18/10/2023 88comments  |  Jump to last

The hearing by an independent commission into Everton's alleged breaches of Premier League Profitability and Sustainability rules began behind closed doors this week.

Media outlets report that opening submissions from club representatives and the League were made yesterday and that the hearing is expected to conclude next week. A date of 25 October had originally been mooted by media outlets for when Everton would have learned the ruling from the panel. 

However, the reports suggest that the Premier League aren't expected to publish the verdict and any penalties they may exact on Everton based on the independent commission's recommendations until "some point next month," according to the Daily Mail. 

Their reporter Matt Hughes continues: "Such is the level of secrecy surrounding the process that senior figures at Everton were unaware that the hearing had begun when contacted by Mail Sport earlier today."

Article continues below video content

Everton's case was referred by the Premier League to the commission in March following the publication of the club's annual accounts for the 2021-22 financial year.

The League are believed to have found the Blues in breach of spending rules, with some sources speculating that it pertained to a single infraction, possibly related to taxes.

There has been no indication of the severity of the punishment the club could be handed but the consensus is that it could range from a hefty fine (thought unlikely given that the League's financial rules are imposed to protect the fiscal health of its member clubs) to a points deduction, with the latter potentially suspended, and a transfer embargo also among the possibilities.

For their part, Everton have insisted that they are confident they have remained compliant with Premier League rules and are expected to point out to the commission that their transfer dealings and expenditure have been under review by the League since the summer of 2021.

Quotes sourced from Mail Online

Reader Comments (88)

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 ()

Barry Hesketh
1 Posted 18/10/2023 at 19:24:29
The Mail has published another 'exclusive' in relation to the alleged breach of Premier League Profit and Sustainability rules — they didn't let me down, did they?

Just a bit quicker off the mark than I thought it would be, I can only assume they will publish some other major exclusive on the eve of the derby or derby day itself.

This line jumped out of the report:"Such is the level of secrecy surrounding the process that senior figures at Everton were unaware that the hearing had begun when contacted by Mail Sport earlier today."

Tony Everan
2 Posted 18/10/2023 at 19:31:27
So they will “publish the verdict and any sanctions imposed by the tribunal at some point next month”…..

So the agony of not knowing could go on another month after the hearing next week.

Brent Stephens
3 Posted 18/10/2023 at 19:35:12

I note the Daily Mail states that "Such is the level of secrecy surrounding the process that senior figures at Everton were unaware that the hearing had begun when contacted by Mail Sport earlier today."

And they continue "Mail Sport has learned that the independent commission began on Tuesday, with Everton and the Premier League making opening submissions in a behind-closed-doors hearing that is scheduled to conclude next week."

So the Mail believes senior figures at Everton knew nothing about this meeting, and yet Everton representatives were in attendance?

Sloppy (Daily Mail – not Barry!).

Michael Kenrick
4 Posted 18/10/2023 at 20:20:11
Perhaps Mo the receptionist's replacement hadn't been briefed yet and told the nosy narks from the Daily Mail "I know narthing!"
Graham Fylde
6 Posted 18/10/2023 at 20:24:00
The date I think we had all previously seen was 25 October (a week today) — does anyone know where that date originated?
Barry Hesketh
7 Posted 18/10/2023 at 20:31:52
Graham @6

Everton's alleged breach of the Premier League's financial fair play rules will go before an independent commission on Wednesday, 25 October.

The Toffees were referred in March by the Premier League, but specifics of the FFP case were not revealed.

Reports say the charge relates to a tax issue surrounding loans for the club's new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock.

Everton have denied wrongdoing and said they were "prepared to robustly defend" their position. — BBC, 15 June 2023

Everton referral hearing over alleged breach of financial rules set for 25 October

It's probably not uncommon for documents and a brief summary to be handed over to the committee a bit earlier than the actual date of the hearing. The reference to waiting for an announcement until next month isn't too wild either as 1 November is only a week after the date of the hearing.

Brendan McLaughlin
8 Posted 18/10/2023 at 20:42:50
Tony #2,

It could possibly be even longer...

"at some point next month...but will be guided by the commission, who are not working to any set timeframe."

