Trying to condense 28,000 documents, several months of pre-commission preparations and five days of complex legal argument into something that is (i) readable but (ii) an accurate representation of proceedings is quite a challenge. I’m going to deal with the introduction, the aggravating factors, the mitigating circumstances, the decision and then the sanction or penalty (depending on what side of the argument you sit).

In other, later articles, I will go into the details, particularly those of the stadium financing which is quite fascinating in that it says so much about how the club was run during the peak Moshiri, Kenwright, and Barrett-Baxendale years.

In the meantime here’s the summary – it’s the views of the Commission, not mine!

The complainant (The Premier League) alleged that Everton were in breach of its Profitability and Sustainability rules (PSR). The Premier League’s case was that the proper calculation for the period ending with season 2021-22 showed Everton’s losses to be £124.5 million. Rule E51 permits losses of £105 million. Therefore Everton’s losses exceeded the maximum permitted by £19.5 million.

Article continues below video content

By the conclusion of the hearings, Everton accepted that it was in breach, however arguing that the breach was £9.7 million albeit with significant mitigation. 

The initial submissions following the complainant (24 March 2023), the Answer (29 April 2023) and the Reply (26 May 2023) were significantly amended from 4 October 2023. The hearing took place on 16-20 October 2023.

The aggravating Factors:
The Premier League advanced four separate factors that it says aggravates Everton’s “default”:

That Everton overspent despite repeated warnings.
An agreement reached on 13 August 2021 placed certain obligations on Everton, one of which was the requirement of Premier League permission for new signings. The Premier League approved each request but cautioned Everton that it was the club’s responsibility to make sure it complied with PSR.

The Premier League asserts it was “reckless” to have continued signing players in the face of their warnings.

To a degree, this is balanced by, whilst acknowledging Everton took unwise risks in the belief it would achieve compliance, this was not a deliberate breach by Everton.

Extent of the breach of the PSR threshold
The Commission will take the extent of the breach of the PSR threshold (£105 million) as an important indicator of the level of culpability.

Misleading the Premier League about stadium interest
The Premier League complains that Everton deliberately misled about the source of funds for the stadium development. Everton had two sources of funds – Moshiri’s interest-free shareholder loans (albeit not charge-free) and commercial loans from Rights & Media Funding and Metro Bank. By applying the costs of the commercial loans to the Everton Stadium Development company, the Premier League complained this was deliberately misleading. The commercial loans were for working capital purposes within the club.

Importantly the Premier League makes no allegation of dishonesty. However, by providing materially inaccurate information, there was a breach of utmost good faith as imposed by Premier League Rule B.15.

Misleading the Premier League about the intent to sell Player Y
In its full year 2022 PSR submission, Everton identified player Y as being one of the players it had targeted for sale, but had been unable to do so. The Premier League asserts this was false.

Player Y had originally appeared in Everton’s summer player trading strategy paper as a player to sell (paper dated 13 March 2020). However, in a series of documents from April 2020 his name was no longer included.

Everton explained this was due to his potential sale being handled by Bill Kenwright and as a result was not on the list. However, this did not mean the club were unwilling to sell him. Additionally, the player was granted a new contract during the summer 2020 transfer window.

The Premier League argued this demonstrated that Everton’s submission was false. The Commission disagreed, finding that had Everton received an appropriate offer, Player Y would have been sold. As a result the commission agreed this was not an aggravating feature.

Mitigating Factors
Everton advanced six mitigating factors:

Post-planning permission interest
Everton relied on an argument that, after planning permission had been obtained, substantial amounts of interest could be capitalised (thus being removed from PSR calculations). Everton chose not to capitalise the post-planning permission interest expenditure in order to assist their prospects of securing the senior debt package it was seeking.

As a result, the Commission thought it inappropriate to raise in mitigation a position that not only did not take place but would not have taken place.
In the view of the Commission, this was not a mitigating factor.

Positive Trend
Everton argued that its PSR calculation showed a downward trend for losses, pointing out that the EFL allows credit for such. The Premier League challenged this as mitigation, claiming you could not use this as no such rules existed in the Premier League. Additionally, the downtrend was a result of averaging FY 2020 and 2021. Finally that trend reversed in 2023.

The Commission largely agreed with Everton and concluded that the improving trend goes some limited way to diminish Everton’s culpability.

Player X
Everton claimed it deserved credit for not pursuing an economically viable claim against Player X (Everton had decided not to sue Player X for breach of contract on the grounds of his mental health.) Everton asserted it had suffered a loss as a consequenc. 

The Commission argued that this business decision could not stand as mitigation. Secondly there was no evidence of his psychological state at the time the decision was made, and thirdly, the £10 million claim made by Everton was speculative.

As a result, the Commission refused to accept this as mitigation.

Everton claimed that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a mitigating factor. Everton had the right to call down a naming rights agreement with USM worth £10 million a year. It was expected to come into force in the 2025-26 season. Everton claimed in mitigation that it was in negotiations to bring the agreement into force earlier, commencing in 2022. The sanction of Russian entities by the UK Government brought these negotiations to a halt. Everton felt it had no alternative but to withdraw from the negotiation.

The Commission agreed with the Premier League that this could not stand in mitigation. Firstly there was no certainty in reaching an agreement. There was no documentary evidence that the receipt of monies was probable. Secondly, this type of event was normal business experience. It could not diminish Everton’s culpability.

Additionally, the argument that the invasion of Ukraine caused stadium construction costs to increase and therefore harder to secure senior debt could not be considered as a mitigating factor.

Impact of Covid on the market for players
Everton planned to sell players in the 2020 summer transfer window. Marcel Brands placed values on eight players who were targeted for sale at a total value in excess of £80 million. In the event, sales did not take place as projected, Everton arguing that the failure was caused by the depressed market as a result of Covid.

The Premier League argued that the difficulties Everton faced were largely due to there being no ready purchaser for those players at the prices Everton sought. Everton’s difficulties arose from market forces.

The Commission accepted the Premier League position and as a result disallowed this as a means of mitigation.

Transparency and cooperation with the Premier League
Everton asserted it had behaved openly and responsibly in its dealings with the Premier League. As a result that should be to its credit. 

The Commission recognised that Everton engaged extensively in the problems relating to the inability to capitalise pre-planning permission expenditure.

However, Everton acknowledged that some of its claims were novel, and some were dropped shortly before the hearing. Additionally the Commission had found Everton’s conduct not to be in compliance with the obligation of utmost good faith. 

The Commission found that Everton’s dealings with the Premier League were not of such an exceptional nature as to stand as mitigation of Everton’s culpability.

Sanction, the nature of the sanction
The Premier League submitted that the nature of the sanction could only be a sporting sanction in the form of a deduction of points.

The Premier League relied upon the decision in Sheffield Wednesday FC v The Football League Ltd, that a sporting advantage is to be inferred, therefore anything other than a points deduction would be inappropriate.
Everton disagreed, claiming a financial penalty would meet the justice of the case. If some form of sporting sanction is required, then a transfer ban should be considered.

Two points to consider – it is already established that Everton had no quantifiable sporting advantage, so why is Sheffield Wednesday FC v The Football League Ltd relevant? Secondly and most importantly if the disqualification for a financial penalty is having “very wealthy owners” how does that fit with the financial punishments handed out to the breakaway six after the aborted attempt at a breakaway league?

