a bad turn of phrase because ordinarily people would associate an upward turn as being a good thing but I guess it's literally correct that when losses are decreasing, an upward turn is in fact an increase in losses ie a bad thing.

Also, logically when our PSR loss for 21/22 was only 10m, giving us 40m of wiggle room for 22/23, our losses can only be substantially bigger in 22/23 for us to have been anywhere close to breaching.

Yeah, the original case had something similar - we argued that our downward trend on losses was a mitigating factor. The PL argued that although that was the case in the period ending 21/22, it was not the case for the 22/23 period

I'll see if I can find the wording

EDIT - That didn't take long (https://resources.premierleague.com...gue-v-Everton-FC-Decision-for-Publication.pdf)

Everton argues that its PSR calculation shows a downward trend for losses. It points to the EFL P&S Rules that allow credit for such a downward trend. The Premier League challenges that Everton can show a trend that should stand as mitigation. First, it disputes Everton’s reliance on the EFL P&S Rules. The Premier League has no such rules, and it is wrong to attempt to import those of another league. Second, Everton could show a positive trend only if the figures for FYs 2020 and 2021 were averaged. Third, any positive trend is not continued into FY 2023.

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

Yeah, the original case had something similar - we argued that our downward trend on losses was a mitigating factor. The PL argued that although that was the case in the period ending 21/22, it was not the case for the 22/23 period

I'll see if I can find the wording

EDIT - That didn't take long (https://resources.premierleague.com...gue-v-Everton-FC-Decision-for-Publication.pdf)

Everton argues that its PSR calculation shows a downward trend for losses. It points to the EFL P&S Rules that allow credit for such a downward trend. The Premier League challenges that Everton can show a trend that should stand as mitigation. First, it disputes Everton’s reliance on the EFL P&S Rules. The Premier League has no such rules, and it is wrong to attempt to import those of another league. Second, Everton could show a positive trend only if the figures for FYs 2020 and 2021 were averaged. Third, any positive trend is not continued into FY 2023.

Which is very odd. The appeal report does not say the losses have an upturn in the following period. It’s says the “PSR Picture” shows an upturn. Can’t paste from here at the moment but it’s para 222, and I think mentioned elsewhere.

Possibly 22/23 accounts which would not have been submitted under PSR regs at the timing of the first hearing were amended following the first ruling, particularly re interest?

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

From the appeal:

. The Commission took into account the positive trend in the PSR figures as a
mitigating factor, saying that it “goes some limited way to diminish Everton’s
culpability”. The Commission left out of account evidence as to the PSR picture in FY23, which showed an upturn. We agree with the Commission’s approach,
assessment and the way in which it dealt with the PSR picture in FY23.

 

[RD2910]

Which is very odd. The appeal report does not say the losses have an upturn in the following period. It’s says the “PSR Picture” shows an upturn. Can’t paste from here at the moment but it’s para 222, and I think mentioned elsewhere.

Possibly 22/23 accounts which would not have been submitted under PSR regs at the timing of the first hearing were amended following the first ruling, particularly re interest?

In comparison to the downward trend mentioned in the previous paragraph. It definitely doesn't mean that the positive trend continued. A lack of clarity though, certainly.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

In comparison to the downward trend mentioned in the previous paragraph. It definitely doesn't mean that the positive trend continued. A lack of clarity though, certainly.

Lack of clarity in the appeal document, what a surprise.

 

[toffeeblue9]

Which is very odd. The appeal report does not say the losses have an upturn in the following period. It’s says the “PSR Picture” shows an upturn. Can’t paste from here at the moment but it’s para 222, and I think mentioned elsewhere.

Possibly 22/23 accounts which would not have been submitted under PSR regs at the timing of the first hearing were amended following the first ruling, particularly re interest?

Yep, the wording itself is ambiguous - I'd absolutely take it, in isolation, to mean that it's a good thing:

"The Commission left out of account evidence as to the PSR picture in FY23, which showed an upturn."

But when you combine it with the relevant line in the original report...

"Third, any positive trend is not continued into FY 2023",

...it becomes more concerning because you could now interpret it (and indeed it's how I interpret it) that the "PSR picture" the appeal board refer to is actually the losses involved.

 

[WestStandLower]

Don't get hung up on City, they will never be found guilty. Chelsea is a different matter as they don't have the government's ear, although from recollection I think the government were involved in Boehly winning the bidding competition so they may well get off as well.

Not sure you are right about City although I just can’t see them being cleared of 115 charges.

It’s an interesting point you make about Bohley and indeed UK Government alongside The FA, PL , UEFA and bizarrely the EU were all party to the sale. Significant disclosures have already been made to all those parties aand a sum of £150 million has been retained from the proceeds of sale to settle regulatory breeches under the old regime

 

[WestStandLower]

Can't recall.

But it is noted in the original case that as part of mitigation we argued that the PSR calculation showed a downward trend for losses going forward. The Commission rejected all the Club’s other submissions in mitigation apart from the one on reduction of losses.

Super Silk always used the downward trend in losses again in the appeal. Could be wrong on the boards response

The appeal board stated that year on year over the 3 year period losses decreased year on year and that the losses for the first two years( each over £50 million) totalled over £110 million and year 3 was significantly reduced.

Reference is top of page 3 of the appeal written reasons

 

[nsno-chris]

Footy has some how made a generation of accountants

What a beautiful game

 

[DuncansPigeons]

Need to get behind this!

 

[Evertonthat]

Need to get behind this!

Do they have the power to do this? If so, that's a great shout by the Nottingham MP.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Need to get behind this!

As delightful as that would be, there is more chance of Kylian Mbappe and Elvis Presley starting up front for us v Bournemouth than there is of the PL taking things this far then saying “actually no, forget it”.