Graham Fylde
9 Posted 18/10/2023 at 21:01:10
Thanks, Barry.

I agree about the summary prior to hearing – it's actually stated in the rules that the charge is formally submitted at the time of reference to the commission. Everton then had an initial period to provide a written response before the hearing. I am still surprised the hearing has started when all indications were it kicked off next week!

It's probably too close to a conspiracy theory that they have brought it forward to facilitate the sale with a known outcome??

Barry Rathbone
10 Posted 18/10/2023 at 21:50:43
If true, sounds positive.

Surely a public hanging would be the order of the day if they really wanted to get after us. Not that the persecuted want to hear that – martyrdom is addictive.

Mike Gaynes
11 Posted 18/10/2023 at 22:28:16
"...senior figures at Everton were unaware that the hearing had begun ..."

So nobody told Seamus.

But seriously, does that even seem remotely possible?

Brendan McLaughlin
12 Posted 18/10/2023 at 22:43:24
Actually Mike #11

I can see Sean Dyche (pretty senior) not being particularly interested in /aware of the nitty gritty of the hearing...only the outcome.

Perhaps the pesky derby is distracting him!

Eric Myles
13 Posted 19/10/2023 at 04:20:32
Senior figures in the know I assume would be the CEO, who is not currently available, and the CFO, whoever that is.

I wouldn't expect any of the rest of the board, Chong and Thelwell, to be particularly interested as they'd be busy with other things I would hope.

Dean Williams
14 Posted 19/10/2023 at 05:33:13
Boys, can someone educate me here?

How is it possible for us to face sanctions way before Man City?

Eric Myles
15 Posted 19/10/2023 at 05:53:53
Oh, and Moshiri, but he'll be leaving it to the lawyers.
Colin Glassar
16 Posted 19/10/2023 at 06:06:31
Dean, City have an army of lawyers, accountants and fixers to delay any legal sanctions against them.

We have Bill Kenwright and his dog defending us.

Lyndon Lloyd
17 Posted 19/10/2023 at 07:04:12
Dean and Colin,

Man City are also facing 115 charges to our one. It's going to take years for their situation to play out.

Mark Murphy
18 Posted 19/10/2023 at 07:15:48
“Reports say the charge relates to a tax issue surrounding loans for the club's new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock.”

So it's not about overspending on transfers then? That's what the media have been spouting since the beginning. Or is that a separate issue?

Tony Abrahams
19 Posted 19/10/2023 at 07:47:11
I sometimes believe certain referees are out to get us, and we are probably not helped when you hear people like Howard Webb say, that it was only the fierce Goodison crowd that made him lose his head. But when it comes to the authorities, surely they would have had us after Covid if they had really wanted to?

It sounds like the Mail are getting nothing out of Everton Football Club – and I don't blame the club when you read some of the shite they spout.

"Such is the level of secrecy surrounding the process that senior figures were unaware that the hearing had began" = "Fuck off and leave us alone, because we have got nothing to say to yers, and even if we did, we have got nobody to tell you because the club has become ungovernable."

Pete Neilson
20 Posted 19/10/2023 at 07:51:14
Maybe they are deciding the verdict and penalty for Man City before the case starts.

It was reported in September “The UK government has admitted its embassy in Abu Dhabi and the Foreign Office in London have discussed the charges levelled at Manchester City by the Premier League, but are refusing to disclose the correspondence because it could risk the UK's relationship with the United Arab Emirates”.

If the correspondence alone is potentially diplomatic dynamite to an international relationship then I expect the Premier League will be under pressure to water down any penalty against Man City. The Premier League caved in to government pressure on the Saudi Newcastle takeover, probably more of the same here.

Michael Kenrick
21 Posted 19/10/2023 at 08:24:35
Eric #13 & #15,

Re senior figures on the board, I think it's the Chairman who is probably not available.

The interim CEO and Director (ie, on the Board) is Colin Chong.

The interim CFO is James Maryniak, although he does not feature on the club's Board of Directors webpage, suggesting he is not actually on the board, whereas John Spellman, non-executive director, does.

The owner is now on the board but is probably in Monaco.