The Commission agreed with the Premier League that the requirements of punishment, deterrence, vindication of compliant clubs and the protection of sporting integrity required a sporting sanction in the form of a points deduction.

The issue then is not the form of sanction but its extent.

The Commission justified its decision in the following way: There is no fixed formula to be applied. They could (and did) exercise their discretion as a specialist panel.

The Commission determined that Everton overspent, not because of the stadium development but due to the purchase of new players and the failure to sell players. Additionally, the lower League places (16th as against a projected 6th) caused a loss of expected income of £21 million. Everton’s understandable desire to improve on-pitch performance led to taking chances with its PSR position. Those chances resulting in the £19.5 million overspend in exceeding the £105 million limit.

The conclusion drawn by the Commission is that Everton were responsible for their own position. It was of their own making and the consequence of their culpability was great. Furthermore, Everton were (in the Commission’s eyes) less than frank over the stadium interest issue. 

In the view of the Commission, this was a serious breach that requires a significant penalty, a sporting sanction of 10 points

I stress that the above is a summary of the findings and decision of the Commission – not my own views!

Everton, rightly are to appeal.

Reader Comments (103)

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 ()

Andy Crooks
1 Posted 20/11/2023 at 18:54:50
Mighty piece of work, thank you.
John Keating
2 Posted 20/11/2023 at 18:58:55
Seems to me, apart from a couple of points the "Independent" Commission were led by the PL requirements

Hopefully part of our appeal will be based on, not only leaks, to certain media outlets prior to the official announcement, but more importantly on the make up of the "Independent" Commission.

I believe we should expect absolutely no change in the decision already made.
All our focus, from every part of Evertonia, should be on us getting well clear of the relegation zone asap by our own efforts.

Bill Hawker
3 Posted 20/11/2023 at 19:06:53
It's crystal clear what this is all about. We've been made an example of when many other clubs could have or should have been fined, censured, points deducted well before we should have been.

If there was EVER, any doubt as to the corruption at the highest level in the Premier League, with rules of one set of clubs and rules for a different set of clubs, that doubt has been utterly eradicated.

One other thing is crystal clear. The Premier League is making it up as it goes along and is enforcing rules, or not enforcing rules that benefit it's agenda.

For the good of the game? My arse.

Jim Wilson
4 Posted 20/11/2023 at 19:10:22
Thanks very much for this Paul. A great summary.

The points that stick out to me are:

'No evidence of Sigurdsson's psychological state'. It was self explanatory. He had just been charged with a child sex offence. He obviously would not have been in a good place and Everton should have been commended for what they did for him, losing a lot of money in the process.

Dismissing the affect a covid worldwide pandemic had on transfers I find completely ridiculous. Of course it had a massive affect on transfers.

You can see why we have had so many refereeing and VAR decisions given against us. The lower we are in the league, the less money we are given, the worse our financial position looked.

And whoever conducted Everton's defence did an abysmal job!

But the biggest thing that sticks out is:


Gerry Quinn
5 Posted 20/11/2023 at 19:13:22
Excellent article, Paul - you should be part of the bloody Commission - are you biased though, if not, forget it! :)
Paul Ferry
6 Posted 20/11/2023 at 19:18:45
Thank you ever so much Paul for breaking down the thickets of legalese into easy-to-read plain-speak. After getting tossed around by all the divergent views and 'experts' on the main sanction thread, I think I now fully understand what took place at long last! I'll look forward to your follow-up pieces Paul and I hope that you are now in the best of health.
Tony Abrahams
7 Posted 20/11/2023 at 19:48:07
Thanks Paul, because like Lyndon’s piece earlier today, you have simplified everything and made it so much easier to understand.

How we haven’t been able to recover any money for a £45 million pound player who was eventually sacked, doesn’t really show any leniency, and as always there does appear to be at least a couple of contradictions, although that maybe just the way I’ve read things.

Duncan McDine
8 Posted 20/11/2023 at 19:53:25
A much-appreciated summary. It confirms what I felt - we are being harshly dealt with because our owner and board (ignorant and arrogant in equal measures) have tried to bluff thier way through all of this.

A fairer punishment would have been a transfer ban for 12 months and possibly a less extreme points deduction (3 to 6 pts). But to some extent, I can see why they're making a scapegoat out of us.

The big argument for all football fans should be about the lack of a level playing field.

When FFP (which is anything but 'fair') was introduced more than 10 years ago, along with the P&S rules, the governing bodies have deliberately reduced the ability for smaller clubs (in terms of turnover) to compete. They have dressed it up as protecting clubs from going bankrupt, but we all know the real reason.

The likes of Man Utd, City, rs, Chelsea and to a lesser extent, Spurs and Arsenal, can stay within the restrictions of P&S/FFP and yet spend 2 to 3 times more money on transfers and wages than we can when we break the rules!!!

Something has to change, but I bet it only gets worse.

Jim Wilson
9 Posted 20/11/2023 at 20:24:25
Tony @ 7 - the commission could easily have said we will give you a £20m allowance for Sigurdsson, case closed.

But they didn't want to and the government independent regulator needs to act immediately, get involved, suspend our unjust points deduction and look at the whole picture. It stinks.

Kevin Molloy
10 Posted 20/11/2023 at 21:30:12
what worries me is they could have still made an example of us, without giving our enemies the tremendous hope they can each sue us for fifty million quid. That's more than making an example of us, that is pushing us to the cliff edge. they really didn't need to do that. they could have said, 'whilst we agree that no competitive advantage can be attributed owing to the nebulous breach over a three year period, it is still a clear breach and must attract a heavy penalty in view of Evertons' obfuscation etc'. but no, they have hung us out to dry. If I was Burnley or Leicester I would be straight down to the lawyers. The PL have just hinted they may be able to get 50m each off Everton. Crack on! they have also created one hell of a nasty precedent for themselves, with all future judgments being looked at in the light of this one.

It is therefore vital that we get this judgment overturned. if we don't it's difficult to see how we don't go under. it will be a miracle if 777 stick around, now that the commission have stuck a £100m negative over our head.

It's not just paranoia, this commission have absolutely trid to fuck us up. And all ijn the name of not wanting clubs to get in over their head. What a sick joke

Danny Baily
11 Posted 20/11/2023 at 21:36:16
Kevin, no serious commentator has considered the prospect of other clubs suing us to be realistic. It's not.

We can get this overturned though. It is disproportionate. It isn't fair. We need to never let the powers that be forget that we've been wronged, even in the event we avoid relegation.

Kevin Molloy
12 Posted 20/11/2023 at 21:39:09
we were fourth bottom twice in the last two seasons, by a bat squeak each time. The PL have said we broke the rules over this period and obtained a 'competitive advantage' as a result. Why would suing us for their losses in getting relegated not be a realistic option for them?
Danny Baily
13 Posted 20/11/2023 at 21:50:25
I just don't think there's any real grounds for other clubs to sue us over this. We've been handed a disproportionate punishment for this by the league. The rules are clear - such a punishment may not apply in the season in which the offence took place.

Effectively, you can gain a competitive advantage and pay the price at a later date.

Our focus needs to be on applying pressure on the league to overturn this points deduction. We're on the right side of the argument on this issue.

