Everton’s Double Jeopardy and the Farce of the Premier League’s PSR

Are we at breaking point? I fear we are, this time. But I don't think we'll be going down quietly, or alone. And that might just be enough to give us that 'fight another day' chance.

"Smile," the man said, "it could be worse." So I dragged up a smile... and, lo, it got worse.

Ultimately, we won't know for sure (unless we somehow manage to get plus 15 points on 18th place, I guess) whether we stay up or not. That will make it truly hard to watch.

The really annoying bit is that, for all the profligacy and awful financial management, we have not won anything or even really had any good times at all... it's been thoroughly shit.

At least Man City, Chelsea and Leeds (the last time they rolled the dice) had some good times. We rolled the dice and we're still shit.

No matter what, nothing will stop me from enjoying this team's many positives (Jarrad's growth as a player on a weekly basis! McNeil giving it all on the field despite his family hardship... Tarkowski and Coleman re-establishing our tough-as-nails identity!) and the warts (Doucouré can never thread a proper 5 yard pass to teammates! Calvert-Lewin can't even score a goal for his life... Dyche forgot that he can make substitutes!).

Moshiri and the old Board have truly screwed us and the Premier League is salivating as it pours petrol on our great club.

Lyndon, your piece is bang on the money. The hypocrisy, the corruption, the bias and the truly horrendous sight of inaction towards Man City and Chelsea. The light-of-touch handling of the Sly 6 plan to destroy the Premier League by joining a Euroopean Super League with no relegation threat, because they are terrified of these clubs.

It has come out, that Blair's Labour government appeared to know about the Post Office computer system, Horizon, and its faults but to go after Fujitsu would have scuppered other trade arrangements with the Japanese.

It makes you wonder how much influence the Arabs are having in keeping Man City out of the mire and how much influence the Saudis may have had in the new PSR rules being brought in for next season. After all, British Aerospace needs those Saudi cheques.

The Beautiful Game has gone… it really has.

We've only been charged right now. And we expected that charge. Nothing has changed.

Focus needs to continue to be on the appeal. Demonstrate that interest has now been treated in relation to the stadium (it wasn't previously). Demonstrate that the punishment is over the top given it will convince clubs to go into administration rather than pay their bills. Demonstrate flaws in the rules and the process.

The next charge shouldn't be as significant as the last one. Unless we've deliberately been up to no good again.

Steve (Oshaugh), you know already that if this ends up as a second points deduction (my feeling is that it will be a fine for reasons I mentioned on the other thread) that it will be 16 points if goal difference is on our side?

I just looked at the table and we are one point ahead of the relegation zone. If we end up with another cut in points, let's say for the sake of it 6 points, then we would need 5 points to stay up as things stand at this moment.

Very sensible well-reasoned article. Unfortunately it feels like the Premier League lack all of the above.

I wasn't able to watch the Villa game and planned to watch the highlights today but, after this news, I found myself thinking “What's the point?” I say that as someone who wakes up every morning and checks ToffeeWeb then Google's Everton news.

I remember training for the school team 35 years ago and loving that the coach let us all wear Everton shirts. So my worry is that, if some kind of nutter Everton addict like me is feeling like it's a stitch-up, so what's the point?

Then what will the players be feeling? Dyche somehow inspired them to up the ante after the last farcical investigation. But if you're Belgian-born Onana reading headlines you're destined for Arsenal, or Branthwaite reading Real Madrid want you, or Pickford worrying about the Euros, are you thinking about the seemingly sinking ship at this point or your exit strategy, avoiding injury and your next pay day? Who can blame them they have limited careers and they're not blues born and bred like “our” Ross or Wayne.

Beyond that, the whole concept, structure and inequality makes me feel like "Why am I wasting my time on this?” It feels like competing with female steroid-infused East German shot putters with umpires from North Korea.

If as is a realistic possibility Everton go under, I can honestly say, after a life based around football, at this point, I'd gladly wipe the dust off my sandals and find a new more honest sport to follow.

Just makes me sick to my stomach — and the same day this occurs, Man City and their 115 violations see their coach get a FIFA award.

VAR on steroids is what this whole PSR debacle feels like.

With the VAR on the pitch, we wait for minutes in order for a distant, unknown mind (the VAR) to connect to its own on-pitch body (the referee) in order to arrive at a decision. A connection that is sometimes as uncoordinated as the drunk staggering out of the pub at closing time.

But with the VAR, at least we get the decision within minutes. And once the decision has been made, once the drunk has dragged himself up from the gutter and the whistle blown to restart play, the referee doesn't blow his whistle to ask the VAR to have another look at the same incident in the context of a game now moved on somewhat in time.

But with the PSR process as it plays out in real time, we wait months, not minutes, for that fateful decision. A decision-making process where we can't see those dreaded lines being drawn in real time, by a faceless mind (that distant, faceless Commission – men again!), far away in sense and sensibility.

A faceless mind which at times gives the impression (just the impression) of not exactly seeing eye-to-eye with the man on the pitch (the Premier League), where the man on the pitch is trying to steer the faceless mind towards a decision rather than the other way round.

And where, after months of waiting for a decision, having started the game again, the man on the pitch asks that distant, faceless mind to have another look and possibly ("hopefully!") award a second penalty for the same foul.

The man on the pitch doesn't want just a penalty, just the opportunity for a red card to send a man off, but the opportunity to send the whole team off, for good.

And all this isn't even hidden away from view, last on Match of the Day.

I recently used the phrase 'vindictive vendetta bordering on corruption'. Well, as a long-time critic of how Sky and the Premier League changed our game (our game – not theirs) in many wrong ways, they have now stepped over the line of departure in terms of blatantly picking on easy targets.

We had to suspend USM sponsorship yet Chelsea are permitted to have a Russia-linked sleeve sponsor. Double standards. Who governs the Premier League? Who holds them to account? Why is there no framework for processes like this?

That leads to, as Lyndon alludes to, making the rules up as they go along. Are they audited by a genuinely external body? They seem self-regulating. Marking their own homework.

Are they looking at the bigger picture and the measures we have taken to address the situation? Surely we should be given credit for that?

In my experience, in any walk of life, why should any business or organisation not be allowed to speculate to accumulate? If you blow it, you blow it. If it comes off, you win and succeed.