I'm pretty sure Kevin Thelwell is not on the board, if that's what you were implying.

David West
22 Posted 19/10/2023 at 08:51:58
Good luck to Colin Chong then, trying to explain the club's accounts. As well as trying to build a stadium with no money, now the guy has to try and pull the board out of this mess.

If he succeeds, we might end up with that massive Chong home stand at BMD.

Anthony Dove
23 Posted 19/10/2023 at 09:13:22
This story also appears in The Telegraph which also states that 777 Partners have lent the club another £20 million to cover the month's wages.

Eric Myles
24 Posted 19/10/2023 at 09:20:21
Michael #21, I stand corrected.

It was indeed Chairman Bill that I was thinking of when I said CEO. But as the acting (does he sing and dance as well) CEO, I doubt Colin Chong has much input into the process since he was employed for his expertise in other fields and had the role thrust upon him, as well as not knowing where the skeletons are.

And yes, I thought Thelwell was on the board.

So I guess the short straw has been drawn by one, or both, of the CFOs you mention.

Jerome Shields
25 Posted 19/10/2023 at 09:37:23
The Premier League has been in contact with Everton and has been working towards a solution to their plight, hence the haste by Moshiri trying to sort out finances. This process has been going on for 2 years. That is what has been made available to the independent commission. Probably has been for some time.

As for the actual independent commission, it is a reaction to the Final Accounts Auditors Report so as to be looking as if they are doing something, with a tight innocuous remit. The Premier League would not be carrying out it's regulatory function if it didn't. The details of the independent commission will not be made public (lucky for the Mail and Guardian), other than the sanctions imposed, if any.

Eric Myles
26 Posted 19/10/2023 at 09:54:07
Jerome, is that your personal opinion or some facts you have obtained?

It sounds pretty authorative.

Michael Kenrick
27 Posted 19/10/2023 at 10:16:27

It made me look with a bit more attention than I have applied since the board changes were finally announced "within 48 hours" of the incompetents being dumped — back in June.

The way they told it, it seemed John Maryniak had replaced Grant Ingles as (interim) CFO and therefore (we assumed) had a place on the board.

But when you look at the announcement for Colin Chong, it says "Interim CEO and Director" — it doesn't say 'and Director' for Maryniak… even though he was (confusingly) the Director of Finance before he was promoted to interim CFO.

So he's not on the Board of Directors.

But I'm sure it matters not when it comes to giving evidence before the independent commission, if that's what they are doing. Best to ask Jerome as he knows exactly what's going on, including what they are having for lunch.

Mark Taylor
28 Posted 19/10/2023 at 11:00:00
As others have said, saying that there are 'senior figures' at the club suggests we have someone at the rudder, calmly steering us, and with the power and authority to do so.

Au contraire, it seems to me that in this interim period, no-one is truly in charge and compared to the mighty resources Man City can bring to bear, we are more like rabbits in the headlights.

Maybe the Premier League will take pity on us given our pitiful position.

Kevin Edward
29 Posted 19/10/2023 at 12:01:55
Any ruling by this commission will no doubt go to appeal so perhaps will take a while to settle. Unless it's just a show and they already know the outcome in advance.

Whatever happens, it sets a precedent which others will watching… some in fear. Much about the Premier League is a bit fishy so I expect us to fight hard and win.

Pat Kelly
30 Posted 19/10/2023 at 12:57:58
“The League are believed to have found the Blues in breach of spending rules, with some sources speculating that it pertained to a single infraction, possibly related to taxes.“

Are the League's spending rules and payment of taxes not two separate issues? Wouldn't tax be a matter for HMRC?

Maybe it's taxis. We must have spent a fortune on taxis for managers.

Eric Myles
31 Posted 19/10/2023 at 13:48:32
Pat #30,

One of the Premier League's P&S rules is that clubs must pay their taxes.

If that is indeed what all this fuss is about I expect a slap on the wrist and a fine if, hopefully, we can show we eventually paid those taxes, or had a reason to defer them.

Michael Kenrick
32 Posted 19/10/2023 at 13:59:47
Hehe, good one, Pat.