John Connor
14 Posted 20/11/2023 at 21:53:39
I really can'rt see this decision being overturned, the evidence is there, Everton owners, accountants, infrastructure etc was poor, the appeal must focus on not proving that we were innocent, or the mitigating factors should be taken into account, but the penalty. This needs reducing and may well b. If the charges and decision are changed the independent panel will lose all credibility and with the expected Man City decision ( guilty) they would not welcome another appeal.

Everton were responsible for their own position, the question now is can we have the point reduction reduced.

Mark Taylor
15 Posted 20/11/2023 at 22:04:03
I'd agree with John 14. There really isn't much to argue about in the findings. But the punishment has no real basis on precedent, not least because we are the precedent.

Just on some other points raised here1) Other potentially affected clubs can definitely sue is, no question, and there is a clear sporting advantage accrued- otherwise why do the P&S rules exist in the first place? But the issue is, how do you quantify that advantage. Applicants for compensation will need to do this and that could be much easier to defend than our P&S machinations and 2) It is possible that 777 is pretty sanguine about compensation costs because it is suggested they have a hefty allowance built into the sale agreement, which means it will be deducted from Moshiri's proceeds.

That strikes me as just that the owner fronts up on the costs of his stupidity. Less so are the charlatans posing as our board making off with big payouts before the proverbial hit the fan

Barry Hesketh
16 Posted 20/11/2023 at 22:05:12
Danny @13

There is an opportunity for the aggrieved clubs to seek compensation, David Phillips KC states this in the report dated 9 May 2023 citing the names of the clubs involved:

Leeds United

Nottingham Forest


Leicester City


20. One, I find that if the complaint is upheld, the Commission may wish to award W.51.5

compensation to one or more of the applicant clubs.

22. Three, I direct that if the complaint 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


Seeing as the complaint was upheld, all of those clubs can seek compensation, you can bet at least one will go for it, and then we'll be at the mercy of another or is it the same Commission, who'll decide whether those clubs are due compensation and then we'll find out how much compensation, if any, each club is awarded. Therefore, there must be some 'real' grounds, else it would have been stopped before our Commission sat in judgement.

Jack Convery
17 Posted 20/11/2023 at 22:23:18
Everton argued that its PSR calculation showed a downward trend for losses, pointing out that the EFL ALLOWS credit for such. The EPL said it does not have the same outlook.
However -
The Premier League RELIED upon the decision in Sheffield Wednesday FC v The Football League Ltd, that a sporting advantage is to be inferred, therefore anything other than a points deduction would be inappropriate.

So the EPL uses an argument, that suits its cause using the EFL as reference but argues against EFC, when they attempt to do the same.

It stinks and something is very amiss here.

How can the Invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent sanctioning of the USM company not be a mitagating factor.

Did EFC mention in their defence that they did not look to borrow money from the government as Arsenal and Spurs did during the Covid pandemic.

I see the West Derby MP, Ian Byrne has arranged to bring this up in Parliament. At the end of the day, the powers that be in the EPL will regret how this has been handled. They may have signed their own death warrants. I hope so.

PS: Lyndon please make sure Ian Byrne is made aware of your article concerning the make up of the Commision and the conflicts of interest.

Rob Dolby
18 Posted 20/11/2023 at 22:31:15
I would like to see what other clubs financial positions were during the same period.

I reckon we are the only club to have spent 200m without recouping a penny in transfer fees.

We have been run by weak management for ages and this proves the point. We are soft touches and have been for over 25 years, "what would Everton do"

Nevertheless we are being made an example of when other clubs have flirted with the rules and not faced this type of punishment.

We may have good grounds for appeal due to the contradictions of the findings and severity. The impartiality is also very questionable.

The precedent of not wanting fans to suffer applies more to us than any of the breakaway 6, who's fans have been spoilt to the point of entitlement in an increasingly uneven playing field.

At what point does this end for us?

We need a massive reset. We need to get rid of as many hangers on as possible and start again.
If we stay up this season what happens next season with potential new owners wanting their piece of an ever decreasing pie.

It's been horrible to support us for over 20 years. We have barely laid a glove on teams that we used to regularly beat. A steady downward spiral and this is the culmination of it.

James Marshall
19 Posted 20/11/2023 at 22:34:35
As I understand it, it'll be the same commission ruling on any compensation claims made by other clubs - which means we're fucked and likely to go into administration as a result. That then means a further 9 point deduction and relegation in all probability.

Add to that the likelihood of further charges relating to our accounts for the years following the one we've already been fucked for and it's a bleak picture.

Unless all these points get rescinded, I can't help feeling we'll go out of business off the back of all this.

Having said that, I tend to change my mind about 12 times a day given how much noise there is right now.

Danny Baily
20 Posted 20/11/2023 at 22:42:48
James 19 (where have I heard that before?), it won't come to that. The biggest threat facing the club is relegation as a result of the deduction that has been applied. The rest is just noise.
Ernie Baywood
21 Posted 20/11/2023 at 22:56:36
Jim 9 even we weren't game enough to ask for a 20M allowance. We just pleaded for mercy because we think we could have sued for him 10M but chose not to. Because, you know, mental health is important.

I mean, it's weak right? Could we have sued for 10M? Would we have won? Did he even have 10M to pay? Would the 10M have come in the right timeframe to make a difference?

And the fact is, we chose not to do it

It's pretty fanciful thinking.

John Pendleton
22 Posted 20/11/2023 at 23:06:05
Thanks Paul for taking the considerable time to do this.

Having followed your detailed financial reports over the last few years I’d imagine you must be the least surprised by the commission’s findings.

You’ll take little comfort, no doubt, in your being proved right to repeatedly highlight our financial fragility as you did.

My question to you is when did we know we were squarely in the firing line and could we ever have done enough to avoid this?

Paul Ferry
23 Posted 20/11/2023 at 23:09:39
I actually called this a couple of days ago on the main point deduction thread (378), that our points cut would become the subject of an early day motion in Parliament.

Jerome Shields
24 Posted 20/11/2023 at 23:46:57
Thanks Paul for the Summary..

Whilst Everton did break the guidelines the mitigating circumstances were not properly considered.In the grand scheme of things the punishment was disprotionate and it is unlikely that this standard will be applied to other Clubs that have or close to breaching the rules.The suggested open ended opportunity for compensation is purely pressure driven and without practical consideration.

Jerome Shields
25 Posted 21/11/2023 at 00:20:00
On a answer to a query by Brendan on another thread regarding monitoring I actually sourced the original Premier League rules regarding breaches of the Profit and Sustainability rules from 2015.Brendan pointed out that the Premier League have the remit for their action.I agree with Brendan.'

'Sport Law and Practice :Regulating Sporting 2015.

3.In addition to these measures, any club losing more than £105m in aggregate across the reporting period.

4. may be charged with breach of the Premier League rules and referred to a disciplinary commission with broad powers to: reprimand the club, impose an unlimited fine, suspend the club from playing, deduct points from the club, order matches to be replayed, recommend expulsion of the club, order compensation, ban registrations, or impose such other penalty as it thinks fit.

