How very ironic — you might even say, “Everton, that!” — that, having gone into the international break feeling as optimistic and as at ease as any time since Carlo Ancelotti was still kicking around Finch Farm, Evertonians were handed the shock of an unprecedented points penalty that plunged the club back into the kind of battle to avoid relegation that the Toffees’ recent form suggested might have been consigned to history for the time being.

It’s a little over a year since Everton were as high as 14th in the Premier League. West Ham, in 9th, were just three points away; victory over next weekend’s opponents, Manchester United, would have brought them to within four points of the Red Devils. Now, having been docked 10 points, they’re in the bottom three once again.

The Football Club and its supporters, not to mention many pundits and fans of other clubs, were left stunned by the recommendation from the independent commission to which Everton were referred by the Premier League back in March that the Blues be handed the most punitive penalty in top-flight history… all for exceeding the arbitrary Profitability and Sustainability threshold hold by a mere £19.5m.

When you consider that the penalty for going into Administration, a far more egregious threat to any club’s “sustainability”, is 9 points, that the consequences of a 10-point deduction could well destroy Everton in the event it leads to relegation, and that rival clubs are reportedly lining up to sue, thereby, potentially, putting the club into administration anyway, the whole situation is bordering on farce.

Article continues below video content

There is plenty that could, should and will be written about the Premier League’s actions, how they have very clearly used Everton as a convenient scapegoat — big enough a club to matter; not big enough to impact the “big six” cabal they claim are the big draws for their international audience — and how glaringly at odds this persecution of the Blues is with mild slap on the wrist that same cabal got three years ago, despite putting the very health of the English football pyramid in mortal danger when they tried to join a European Super League.

But amid the myriad concerns about the process that led to this decision, two lend this Independent Commission more than an air of "show trial".

First, the leaking of the Premier League’s demand that the maximum penalty be imposed should Everton be found guilty before the panel had even heard all the arguments or deliberated, was blatantly prejudicial and, in any normal legal setting, would surely be grounds for a mistrial.

Second, just how “independent”, impartial and qualified were at least two members of this Commission?

Perhaps it was felt that Nick Igoe, the Finance Director at West Ham during the Carlos Tevez affair in 2005-06, was uniquely able to weigh in on Everton’s case given that the Hammers, under his watch, were found guilty of gaining a sporting advantage when the Argentine striker, illegally registered by the London club, scored a goal that helped relegate Sheffield United.

Except that in that case, when the Yorkshire club won the case, the Premier League ducked the option of handing out a points penalty and settled for a compensation payment instead. In the Commission’s own words, Everton did not deliberately break the rules in order to gain a sporting advantage, yet were hit with a massive 10-point deduction.

More baffling still is the fact that the panel appears to have been led by David Phillips KC, who is not only a member of the FA judicial panel but also the FA Premier League Panel. On that basis, one might wonder how he could be regarded as independent at all in this matter.

Furthermore, he represented Leeds United, “at every stage of the matter”, in their battle against a 15-point penalty, also in 2005-06, for failing to exit administration in a proper manner. And in May this year, in a separate ruling ahead of the Independent Commission into Everton’s alleged wrongdoing, Mr Phillips decided that, were the club found guilty, the Commission could award Burnley, Leicester City, Southampton, Nottingham Forest and his former client, Leeds United, compensation. Or that, at the very least, those clubs could be entitled to seek such damages.

The emerging consensus is that only one or two of those clubs may end up having any legitimate claim to compensation — Forest have reportedly dropped their claims; Southampton surely don’t have a leg to stand on — and even then it might be incredibly difficult to prove the level of sporting advantage, if any, Everton gained from their breach of spending rules. And if nothing comes of that pursuit of damages, Everton would still back themselves to beat the drop this season despite the hefty penalty imposed on them.

In the meantime, Everton have announced their intention to appeal the decision; observers are split on whether they have any chance of having the penalty reduced or overturned completely.

Yet it’s hard to shrug off the feeling that there was nowhere near enough distance between the prosecution — the Premier League — and the adjudicating entity — the Independent Commission — for this to have been a truly fair process. The deep-seated suspicion that this was a politically-motivated decision on the part of the Premier League aimed at persuading the Government that it can regulate itself ahead of the imposition of an independent regulator of football is only intensified by the whole situation.

Add that to the erosion in trust in the powers-that-be over everything from Video Assistant Referees to the can of worms that may well have been opened by this decision in terms of future censure of the likes of Chelsea and Manchester City and lawsuits from clubs up and down the league and you don’t have a healthy situation at the top of England’s football pyramid at all.

Reader Comments (91)

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 ()

David Vessey
1 Posted 20/11/2023 at 08:52:02
This whole process has been completely corrupt. If we hadn't done the right thing and cut off the USM sponsorship after the invasion we wouldn't have breached.

I'm personally boycotting all Premier League sponosrs. Barclays, Budweiser, Nike etc. Won't make any difference but makes me feel better.

Nick Riddle
2 Posted 20/11/2023 at 08:56:44
Well reasoned, Lyndon. I'm glad you've avoided some of the more outlandish conspiracy theories that'll get us nowhere.

Since the judgement dropped, I've been pleased that (and I say this with no real evidence to back it up, just what I read) most impartial observers seem to instinctively feel the punishment is too harsh. Perhaps that means the club would have a realistic chance of persuading a new panel made up of new members to treat it more leniently on appeal.

When they appeal, I hope this time they focus on issues that on the face of it have some validity while avoiding the more embarrassing arguments employed last time, such as claiming part of the transfer levy as youth developments costs, which might do no more than antagonise the commission.

Jerome Shields
3 Posted 20/11/2023 at 09:08:54
Actually I did think it was an independent commission, but did not look into who was on it. They are not independent by any stretch of the imagination in reality. The whole thing was politically motivated.

Barret-Baxendale, head of the Premier League review into self-regulation, was a puppet similar to her Everton role. Both her and Kenwright thought they had control of the situation, only to find themselves shafted. The equivalent of a kick in the arse, which it would be hard for Evertonians not to be pleased with.

The opening for compensation shows that there was pressure from a group of Premier League clubs, who had voices in the Commission.

I doubt that the penalty will be overturned and that an attempt at compensation will not be attempted, only to fall down in derision. Then a rule will be passed resulting in Everton being the only ever Club with the largest point deduction in History, with Oumar Niasse being the only player in Premier League history to be suspended for 'successful deception of a match official.'

Seriously it is not a joke, that is what Oumar was officially charged with.

I will not hold my breath for a larger point deduction for any other club. As for compensation for an unfair sporting advantage, that will never happen, because it would be the end of the Premier League.

This whole saga beginning, with the exposure of Everton by its fans, has now moved onto full exposure of the Premier League.

The new era of scrutiny had begun. The Premier League's faceless persona has disappeared.

Joshua Steadman
4 Posted 20/11/2023 at 09:16:46
Yes Nick - but what makes you think a new panel with new members would be any less biased? I think it will be a struggle to find anyone impartial in this.

Thanks for raising the KC background in all this Lyndon. The whole situation from initial charges to findings and punishment stinks of farce. They make the Salem trials seem reasonable in comparison.

It's also the last time I am reassured by anything Simon Jordan has to say! I was actually looking forward this season to mid-table improvement and the potential of a cup final. Back to the fear of relegation.

Nick Riddle
5 Posted 20/11/2023 at 09:27:23
Everyone approaches every decision influenced by their own in-built biases, Joshua. That's why both sides in a criminal case make every effort to exclude the ‘wrong' jurors.