I've made that point before about taxes and HMRC. Unless tax paid was mischaracterized in the accounts? But I don't think we've paid tax for ages because we haven't made a profit.

And as for tax on loans… is there such a thing?

A breach of P&S rules is very simple: the club made more losses in the past 3 years (4 with Covid) than is allowed. But that would then bring into focus all outgoings and how they are characterized, given that some are exempt (eg, Academy, Women, Stadium Construction etc).

At least if it's season 2021-22, then it shouldn't be direct costs of Covid in question but I think they were still claiming transfers and player asset values were adversely affected.

The devil is in the detail… which we may never know as the commission hearings are confidential. Only the outcome is made public. But this may be different with the other clubs circling and ready to swoop in for a nice killing.

Michael Kenrick
33 Posted 19/10/2023 at 14:07:11
Just reading the latest in a swath of media articles picking up this story, this time the Echo feeding off The Times:

"The charge [is] related to alleged adjustment of losses to comply with the League's profit and sustainability regulations, one of which being interest payable on loans for the construction of the new stadium build at Bramley-Moore Dock."

Hearing into alleged breaches of Premier League rules by Everton has already begun

Hmmm… This makes much more sense than taxes. Maybe the club has classed the interest payments on construction loans as being a cost of construction, and the Premier League is seeking independent clarification of that from the commission?

Come on, Jerome, tell us what's really going on.

Colin Glassar
34 Posted 19/10/2023 at 14:42:46
Pat, could it be lawnmowers and “other costs”?
Chris Williams
35 Posted 19/10/2023 at 14:49:48
I thought we were referred not charged. Has something changed?

Man City have been charged.

In a legal situation, I'm guessing there's a difference.

The fact that the Premier League has recently changed its rules to ensure that clubs under scrutiny submit their final accounts for a season several months earlier may give an indication as to the issue?

Something changed between the season ending and the publication of the accounts? The auditors certainly did.

As to the independent commission starting early and secretly, I'd also guess that the various members of the commission wouldn't just rock up on the day and think "Let's get stuck in", given the complexity, the financial issues, the legal implications and perhaps some unprecedented issues, like COVID allowances?

Maybe they're having preliminary sessions to examine the facts and opinions in advance, and get the issues and implications straight? Maybe both parties have made submissions already?

I'd be astonished if the club weren't doing the same, but then again!

But I'm just guessing, like everyone else.

Tony Everan
36 Posted 19/10/2023 at 14:58:44

''Maybe the club has classed the interest payments on construction loans as being a cost of construction?''

You've hit on something there, it's this, or something like this, which is in a grey area that needs an independent decision rather than just be rubber-stamped.

It's also a way of showing other clubs that the Premier League is being diligent in their decision-making. If it is this, I'm hopeful we will get cleared and put on probation.

Dave Abrahams
37 Posted 19/10/2023 at 15:00:55
Chris (35),

I think if someone like yourself had been looking after the financial welfare of the club, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Jerome Shields
38 Posted 19/10/2023 at 15:15:23
Michael #32

God knows, but the independent commission seems to be to sort out a technicality, which means the Premier League looks as if it is doing its job.

I still think they had to do something after the Final Accounts replacement auditors report to fulfil their regulatory function.

The 777 Partners takeover is where the real action is.

Chris Williams
39 Posted 19/10/2023 at 16:16:36
Cheers, Dave,

Hope you're keeping well.

Way past all that now. Had an involvement in a couple of similar business and legal situations once upon a time. Much of the groundwork involved tends to be done before the day, which makes for a more productive day.

Presuming it only lasts a day, of course.

Brendan McLaughlin
40 Posted 19/10/2023 at 16:30:21
Classing interest on construction (capital) loans should be treated as part of the costs of construction.

If it were interest on non-capital loans being charged to construction then that would be problematic.

I understand Jerome's point. The "going concern" note in the accounts was very heavily caveated and may have raised a few eyebrows in terms of the "sustainability" aspect of P&S. But if we're still under the financial threshold then I would have thought it's a case of "nothing to see here".