5. To date, no club has been found to have such losses and therefore no sanctions have been imposed.'

Mark Taylor
26 Posted 21/11/2023 at 00:23:16
Jack 17

To be fair to the commission, our trend on P&S was the one area we were granted mitigation. All the others failed, partly because they had been previously used in a vain attempt to come up with a sum well below £100m.

Take for example, the USM 'deal'. We claimed that funds were due to be provided to use years before the opening. Setting aside why anyone would pay for naming rights on a stadium that is a couple of years short of being complete, we might have swung this had there been a shred of evidence, some sort of agreement, that money was going to be forthcoming before end of 2022. Needless to say, we had nothing to offer so needless to say, the commission concluded we were making it up.

Mal van Schaick
27 Posted 21/11/2023 at 07:38:01
Other PL clubs are looking on with interest, particularly those clubs who have breached or will breach FFP rules.

With Everton’s judgement and punishment raised in Parliament in an early day motion, the discussion will be about the PL acting as judge and jury, whilst hiding behind so called independence, when one of the panellists has a conflict of interests, having previously represented Leeds in other legal cases.

Having set the benchmark on punishment for Everton, how on earth can any future decisions for other clubs be a level playing field? There is absolutely no standardised formula to arrive at the scale of punishment. It’s make it up as you go along!

Should the ‘so called’ big six be hit with anything like a ten point deduction or worse, I can see the Super League/ Diamond League issue being back on the agenda, and what action will the PL take then? They might just have shot themselves in the foot, losing their brand and ably assisting the formation of a breakaway league.

Wait for the U-turn.

Eric Myles
28 Posted 21/11/2023 at 08:27:10
Ernie #21, my problem with Player X is why and what could we have sued him for? For being the subject of a police inquiry which came to nought? He wasn't even charged! Not like some other players that were charged and stood trial but still continued playing for their teams.

Our focus should have been on the fact that the FA banned him for being investigated, while other players were not banned when charged with a crime. It was the FA that directly led to the loss of valuation of that player in both the accounts and any potential resale value!

And that was arbitrary and not down to us.

Eric Myles
29 Posted 21/11/2023 at 08:34:15
Mark #26, but what of the ongoing sponsorship from USM around the ground and for Finch Farm? We had to immediately cancel those sponsorships and receive no further monies while scrambling around to find lesser deals in poor market conditions which made us lose out.

So why didn't the Club focus on that instead of a spurious 'naming rights before the stadium is even built' strategy!

Eric Myles
30 Posted 21/11/2023 at 08:55:29
Mendy sues City

And didn't we continue to pay Player X as he was not charged with a crime? Where was that in our mitigation???

Ian Hollingworth
31 Posted 21/11/2023 at 09:13:43
Yes we are being harshly treated by a corrupt premier league but we cannot lose sight that the owner, Chairman and board (of the time) are guilty for the way they ran the club.
We all knew they were inept and useless and this sadly is the result of their gross mismanagement of the club.
It was their responsibility and they clearly failed and yet one will probably have a stand named after them at BMD?
The sooner we rid our beloved club of Moshiri the better it will be, regardless of who takes over.
Mark Murphy
32 Posted 21/11/2023 at 09:19:46
Did the clubs decision not to furlough employees during Covid have any impact in this?
If so, whatever the compassionate argument for that action should they have taken a harder nosed business decision like other clubs did?
Mike Hayes
33 Posted 21/11/2023 at 09:31:30
Fingers crossed this opens a can of worms and the Premier League get found out for the corrupt arses they are 😡
Jerome Shields
34 Posted 21/11/2023 at 09:39:51
It seems to me that in 2015 in regulating football the Premier League in their Profit and Sustainability Rule sanctions came up with a over kill solution in the scope of the sanctions remit that could be applied.

The Commission in it's remit has tried to apply these sanctions as proportionately as possible, even trying to reduce compensation.This has exposed how impractical the remit of sanctions are when one breach has been committed in that multi breaches could see a team expelled from the Premier League, since any other application of sanctions is totally impracticable.

The Premier League does have the power to appoint a commission which consists of Premier League associates.Where they got Independent is anybody's guess, since there is no reference to such a thing. It was never going to be Independent.

Ironically there are now calls for a Government Regulator to scale back the application of these sanctions, because they are disproportionate and impractical to implement.The complete opposite of what was originally intended by the Premier League to maintain self regulation.

Ian Jones
35 Posted 21/11/2023 at 09:41:50
Eric @28

Whilst we suspended Siggy, am not sure whether he was actually banned by the FA for being investigated.

Brian Harrison
36 Posted 21/11/2023 at 09:52:09
I would be interested to know exactly how much sponsorship we have lost through Usmanov being sanctioned and USM having to withdraw their sponsorship deals. I would imagine the figure is far in excess of the £19.5 overspend. I would assume that this USM sponsorship being with drawn has had a major impact on finances, so I would imagine that the KC representing Everton would have used this as a major mitigating factor.
Dave Abrahams
37 Posted 21/11/2023 at 10:02:39
Reading this thread and the other major thread about our ten points deduction it seems to me that our supporters are making better points that should have been presented to the Commission than the defence that was offered to them by our clubs representatives.

Hopefully we can make a much better and proper case at the appeal.

Alan J Thompson
38 Posted 21/11/2023 at 10:11:06
Can we claim that no penalty should be enforced until there is an outcome of investigations into at least one other club which may have given them an unfair sporting advantage and resulted in us finishing in a lower league position. Similarly, no compensation claims against Everton should be heard until previous investigations are complete so that we may consider a compensation claim of our own which might cover any claims against us.

Mitigation claims.....Commission says, "No".

Perhaps we should be loudly considering arguing this in a real Court where the law of the land promulgated by case precedent rules.

Christine Foster
39 Posted 21/11/2023 at 10:24:35
Brian 36# didn't USM sponsor Finch farm with naming rights? How much did we lose on that one?
Anthony Dove
40 Posted 21/11/2023 at 10:45:32
A ten point deduction sounds draconian but in practice it is
a fine, the amount of which will depend on the Clubs
finishing position in the table. The points deduction principle
would probably be fair in most situations except where it
resulted in relegation or demotion from the Champions
League places.
Paul Hewitt
41 Posted 21/11/2023 at 11:04:12
Brian@36. Everton did use the war in Ukraine as a reason for us losing USM sponsorship money. Amazingly the commission said it's just one of them things. A bloody war just one of them things. Idiots
Barry Hesketh
42 Posted 21/11/2023 at 11:17:18
Anthony @40
It's a great deal more than a fine, it's psychologically damaging to the players, it's giving the team a handicap, that it might not be able to overcome, it makes all the efforts that the players have put in already this season, mostly pointless.

All of the bookings will still remain on the record, so the players will be suspended in the usual way, even though 70% of the points they gained will be lost. It renders the matches that Everton have played already and that we as fans have paid to watch, mostly meaningless. Financial indiscretions should be punished with financial sanctions, attempts to govern finances by inflicting a reduction of points is not within the spirit of the game.

There's a slim possibility that Everton could be brought before the beak again, once our latest accounts are scrutinised in the near future, which could also result in another points penalty and therefore some of the points that we may add to our current tally, might be taken off us, which would then make a total mockery of our season, as we could have almost half-a-season's worth of football, but only so many of those games would register the points that we won out on the pitch.