In an arbitration, I think both sides nominate one arbitrator and those two nominate the third. I don't know if that's the case here, but even if it's just a roll of the dice, perhaps the new panel will share some of the sympathies and prejudices I think I've seen from neutral commentators.

Steve Dickinson
6 Posted 20/11/2023 at 09:39:44
Great article, Lyndon.

So it turns out that the man the Premier League appointed to head the so-called ‘independent commission' is David Phillips KC.

According to his website page you linked to, “In 2007 David acted for Leeds United in the 15 Point controversy. David represented Leeds in every stage of the matter - from a members' meeting of the Football League through to the final determination by the arbitration panel.”

He is clearly proud of his association with his client, Leeds United.

It is surely a major conflict of interest that David Phillips should be the judge and jury in the hearing on 9 May 2023 between Everton, the Premier League, Leeds United and the other clubs (Nottingham Forest, Southampton, Leicester City and Burnley) all seeking compensation from Everton.

What a surprise then, when David Phillips rules after the hearing:

“I find that if the complaint [against Everton] is upheld, the Commission may wish to award W.51.5 compensation to one or more of the applicant clubs.

“I direct that if the complaint [against Everton] is upheld, the Premier League must provide a copy of the decision to the applicant clubs forthwith. Within 28 days of receipt of a copy of the decision, each applicant club must inform the Commission whether it wishes to pursue a claim for W.51.5 compensation.”

Let that sink in.

–The lawyer who represented Leeds United, is appointed by the Premier League to head the Commission in the case the Premier League brought against Everton.

– That lawyer chaired a case brought by Leeds United and other clubs against Everton.

- That lawyer decided that, if the commission he is heading upholds the complaint against Everton, that same commission may wish to award compensation to one or more of the applicant clubs.

Has there ever been a more obvious stitch-up?

This is a matter that needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

Who will the Premier League appoint to the Appeals Committee?

Rob Halligan
7 Posted 20/11/2023 at 10:00:29
A few years back, I failed a promotion board in work by one point. One lousy point, I tell ya!

Anyway, I decided to appeal on the basis that I knew two of the interviewers. Both were former work colleagues who had moved on, and indeed I was very friendly with both, one in fact, was even my line manager at one time. Why would they want to show any kind of prejudice for me, I thought.

The only thing I could think of was my former line manager was a RedShite, so maybe he held the fact I was a Blue against me? Seriously though, my appeal failed because I knew in advance who the interviewers were and could have said something beforehand.

My point being, after all that, is did Everton know who was on the independent commission board? If so, then surely they could have raised a complaint with the Premier League, and asked for a different board? Any way you look at it though, as Steve says, it's clearly stitch-up to beat all stitch-ups!

Andrew Taylor
8 Posted 20/11/2023 at 10:02:07
It was very telling that the commission repeatedly relied upon the EFL v Sheff Wed case to justify a sporting sanction. A different case, for a different league operating with a different rulebook.

Like a British court using the US Supreme Court as precedent just because they speak (nearly) the same language.

Cherry-picked to justify their point and ignoring other precedents - the Liverpool v Uefa case in 2015, the Leicester v EFL case in 2013, Middlesbrough's administration costing only 9 points...

There's no justification for 10 points at all, no accounting for the mitigating factors set out, no view of a mixed punishment (combo of fines, director bans, transfer embargo and a smaller points deduction or suspension of penalties).

It's a half-arsed job at best.

Barry Rathbone
9 Posted 20/11/2023 at 10:05:27
What a well expressed piece focussing on the penalty and method rather than pathetically crying "we're innocent, guv" because we're not.

In any fair assessment, the idea that going bust is less of an issue than overspending a tad is ludicrous. On that basis alone I reckon the points deduction will be reduced.

Great piece, Lyndon

Brent Stephens
10 Posted 20/11/2023 at 10:25:17
As I understand it, the Premier League has a number of panel members (20?) for such Commissions. Half are on a list from which are drawn Commission members for cases such as this; the other half are on a second list from which are drawn members of any appeal panel.

If that is the case, and the Premier League adhere to that arrangement, then the appeals panel will be as independent (sic) as the initial Commission.

Do I read this correctly?

Raj Parbat
11 Posted 20/11/2023 at 10:30:59
Brilliant piece, Lyndon.

This article / information needs to be put out there into the main media for everyone to know and expose the corrupt Premier League and "independent" commission. The club also need to use it for their appeal.

Brent Stephens
12 Posted 20/11/2023 at 10:42:53
Lyndon, "In the commission's own words, Everton gained no sporting advantage from their over-spending yet were hit with a massive 10-point deduction."

Lyndon, is that correct? I'm getting confused...

Paragraph 95. "The Commission has no doubt that one of the primary purposes of the sanction is to punish the transgressing club. We must not be swayed by sympathy – for example, the fact that the penalty might make the prospect of relegation greater. We agree with the Premier League that any PSR breach involves a significant overspend. In order to constitute a breach that will be referred to a Commission the club will have failed to achieve the target of no loss, will have crossed the lower threshold of £15 million (a breach of which may result in Premier League imposing conditions); and will have had a loss in excess of the upper threshold of £105 million. The Commission considers the Premier League to be correct to characterise such a loss as being a significant overspend. We also recognise that the inference of a sporting advantage is one that should properly be drawn from the fact of a PSR breach, and that sporting advantage will have been enjoyed for each of the seasons on which the PSR calculation was based – in this case, because of Covid, four seasons.
Determination of the appropriate sanction will always involve consideration of the facts and circumstances of the PSR breach, but it is inevitable that when assessing the sanction the need for punishment will be at the forefront of the Commission's considerations.

Brian Harrison
13 Posted 20/11/2023 at 10:43:33

Just to add a little bit to the Tevez illegal transfer to West Ham on the final day of the window that season. West Ham also signed Javier Mascherano who like Tevez were both training with the Argentine national side when the deals were done.

No players are allowed to play in the Premier League if owned by a 3rd party, and both Tevez and Mascherano were not owned by their club Corinthians but by a 3rd party company called Media Sports Investment.

The President of the MSI company was non other than Kia Joorabchian, a man well known to our owner and latterly by our fans. Instead of the Premier League blocking the registrations of these players, as should have happened, they didn't. They allowed both Tevez and Mascherano to play for West Ham who managed with the help of the 2 players to get enough points to avoid relegation and send Sheffield Utd into relegation.

This lead to Sheffield Utd threatening to take West Ham to court. Fearing they would lose the case and possible relegation, West Ham settled out of court to the tune of £20M.

But the real question is why didn't the Premier League take any action against West Ham who had clearly broken the rules?

Mal van Schaick
14 Posted 20/11/2023 at 10:50:16
Trial by media also, with the regular ‘kickers’ prepared to weigh in with their penny's worth.

It is rumoured that the so called Big 6 have been asked to up their contributions to pay for rescue packages for the football pyramid. Two or three of that six are under investigation themselves for financial transgressions. So, let's see where that one goes with the Premier League, when they broker deals for that six to pay, but in return for leniency.

Another point that I will make is that Premier League ( via an independent commission… Yeah right!) has directly used Everton as an example of punishment. Therefore, I will urge Everton to undermine the Premier League at every turn, and question their integrity to continue to be in charge and responsible for our showcase league.

I would also suggest that the Big 6 will look at Everton's treatment in the light of what may happen to them and their cases, in particular Man City facing so many charges, that may raise the questions of removing and replacing the Premier League with another governing body, and if that is not possible, I can see once again a breakaway league on the agenda (maybe with Everton included) without Premier League involvement. That would serve the Premier League right!