At least the club seem to have a bit more fight in them this time around. Maybe we were guilty of being too submissive and compliant first time around?

Too many questions. Ernie makes the point: at the moment, we are only charged. We can challenge this.

Unfortunately, many of the facts (net spend per team over last 5 windows for example; self-financed new stadium; mitigating factors etc) are not reaching the wider public audience.

Most football fans simply hear we have broken the rules (twice), therefore probably deserve some punishment, and yes the failure to address Man City is inequitable.

For many, this is simply ‘Everton noise' having been caught. We urgently need our case, including the facts, to be heard. (Come in, Mr Bates!)

We must find a way of getting articulate composed Everton voices heard in the national arena. Difficult, I know, given Sky sympathies, but other channels and forums are more balanced.

The Everton case must reach the widest possible audience and gain greater support through greater understanding.

I would look at any way we could sue the Premier League. Go after them. They have contrived a process to threaten our very existence, with malice. What in God's name have we to lose?

They have trashed our name and brand globally. No manager or player of any quality will look at us for a long time to come. We need to fight back. Our reputation has been trashed.

I am not concerned with staying in the Premier League any more, I want to bring them down.

I'd happily go to the Championship and see the Big 5 go to a Super League if it meant them bastards at the Premier League end up with nothing.

Apologies for going a bit dramatic, but there was a saying when I was in the military.

The British Army never retreats. It conducts a fighting withdrawal, regroups and goes back again.

We are fighting. We have to.

Akin to playground bullies.

I checked back to February 2013 when the clubs voted on the proposal to introduce profit and sustainability rules.

Six clubs voted against it: Manchester City, Villa, Fulham, Southampton, Swansea and West Ham; Reading abstained. The motion in favour was therefore carried by a two-thirds majority.

It is surprising that Man City voted against it as, 5 years after the Abu Dhabi takeover, they would of course clearly benefit from P&S with the other five of the Sky Six.

The most obvious loser would be Everton so why on earth did the club vote in favour?! Just one more vote against the motion would have stopped its introduction.

Kenwright's malignant legacy lives on and will continue to do so for years to come.

Christine's emotional call for the club to fight back is very appealing, but I doubt the Everton Board will go down that route. Too many pitfalls, legal fees etc should they lose, but it's maybe something fans could get involved with?

Crowd fund to raise some money, sue them for the things Christine mentions at first, defamation of our name and brand, trashing our name, loss of income, and I'm sure there are many other cases we could bring.

Tie them up in court cases for years, make them answer questions in the public domain and be criticised openly for their lack of transparency and basic fairness. That's what people like this hate most, being made to justify their unjustifiable behaviour in public.

The Premier League would just need to erase the results for matches played by that team up to that point, a simple process, and from there the league would just carry on as normal until it took one more team from the Championship at the end of the season.

Instead of the actions the Premier League has taken – which might end up with the club going bust, anyway. Oh, the irony.

I decided to turn my back on all these issues. I simply couldn't get my head around the injustice and it was eating away at me, but having read your article following the second referral – plus the many superb responses, I realise that isn't an option. We have an obligation to protect our treasured match days and our beloved club.

If you want to be part of this club, you have to fight this with everything you've got. I think the saying goes: "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing."

Also,only Everton and Nottingham Forest have broken the P&S rules;all other clubs have stayed within the confines of the rules.

Having said that, I am sure in our defence of both the original and subsequent appeals, we will point out that while every club understood there would be a punishment for breaking the rules, there wasn't and still isn't a laid down formula as to what the punishments are for transgressing the rules.

Also, there aren't any rules as to what happens if you are punished for a transgression, but then the years you have been punished for are still included in the latest set of accounts, that again show in a 3-year period we have transgressed the allowed £105m losses.

We are also told that they intend to change the rules again in August, just after both ourselves and Forest will have found out what if any punishment we will receive.

I have long been persuaded by Gary Neville's argument that clubs should be allowed to spend what they want, but all owners of clubs have to sign a legally binding bond that they can't leave a club in a worse financial state than when they took over the club.

This takes away the worry of an owner coming in spending fortunes and loading the debts onto the club; under the system Neville suggests that won't happen.

As far as the Premier League with their P&S rules, or Uefa with their FFP rules trying to make out this was to make it a level playing field for all clubs is a nonsense; this was to protect the cartel of the elite.

Man Utd are a billion pounds in debt yet no sanctions; Chelsea in a similar predicament, yet no sanctions. Both Real Madrid and Barcelona in similar situations yet no sanctions… so where is the elusive level playing field?

Finally, Chelsea have admitted to the Premier League that under Abramovich he spent his own money on players that weren't put through the books of Chelsea's accounts yet no commission date date set for that hearing.

In the heat of the moment, I was contemplating pouring blue paint on the doorsteps of their Paddington offices!!

But, despite having been cautioned and being occasionally on the wrong side of the law as a youngster, I remembered I am 52 years old and having risen through the ranks in the Army from humble beginnings, I am a retired Major. Call it a safety check.

I would have got arrested and then I would have been in serious trouble at home.

But you are on the money. We have to fight for what is so dear to us.

As the saying goes. The pen is mightier than the sword. Stay calm and out manoeuvre these grey suits.

Fight Everton. On the pitch and off it in the hearings.

Let's see how our new signing performs in his blue silk, much better than our previous defenders did, hopefully, and the fight goes on.

We all know what's going on. We don't know exactly why. It's all hidden behind the wall of procedure; a procedure that conveniently has as its arbiter, a vague and amorphous, actually nonexistent tariff of punishment, decided upon by an endlessly malleable "independent" system of judgement.

This is no attempt to protect, to correct, educate or otherwise steer the game (or league) to a place of stability and fairness. It's no attempt to deter government interjection; this is an attack.

Forest, be as they may in a valid state of breach of the rules, are a convenient deflector with this timing of announcement. It's a disgrace.

But even I didn't think they would have the front to actually follow up the 10-pointer with a charge that included the majority of the time period already punished for. I missed that one as I didn't think that even they would be so bad as to even attempt it. But no, I was wrong.

That was bad enough, but to set a second charge enforcement in the same season? Are you kidding?

