🎙ToffeeWeb Podcast: Finances Special with The Esk

26/03/2023 12comments  |  Jump to last

Paul The Esk joins Lyndon Lloyd and Paul Traill to give his perspective on the bombshell last Friday that Everton have been referred by the Premier League to an independent commission for an alleged breach in the Profitability & Sustainability rules.

Why now, what does it mean for the club and what might the punishment be if they are found guilty?


You can listen directly via the Acast player above or take us with you on your smartphone by subscribing to the podcast through the usual big players like Apple iTunes, Spotify, etc or, if need be, you can add it to a third-party app using this RSS feed link


Reader Comments (12)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer ()

Paul [The Esk]
1 Posted 26/03/2023 at 19:52:55
Thanks, Lyndon, for the opportunity to talk with the ToffeeWeb audience.

Happy to answer (if I can) any questions arising from the podcast.

To those that listen, thank you

Jack Convery
2 Posted 26/03/2023 at 20:15:26
Paul, Thanks for your insight on the financial goings on at EFC, A very sobering podcast indeed.

Whichever way you look at it, we are facing a punishment, Like Lyndon, I immediately thought 12 - 20 points, so was relieved with your opinion that it would be less than 9. However, if it is a points deduction and a window transfer ban, for instance, we really are up Shit Creek! For instance, would the Conor Cody deal be dead in the water?

No wonder Moshiri and the board stays away, they obviously knew that this was coming or at least had a very good idea what was about to happen.

Peter Mills
3 Posted 26/03/2023 at 20:30:56
Lyndon, that is a very informative but grim listen.

Thank you and Paul T for firing the questions, many thanks to Paul (the Esk) for such clear answers, awful though they are.

Barry Hesketh
4 Posted 26/03/2023 at 21:20:34
Just finished listening to the podcast and it was informative if pretty depressing. I'm not sure I agree that the timescale of the hearings will automatically come during the summer, I would imagine that seven other clubs would want the outcome of the 'trial' to come prior to the end of the current season, therefore the Premier League will come under enormous pressure to get things underway as soon as possible.

I'm also at a loss as to how any club could promise or agree to selling players for a given amount prior to a certain date in order to satisfy the Premier League's compliance demands. That's not the way a free market works is it?

Let's say that Levy at Spurs knew that Everton had to raise x funds in order to comply with the Premier League. He's hardly going to pay x in full, is he? He's going to pay x minus what he can get away with.

He wins twice: once by getting a player for less than his market value, and secondly by scuppering the chances of a rival club to comply with the Premier League's demands.

If Everton did agree to recoup £100M by the said date and only got £60M for Richarlison, they would then be £40M short of the target and apparently automatically fall foul of the Profit and Sustainability rules.

It's possible but it all sounds a bit insane to me.

Danny O’Neill
5 Posted 26/03/2023 at 22:06:44
Stark but truthful views. Thank you Lyndon, Paul and Paul.

I think it is important, to differentiate between UEFA's FFP, which we are not yet subject to, and the Premier League's Profit & Sustainability rules. To my understanding, they have subtle differences.

If we are proven to have broken the rules, then we get punished in some shape or form. We would expect it for another club. That is the blunt truth.

Interesting points touching on revenue generation. I've long said, we don't do nearly enough to compete with the likes of Arsenal and Tottenham. Just look at the difference in ticket season prices. Okay, there are regional fanbase factors to consider. I understand that. But £2K in comparison to £625 and then considering they have 60,000 seater stadiums. And then there is supporter activity on match day, but we'll leave that for another discussion.

Our sponsorship deals don't compete. Our brand marketing barely doesn't have national or international reach in comparison.

So we don't make a lot of money in comparison and Moshiri has, by and large, bankrolled us. But we have spent an awful lot that it now seems we didn't have. Overdrawn at the bank and not paying the mortgage with the Baliff potentially about to knock on the door.

I say we. I should say they. Those who knew. Those in charge of the decision making and cheque signing positions, who, as was said, knew the rules. If they didn't know the rules or what they were doing, then it's a travesty beyond incompetence as to what they have done to our club.

They have to go and the momentum to get them out has to build. They can't stay. They have turned their back on us and accused us of things that no one has any evidence happened or was going to ever going to happen.

There is no going back for them. They don't show up at Goodison but do so at Anfield. I don't know if they were at Stamford Bridge, I didn't even look. They aren't welcome at Goodison. They snapped the final tether. They turned on their supposed own. None of them are one of us.

Once that team crosses the white chalk, we are right behind the players and manager urging them onto performance and victory.