You reap what you sow!

Ian Jones
15 Posted 20/11/2023 at 10:50:46
Brian, I think the Premier League fined West Ham.
Kevin Molloy
16 Posted 20/11/2023 at 11:01:11
You can only have the concept of it being fair to remove a 'sporting advantage' when you start with a level playing field.

But the august body which decides PSR doesn't want a level playing field, they want a stacked deck whereby the bigger clubs have a competitive advantage built in, through the ability to spend ten times or a hundred times what we can.

They are literally saying to us that during a time when we spent about £30M in 3 years, that we enjoyed a competitive advantage over our competitors, some of whom were literally spending hundreds of millions.

What befuddles me is that the commission must know what a can of worms the concept of 'competitive advantage' is when you are taking about the Premier League, and how difficult it is to quantify. And yet they specifically entertain the concept, and encourage our rivals to go down that route. This would have been the perfect moment to nip that in the bud, but they have thrown oil on the flames.

Frank Kearns
17 Posted 20/11/2023 at 11:05:02
Very illuminating article, Lyndon. Let's hope our legal team are as switched on as you.
Mike Owen
18 Posted 20/11/2023 at 11:18:44
Kevin, 16, yes, you say:

"You can only have the concept of it being fair to remove a 'sporting advantage' when you start with a level playing field. But the august body which decides PSR doesn't want a level playing field, they want a stacked deck whereby the bigger clubs have a competitive advantage built in",

I was just about to make the point that we have an annual turnover/revenue of £181M. Our next opponents have one of approximately £630Mn. That is a difference of £450M! Or, to put it another way, three and a half times as much as us.

I'd like as many people as possible to make that point in the run-up to the Man Utd game. Although please doublecheck my figures. The difference is so big, it seems hard to believe.

Mike Owen
19 Posted 20/11/2023 at 11:27:11
Barry, 9, I echo your comments.

Nick, 2, aye, I was also shaking my head at the transfer levy argument.

Jim Lloyd
21 Posted 20/11/2023 at 11:51:12
Brian (13) really good post. Shows pretty well how this lot's "Scales of Justice" are way out of kilter.

Lyndon, Thanks for this article. It shows this lot up for what they are. They have different rules for different occasions... and different clubs!

Rob Hooton
22 Posted 20/11/2023 at 11:53:53
Mal, good point.

Will the ‘Diamond League' replace the Premier League?!

Jack Convery
23 Posted 20/11/2023 at 11:55:46
This whole country is now one of the most corrupt on the planet. From the Royal Family (Prince Andrew anyone) and this Tory government (PPE Contracts for mates, Ferry Contracts for a company with no Ferrys - a couple of many examples).

Is it no wonder that our once beautiful game has slumped and succumbed to the culture we now live in? Money talks but it talks louder and louder with every passing year.

Do us supporters really care if Premier League games are shown abroad? I know I don't. All that we supporters want is to watch our team on a Saturday afternoon and travel to away games if we can afford it.

Since the inception of the Premier League – let's not forget we were at the forefront of that, along with Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal et al. We helped create a monster and, like Frankenstein, the creation has turned on us.

We have been treated shabbily not only by this board and the Premier League but also by our owner and a board who didn't have a clue. We Evertonians deserve better.

Sod the Premier League. EFC is what matters and I want our club back and the culture of fans first, not a TV company that plays its favourites because some fans in a far way place buy their shirts.

That's a wonderful piece you have written, Lyndon. It now needs to be spread far and wide. Can you put it on X / Facebook etc and let people see what we know — Corruption.

Russelll Smith
24 Posted 20/11/2023 at 11:58:14
When this first started, Kenwright stated we had not breached the limits and that we were cooperating with the Premier League on all financial matters including transfers.

When you read the full report of the hearing, it highlights that this was just another one of Bill's half-truths. We gave the Premier League limited information at the time to show we were compliant but, once the fully audited accounts were published and the Premier League dug a little deeper, it became obvious to them that we had been a little too creative in what we could write off.

The purpose of the loans is clear, they were not taken out to fund the stadium build, with clauses in each specifically stating this. The Board tried to include the interest charges as a disallowable cost, the Premier League quite rightly disagreed with this assessment.

Similarly our other “mitigating” offsets were stretching credibility, so it was little wonder they were dismissed. Clearly before the commission had concluded, we accepted we had breached the upper limit, thereby tacitly agreeing that our “mitigation” arguments were not 100% correct (as our previous Chairman had always insisted).

On the other thread, I have read far more compelling arguments for our overspend than those put forward by the club, presumably on the legal advice they were receiving. Surely a much bigger argument could have been made regarding the loss of the USM sponsorship deals which were more than just the naming rights on the stadium.

Also, when USM were ditched, the world was still recovering from Covid so other replacement sponsorship deals were either deflated or non-existent. Surely a stronger case could have been made for this.

Similarly with the Sigguson issue. The report says the FA banned him. The case against him was subsequently dropped. This denied Everton of the chance to sell what was then a £20M asset. This was unforeseen.

As Lyndon says, this was a show trial to try to show the Premier League did not need an independent regulator. This episode probably indicates that they do.

We cannot escape that we have been disastrously run for many years and that we have breached the financial boundaries but the deduction of 10 points is both unjust and draconian.

Kevin Edward
25 Posted 20/11/2023 at 11:58:43
There's nowhere near enough distance between the Premier League and the officials on a match day, let alone the commission. No doubt they will close ranks and I don't have much hope of a reprieve.

It's a Kangaroo court by any definition looking at the course of events. So fan rebellion and protest is the best action so long as the club support this with a robust legal challenge.

There are so many examples of prior indiscretions by other clubs to draw from. But without doubt, the past and present actions of the Super Six must be called out big time in our dissent of this commission; sling some mud and some will stick.

Paul Hewitt
26 Posted 20/11/2023 at 12:02:30
Let's be honest, if we did get relegated, would anyone actually miss being in the Premier League?

I know financially it would hurt short term, but the club would adjust.

I worked with a Wigan fan years ago, he hated being in the Premier League. He never wants to come back. Happy watching proper footy in League One or the Championship.

To answer my own question: No, I wouldn't miss this corrupt league. I hate everything about it.

Graham Fylde
27 Posted 20/11/2023 at 12:36:53
Regarding your first point, Lyndon, the Commission's report says that it finished sitting on 20 October and sent a copy of its report (no date) to both parties. This action is not in the written procedures except in particular cases which don't, I believe, apply here and the given reason – to check for typos!

Its report states that both parties sent replies effectively trying to rewrite the report. The news of the Premier League demand for 12 points broke on 25 October, firmly pointing the finger (someone check the Premier League response) at this action precipitating the leak.

Andrew Taylor
28 Posted 20/11/2023 at 12:43:16
Can anyone explain why the Premier League seem to have adopted the role of the Crown Prosecution Service in this quasi-legal process? Do the rules anywhere set out that this is their role?

The 'Independent' Commission should have been set up as if at an inquest – solely looking to establish the facts, with no need for a Prosecution and a Defence. Instead, the Premier League is making a case against us, suggesting aggravating factors, testifying against us, making accusations, and suggesting a harsh sporting penalty based on a selective and self-serving reading of precedents.

If this were an independent and fair process, they would have submitted their factual evidence to the Commission and awaited their findings. The appeal should focus not only on the decision and poor process of the appeal but also the actions and role played by the Premier League in my opinion.