But most insidious of it all, the decision will come after the season has finished, leaving us the fans in limbo and at the same time ensuring no fans protest are seen at any matches. Wow.

Then the kicker. The rules will be changed 3 months later before the new season starts. Will it be applied retrospectively to Man City or Chelsea? If so, why not us?

Wipe the slate clean before it's too late.

See you in court.

I was always told to never speak ill of the dead; however, one recently departed individual is pushing me to the limit.

The worst-run club in the country.

The sooner that Lyndon has the thread for the Cup tie up and running, the better.

But, having said that, we cannot reasonably expect the likes of Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United to start campaigning for us to get our points back!!

Whilst I, like others, see a lot to criticise in the Premier League's governance, the majority of my vitriol stays directed at the baffling incompetence displayed by Moshiri and Everton's leadership who have made such a stupendously poor succession of decisions. It really is hard to try and discern a bright future – even for the most ardent of Toffee optimists.

I think it's possible that this second breach gets thrown out or that we get given a fine rather, or suspended points deduction. I also think it's possible that we get a 5- or 6-point deduction and still manage to win or draw enough games to survive.

But, even if we do that, then we still have to survive the billion pounds of debt that we now seem to have which comes with crippling interest payments?!

And to think that Moshiri is a trained economist and certified accountant!!

Thank goodness for Sean Dyche who brings a calmness and solid predictability on the pitch that I hope will continue to bring us points. Because off the pitch it's a ludicrous caricature of a circus (though, to be fair, I think Thelwell is doing a decent job).

It was surprising to see the chief executive of the Premier League, Richard Masters, at a match at the weekend because he certainly does not appear in tune with the game. His organisation's tone-deaf statement about financial breaches by Everton and Nottingham Forest read like it had been written by lawyers for lawyers rather than understanding that these serious allegations have very human consequences.

A complicated story can basically be split into three narratives: the Premier League's heartless treatment of fans of those clubs affected; the legitimacy of some of the Premier League's case; and the mitigating reasons for some of the excesses of Everton and Forest.

Even if you agree with the importance of profit and sustainability rules (PSR) — as I do as long as it is applied consistently among all clubs, whatever their size, however powerful their lawyers — you have to show some understanding of what the charges mean on a human level, to supporters and staff of the two clubs.

Masters and his organisation have forgotten that football's more than a business. It's an obsession, underpinning the phenomenal success of the competition, and fans worry deeply about their club. One strand of Everton's defence will be the adverse effect on the mental health of their followers.

It may appear mere pedantry to dispute the tone of the wording, which was sparse and arrogant, but the cold legalese actually confirms why the Premier League has lost the argument over the importance of PSR, and why so many fans are so contemptuous of an organisation that treats them contemptuously. The Premier League certainly is not “corrupt”, as Gwladys Street claims, but it is clueless and heartless at times.

And naive. Because Masters actually has a legitimate point to make, he just lacks the people skills or leadership qualities to make it convincingly, as his predecessor, Richard Scudamore, would have done. Because Everton and Forest have cases to answer. Other clubs who abided by the rules quietly point out they faced opponents who fielded players they could not afford under the rules. Forest have bought or loaned 130 players in the seven years since Evangelos Marinakis bought the club.

Balancing the books matters. Financial Fair Play was designed to prevent a club sliding into administration by over-spending. It's there to encourage an organic approach, keeping outlay in proportionate line with revenue. As Mr Micawber, that Dickensian devotee of FFP, advised David Copperfield: “Annual income £20, annual expenditure £19, 19 shillings and sixpence, result happiness. Annual income £20, annual expenditure £20 and sixpence, result misery”.

Premier League chief executive Masters has forgotten that football is more than a business — it's an obsession.
The hypocrisy of the Premier League lies within its room. It allowed Farhad Moshiri at Everton and Marinakis to join the party, and didn't question their spending more rigorously and consistently. More players, more stars in sport's greatest soap opera, more plot lines, more interest from home and abroad and, bingo, more broadcast revenue.

That is why the new regulator will be so important in tracking their spending, almost applying PSR in real time. The Premier League insists it is coincidence that the statement arrived on the eve of Masters giving evidence to the DCMS Select Committee into football governance. Yet the Premier League's failure to come up — so far — with a proper “new deal” for EFL clubs is another stain on the organisation that has just scooped a £6.7 billion rights bonanza.

And so to the clubs' mitigating reasons. First, consistency. The Premier League's defence is that the 115 charges against Manchester City for alleged financial breaches are so complicated they cannot be dealt with in the time frame afforded to Everton and Forest. Those clubs co-operated with the Premier League, while City have challenged and challenged, robustly protesting their innocence.

Yet even if City are absolved of all blame, as Pep Guardiola and the club insist, the delay alone is damaging. It is impossible to celebrate fully City's remarkable achievements until they are cleared. An asterisk lurks. The charges against City are historical, unlike Everton's and Forest's, but still affect the league.

Second, neither Everton nor Forest put the very existence of the Premier League in danger as Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, City, Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur did with their brief Super League plotting, for which they were eventually fined. Everton believe they have already been punished for 75 per cent of the period covered by the new referral. Double jeopardy, they call it. The Super Leaguers put the whole English pyramid in jeopardy.

Everton's anger is rooted partly in their belief that they are effectively being punished for building Bramley-Moore Dock, their magnificent new stadium.

Third, timing. Everton believe they could have got £20 million more for Richarlison from Spurs had they not been placed under pressure to generate funds quickly. Forest believe they would have met PSR had they sold Brennan Johnson earlier last summer, but held on to maximise an offer from Tottenham Hotspur on deadline day. If so, the Premier League needs to make rules go from deadline day to deadline day over the three years.

Fourth, Bramley-Moore Dock. Even though PSR permits expenditure on infrastructure such as stadiums, Everton anger is rooted partly in their belief that they are effectively being punished for building a magnificent new stadium that will bring jobs to the community and more glamour to the Premier League. They wanted change in interest rates to be taken into account.

Both clubs deserve some punishment, PSR needs respecting, but Everton's original ten points was excessive, and is being appealed against, with further sanction now threatened. The feeling that remains in all this is whether a bigger club, one of the Super League plotters, would be treated this toughly. And the answer is no. Masters has questions to answer to supporters, let alone to DCMS.