Perhaps they will suggest that Everton only get two points for a win and our opponents should get four when playing Everton, for as long as we remain in the Premier League, I don't believe that it's a witch-hunt against Everton, just some very short-sighted administrators trying to placate the sinful six and they've tied themselves in knots and they don't have a clue how to run the game, because all they can see is the pound signs.

Ernie Baywood
43 Posted 21/11/2023 at 11:19:36
They didn't really say that Paul. They said that there was no evidence that the agreement was being pulled forward three years. And the loss of an agreement was the sort of thing that businesses experience from time to time.

I got sick of saying this on the other thread, and I think everyone got sick of me saying it... but...

... Everyone needs to consider that we didn't fall foul of the league's rules by just 19.5M. We were 124.5M over the target set by P&S rules. We were 109.5M over the point at which they start taking action.

We were 19.5M over the point at which their rules give them no leeway but to charge us and refer us to a commission. That's a huge buffer before you get charged.

You're not supposed to get anywhere near that number. We smashed through it.

The number is there so that you have some buffer for things like the mitigations we claimed. But we were operating right at the limit already.

Christine Foster
44 Posted 21/11/2023 at 11:20:41
Hmm naming rights and match day marketing / shirt sponsorship, obtained by USM in 2017 as part of a five year deal worth £75m. Even if we just lost one years worth its £17M? why no mention of that as a mitigating factor?
Mark Taylor
45 Posted 21/11/2023 at 11:20:58
Eric 29

I think you would need to ask the club why they didn't do that, but the commission deals only with what is presented to them. To be honest, I doubt they would have been all that sympathetic. To repeat a point I made earlier, which informs their finding, the actual P&S target is zero loss over the period. A loss of over £15m is considered sanctionable. The £105m figure is a hard ceiling. Unfortunately we (and maybe some other clubs out there?) have treated the latter as a target, not a hard ceiling, and sailed way too close to the sun.

The commission re-iterated that the whole point of this ceiling was to give clubs plenty of wiggle room, or at least those who were genuinely trying to conform to the actual P&S target. I suspect the commission might also have taken the view that unless USM's arrangement was in truth not commercial at all, and was a sum that no other partner would dream of paying, then we ought to have been able to at least partially mitigate the loss. We might be best not trying to push that point too much?

On your subsequent post, the findings indicate we stopped paying Siggy a month after the news of the police investigation. I must admit that was news to me. What we were raising as defence/mitigation was that the accusation meant we couldn't cash in on his transfer value and we could have sued him for this. However, given Mendy is now suing City for his loss of wages, having not been convicted, I suggest we might be on rocky ground with that.

Paul Hewitt
46 Posted 21/11/2023 at 11:31:17
As for as I'm concerned this FFP is a restriction of trade, how can you stop an owner of a business putting money into it?. How can we compete with clubs like City who make over £700 turnover a year. ?
Barry Hesketh
47 Posted 21/11/2023 at 11:40:35
There's far too much concentration on various sites, as to the why's and wherefore's of the case, the only thing that matters is whether we feel that the punishment fits the crime - it doesn't, and that's the issue that we all should be focusing on.

If we don't do that, and continually argue each point of mitigation, we'll eventually get to a place where we find ourselves agreeing with the Premier League's stance and the Commissions draconian punishment.

How do we help the club get those points back? We will of course get behind the club in the stadium, but how can we put pressure on the League to overturn the points deduction, or at the very least have that points deduction suspended. Letters / emails to MP's, media outlets, the Premier League itself?
Dear x,
I/We readily agree that Everton Football Club is guilty of breaching the Premier League's Profit and Sustainability rules, I/we also realise that breaking those rules should result in some form of punishment, however, an immediate deduction of points in the current season, hardly protects the notion of sporting integrity.

Instead of the immediate points deduction, it may well be beneficial for the purposes of sporting integrity, to have the deduction suspended until the start of next season, better still it would be more appropriate to have a purely financial penalty for a purely financial misdemeanor.
Yours X

Rob Halligan
48 Posted 21/11/2023 at 11:54:49
How dare the club not have the forethought and think a war in Ukraine could scupper their chances of any naming rights with USM.

They really should have thought “Bloody hell, there's going to be a war in Ukraine soon, so we better get something in writing to show the Premier League of our intention to bring forward money from USM for future naming rights, just in case there's any chance of them charging us over PSR”.

For fuck's sake, it had already been well documented that USM had given £30M to have first dabs on the naming rights, so why on earth should they have something in writing to say that payments may be brought forward, even before the stadium is complete?

Ryan Holroyd
49 Posted 21/11/2023 at 11:58:16
Everyone needs to consider that we didn't fall foul of the league's rules by just £19.5M. We were £124.5M over the target set by P&S Rules. We were £109.5M over the point at which they start taking action.

This is not correct.

You're allowed to lose £105M over a 3 year rolling period

Brian Williams
51 Posted 21/11/2023 at 12:01:44
I have a sneaky feeling the decision will be reversed and we'll be found NOT to have breached the rules.
I think they'll find a way to allow a further £19.5m in order for us not to be punished.
Because I think the can of worms this has opened has far reaching consequences they haven't properly considered.
There's the "other" clubs yet to be dealt with.
There's the probability of us going into administration due to the commitee "encouraging" those clubs who feel agrieved to sue us, if they do.
There's the question of an ex WHU employee being on the commitee and another with Leeds connections.
There's a far reaching shit show which has exploded in their face including possible government intervention.
How do they make it all go away and have a chance not to fuck it up next time?
They decide that one of the considerations they didn't allow will now be allowed and they're out of the shit, although totally embarrased.
Wishful thinking on my part?
You fucking bet it is.
Les Callan
52 Posted 21/11/2023 at 12:11:06
Paul @46.

I've always thought that, Paul. I'm amazed that no one has ever challenged P&S on those grounds.

Rob Halligan
53 Posted 21/11/2023 at 12:15:07
Meanwhile Chelsea, who are currently under investigation by the Premier League over P&S, and facing X number of charges, are now considering a big money move for Ivan Toney in January.

Should they be successful in this transfer, then it would bring their total expenditure over the last two years to about £10 zillion.

Without the backup of any European pots of gold this season, and also a chance they will not be in Europe next season, plus the massive wages they are paying for players recently purchased on ridiculously long contracts, clearly they couldn't give a toss about the possible consequences if found guilty… which we all know of course, will just be a fine and warnings of “Who's a naughty boy, don't do it again” (Followed by several slaps on the wrist!).

Mark Taylor
54 Posted 21/11/2023 at 12:16:59
Barry @47,

I think you are correct. Overall I felt our defence/mitigation was pathetically weak and filleted comprehensively by the commission. We should not re-run those arguments.

Right up to point 138, the commission followed impressive logic. But then read point 139. Basically it just says, 'we reckon it's worth 10 points'. Why not 5 points? 8 Points? Or for that matter 20 points?

There is an element of arbitrariness about it, which is inevitable given the lack of both a tariff or a decent precedent. I think what we can also do, regardless how stupid our board has been, is rally wider support, which is happening. We may be able to win the PR battle...

Paul Hewitt
55 Posted 21/11/2023 at 12:23:46
I don't think the Premier League expected all the trouble this finding has done. They probably thought that little old Everton would just take the punishment like a good boy and move on.