Dale Self
29 Posted 20/11/2023 at 12:51:47
Thank you for looking into the composition and history of the commission Lyndon. While the characters do likely make a difference, simple focus on the misapplication of precedent and the inconsistency with past rulings should secure a reduction of the penalty.

Even if we don't get an honorable review we will be doing the right thing while accepting our fate. We are still there to fuck them up into the future. Keep it going.

Tony Abrahams
30 Posted 20/11/2023 at 13:23:58
You say I don't praise you Lyndon, so thanks very much for simplifying everything and also proving that it wasn't really an independent enquiry, which was echoed in Steve's very good post @6.

A sensible thread will only get spoiled by concentrating on what a liar once said, Russelll @24, and I'd prefer to get educated by some of the intelligent people who have already posted on this thread, which has already made me feel a little bit better regarding our chances of being sued by other clubs.

I don't like the Premier League, but thought some of the shouts about it being corrupt only made us look stupid, because whatever way you look at it, Everton have been found guilty, but not by independent people, it now seems.

John Boswell
31 Posted 20/11/2023 at 13:30:24
Paul @26, to answer your question, I would not miss the Premier League if we were to be relegated. I fear for the future of Everton in the event that several clubs were awarded compensation for our spending over the 4 year period in question.

Yes, the club is guilty of poor fiscal management but there have been worse examples in Premier League history, before FFP was brought in, and I believe that the sanction is disproportionate for the offence.

Nevertheless, I believe that we will survive this season if there are no more surprises waiting down the road. COYB.

John Raftery
32 Posted 20/11/2023 at 13:48:37
Paul (26),

I had similar thoughts on Saturday afternoon as I watched Harrogate Town v Swindon in a crowd of 3004.

Supporters at that level enjoy the game far more than we do. Their match day experience is not tainted by the travesty of VAR and they enjoy facilities which are often more comfortable than those in the Premier League. The food and the beer are usually better as well.

Charles Brewer
33 Posted 20/11/2023 at 13:53:58
Frankly, I wish the 'Shitty Six' had departed to their "no relegation, no jeopardy" Harlem Globetrotters European league (this is not a slur on the Globetrotters, everyone knew exactly what they were watching).

A sporting competition where the same teams play year after year, with zero actual competition of danger of financial or other jeopardy is not worth watching and would have rapidly died the same death that Disney's Marvel garbage is now suffering.

But the best thing about all of this is that the Premier League is now going to have to render the same outrageous and disproportionate punishment on any team which transgresses, whether accidentally or deliberately, or face endless claims of running a publicly rigged competition.

Whether it is the objectively bankrupt Manchester United or Liverpool teams, the teams financed by Arab money that may suddenly decide that "sportswashing" has become "sportsdirtying" and that this is not a way of gaining respectability and withdraw wholesale, and all the American owners are discovered to have been laundering drug money or similar.

Perhaps we'll get back to a real competition with great managers (Clough, Kendall – maybe Ferguson and Wenger even though funding was clearly an issue) building teams with limited funds and good tactics rather than unlimited funds for a few (the others being picked off as unwanted interlopers cutting into the oligopoly's rewards).

James Marshall
34 Posted 20/11/2023 at 13:59:46

I would echo that as well - football in the Premier League isn't particularly interesting to watch, we're just told it is as we're sold the product.

I've watched and a lot of lower league and non-league football over the years and it's actually a lot more fun to be involved in, in many ways so I think you're bang on.

Supporting a football team isn't really about winning trophies anyway, if it was there would only be about 6 teams in the country. It's about the love of your team, and the fellowship that goes with it that counts.

We haven't won anything for 28 years but we all still follow the club with the same passion, which is really the point.

John Raftery
35 Posted 20/11/2023 at 14:04:27
Lyndon, thanks for an excellent piece on the composition of the Commission. It certainly deserves to be put in front of a wider audience than is available on TW.

The potential for claims from one or two other clubs is a worry especially as the outcome seems preordained; a punitive financial award. That could punch a crater through the club’s accounts for the current 23/24 year.

Of more immediate concern is the state of our accounts for 22/23. Paul Joyce in today’s Times has highlighted the need for a strong set of results and that although publication is not required until March the Premier League require visibility by the end of December. I think the club’s fans deserve early visibility to allay fears of further sanctions being imposed.

Mal van Schaick
36 Posted 20/11/2023 at 14:08:34
Andrew#28. You are right. The PL are acting as judge and jury under the guise of independence, with David Phillips also having a conflict of interest involved in our hearing, having represented Leeds in prior hearings.

Everton should now rally to the cause and begin to question the PL integrity by raising questions of impartiality, and being even handed, when dealing with PL clubs across the board.

In doing so, Everton should point out to all PL clubs that they too, could be subjected to PL punishment, by stealth.

Call an extraordinary meeting of all PL clubs without the PL in attendance and start to bang the drum on a breakaway league in retaliation to our excessive and bias punishment and let’s wait and see how the PL react to that.

Tony Abrahams
37 Posted 20/11/2023 at 14:11:20
I think if Evertonians have raised over £33.000 to make protest flags, then the names of the people on the independent enquiry and their connections to other clubs, has got to be the biggest one made, imo.
James Marshall
38 Posted 20/11/2023 at 14:14:04
Tony, my tenner agrees with you wholeheartedly!
Peter Fearon
39 Posted 20/11/2023 at 14:14:10
This is all the work of Everton's political enemies inside the Premier League. Here's how crazy the points deduction is: If Everton go down as a result of a 19.5 million pound breach, the Premier League will likely pay 30 million in parachute payments in the first season. That's how trivial the breach really is.
Paul Hewitt
40 Posted 20/11/2023 at 14:36:48
Peter I think it's closer to £90 million in the first year.
Kevin Molloy
41 Posted 20/11/2023 at 14:39:29
the more I reflect on it, the less I can understand why the commission has encouraged other clubs to sue us, by entertaining 'competitive advantage' arguments and by agreeing compensation may be payable. why would you do that. they could have punished us, and t the same time knocked those two other issues on the head, which would have saved THEM a world of pain.

There is one possible answer. We know the PL is being leaned on by the government, what if this is what the government would like. ie the nasty ruskies to lose all their money, the hundreds of millions they've put in to Everton. Who knows, maybe the Americans are putting pressure on, after all we are effectively at war with Russia. And we are the ultimate sacrificial lamb. if we went bust, buried in fines and litigation, that's one of Putin's mates with a very nasty bloody nose.

Lyndon Lloyd
42 Posted 20/11/2023 at 14:40:57
Brent (12), my apologies. I’ve been trying to follow these developments while travelling (the ruling was announced just before I got on a plane), hence my lack of full coverage of the situation and I got my wires crossed from a thread on Twitter.

You are correct— the ruling does suggest Everton gained a sporting advantage but not through a deliberate intention to circumvent the rules. I’ve amended the article accordingly.

Ian Jones
43 Posted 20/11/2023 at 14:43:52
Most of us on here get bored when there's an International fortnight. This current break in games has certainly been different.

I found this in relation to the Man City situation...'The statement goes on to list said breaches with five separate points made on the rulings, before adding: "Commissions are independent of the Premier League and member clubs. The members of the Commission will be appointed by the independent Chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel in accordance with Premier League Rules W.19, W.20 and W.26.