In your third paragraph, I hope you mean we get a 5- or 6-point deduction off the 10 points we were given in November – not another 5 or 6 points added on!

This compares with punching the wall in, after listening to ‘self-appointed' experts in the media.

I hear a lot of ‘Well, they knew the rules so should accept the punishment', where in truth, the rules in place were vague, subject to interpretation, and punishments for perceived non-compliance made up ‘on the hoof' after the events under scrutiny.

Also, I hear ‘When did things start to unravel in the Boardroom?' Conveniently forgetting the fans' protests, where the media were happy to set our fans up as the bad guys and lambasted the demos and banners.

For me/ it's the ‘sporting advantage' that I just can't get my head around. It's not been mentioned much, but was wheeled out in the ruling on the first breach. Do we still have a sporting advantage?

We are getting battered, but I still believe the Premier League is tying itself in knots. A smart lawyer may be able to bring us out of this intact.

If there is a ‘hidden agenda', then the more we probe, the more likely it will come to the forefront. (see… The Post Office).

Moshiri is in damage limitation mode, but the irreparable self-harm, the years of offshore sharks, of Kenwright's financial wizards and Hollywood stars. the foundations of failure built by Kenwright, Green and Earl, the extortionate loans that crippled us, the 24/7 search to find a (mug) new owner...

Yes, Sam, the blame is well founded with those well before Moshiri... but his well-meaning incompetence or ignorance has resulted in gross mismanagement.

Bad enough. But compound it with the corrupt attempts to make a sacrificial lamb by the Premier League, a perfect storm.

We need to save the ship no matter who goes down, give them no quarter. Fight dirty, but fight to win.

Any chance of the VAR intervening? Just thought I'd mention it!

Also, the reason we could potentially be sanctioned twice in one season is because we pushed it out from last season, and good job too – we'd be in the Championship.

Sure we are on the rough end of the Premier League getting serious because the Independent Regulator is on the horizon.

The key will be the basis of the appeal. I'm guessing it's based on two things. The accounting allowables (most specifically capitalisation of interest payments on the new stadium) and the severity of the sanction which I think we have legitimate arguable points.

However, it all boils down to one thing. This club has been mismanaged by incompetent idiots for too long.

We could be bust, we could be in the Championship, we could have stayed in the Premier League.

777 Partners might own us – no thanks – or may not.
Someone with serious money may have stepped in and saved us.

Who knows, I'm sick of all this nonsense. Watching and supporting Everton is now more likely to cause a nervous breakdown than give pleasure.

A question is where will the Premier League be in 12 months time. The Super League concept has not gone away while clubs like Villa and Newcastle find themselves hamstrung by PSR trying to break through the glass ceiling. Increasingly there is recognition of a ‘them and us' divide between Premier League clubs.

Perhaps the time has come to form a breakaway league to compete with the Premier League.

I know the feeling. I get depressed every time I put the sports news on.

I mistakenly had the impression 60-odd years ago that supporting football was a pleasurable pastime. Then I experienced years of a footballing rollercoaster supporting the Blues. The highs were massive but I have had to suffer many many lows too.

However that is or was football. You take the rough with the smooth and learn to take great pleasure from small achievements. Siege mentality bonds the fans together. It's all about being a Blue.

But this is different. I follow the news like a condemned man hoping for a stay of execution only to find that I am to be tortured first.

This is Hell.

With you all the way. At 71 years of age, I wonder about the future and what life throws at us. My missus can't understand the fuss about football.

"Supporters are born to support their team. We can't help it," I tell her.

We're all pissed off at the moment. EFC will never die. I'll talk to as many of you as I can. While I'm here! Stay healthy…

But I believe that we are the 3rd lowest net spenders on transfers in the Premier League over the last 3 years.

While Moshiri during his ownership has demonstrated on numerous occasions his lack of football knowledge, I would have expected that an accountant who was in charge of billion-pound companies would have at least understood the financial implications that the Premier League had set.

We were told the club were working closely with the Premier League to make sure they didn't fall foul of P&S rules, yet they still fell foul of the rules. So did Moshiri divulge everything or did he just tell them what he wanted them to hear, believing we could escape any punishment because he had worked with the Premier League?

I'll have to disagree with you on other supporters. Yes, we broke the rules, but most, and I live amongst Chelsea as well as London Reds and United supporters and they are shocked at the punishment and treatment we have been given.

The only comment I have on the 'double jeopardy' area is that I don't see why people find it unfair to be potentially punished for a 'common year'. One 3-year period is different to another 3-year period. It is what it is. They are the rules. How everything is determined from a financial point of view is beyond me.

The only other thing I picked up from Lyndon's article is the following:

"The club can't take on a new sponsor for Finch Farm, for example, because the deal with USM is merely suspended but unlikely to ever be revived."

Surely this deal and others involving USM have gone way past being 'merely suspended'.

I guess there are contracts involved but we must be able to walk away from these contracts, without paying any compensation to USM and have the ability to look elsewhere, although not sure who would be daft enough to sponsor Finch Farm.

Whether 777 Partners – if they are declared fit to own the club – are still keen to buy must be in doubt. I'm not sure if they have signed any binding agreement to buy… do we know?

This other charge really puts our backs to the wall and proper.

The club massively erred in not specifically allocating the Rights & Media Funding and Metro Bank loans to the stadium build and allocating Moshiri's funds to general operations but there was, at least, a rationale behind it. And they clearly felt they had enough mitigating circumstances to remain compliant.

As it turned out, the Premier League disagreed... at a commission hearing two years down the road! So we could get punished twice (potentially three times if we're over again next year) for the same 75% of a time block.

So it is in the Premier League's interest to ignore (or complicate) the cases against Man City, Chelsea et alia.

Everton or Forest are purely a national concern, they do not have huge fan bases around the world and few beyond their home towns will be overly concerned whether they sink or swim.

Everton have a case to answer but, as Lyndon clearly points out, it is in the scheme of things a trivial case, admitted and small fry by the club itself. By having rules which in fact legalise double jeopardy and even triple jeopardy, the Premier League can continue to punish Everton indefinitely.

Justice, anyone? The same rules for all concerned anyone? I think we're in trouble till we sell Pickford, Onana, Branthwaite and possibly Calvert-Lewin and sign no-one to replace them.