Not bloody likely, you've opened a can of worms you can't close now, you're in more shit than us.

An independent commission will surely follow. And what they find what the Premier League have been up to, god only knows. And it's all their own fault.

Eric Myles
56 Posted 21/11/2023 at 12:24:20
Ian #35,

I read that in the report the commission said he was suspended by the FA, so out of our control.

Rob Halligan
57 Posted 21/11/2023 at 12:29:47
Well well, who'd have thought it…….that RS gobshite John Aldridge doesn't think Man City or Chelsea will get a points deduction if found guilty of their charges, but instead just a hefty fine.

Basically, what he's saying is that they both have the financial clout to pay the corrupt Premier League off, whilst we don't, hence the points deduction. Had we had zillions in the bank, then probably we would got a fine instead.

You're not calling the Premier League corrupt, are you Mr Aldridge?

Man City and Chelsea told why they won't face Everton-style punishment amid FFP charges

Pete Neilson
58 Posted 21/11/2023 at 12:41:25
I wonder if Aldridge has actually read the report.

It states, “We have no doubt that the circumstances of this case are such that only a sporting sanction in the form of a points deduction would be appropriate. A financial penalty for a club that enjoys the support of a wealthy owner is not a sufficient penalty.”

Let's see the Premier League wriggle out of that one with Man City and Chelsea.

Eric Myles
59 Posted 21/11/2023 at 12:53:32
Pete, given that statement, I wonder if we could sue the EPL when they give City and Chelsea a fine and a slap on the wrists?
Ray Robinson
60 Posted 21/11/2023 at 12:58:26
If the Premier League were serious about reining in obscene overspending by some of their clubs, why are they not demanding an explanation from Chelsea now instead of waiting until the end of a 3-year period? How on Earth are Chelsea getting away with it? There is no way that they are adhering to P&S rules, surely?

How did Notts Forest sign 30 players in one season? Will they have to hold a fire sale to comply?

I would imagine even Burnley will be in trouble if they get relegated. They and Bournemouth, on paper, appear to have overspent their means.

We're just the tip of an iceberg.

Tony Abrahams
61 Posted 21/11/2023 at 13:01:49
Paul @55, maybe, just maybe, they misread the very powerful voice of the people who come from a city, that will never take an injustice lying down?

There is talk of an aeroplane, getting ready to fly over the Etihad on Saturday, because it will be too dark to send a message over Goodison by the time the game kicks off on Sunday, but upto now the message being delivered is still undisclosed.


Maybe this is a little bit too long…😂

Simon Jones
62 Posted 21/11/2023 at 13:01:54
Sporting advantage

Presumably that was dismissed on the basis someone on the commission had actually seen us play?

Kevin Molloy
63 Posted 21/11/2023 at 13:03:02
There's more to this story than meets the eye.

The whole thing just doesn't sit right. We've been in constant dialogue with the Premier Leaguefor the last 3 years. A few months ago we were all thinking that with the key sales we had been forced to make that we could finally get some breathing room.

And then suddenly this all drops on our head from nowhere, 10 points plus 9 points plus compensation to X other clubs just cos we drifted over their arbitrary bullshit limit by £19.5M?

Someone is doing a number on us, I reckon the government are out to get the Russians and their money, and they don't mind torpedoing us in the process if that's what it takes.

Rob Halligan
64 Posted 21/11/2023 at 13:05:12
Tony, that’s definitely too long. The first three words will do!
Barry Hesketh
65 Posted 21/11/2023 at 13:08:53
Kevin @ 63,

I think that the 'Russian' angle is more than a plausible explanation, if we sit back and think about it, who eventually, albeit indirectly, gets the money from the sale of Everton?

The value of Everton will plummet with every blow it receives and it does seem that we will likely have to take a few more heavy punches in the near future.

Kevin Molloy
66 Posted 21/11/2023 at 13:20:44
Barry yes.

I'm starting to think that for some time they've probably thought that a 10-12 point point deduction would do the job, and make the roof fall in.

And then along came Sean with his three away wins, and so they had to add in the reference to other clubs suing us, just to make sure.

Tony Abrahams
67 Posted 21/11/2023 at 13:27:21
That’s exactly what I posted on one of my Watsapp groups, that contains a couple of the horrible bastards, Rob👍

I heard words to this affect yesterday Barry, with regards it probably being the best thing that could have happened to the purchaser’s of Everton, from a person that told me he was very confident it’s not going to be 777.

I also think this is very plausible Kevin.

Brian Harrison
68 Posted 21/11/2023 at 14:15:39
Just read a post on twitter by the 1878 group over the £40,000 that has been raised on their go fund me page, and their plans for the weekend. They start by thanking Paul the Esk & Eddie Carter as they say part of having this account they couldnt access the money for 5 days, so Paul and Eddie loaned them the money so they could have all the flags and banners ready for the weekend. They also thanked @nychl and @tarscouseki for their help in driving round and collecting the banners and flags.

They have set up collection points around the ground where we can collect the corrupt signs which they have asked that we display when the teams line up and 10 minutes into the game. I can only assume the club cant let the signs be put on seats inside the ground as maybe the appeal panel may see that as cohesion.
So I hope everyone collects their signs before entering the ground on Sunday. I am sure Lyndon and Michael will do a post about this nearer match time.

Because it will be quite dark when we kick off so they decided to fly a plane with a banner over the Etihad for the Saturday early kick off between city and Liverpool.

I can only thank whoever is responsible at 1878 for the great work they have done in the past and for arranging this protest at the weekend. Also as someone said nobody encroach on the pitch, as we don't want to give the Premier league any excuse to land the club in a worse position. We want everybody to be on our side in this argument and to show we will protest vehemently without breaking any laws.

Danny O’Neill
69 Posted 21/11/2023 at 14:49:06
Tony & Rob,

1878 The Originals. We Shall Not Ever be Moved

Maybe something related to the Prisoners of Prince Rupert's Tower might be apt?!!

Ian Jones
70 Posted 21/11/2023 at 14:52:48
Re comment about pitch invasions

Who remembers this...don't think we need any more for the Premier League to think about


Stephen Davies
71 Posted 21/11/2023 at 14:55:49

Posted by PabloMc2User Info on November 21, 2023, 12:40 pm
should be interesting...



Flags (1) Flags (2)

Not convinced about the plane personally, but fair play to them - and I'm delighted that the cards are finally happening, 19 years after suggesting something similar for The Truth protest and to NSNOW/AllTogetherNow/The1878s several times over the last few years!
It should look pretty impressive visually - especially if the Man Utd fans join in...

Tony Abrahams
72 Posted 21/11/2023 at 15:15:19
Running on the pitch was deemed a lot worse than attacking an opponent’s team coach, although it was a different competition I suppose
Rob Halligan
73 Posted 21/11/2023 at 15:32:11
Stephen # 71……..don’t know if you meant to put a link up, but here’s one anyway……

Rob Halligan
74 Posted 21/11/2023 at 15:37:01
Just received a WhatsApp message saying someone had closed their Barclays Bank account due to their partnership agreement the Premier League. Don’t know if it’s a spoof or not, but got me thinking about boycotting all companies and products who have dealings with the premier league……………….