"The proceedings before the Commission will, in accordance with Premier League Rule W.82, be confidential and heard in private. Under Premier League Rule W.82.2, the Commission’s final award will be published on the Premier League’s website. This confirmation is made in accordance with Premier League Rule W.82.1. The Premier League will be making no further comment in respect of this matter until further notice."

So...does that mean that City's situation is currently under review and is it right to assume that the same people involved in the Commission conducted ours.

Apart from our case being alot smaller than Man City, would be interesting to see whether the Premier League are using us to see how far they can go in relation to penalties to dish out.

Regarding, other clubs being 'invited' to entertain the chance to sue us, if Man City were to be found guilty, I wonder if certain teams would be named in the report with an indication that they could also seek action against City.

Interesting times ahead

Barry Hesketh
44 Posted 20/11/2023 at 14:48:38
I'm sick to death of worrying about this outcome or that outcome hanging over the club, none of which has anything to do with the game itself. A clean break would have been more welcome, where we all knew exactly where we stood and could act accordingly.

There's even a probable chance that even when the season has concluded out on the pitch and Everton have done enough to survive the drop, that due to more penalties, successful compensation claims from rival clubs etc that Everton could still end up being relegated.

It's like being involved in the longest ever VAR decision, waiting, waiting, waiting and then the decision made is appallingly stupid but not totally unexpected. We all pay for this, to be entertained, are we all, just a little bit crazy?

If it was clear right now, that whatever Everton did out on the pitch, no matter how many points they accrued, in the remainder of this season, that they would, due to a variety of circumstances, punishments etc end up in the Championship, I would advocate a boycott of every Premier League match that involves our club.

Rick Johnson
45 Posted 20/11/2023 at 14:50:39
What is astonishing is that at the time of the ‘transgressions’ the potential sanctions were not clearly laid out.
So, maybe it’s not surprising that the reasoning for the 10 point deductions was not outlined
As I’ve said before the ‘sticking the finger in the air’ methodology is not compelling!!!
Brent Stephens
46 Posted 20/11/2023 at 15:02:18
Lyndon #42 - many thanks. You're probably aware of the relevant sections of the PL Handbook relating to this type of disciplinary process / hearing and the appeals process but in case anybody else is looking...

Profit and Sustainability: Section E47-E52.

Disciplinary [procedures, sanctions etc and appeals process]: Section W.


Ray Roche
47 Posted 20/11/2023 at 15:02:26
I’m still of the opinion that our case was fast tracked in order to show the forthcoming Government regulator that the PL could keep its own house in order and be strict when required. We were the Guinea pig. Once he is installed I can’t see a Government department upsetting any Arab country so don’t expect Mansour and his ilk to be punished to the same pro rata extent as we have been.
Dale Self
48 Posted 20/11/2023 at 15:41:20
I think I still believe that as well. It’s the only durable explanation for this sad production/performance.
Ed Prytherch
49 Posted 20/11/2023 at 16:06:43
I believe that at least part of the reason for the stiff penalty of the points deduction was that club officials lied to the investigation regarding the loan interest payments. I know that here in the US the penalty for lying can be worse than the subject of the lie. Martha Stewart and Gordon Liddy were well publicized individuals who went to jail for lying about offences that were not such a big deal. In Liddy's case he did not even break any laws, he was just covering for his boss who he thought may have broken one.
I worked with a fellow who received a suspended jail sentence for lying about not following a written procedure in a nuclear plant but nothing bad happened at the plant
People in power do not like being lied to.
Barry Hesketh
50 Posted 20/11/2023 at 16:43:36
I'm sure there are a myriad of explanations and arguments as to why the points deduction was given, but did the club itself, deserve that level of penalty?

Why didn't the Premier League have a formal method of sanctions, written into its rules, in order to deal with transgressions of its Profit and Sustainability rules as soon as Profit and Sustainability became part of its rules?

How come the Premier League only managed to publish its formal sanctions in August of this year?

It merely copied and pasted the Football League's rules and used a Football League example of punishment to justify the penalty that Everton received. Was there a formal meeting of all of the Premier League's members to discuss and vote for this change?

The problem is, as is the case with many of our institutions, is that they don't like anything formally written down, it's far better to have everything informal, then they can't be sued for not implementing penalties, or it becomes very difficult to ascertain whether the body made a genuine mistake or if it was swayed by various off the record arguments, to the benefit of the most persuasive and powerful actors that may be affected by breaking the rules and regulations.

Most criminals know what the likely punishment will be should they carry out a particular crime, it would seem that any club breaking the Premier League rules prior to August, might expect one type of sanction, but to their shock and horror, receive something quite different.

Mark Taylor
51 Posted 20/11/2023 at 17:06:42
Personally I'm not in the 'conspiracy theory' group. Reading the report (twice) has dealt with that. To the extent it's a hatchet job, we sure as hell put our head in the block. Parts of the defence/mitigation are plain embarrassing.

A fairer point would be whether 10 points is appropriate. One could argue the toss on that because there is no set tariff nor in truth, any meaningful precedent that could be applied to our case. The truth is, we are the precedent, the first proper case under the modern P&S regime. An appeal on these grounds alone might be successful but we shouldn't bank on it. I don't think we can present any serious evidence to say it's wrong and I assume there is no onus on the commission to prove it's right (because they would clearly struggle to).

In any case, we can likely survive 10 points. The very much bigger question is whether our planned sale can. Here, we can only rely on media reports and speculation. I read in the Telegraph that 777 have a compensation clause in the sale agreement that is substantial. Hence any financial penalties are going to be at Moshiri's expense, which sounds a suitably just outcome. So in theory, nothing to stop the sale, unless the agreement hasn't actually been signed and/or there is a mechanic by which either party (especially Moshiri) could pull out. No idea about that but it's critical.

It's critical because we continue to need month to month funding and how likely are 777 to do this, if the sale can be cancelled? I take some comfort from the fact they have already put £50-80m in, which suggests there is no leeway for Moshiri to go cold.

Finally, two questions I don't know the answer to, do we face further trouble for 22/23? More points deducted? And if we are found to have to pay compensation to one or more clubs, is that amount excluded from P&S, or is it included, in which case we face potential issues in 23/24, albeit possibly with some time to fix that.

Pete Neilson
52 Posted 20/11/2023 at 17:14:37
The laughably named Independent Commission reported in regard to the stadium loan interest “in its closing submissions it made it clear that it was not accusing Everton of dishonesty.”

On another point I’m surprised that the FA can suspend a player, presumably under their safeguarding rules (again, not documented as far as I can find) but then has no financial responsibility when the player isn’t charged. Instead, completely passing the buck and leaving the club to pursue any damages.

Tim Taylor
53 Posted 20/11/2023 at 17:25:12
Just to echo that this is a great article - thanks Lyndon. Sharing now
Tony Everan
54 Posted 20/11/2023 at 18:15:26
If anyone is interested

Coming up on
in the next 10 mins
on his Early Day Motion to Parliament on the “Grossly unjust points deduction imposed on Everton Football Club”

Kieran Kinsella
55 Posted 20/11/2023 at 18:30:20

I was wondering if an MP would get involved. But at the same time aren't there rules about politics meddling with football?

Barry Hesketh
56 Posted 20/11/2023 at 18:39:55
Kieran @ 55
'Rules and politics meddling in football' of course there are no rules, why else would the former PM Boris Johnson actively get involved in Newcastle United's takeover? or the pressure that was applied for England's teams to be excluded from European competition just TWO days, following the Heysel Stadium tragedy?

1985: English teams banned after Heysel
The Football Association has banned English clubs from playing in Europe following the Heysel stadium tragedy two days ago in which 39 fans died.

The Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, supported the ban which was announced by FA officials outside Number 10 Downing Street and called for tougher sentences on convicted football hooligans.

"We have to get the game cleaned up from this hooliganism at home and then perhaps we shall be able to go overseas again," she said.

The Labour leader of the Opposition, Neil Kinnock, said the ban of English teams would only benefit those who caused the "murderous riot" in Belgium.

On This day 31st May 1985

Bill Gall
57 Posted 20/11/2023 at 18:46:57
Reading the comments about certain individuals on the Commission reminds you of a case where an individual goes to court on a assault charge, and finds the judge is the uncle of the person who was allegedly assaulted.
We are aware that Everton are guilty of misrepresenting the facts, but does the punishment really fit what a number of other clubs have been doing as well, and have this Commission set a standard that anything over 20ml will mean more points deduction than what Everton received.?
It seems this Commission are determined to just have 1 team in the Premier League representing Merseyside, and I am nervous about the appeal.
Barry Hesketh
58 Posted 20/11/2023 at 18:55:47
Football London has a bit about the punishment and the likely outcomes for Chelsea, Man City and other clubs who might fall foul of the rules.

According to the survey they had attached to the article:

Is Everton's 10-point deduction for FFP breaches fair?
Yes 50%
No 50%

Of course I have no way of knowing how many responded to the question and therefore how valid or widespread those opinions would be, but I find it a little disappointing.

Ian Jones
59 Posted 20/11/2023 at 19:02:52
Bill @ 57, sorry, don't agree that the 'Commission are determined to just have 1 team in the Premier League representing Merseyside'

We did wrong, so we need to get on with it. Just need an even playing field.

Ian Jones
60 Posted 20/11/2023 at 19:36:56
I looked into what the European Super League was all about as I had forgotten the details and spotted this comment about the way football is going

...from the former Bayern Munich footballer and ex-FC Bayern München AG executive chairman Karl-Heinz Rummenigge who addressed the ESL as follows:

“In football, you need to realize when the game is lost, and your game is lost forever”

Seems to me, as some have mentioned above, that football at the lower levels is like it used to be no doubt until Man City get chucked down the leagues.

David Cooper
61 Posted 20/11/2023 at 20:12:37
Well done Ian Byrne MP for Liverpool Derby and a declared Red!
He has made a 6 point motion to the the House of Commons raising many of points that have been written about here. You can catch his interview on SSN and is worth listening to.
His strongest desire is that the House implement an Independent Regulator as outlined in the King’s speech immediately rather than wait the usual length of time that it takes for them to do things. He wants the Independent Regulator to take an unbiased investigation into the Premier League’s so called Independent Commission. There has to be some consequence to the leaked information that rags such as the Mail carried about a12 point deduction weeks before the judgement came down. Was that an attempt to make 10 points more palatable. Simon Jordon on TalkSPORT said he had heard that it would be a 9 point deduction last week.
So where the **** do all the leaks come from? When phrases such as The “Premier League” are do X,Y and Z who are they talking about? The club owners? The CEOs? Who decides who is going to sit on our Appeal? Lastly but MOST important the “Premier League” bosses are meeting this week to discuss the Super Six getting even more money from the television rights!
Bet Richard Masters will get his fingers into that pie!
Paul Birmingham
62 Posted 20/11/2023 at 21:41:57
Excellent summary Lyndon, and the more you read, the more you think.

But in simple terms the EPL, and the governance of the game is corrupt.

I hope Evertons legal team, take the EPL, to hell and back, and Everton’s charges are dropped, to a fine.

The game stinks and the EPL, needs to be overhauled, purged of its jobs, and restructured.
Hopefully the politicians may rouse the government to take the EPL, to court, but perhaps not, but could it be the MPs are also complicit, directly for some and for others indirectly, for the dirty running, of the EPL?

The game truly stinks, history will judge.


Mark Taylor
63 Posted 20/11/2023 at 21:54:12
David 61

Another poster, if not on this thread, but the other big one, looked into the timeline.

It appears the hearing had finished before the leaks happened. And it seems the likeliest scenario is that it seems the findings were sent to all interested parties to comment on and for amendments to be made as needed. However there wasn't consensus on any significant changes. It appears this process took the best part of 4 weeks. I guess once the draft was released in this manner, it was always going to leak.

I think this one might be a red herring..

David Cooper
64 Posted 20/11/2023 at 23:19:06
Mark you may be correct about the timeline. What I found so wrong was the background of two of those appointed on the Independent Commission as pointed out by Lyndon. I thought they really would be independent in that they had no previous connection to anything to do with the Premier League. Maybe they would by barristers, lawyers with business expertise etc. with a background of sifting out the evidence. But no! The chief was Phillips KC who was involved with Leeds when they were deducted points but more recently gave Leeds the news that they could sue Everton! Independent? What a ****ing joke. The other one has been involved with West Ham over the Tevez case and what their penalty should be. Certainly not a points deduction. How close are WHU to the relegation places? So two out of three were knowledgeable about the workings of the Premier League. how could Phillips not have recused himself because of a conflict of interest?
I really hope this bias was broadcast very loud by all the media and make sure that this is a cornerstone of our friggin appeal. What a crock of shit this so called Premier League is made of.
Still waiting to hear who the real decision makers and puppet masters of the PL that are pulling their strings. Can’t just be Masters and a few owners who feel their club has been hard done by.
Mark Taylor
65 Posted 20/11/2023 at 00:10:58
David 64

You may be right but I'm not so convinced as you are. I assume, rightly or wrongly, the PL wanted to have people on its commission who have experience of football, not just general legal and/or finance expertise. In that sense, it is bound to include people with past football connections. Whether it is a good idea or not to seek this expertise is another matter.

If you take the Leeds guy, my own impression is that it is another red herring. He represented Leeds 15 years ago. Lawyers are for hire and will pretty much make anyone's case who asks them. It doesn't imply close affinity with their clients. If he had current or very recent commercial arrangements with Leeds, then you may have a point. All he did in the May hearing was 1) say the clubs wishing to pursue compensation could not be party to the panel's hearing but 2) state the obvious that if we were found to have transgressed, they would be entitled to pursue compensation (not that they were guaranteed or certain to prevail)

I though the published findings were pretty fair. I'm afraid we came across as making any number of 'dog ate my homework' excuses. It was stressed (and this I didn't know) that the target is zero loss for the period. Anything over £15m loss counts as a breach. Anyone suspected of being near to the £105m loss is investigated. The latter is regarded as a hard ceiling, big enough to accommodate moments of misfortune. The problem is, we approached it as though it was a target to aim for and then fell foul of it. I thought our defence was frankly embarrassing. No wonder it was filleted.

Where we might have a case is the scale of the punishment, because it has no precedent nor is there a relevant tariff as a guideline. We are the precedent here.

David Cooper
66 Posted 21/11/2023 at 01:36:18
Mark, once again you make a very persuasive arguement to the the points I have raised. Can you answer the question I posed about who do you think the actual people are when the term “the Premier League” have said, this or that etc. Naively I assumed that the decision makers are the club owners. Do you think this is the case? Who will appoint the those sitting on the Appeal Process?
What are your thoughts about the meeting this Thursday(?) when the “Premier League” meet to discuss who gets the television money?
Eric Myles
67 Posted 21/11/2023 at 02:08:19
Mark #65, I'd say there IS a precedent.