Does anyone know if these are available anywhere, so we can see just what we are actually accused of? What actually is the great crime we are being charged with?

I don't think anyone can argue it's a sensible or even maybe a fair rule. But it's the rules we signed up to. It's never going to wash for us to say "Yes, we agreed to it but, now we've contravened it, we don't like it."

We need to be focussing on things we can control in the appeal such as accounting treatments and the severity of the sanction.

This punishment, second time around, is legally ridiculous, at least in America. Don't the English have double jeopardy laws? You can't be tried twice for a law.

Surely you can't be sanctioned twice in a season, especially when all these applicable rules are going to be scrapped by August?

This is officially patently absurd.

Now are we not spending a massive amount of our turnover on wages? If so, we could be on the naughty step again.

I can't see any player, not just Everton's, accepting a pay cut just so that club stays within the limits. I can see Chelsea being massively affected by these new rules though!!

The irritating thing for me is the claim that Everton overspent on players to gain competitive advantage when it is clearly the cost of building a new stadium that put us in the hole.

I am also amazed that Barrett-Baxendale and Grant Ingles have not bothered to support the club with any input as their combined £8 million payoff is the biggest ripoff since the Great Train Robbery.

What now for Everton after second Premier League charge?

It is no exaggeration to say that everything – from the extent of Everton's breaches to their Premier League status – rests on the outcome of their appeal. It will not only determine the final punishment for losses incurred up to 2022 but will have a knock-on effect for the charge relating to 2023 as well. Everton's focus is entirely on the appeal, not the ramifications of a second charge that cannot be considered until the appeal process is concluded.

The club's argument is twofold: that a 10-point deduction for a £19.5m overspend is grossly disproportionate and the commission was wrong to dismiss several of the mitigating factors Everton put forward. These include the loss of commercial deals connected to Usmanov and interest payable on loans the club maintain were taken out for the new stadium at Bramley-Moore dock. Should Everton win their appeal, and they have appointed Laurence Rabinowitz KC to lead it, then points will be returned and the mitigating factors may be used to throw out the second charge before a commission sits down to consider the case, because Everton could be compliant with PSR...

Everton have 14 days to reply to their latest charge and would ordinarily expect to discover their fate by early April, leaving time for an appeal. But Everton's appeal against the 10-point deduction takes precedent and must be concluded before the second charge is heard. In Everton's ideal scenario, the second charge never comes before a commission because the appeal against the first charge goes in their favour. The club is waiting to discover when the all-important appeal will take place.

Ummmm Ya! Honestly these idiots at the Premier League can't even wrap one thing up before slinging shit on another mess.

The incompetence in the way this has been handled and adjudicated, especially when factoring in the simple comparison of a 9-point deduction for bankruptcy, and the 10 points levied against Everton for [only] a near £20 million overspend while building a stadium is unreal.

I don't blame a single Blue out there who's convinced the league is "out to get Everton" because it sure as hell seems that way!

One line stands out from that Guardian piece you published:

The commission was wrong to dismiss several of the mitigating factors Everton put forward.

I really do hope Rabinowitz can go to town on this key aspect of the judgement against us, and it is not just brushed aside as "new evidence" – which, as I understand it, is not allowed at the appeal.

It can't be new evidence if it was raised in the initial hearing.

It just means we can't argue new mitigating factors at appeal.

It's a great question. Many are saying once the appeal is done, that's the end of the line for Everton, even if they are still aggrieved.

Some have said that court proceedings external to the Premier League cannot be invoked in this case. I tried searching the Handbook and could find no such prohibition, but that might be my error.

In retrospect, perhaps the first thing Everton should have done after the independent commission was go straight to court and obtain an injunction against the Premier League deducting any points in lieu of the appeal.

But that would have required balls and smarts — two things sadly absent from our senior executives and their compliant legal team thus far.

Hopefully the signing of Laurence Rabinowitz KC demonstrates a whole new and very much more aggressive stance will be taken against the injustices at the appeal.

I think the view on further legal recourse is dismissed because the Premier League is essentially a private club with its own rules, signed up to by its members.

In such circumstances, the law has no jurisdiction.

The role of the Independent commission is to ensure the club rules have been properly applied, and then penalise accordingly. The failing with the latter is the lack of a penalty structure, one of the strands of our appeal.

So the Premier League need something to generate interest in the product – so let's get a couple of easy hits and charge them with financial issues. Keeps it in the headlines and generates some heat.

W.79. Subject to the provisions of Section X (Arbitration) of these Rules, the decision of an Appeal Board shall be final.

However, I thought I read somewhere something along the lines that as the Premier League submits itself to Uefa rules, it thereby agrees to submit itself to the jurisdiction and decisions of the European Court of Justice (despite the UK no longer being part of the EU). Can't remember where I read that, and I might well be misremembering.

Followed by "FA are wankers!"

You are amazed Barrett-Baxendale and Grant Ingles have not bothered to support the club. I'm not. We sacked them!

In my opinion, that was an error from both a financial and tactical perspective. No matter how galling, we should have kept them on the payroll and given them the responsibility to account for the club's actions at the first hearing.

They presumably had first-hand knowledge of the discussions with the Premier League.

Anyway that's all in the past. In regard to the appeal, all Rabinowitz can do now is argue the mitigation factors and pick holes in the rationale for, and scale of, the deduction.

Like others, I would like to know the extent of our latest breach in a year when we purchased McNeil, Onana, Maupay and Garner but sold Anthony Gordon and Moise Kean.

Premier League Handbook, 2023-24 Season

Someone may have the time and inclination to explore further if there is no beer in the fridge or anything on TV that is.

It's certainly a different environment in that the UK government is involved in the Man City case. The Foreign Office has been in discussions with the UAE about the potential fall out from the case. This was revealed in The Athletic last year.

Link

The Foreign Office said “no comment” when asked for details on the discussions as that alone could cause a diplomatic incident. The Premier League simply refused to answer, so much for transparency. Man City will almost certainly walk away from this relatively unscathed.

That arbitration reference is in Section X of the Premier League Handbook.

UAE relations and geopolitics trump the integrity of the Premier League.

This process is not designed to help and protect the game. I am usually one to scoff at conspiracy theories, but I feel there is an agenda here. Maybe to trim off the nearly clubs.
Aston Villa, watch out.