But it doesn't get those incompetent shithouses off the hook. The way they have operated this club and treated its very loyal supporters is nothing short of calamitous.

The protests and making our voice heard will continue and grow after this latest sorry episode.

Until they are no more. We will still be here. As will Everton.

I'm obviously hoping for a slap on the wrists and a fine or a transfer embargo.

If the assessment is that we work down from 9 (likely 6), then I could live with that in the circumstances providing we remain in the Premier League at the end of this season.

We all seem to think this won't be wrapped up before the end of this season and most likely in the summer. So, the niggling and worrying thought in the back of my head, is whether a points reduction could be administered retrospectively or, as I would imagine, it starts from next term out?

Anyway, we have Tottenham under the lights at Goodison on Monday night.

Marching. Forever.

Jack Convery
6 Posted 27/03/2023 at 02:21:22
It has occurred to me that we should have sold Gordon last June, when Chelsea were willing to spend £50 plus million on him. There's your £100m right there, given we got £50m off Spurs for Richarlson, which was cheap lets face it. Maybe Levy knew then what sh*t we were in. If so, I wonder who told him.
John Raftery
7 Posted 27/03/2023 at 08:47:21
At least the delay in issuing the accounts has ensured the outcome of the investigation will not affect this season. Had the accounts been issued in November and triggered an investigation at that stage we might well have been facing a points deduction before the end of May.

If the club’s transgressions are viewed as less heinous than entering administration it seems reasonable to assume any points deduction would be less than the tariffs used by the EFL for the likes of Derby and others. Six to eight points next season would be manageable under Sean Dyche. The question, I suppose, is whether or not such a sanction would be a sufficient deterrent to other clubs tempted to spend beyond their means.

Jerome Shields
8 Posted 27/03/2023 at 17:31:25
Thank you Lyndon for the very informative pod cast.
David West
9 Posted 27/03/2023 at 20:25:14
Thanks guys. Interesting listen.

Before listening to this podcast and reading the esk's explanation post, I was one of them who thought the league were singling us out and using us as an example.

Now, having his experience and knowledge shared with us, it's clear this board have no excuse.

It's their financial mismanagement of the club for years now that has got us here.

To the esk.

Do you belive that the league have given us a fair bit of goodwill up to now ?

Do you think the losses for covid are well over exaggerated ( considering other clubs losses due to covid )

Do you think this would have come about sooner if not for covid ?

David Cooper
10 Posted 27/03/2023 at 20:40:47
Could the money we got from Usmanov for naming rights to BMD figure into our financial problems.
Did we get it and keep it? Did we return it and so could that not be written off as a loss? Could there be any political motives linked to Usmanov?
Have read that Spurs have listed Dele’s sale at 40 million but we are claiming we paid nothing. Is this linked to Richarlison’s very fast transfer at the end of June? So many unexplained deals involving Kenwright. What was the deal with Digne going to Villa and us getting El Ghazi?
Paul Richardson
11 Posted 28/03/2023 at 12:24:46
Where does this figure of us needing to sell £100m of player talent by the transfer deadline come from? It hasn't come from the club or, as far as I can see, the Premier League.

If - and I don't think it does - exist, then we are in trouble, because we only managed to sell Richy for half that (or around that) which is agreed upon.

I've read suggestions that we couldn't sell DCL because he was injured and there was no interest in Pickford at the valuation we had.

Which collectively means the Premier League demand (if it existed, remember) was superfluous because we couldn't fully comply. However, if it did exist (or something like it) then we didn't comply.

And that's what I fear the investigation is all about. And, if it is, we are guilty. So the mitigating circumstances (we did try) may well determine the punishment.

Paul [The Esk]
14 Posted 30/03/2023 at 04:26:18
David W #9 Yes, I do believe the PL have been tolerant of our position for sometime. I think there's a wider question over PL governance & the lack of clarity & adherence to rules. Something that is only now being addressed given the coming independent regulator.
I also think we have pushed to the limit the relief Covid has provided clubs. Without doubt, Covid allowed the club to kick the can down the street in terms of compliance with financial regulation.

David C #10 there's been no impact re USM in the 2021/22 accounts I believe. We received all the sponsorship revenues due to us despite dropping the relationship in March 2022. I think the DA reports are wide of the remark. Until he makes the requisite number of appearances for us he remains a free transfer.
Paul #11 a couple of people close to the club & PL informed me of the need to sell key players to reduce losses for 2021/22. By only selling Richarlison we fell short of that. However that's been known (obviously) since the end of June 2022 so in isolation would make the timing of this alleged breach rather strange

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.

How to get rid of these ads and support TW

© ToffeeWeb