In article 133 of the report the commission refer to the PL relying on a precedent from a lower league, Sheffield Wednesday vs. EFL.

In that case then our appeal should be based on the precedent set in the same league, that of Leicester and their £3.1 million "fine" which was a negotiated settlement after Leicester threatened to go to court on the grounds that the PSR was illegal.

They can't turn round and say lower court / league rulings don't apply as they have already relied on one.

Also, as Lyndon points out the Tevez West Ham affair where they we found to have had a sporting advantage but only had to pay a fine, not points deductions for a deliberate sporting advantage.

I would hope that our team would focus on these precedents when arguing that the punishment is excessive.

Tony Everan
68 Posted 21/11/2023 at 06:06:20
Eric, these are two smoking guns, they are precedents that are in some shape or form.You are right, this needs to be a a point of focus for part of our appeal.

Also right that the IC has opened up the EFL as a fair and reasonable reference point for precedent themselves, by citing the EFL’s Sheffield Weds case to assist their reasoning on sanction.

Our first focus has to be on showing the arbitrary disproportionate nature of the ruling . Then go for more.

Simon Crosbie
69 Posted 21/11/2023 at 07:35:27
I wonder if it is possible for Everton fans to take out a class action against the EPL for failing in their duty to assess the current ownership as not being fit and proper to run a football club?
Danny O’Neill
70 Posted 21/11/2023 at 08:05:19
I've read the article and all of the comments. I won't dive into individual posts.

Obviously we are beset by a combination, emotion and a a feeling of being let down.

By the club and the Premier League.

The one thing that sticks out to me was the indication the the "independent" commission, wasn't necessarily independent. That now makes sense given the leak not long before the announcement.

As well as exercising our right to appeal, we should challenge the legitimacy of the quasi-independent commission.

Meanwhile, Manchester United Sunday. That is the closest crocodile to the blue canoe. Let's go and ram it in their faces and win our next few matches.

On a serious and less emotive note. We can overcome 10 points but if we get it down to 6, it will make it a smoother ride.

The people given the privilege of running our club have a lot to answer for. They have mismanaged and ultimately betrayed us.

But that can wait for now. All I care about in the immediate term is the team, results and above all else, the supporters.

Mark Taylor
71 Posted 21/11/2023 at 11:34:37
David 66

You are raising much wider questions there about the governance of football. My focus was more on whether the commissions findings were defensible based on their remit, and I think they were. We came out of the process appallingly. We as fans are being punished for the truly abject performance of our then board and owner.

If we are to get into the wider issues briefly, then for example I'd actually question the intention of P&S in the first place. We know there is a big gap emerging between the teams at the top. You reference new distribution of proceeds which strike me as being likely to further entrench that. If the EPL are to constrain investors in clubs being able to make the large investments required to break this glass ceiling, then we will have stasis. It is in reality anti competitive and a case of pulling up the drawbridge. I wonder if that is the real intent and a sop to those clubs who threatened to break away.

It is in such areas, rather than the commissions actual findings, that push me closer to the conspiracy theorist position. I am suspicious and like very many others on here, I have no faith that the same treatment will be meted out to more powerful clubs. But we digress

Mark Taylor
72 Posted 21/11/2023 at 12:07:03
Hi Eric 67

First of all, to the extent we have a prospect of a successful appeal, I think you are right, it will be on the basis that the punishment is too harsh.

However I think there are two seperate issues to deal with here. Firstly, is a points deduction the correct sanction and that is where the PL used an EFL case. It is about the principle, where a sporting advantage has been gained- which I think it is pretty clear it has, otherwise there is no point at all to P&S rules. I don't think we will have much luck challenging that.

The more promising ground is the extent of the deduction. The commission makes it quite clear this is in their discretion alone, as the current rules state. With regard to your suggested precedents, Leicester was a negotiated settlement for a different league and I'm not sure the expected sanctions at that point was points deductions, it was a fine. The Tevez affair was a long time ago and was a matter of third party ownership long before P&S and I'm not sure how that could relate to our position.

All that said, while the findings flow smoothly and logically until article 138, concluding there was a serious breach with limited mitigation, the choice of 10 points outlined in 139 is not exactly replete with justifications. That is because in my view there aren't any. Why not 6 points? Or 9? Or 20 for that matter? On a different day, with 'judges' in a better mood, might we not have got a different result? Very possibly so. The only fly in the ointment is that while the commission would possibly be hard put to explain why 10 points is 'exactly right', I think we might be hard pushed to prove it is 'exactly wrong and I'm not sure where the onus lies with that.

Barry Hesketh
73 Posted 21/11/2023 at 12:14:13
Mark @72,

Can you outline in some detail, how breaching the P&S rules, whilst simultaneously trying not to, by selling players and making our squad weaker in the process, resulted in any sporting advantage?

As a regular match-goer, I saw nothing on the field of play that suggested Everton had an unfair sporting advantage in any of the games I watched, in fact quite the opposite as it seemed that our club was at a distinct disadvantage to many of our opponents.

Mark Taylor
74 Posted 21/11/2023 at 12:30:42

I'm not a lawyer (though have some exposure to their way of thinking) but I suspect the argument here rests on the existence of the overspend in the first place, and its de facto potential to lead to sporting advantage. As I say, that is supposed to be the point of P&S, a supposed level playing field (F1 have similar financial rules).

I think you are basically putting up a defence that because our executive teams were so useless, we obtained no advantage at all. Indeed maybe we could add that we actually conferred advantage on those clubs who received excessive fees for useless players?

I like the idea. Maybe you are being ironic? I grant you it has the ring of truth but just because our burglary failed and we ended up with the garden gnome and not the Ming vase, doesn't mean the burglary didn't happen.

Eric Myles
75 Posted 21/11/2023 at 12:42:55
Mark #72, I think the onus probably lies with us in showing that the deduction is disproportionate. Which is why I hope we're better prepared for the appeal than we seem to have been for the original trial.

As to F1's financial rules, they're just as corrupt as the EPL, for example Ferrari get paid a fee for participating in F1 that no other team receives.

And the supposed cap on spending only seems to affect the lower teams, just like EPL.

Barry Hesketh
76 Posted 21/11/2023 at 12:59:14
I was trying to see if Everton would be able to avoid breaching the P&S rules in the current period, and started by looking at the wage bill for the squad - but surely the weekly wage figures in the link below can't be correct? Seven players on £100k or more, with the total weekly wage being circa £1.66m and the annual wage bill being circa £87m.

Jordan Pickford £150,000

Idrissa Gueye £130,000

Dominic Calvert-Lewin £120,000

Abdoulaye Doucouré £120,000

André Gomes £120,000

James Tarkowski £100,000

Dele Alli £100,000

Everton - 2023 Player Wages

Another site has considerably different figures:With the top earner being Abdoulaye Doucoure on £130k per week.

Robert Tressell
77 Posted 21/11/2023 at 13:01:13
Mark I think the P&S is more about ensuring clubs don't go bust through reckless spending, rather than a level playing field.

It is on that basis quite a sensible sentiment because football club financials must be one of the most idiotic things ever.

Indeed far from resulting in a level playing field, it conveniently ring-fences wealth (and therefore the best players and success) within the group of clubs all doing well commercially at a snapshot in time (ie, not Everton).

It's part of the creation of the Super League which has already begun in effect.

Chris Leyland
78 Posted 21/11/2023 at 13:18:22

There's more than a hint of irony in P&S supposedly protecting clubs from going bust through reckless spending by imposing points deductions and opening the way for other clubs to get compensation which will ultimately lead to…. a club going bust!