Anyway, if they kill Everton, I will turn away from the game completely and encourage everyone I meet to do the same.

Why in the year that an independent regulator is being forced on the Premier League, they now suddenly have 3 breaches?

I've just watched the whole select committee hearing and, apart from 2 of the members, they haven't got a clue! These are the people who will end up regulating the independent body, what hope do fans have??

One member started talking about Cameroon reaching a semi-final in 1990?? Most of the MPs have no knowledge of the ins and outs of the game and are unable to hold the Premier League to account.

Masters's arrogance and contempt at some of the questions was telling, it mirrors that of the Premier League.

My one question on this second charge is this: Are we over by the same £19.5M as the first charge? Can anyone shed any light on this?

Those same owners spend, to them, a mere pittance to the UK economy for goods, weapons and services, whereas our bozos in Parliament consider with justification, so poor is their management of our country, that such a pittance is 100% vital to our nation's current benefit.

Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs are owned by American financial "legends" who no doubt inveigle their way into the UK Parliamentary hierarchy as a matter of course as they boost profit to themselves via their ownership of our, erm, "top" clubs.

On the other hand, we recently admitted by him to the football authorities who punished us accordingly, are owned by an overtly misleading, wholly incompetent, so-called internationally-savvy accountant (as he claimed) and thus we face nothing but even more diminished prospects for seasons to come.... at best!

Yet we must still be hopeful, even confident, that our representatives and legal team can bring our appeal to a positive conclusion: if we don´t get all or even the majority of those deducted points back, we should and could get at least half of them in our tally.

After that, our lawyers will surely tackle that second charge with all the facts which we believe will favor our case.

Let´s hope our football team has the mental capacity to concentrate on performing with vigour and determination. And of course we fans must support our team whatever will happen, through thick and thin. We are after all Evertonians, proud and resilient. The tide will turn, it always does.

Spurs is definitely British owned. In fact, something till recently called the English National Investment Company owned most of it. Levy (also English, also a significant partial owner of the English National Investment Company) owns the rest.

Liverpool is owned by an American firm - Fenway Sports Group. But, they're a very well run firm. Ask Red Sox or Liverpool supporters. I think we'd all take them over 777 Pyramid Scheme Partners in a heartbeat.

Okay, I'll allow the other two!

Joe Lewis (Spurs) has no meaningful history of acquiring very much of his alleged £5billion+ personal fortune working within the UK. On the contrary, he's largely worked in the US or Caribbean and "sold" Spurs only in 2022 to the new owners, The Lewis Family Trust. Hmm.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that, to varying but very meaningful degrees, the owners of all our self-promoting "Top 6" clubs, now massively also including Labour-city Newcastle United, very well know how to grease the wheels of those in Parliamentary power, so that football governance of their very own clubs is, well, limited to the point of being non-existent.

This is in stark contrast to any other club outside that cartel where opaque and, as of today inadequate Premier League rules, self-admittedly in Parliament by the Premier League itself, sustained their hammering of our great club (the cancer of Kenwright and Moshiri now being on the cusp of being eviscerated... to Christ knows who though!)

It seems to me that our club officials are more culpable than most in this. Don't sign the agreement that put the methodology in place if you don't understand it... don't whinge afterwards.

It seems to me that a rolling 3-year period is not difficult to understand at all and clearly allows for the prospect of a terrible year hanging over you for 3 years.

The fairly simple equation is that you have to make significant changes that get you back under the limits. Not just significant changes... The calculation is surely straightforward maths: A+B+C must be less than minus £105M...

When you know what A and B are it is scarcely believable that you can't work out what C needs to be. We all make those adjustments in our personal or professional lives all the time.

I think 10 points is harsh but I don't disagree with getting a punishment... the business chose not to correct the situation fully (apparently hoping for a top 6 finish to balance the books – that optimism alone is staggering).

ToffeeWeb as a community has largely been critical of this ownership and the ridiculous way it has been run for years. The only thing that really surprises me is that somehow it was only £19.5M over in the last period.

The major culprits in this are the board and owner. We were just lucky that the 10 points wasn't deducted in the previous season... As it stands, we might just get away with it.

I will support the team no matter what, of course.

Nobody is arguing that we, and the rest, signed up to it. The issue, in my opinion and others, is that the Premier League said it was up to the “independent” commission to determine the actual result. It was completely open-ended;

However, Masters – during our trial – “guided” the commission on what he expected the result to be.

Even in law, there are guidelines on which a judge can give to a convicted criminal. In our case, it was whatever suited.

It's precisely the one terrible year causing multiple punishments that is the one nuts thing about the 3 rolling years. The model can work fine if you are fairly consistently in debt each year because you are then not showing any improvement and probably deserve the repeated punishment.

If it's only one terrible year, then that should probably be enough for you to get a suspended sentence and if you are then well within limits for the following years then the sentence should be suspended until that one terrible year is no longer a factor.

I don't know if that applies to Everton's case though. I thought our losses were more evenly spread across the 3 or 4 years.

A very mature and rational post. You pretty much nailed it there.

I don't think anyone knows if it's the same £19.5 million but that's very unlikely as it would mean that we made neither a profit or loss in 2022-23 but achieved perfect break even.

Much more likely that we've either decreased the £19.5 million overspend which the new Independent Commission should look favourably upon… or increased the overspend which simply doesn't bear thinking about.

By the way, agree about the Select Committee members... largely an embarrassment.

The club didn't sack them, according to their own statement. Their statement included a sentence on the lines "We felt honour-bound to resign." and how much they loved the club.

It would seem to me that, if they loved the club so much, they'd have stayed and fought. Them leaving meant that every board member involved in the mis management of our club over years, had scooted with a pay off before the end of the season.

They could have been forced out of course, and the statement might have just been a diplomatic way of leaving. Of course the main member of the board has departed pemanently. As the Chairman of the board throughout this period (and much longer) in my view he's the one mainly responsible for the terrible mess we're in.

How do we get out of it? Well, it seems our hopes rest in the Legal Eagles we've got to fight in the courts.

What a disgusting way to run a football league.

The Premier League are not above this and Everton should take it to the real courts, not the Premier League kangaroo court.