Some of the key sponsors of the English Premier League are Sorare, EA Sports, Budweiser, Nike, Barclays, Hublot, Oracle, Castrol, Avery Dennison, and Panini. Sorare has the highest number of deal values.

Barry Hesketh
75 Posted 21/11/2023 at 15:43:55
There should be one huge banner that says "Punish the owner - not the fans!"

Running such huge losses for almost the entirety of Moshiri's ownership is and should be unacceptable to all Evertonians and we have to ask, has it been worth it?

Sean Mitchell
76 Posted 21/11/2023 at 15:50:18
Then we should all cancel Sky/TNT if further penalties are imposed.
I won't parting my already stretched monthly wage on a corrupted big 6 obsessed organisation.
Glenn Williams
77 Posted 21/11/2023 at 15:52:26
Thanks so much for the breakdown and analysis of the commission finding. And thanks to all the comments from the Blues providing lots of different perspectives. As I gear up and continue stoking my internal fires for the fight ahead, I just can't help but reflect on just how bad the Premier League has been for Everton. Given that our management was part of the initial impetus to form the league, I can't help but think about type of thing my elders said to me and I'm sure to many of you as well: Be Careful What You Wish For!!

I'm hoping that all this is the catharsis we need to shake off our long Premier League blues starting with Man U. So COYB!!! let's turn it around for good and return to pre-Premier League competitiveness. In microcosm I took a look at our all-time record against Man U versus our Premier League record against Man U and here are the tallies:

PRE PL ERA Total Matches 148

Wins 59 (39.8%), Draws 32 (21.6%), Lost 53 (35.8%).

PL ERA Total Matches 63

Wins 8 (12.7%), Draws 15 (23.8%), Lost 40 (63.4%)

Let's banish this once and for all!!

Barry Cowling
78 Posted 21/11/2023 at 15:54:12
I dunno if its just me, but, I get the impression we had a couple of YTS kids fighting our case, can we please get some professional lawyers to fight our appeal, its like we are all over the place with it. More importantly is the fact the punishment does not fit the crime, how can a 19.5m loss be worse than going into administration, surely going into administration has got to be the worst thing you can to do as your not even paying the debtors what you owe them, just a proportion of that debt. I also think the PL were hoping this might make the government back off a bit on their future involvement, when all they have done is make it a damn certainty because it makes the PL seem like a draconian tyrant and an arrogant dictatorship
Danny O’Neill
79 Posted 21/11/2023 at 16:11:16
Tony in these emotional days you're going to start me off and it's only Tuesday.

Smashing up a coach. Ticketless supporters climbing barriers in Athens to prevent access to many who did have tickets.

The Paris incident, but not their fault.

And let's not forget the 39. The worse offence by a club in English history yet we all got punished. For five years.

I told you. You've started me!! I need to vent on something and the cousins seem a natural darts board.

I wish it was Sunday right now. Bizarrely I can calm down then.

Barry Hesketh
80 Posted 21/11/2023 at 16:14:32
Danny @ 79
I don't suppose your mood will be improved when the appeal results in the decision that the 10 points should indeed be returned to Merseyside, however, not to Everton but to the other lot! Only joshing, got to take the fun, where you can find it.
Mark Taylor
81 Posted 21/11/2023 at 16:16:16
Tony 67

That would imply that 777 do not in fact have a cast iron sale agreement with Moshiri with the much discussed performance criteria in it (the effect of which is to ensure Moshiri pays in full for the costs of this debacle through a much reduced payment for his investment to date)

Does your contact suggest this agreement is not in force? I guess anything is possible in this febrile environment and the most concrete information we have about the club is in the Commission's findings, but apparently 777 have already put £50-80m in the coffers. Moshiri has clearly ceased to want or be able to fund the stadium and our cashflow.

But I also gather that 777 money is not senior debt, in which case they are taking a hell of a risk in losing some or all of that, if they can't force through a sale.

Les Callan
82 Posted 21/11/2023 at 16:16:41
“ It’s not their fault. “ Be careful Danny. They don’t like to be reminded of that. They’ll get you banned for insulting them !
Ian Jones
83 Posted 21/11/2023 at 16:38:20
Eric Myles, my apologies, I missed that bit in the report about the FA banning Siggy.
Brian Harrison
84 Posted 21/11/2023 at 16:40:36
I see the Premier league has now said that the members of the panel who imposed the 10 point deduction will be the panel that decides if other clubs are able to take legal action. So seeing that they have already said that other clubs should be allowed to take legal action then that decision is already made. So what is the point of an appeal commission its a complete and utter disgrace, surely shouldn't the Premier league have waited till the appeal commission had sat before making this decision.

Just another point of the 17 Merseyside MPs only 6 has signed Ian Byrnes early day motion, and no surprise of the ones who have voted for it not 1 is a Conservative. Mind when did they ever consider fairness in their decisions.

Finally Danny, we should be grateful that our local MP Ian Byrne, and our Mayor Steve Rotheram both Reds have been very vocal and vociferous in our defence and attacking Liverpool FC on this matter does you no credit at all. Just like Hillsborough this is something that unites the City and not divides us.

Barry Hesketh
85 Posted 21/11/2023 at 16:48:16
Brian @84
I believe that the panel who assessed our case, was automatically intended to sit in judgement of the compensation award. I also seem to remember it was the same KC David Phillips, who in May 2023 decided that the aggrieved clubs which he listed, could, if Everton were found guilty, proceed to claim compensation.

The points appeal panel, will be completely separate and different to, the one that heard our original case.

Iain Johnston
86 Posted 21/11/2023 at 16:51:18
Ok, I know it's not all about the transfers but having a brief look at Newcastle they're probably quaking in their boots right about now.

For 21/22 with a £180m turnover their transfer debt is £130m

For 22/23 with a forecast £205m turnover their transfer debt is further 171m

This season their transfer debt is £108m and who knows what they'll do in January. Ok, CL football will give them an uptake but still, their turnover will only push to around £260m and they're currently 6 points of getting there again.

Thats a combined transfer debt of £409m over 3 years.

Bear in mind too that they already had a transfer debt of a combined £75m for seasons 19/20 & 20/21.

Their wage to turnover ratio is currently 94.6%.

Sound familiar?

Wolves have sold over £180m worth of players to remain compliant which has killed any chance of them having any European aspiration.

Barry Hesketh
87 Posted 21/11/2023 at 17:00:26
There's only one solution to this grand old mess and that is, regardless of what position in the table a club attains, only the super six should be considered to represent the country in the main European competitions.

If any other club outside of that cabal finishes in the top spots, tough!, you can have a European tour in the lesser competitions, even if one of the super six has a mare of a season and is relegated.

That would save any club outside of the cabal from being overly ambitious and curtail their spending. If that doesn't fix the issue, keep the cabal happy and lead to better fiscal controls of those clubs outside of the cabal, I don't know what will.

Barry Hesketh
88 Posted 21/11/2023 at 17:12:05
A really well thought out and argued article by John Fox, who suggests, like ToffeeTV's Ped did, that we are all fans, no matter which club we happen to support, and we should stick together on many more issues than we currently do.

Although I do think he may be misinformed in believing that the compensation will require lots of money in legal fees for the aggrieved clubs to continue with their claims.