Robert Tressell
79 Posted 21/11/2023 at 13:23:05
Absolutely Chris. Although in other walks of life outside of football, the way we've gone about business in light of those rules would be considered unbelievable stupidity.
Martin Farrington
80 Posted 21/11/2023 at 13:24:07
Thank you Lyndon for shining some light onto facts amongst the smoke and mirrors guff.

This whole job lot of
Everton, the breach, the PL, the not so- independent panel, trial, findings and penalty
is a floating unpolished turd.

Everton have been run criminally negligently since the day The Recently Departed One took the helm.
Eventually selling to a headless chicken and its russian shadow whilst staying 1 i/c.
We all knew that inevitability we would become a car crash. It was just the matter of how bad. And boy has it been horrendous.

Other than our players, manager and coaches I would not put anyone at that club in charge of a tea kitty.

So when M.Mouse sols & novelty toy importers became defence council it was shocking, but no surprise.

The corruption at the PL is akin to an extortion racket implemented by the cosa nostre (whom they model their code of honour, I mean FSP/FFP regulations around.)

The clearly clueless commission is nothing more than a puppet to their PL master.

There are more terrible twists, turns and shocks a plenty to come.

Never Mind The Football .
Here's the Bollocks

Brent Stephens
81 Posted 21/11/2023 at 13:32:38
Mark #74. The analogy of going out tooled up for a robbery is appropriate. A robbery that failed. I blame the tools.
Barry Hesketh
82 Posted 21/11/2023 at 13:44:17
Just to think that only a week ago, if Everton were to have gained a point from each of its remaining matches or equivalent (26 pts), it would have resulted in Everton achieving 40 points, and probably, guaranteed its safety from relegation.

If we take 26 points from where we are today, we'll almost certainly be relegated on 30 points.

Ian Burns
83 Posted 21/11/2023 at 15:27:09
Some interesting points and counter points on this thread caused by the excellent overview by Lyndon.

Mark Taylor, you argue or present some excellent points but one question which occasionally crops up is "precedent". Some argue we are the precedent, some argue that there is no precedent on which any such points deduction could be made.

In an extremely complex legal argument, I would argue there is one clear and distinct precedent and that is the 9 point deduction for going into administration. That is where the line should be drawn.

We didn't go into administration (not yet at least). We have a stadium to complete which will benefit the city in many ways other than just a football arena. PL might think this is a moot point but a Government appointed Regulator might not.

No matter how the PL argues its case, the rules were put in place to ensure no clubs go into administration but their decision by opening up the opportunity for the club to be both relegated (by points deduction) and being sued by fellow football clubs, does precisely the opposite - it opens the door for us to fall through to administration.

I agree with those who say we hold our hands up to guilt but argue the case for a sentence to fit the crime.

Mark Taylor
84 Posted 21/11/2023 at 16:06:30
Ian 83

That might be worth a punt. As I said previously, I really do not think there are applicable precedents here. If there were, I think the commission would have referenced them in 139. The administration penalty is clear and thus we can question whether a P&S breach merits harsher penalties than actually going bust, which one might argue is the height of recklessness- and we were a little way short of that.

As an aside, I'm not sure if you can be hit with both. I suspect you can. As it happens, having long thought this was a big risk, recent reports suggesting 777 have some pretty hefty compensation and relegation reserves in the sale agreement improves my mood. They reportedly believe plenty enough to protect them. The implication is that Moshiri is 100% on the hook for all these losses and it will be deducted from the agreed price.

The sooner we get out of Moshiri's hands, the better. Could he try and withdraw from the sale? Could the FA spite us at the midnight hour and decide not to approve 777? Then the web could get a lot more tangled...

Brendan McLaughlin
85 Posted 21/11/2023 at 16:45:17
Ian #83

Although not under the auspices of the PL, Derby County received a 12 point deduction for financial mismanagement and then were subsequently docked a further 9 for going into administration.

So there is no precedent for the 9 points levied in respect of administration being some sort of level at which a line should be drawn at least in football more generally.

Billy Roberts
86 Posted 21/11/2023 at 18:00:12
Please forgive me if this has already been covered.
I am going to concentrate on just 2 points in our defence. yes we fucked up hands up..but.
The Sigurrdson ( X) scenario?
Did the FA impose the ban for safeguarding issues? Absolutely understandable if so.
But. like when in certain circumstances a player on international duty gets injured ( ie ) against the advice of the players physios.
The club is compensated.
Is this not a comparable situation.
1) we lost the services of an international player ( our record sining) a sporting disadvantage absolutely.
2) we had no ability to sell him on, at a loss of let's say £15m
3) that £15m equates to 3 penalty points.
The other point I am confused about. If we incurred a 6 point fine for crossing the £105 million threshold, then we incurred 1 point for each 5 million incurred thereafter ?
1) Havnt we been charged twice for the first 5 million in effect?
2) we never got to 20 million over the threshold so how come the 4 extra points.
There are some brilliant minds on this site please boil it down for me.
Barry Hesketh
87 Posted 21/11/2023 at 18:10:47
Billy @86

I think they worked it out that it ended up being this: PSR calculation for the season 2021/2022 demonstrates losses of £124.5 million, which exceeds the sum of £105 million permitted by Rule E51 by £19.5 million.

Therefore the 1st £105m = 6 points

Four lots of circa £5m = 4 points

Total = 10 points

Ian Burns
88 Posted 21/11/2023 at 18:20:22
Brendan 85

I was really looking for something on which to rest my case! 9 points for going into administration is par for the course and is the only constant penance I can find. All other deductions seem to be arbitrary, such as the case with Derby County. I am not saying the penalties have no basis on the number of points deducted, it just that it varies from case to case - but not where administration is concerned.

My point being administration is the last resort and carries a 9 point penalty so the argument being the sentence has to fit the crime. 10 points for Everton's misdemeanour against 9 points for administration being the only constant penalty handed out to such clubs should be the precedent against which we are judged.

Kevin Palmer
89 Posted 21/11/2023 at 19:05:29
Jack Convery 23

Most corrupt in Western Europe, perhaps. But then, Monaco is in Western Europe.
Okay, most corrupt actual country (not just a tax haven principality) in Western Europe.

Billy Roberts
90 Posted 21/11/2023 at 21:17:15
Barry H
Thanks for your explanation.
I still don't think we have warranted 4 points ?;on top of the 6?
We haven't got to 20 million on the 105 have we? We got to19:5, I mean I'm not splitting hairs but I am fighting for every fuckin point!! And this is a serious situation, so please let our Twebbers explain to me?
David Cooper
91 Posted 22/11/2023 at 01:53:11
Thanks Mark Taylor for all your answers and informed thoughts. Maybe I have digressed to asking questions about the Premier League, how they reach their decisions and who chooses who sits on which commission. I contacted John Blain from Toffee Tv who is the chairman of the fan board(?) about these questions. He pointed me to the Premier League website and all copious amount of governance information without really answering my question. Obviously Masters as the Chairperson wields immense power and there is a list of KC, barristers etc who can be asked to sit on a commission. But there are too many examples of “insider trading” such as the punishment of the breakaway 6 and now the information that the same 3 who sat on the Commission will adjudicate on the claims from other teams! Are they short of bodies?
Something really stinks in the PLand the quicker an government appointed regulator is put in position all this crap will not get solved.
Stephen Davies
92 Posted 22/11/2023 at 02:04:36
Meeting at the Winslow tonight ( Weds 22nd)

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