The following link is a breakdown of all incoming and outgoing transfers for season 2022-23, the season which this second charge seems to relate to. Total income shows as £90M, whilst total expenditure shows as £67M. Both tables are initial fees only, so I presume they don't include add-ons etc.

So according to these tables, we have a net profit of £23M for transfers in season 2022-23. Obviously there are also wages to consider, but I believe our wage bill is down from previous seasons, whilst the likes of Conor Coady, Ruben Vinagre (signed on loan) and Neal Maupay have since left either on loan or loan deal ended, so most, if not all of their wages will be off the wage bill.

Anyway, just taking transfer fees alone, we have a net profit of £23M, which, if we deduct the loss of £19.5M from the previous year in question, 2021-22, means there is a small profit of £3.5M. We then need to consider the compensation payments for sacking Benitez and whatever backroom staff he had. This can't have added up to much, but would it be enough to outweigh the £3.5M?

I guess there are plenty of other incomings and expenditures to consider but, in my opinion, these are the main ones to consider.

Hope I've got this right and it makes sense…

https://www.efcstatto.com/transfers/2022-23/

I can only assume that they have lawyered up and have been told to make no comment.

The Premier League is a disgrace, but its incompetence and stupidity is matched by that of our old board and our current owner. It's the perfect storm, or the marriage made in hell, whichever way you look at it – the people who run the Premier League and the people who run Everton, two cheeks of the same despicable arse.

I don't know, it's too confusing for me!! 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

Also the Premier League is run like a private club of 20 and they collectively agree what the rules of that club are, so I am not sure that we could take it to a normal court.

I haven't seen anywhere how much we or Forest have transgressed the rules. I am pretty confident we won't be anywhere near the £19.5M overspend that was on the last set of accounts.

I thought somebody might have published the accounts which were lodged at Companies House on the 31 December, so I am sure they are in the public domain.

What is this "completely different environment"? I can undersatnd that there might be both PSR and non-PSR charges against City but why cannot the former be heard now?

It's a bit like the prosecution asking for a particular sentence at trial. They can ask but it doesn't make the Judge any less independent.

I hope our Barrister defending our case for a reputed £100, 000 plus vat handles it as well as Christine describes the utter unfairness of how we were treated.

Christine would cost a lot less, can the barrister employ her in an advisory capacity?

It's the reason why Chelsea were handing out ridiculous contracts for certain players.

One of the big issues is our growing debt which is now nearly £1bn at least half of which is unsecured and being charged at commercial rates of interest.

That's going to be in the region of £30m a year by my reckoning. That's straight off the P&L

True we have a significant debt position, but it has arisen in the main creating a £750m asset which, if managed correctly and commercially, should generate excellent future revenue streams, including naming rights.

That's how I see it.

The six million (billion ?) dollar question is how an Independent Commission will view Everton making a profit but not one large enough to clear the PSR breach.

Don't think that's correct.

Arguments about accounting treatments aside, the new accounts would have to be £19.5M better than the year dropping off.

My initial thought on the second breach was if last year we were working on an assumption that we were compliant but were £19.5M over. The club's statements kind of alluded to this being the same breach.

Have the club just continued calculating the figures as if we will be cleared? Therfore, the same £19.5M would put you over again.

It seems crazy to have the Premier League tell you you are over the limit by £19.5M and for the club to then still go over the following year.

A player sale would easily have seen that small difference wiped out. Or just not signing players. I know we've been run by clowns, but even I can add to 105 !!!

I'd love to know whose accounts Moshiri used to do, because I'd like to do them, make a few billion without knowing basic arithmetic!

It depends when we discovered that the league decided that we were £19.5M over in the previous accounts and whether we then had time to reduce costs in 2022-23.

I can only add that Little Dick Masters comes across as being both smug and condescending and, while his mother might like him, he is the worst person I can think of to run a large organization of any kind.

This entire process that he has reigned over is so bollixed up that I am surprised that Everton still have any case left against them. What kind of CEO would go before a before a government hearing and declare that 10% at least of the clubs that he is representing are to his mind ‘small clubs'???

Wasn't it roughly the same as this charge? Around 2 weeks after submitting the accounts.

It depends on when the greatest loss was in the 3-year cycle, how much it was, and if it therefore impacted on the third rolling year.

I suspect that the nub of all this was the allowance (or not as it happened) of the interest on loans for the stadium. The club probably included them in the accounts to mitigate the losses but they have been knocked by the Premier League's "independent" accountant out for all 3 years involved. Hence the feeling if we win the appeal then the second charge will not apply.

A few assumptions in there of course...

Also stated that Man City's charges, if proven, would see them at least relegated and much more. However, with the parties involved, it would take a lot more than a Premier League commission to take it to task. Won't happen.

Grim but fascinating listening. Looks bad for us.

Yes, I had it on and heard every word he said.

We're doomed.

I didn't hear the piece as I rarely listen to TalkShite Radio. How can anyone say what our situation will be when the current financial year ends on 30 June 2024???

We still have the balance of this transfer window plus the first month of the summer window to put the books in order (if indeed they need putting in order). We don't know what our situation will be after our TWO appeals have been heard and the Premier League rules will change in August. Plus the unpalatable fact that, if things go against us, we may not even be in the Premier League.

So please just ignore these gobshites who know considerably less than the average fan who was at the game last night.

The likes of Jim White exist because we all go 'Ooh I heard it on the radio, therefore it must be true'. While his rumours and idiocy may fill a gap on a slow news day, the proliferation of them just encourages the moron.

Man Utd are all over the place but I guess they have funds in reserve? etc, etc. The Premier League have simply gone for the easy option and doubt they've done any digging into other teams' accuracy of accounts.

Looking at our own predicament, should the Premier League persist with the current approach, any team having an off-year, it could impact them 3 times because of the phasing on the terms. First offence being current year (plus two others), second offence as it's still on the term coverage, and third offence as it's the last year in the calculation. Will the Premier League increase the penalisation on 2nd and 3rd repeat offenses?

The Premier League knew Everton didn't have time to adjust or correct the deficit before the next accounts submission because the judgement was mid-season and the Transfer window was closed. Our hands were tied. It just doesn't make any reasonable sense and the timing of the hearing is beyond fishy for that reason.