An Arsenal's fan view of Everton's point deduction

Jerome Shields
89 Posted 21/11/2023 at 18:11:56
Unfortunately for the Premier League they are dealing with Everton.Probably the one Club where the off field Management and Structure have been analysed to death week in week out for years.Whilst the Premier League had actual figures they have inadvertently provided more information which Evertonians, with the help of Evertonian Journalic Professionals, can fine tune there previous extensive analysis.This is backed up by Supporters group under the wide umbrella of All together now and FAB.

The detailed information has given so much confidence that they all now have turned these analytical skills onto the Premier League, where holes are appearing, providing ready made fodder for the Media beast, which will be relentless in their pursuit of answers. This all will get more intense as time goes on.

Bill Gall
90 Posted 21/11/2023 at 18:14:54
While we are on other clubs read what they have just passed. Premier League Clubs have voted against a ban on loan deals with associated clubs as Jan Transfer Window approaches.
Nick Page
91 Posted 21/11/2023 at 18:27:46
The Arab barcodes are the + 1 to the hallowed Sky 6. Otherwise the greedy fucking PL mob wouldn’t have let them in. They’re protected. They’ve also been here before spending money they didn’t have. As have City. As have Chelsea. Unfair is an understatement. The only saving grace here is that 7 doesn’t go into 4 and they’ll all start agitating again for a super league.

This whole thing reeks worse than a Tommy Smith jockstrap and it’s fairly obvious these odious c**ts are trying to fuck us right over. For what end I’m not sure. But if clubs start legal proceedings so that some poxy solicitor can rake in even more cash the game is finished. Especially if it’s the same bunch on that panel, who obviously have an agenda. How it’s come to this, even with all the mismanagement is just astonishing. It’s so blatant. They’re like a bunch of drug addled psychopaths looking for their next victim and we’re it. Let’s fuck the lot of them and get angry at our treatment. Never forget.

Barry Hesketh
92 Posted 21/11/2023 at 18:38:20
The construction down there of a football stadium to house Everton Football Club is perhaps the most significant boost to Liverpool's regeneration since the rebirth of the Albert Dock, in the early 1980s.

Outlay on a stadium like that is about as far removed as you will get from the speculative, jam-tomorrow transfer spending which football's financial sustainability rules are designed to prevent.

IAN HERBERT: The goalposts moved in Everton's case...that's why punishment is so unfair

Barry Hesketh
93 Posted 21/11/2023 at 18:40:57
Bill @90
Should 777 Partners be given the go-ahead to takeover Everton, that vote, would possibly be of an advantage to our club, given that 777 Partners have so many clubs in their portfolio.
Bill Gall
94 Posted 21/11/2023 at 19:03:13
Barry @93
As you say, that depends on whether they receive permission to be given the go ahead, and what are the standard of players in these clubs.
Alastair Donaldson
95 Posted 21/11/2023 at 21:07:36
I guess the whole sorry saga of Moshiri’s reign had to be bookended somehow, but the nature of this execution is exposing most of what I hate about the “game” and what it’s become. Plaything of the entitled and now a political football to boot (pun intended). IMHO there’s clear racism involved now as well. I’ll leave it at that.

If it wasn’t so much more than a game it would be something to laugh off and I seriously hope there’s a happy ending here but then I’ve been living off my 80’s memories for decades now and it appears written.

Good luck everyone and hold on to the good memories.

Stu Darlington
96 Posted 22/11/2023 at 10:57:11
I’m a little confused about the role of the commission in this.Are they merely deciding if these clubs are entitled to claim compensation from us or are they deciding the actual amount each should receive?
If it’s the former that implies the clubs will have to sue Everton in the civil courts for financial losses caused by Evertons breach of the rules.
In this case then the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to prove actual loss and be specific as to the amount and when and where it occurred.Which games did they lose as a direct result of Everton’s breach?
Not an easy task,even with the result being decided on the balance of probabilities,and very costly should they lose.
If it is the commission that decides then it simply demonstrates even more that it is a kangaroo court not fit for purpose
Pete Neilson
97 Posted 22/11/2023 at 11:59:02
Paul thanks for the article and your (and others) involvement in helping the funding of The 1878s.

Amongst all the righteous fury it’s understandably easy for this previously mentioned link to get lost.


Personally I think it’s an excellent idea to raise money for coordinated supporter demonstrations of this anger. The PL would prefer this to play out in the background with their phony legal process. Let’s not let it.

Tony Everan
98 Posted 22/11/2023 at 12:26:33
Barry 93, In some respects it could be beneficial, but conversely also has the possibility of us being blinkered and limited towards the loan players we take.

ie we may get a RB on loan just because he plays for say Vasco or Genoa, when there may well be far better options for other clubs. We may be forcefully encouraged to take the lesser player with a view to improving him and his value which to our detriment may not work out.

Barry Hesketh
99 Posted 22/11/2023 at 12:38:33
Tony @98
I agree, but like all of the other clubs in the division, Everton will only vote for stuff that they think will be of benefit for their own purposes. This particular vote may not benefit Everton in any way as there's a chance that 777 Partners will not get the deal over the line.

I also tend to believe, with or without 777 Partners, that we will be scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for players from anywhere, that are as cheap as chips and probably not of the standard that we'd like to see representing our club, but that's where the financial mismanagement of the club has led us.

Is there any light at the end of this dark, dark tunnel which we find ourselves in?

Tim Welsh
100 Posted 24/11/2023 at 22:58:00
Can anyone tell me why the women's team haven't been docked points? Or why the 10-point deduction isn't spread over all our footballing 'platforms'?

They are as much a part of the club as the first team, and would have had as much 'sporting advantage'...?

Just a thought.

Brendan McLaughlin
101 Posted 24/11/2023 at 23:15:00
Tim #100,

Because expenditure on women's, youth football etc is excluded from the P&S calculation.

David Hallwood
102 Posted 25/11/2023 at 13:13:01
Great piece of work, Paul.

My take on Player X is somewhat different. In Para 29: Everton had signed Player X in 2017. Player X had proved to be a star player for the club. In July 2021 Player X was arrested. The FA suspended Player X from all football activity.

Notwithstanding that this was the correct action of the regulatory body, they did so in the knowledge that it effectively 'wrote off' a salable asset and this should have been part of the calculations. The fact that Everton didn't pursue the player for damages is neither here nor there.

But the overview I get is that, if we hadn't decided to move to a new stadium or funded it a different way, we wouldn't be in this mess. The fact that the stadium will fundamentally change Everton's finances was almost brushed aside.

I'm willing to bet that the Premier League will rule that the Chelsea and Man City problems are 'different' than Everton's and they will receive a slap on the wrist.

Brian Wilkinson
103 Posted 27/11/2023 at 22:17:47
I cannot get my head around teams trying to sue Everton, surely only one of the two teams would have swapped places with Everton, moving out of the Bottom 3, the other would have still gone down anyway.

For arguments sake let's say we swapped places with Leicester, that would have still left Burnley or Leeds in the Bottom 3, would have just been a case of Everton being in the Bottom 3, and the highest placed bottom three team switching places.

So surely two or more teams cannot possibly claim, just the team that finished 3rd bottom has a half-decent chance of a claim.

Paul Hewitt
104 Posted 27/11/2023 at 22:34:06
Brian @103. I wouldn't worry. None of the teams have a case. It's just media nonsense.

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