Whilst officially there's no escalation point to the courts, someone has to do what the Post Office employees did - whistle blow and take the Premier League to court with a legal angle of neglect of duty or something. Anything. The Post Masters were under NDAs yet found a route, presumably through an unconscionable contract.

The recent Committee conversation with Masters highlights everything that's wrong with the Premier League. The panel members know it and are biding their time.

I understand your reluctance to listen to certain media outlets but I would suggest you lower your standards and catch up on the podcast.

This wasn't Jim White making statements. This is a guy who is well versed in financial and legal ins and outs.

I second that.

Jim White wasn't doing the talking.

(Jim White actually makes me cringe).

As far as I am aware, the 2022-23 accounts are not yet in the public domain and, if Everton's past attitude continues, they won't be until 31 March (when they will be available at Companies House). So, unless this guy is blessed with second sight or a crystal ball, he cannot possibly know what will happen.

It should also be noted that the rules are changing in August this year so nobody knows what those rules and conditions will be, not even that dickhead Masters, and it's quite possible that he won't have been able to hold on to his job!

Apologies, I never read your post @113 where you stated the rules will change this August. Fools rush in etc, sorry about that.

I agree entirely with you about how anyone can say we are facing a future sanction. Even if you look at the current penalty, based on being £19.5M over the limit, a sale of, say, Pickford for £40M at the same time as Richarlison would have brought us into compliance, so there is plenty of time to change the financial picture.

I appreciate that would have had a detrimental impact on the team but the finances can be managed.

So interest payments on a loan specifically made to fund the construction of the new stadium would have been allowed but interest payments on a loan designated to be used for 'administration expenses' is not, irrespective of what the funds were ultimately used for.

Again I believe that this is demonstrated by the actual loan appearing on the Everton Football Club Ltd accounts but the interest appearing in the Everton Stadium Ltd accounts. When you look at the Group accounts, it makes no difference but, when broken down into the component parts for P&S, that is when the issue becomes apparent.

It will be hard to be in compliance with that £30M millstone around our necks.

Their spending increased significantly after the new stadium started generating revenue. Everton simultaneously borrowed to finance player transactions, salaries and stadium construction. That is why we are in a mess.

Surely any panel should be the same panel. Why does it require a different panel, and thus a different opinion on what should be a factual matter?

The rules changed after Spurs built their stadium and they were able to offset more expenses and interest than Everton are due to the rule changes.

NFL also funded Spurs' new stadium by contributing £10 million to host NFL games, as it's in London.

The Premier League case against us is so full of holes, double standards and inaccuracies — a decent lawyer would pull it apart in a heartbeat.

Spurs have Daniel Levy. A brilliant business brain.

Phil, I don't know if Levy has a brilliant business brain but it is certainly an order of magnitude better than that of Kenwright and Moshiri.

I think it's fair to say apart from Kenwright's search for the Billionaire and who we got, the biggest negative impact has been the failure of Kings Dock. We would have been in it for a few years now.

I would imagine that Spurs took out loans to build their new stadium and were prudent enough to ring-fence the money for the stadium.

Whereas the £200M loan from Rights & Media Funding and the £100M from MSP Sports Capital were put into Everton's general finances. Had they designated that money for the stadium build, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.

Also, Levy and his backers were smart enough to realize the NFL play at least 1 game a year at Wembley, so we will build a retractable pitch that can be replaced with a surface for an NFL game.

Spurs so far haven't used the naming rights of the stadium for extra finances, and Levy has said the offer for the naming rights would have to be spectacular for them to consider it.

Now obviously being in the capital is a big draw for NFL clubs and I am sure their season ticket prices reflect in them being based in London. I know Danny lives in London and has many friends who support London clubs. It would be interesting if he knows what Spurs, Arsenal and Chelsea charge for season tickets.

I recall reading how the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock would generate revenue from non-football events but maybe that was a dream or a marketing device.

It is easy to complain about Man City but we should be comparing ourselves with the likes of Brighton and Aston Villa.

Yes, Spurs, Arsenal and Chelsea season tickets are probably the price of a small house near Goodison, mate!

They may generate more income but they spend probably roughly the same percentage of that income as we and most other clubs do. It's a balancing act if your Forest generating £100M or Spurs generating £250M.

Everton's first charge seems a technicality, which – considering the Premier League have had us in special measures for a couple of years – seems like they have given us the rope to hang ourselves.

The second charge after us already being sanctioned is like them kicking away the chair to tighten the noose.

Did Everton not run it by the league first? We're we given assurance? If we were not sure what was allowable or not, why didn't we check?

We must generally know the projected income before a season, give or take a few cup games. How it's come to this is baffling!!!

Hope I am right as we might just survive that. Any worse and I am seriously scared. If it is more punitive, we need to be ready and prepared right now to take it to the UK courts and Court of Sports Arbitration.

I'm still seeing people diligently totting up transfer ins and outs with no figures for wages and TV income and a bundle of other credits and debits. I'm pretty sure only looking at transfers won't give you an accurate enough figure to get excited about / dismayed at.

One thing to consider about Spurs' business acumen – when you were able to sell the likes of Bale at peak times in the market, it will have been a massive help in balancing those books.

Mostly it's about the selective use of corruption to gain access to assets for profit. There's a bit of murder, but only when corruption hasn't worked.

Given the nature of the revolting club across the park (their dumping of easily their best manager ever, Bill Shankly, who was more welcome at Goodison than at the cesspit), I would not be in the least surprised to discover that there was a conspiracy amongst the "Sky Six" (apart from Man City, who seem to have decent owners) to destroy Everton financially and let LFC have the new ground at a knockdown price.

I suspect the fans placards "EPL = Corrupt" are much closer to reality than any other interpretation.

In an admittedly bizarre meandering state of aging mind, I chanced upon a Youtube rendition of The Fix, a 1997 TV drama-doc about Tony Kay and the farrago that ruined his career and life on account of the fixated arrogance of the football powers-that-were in 1964.

It all seemed to me that the draconian sentence on him (and our club) is so very much plus-ca-change when it comes to today's football governance regarding Everton.

Especially when, in the film, Kay in 1964 allegedly said, "Everyone in the game knows football is thoroughly corrupt, but for all that I love the game!"

Glad he's an Everton legend!