John Raftery
41 Posted 19/10/2023 at 19:18:07
From the outset, I thought the Premier League's chiefs were seeking to protect their backs from action by other clubs. A significant part of the case for the defence is that all the club's transfer dealings were the subject of scrutiny by the Premier League.

Presuming the club provided full and accurate information and the scrutiny was conducted properly, it will be surprising if we are now found in breach of the rules.

That said, I would feel more comfortable if the club's representatives at the hearing included at least the Finance Director responsible for last year's accounts. He more than others would have first-hand knowledge of the details of previous discussions with the Premier League.

Dave Abrahams
42 Posted 19/10/2023 at 19:28:26
Chris 39, I'm fine, hope you are okay too.

We will get an answer to how the club is treated by the independent commission in the near future. I haven't a clue what we are appearing for next week but would feel better if we were represented by someone who has a good explanation for the commission, one that gets us off the hook or at least limits any penalties.

Brendan McLaughlin
43 Posted 19/10/2023 at 20:29:57
John #41,

Not looking to undermine your comfort blanket but I seriously doubt Everton's transfers were "scrutinised" to any significant extent by the Premier League. It's not the Premier League's job to do that – nor do I believe they would want to.

Furthermore, if the BBC reporting is correct the breach concerned tax-related issues relating to the new stadium rather than player transfers. Not saying the BBC are correct... simply pointing out that no-one actually knows what Everton are alleged to have done wrong.

Brian Williams
44 Posted 19/10/2023 at 20:38:13
I thought it was common knowledge that the breach/es relate to losses over three seasons far exceeding the permitted £105m.
That's been widely reported almost from day one.
Barry Hesketh
45 Posted 19/10/2023 at 20:42:28
Has today got a Y in it, of course it has, so that means that Matt Hughes continues his crusade and has yet another Everton related exclusive. I wonder if he gets paid by the word for each Everton article that he produces?

Everton have been reported to the Premier League and are facing legal action for allegedly failing to pay an agent fee related to a recent international signing.

Mail Sport has learned that a global agency has sent multiple legal letters to the club over an unpaid invoice worth several hundred thousand pounds, as well as engaging a debt recovery service in attempt to get the money.

Everton declined to comment when contacted by Mail Sport, but sources at the club dispute that they agreed to pay the agent. They also pointed out that the agent in question was not declared on the registration documents sent to the FA and Premier League.

EXCLUSIVE: Everton reported to the Premier League over failing to pay an agent fee

Barry Hesketh
46 Posted 19/10/2023 at 20:48:33
Brian @44,

Michael @33 posted:

"The charge [is] related to alleged adjustment of losses to comply with the League's profit and sustainability regulations, one of which being interest payable on loans for the construction of the new stadium build at Bramley-Moore Dock."

Brendan McLaughlin
47 Posted 19/10/2023 at 20:58:57
Brian #44,

Certainly haven't seen anything suggesting that Everton's losses are "far exceeding" the permitted limit.

Christy Ring
48 Posted 19/10/2023 at 21:04:56
Why has Mail Sport got an agenda against us, constantly publishing articles discrediting our club?

I'm not even sure if there's any substance to their articles, or who's behind it?

Tony Abrahams
49 Posted 19/10/2023 at 21:18:38
Using an old Italian phrase, Christy, then do you think it's possible that the enemy is within?
Brian Williams
50 Posted 19/10/2023 at 21:22:35
Brendan #47, are you serious?

You have never heard that the club's losses over a 3-year period are over £400M when the permitted losses are £105M?

Graham Fylde
51 Posted 19/10/2023 at 21:46:27
Brendan, I agree, of lack of detail means we can't know anything for certain but we do have the PL referral statement which said it was for breach of P&S for assessment period ending 21/22 (so 19/20, 20/21, 21/22). As we know, the limit is £105m and EFC top line losses were, I believe but stand to be corrected, somewhere north of £300m for that period - granted that's before allowable deductions so the delta will be much smaller.

My take would be it doesn't much matter what has taken them over the top (if that is proved) it is simply the end figure that counts with regulations. Likewise, even if PL were scrutinising our operations I agree that won't be a defence but might well be a mitigation??

Michael Kenrick
52 Posted 19/10/2023 at 22:07:46

I think you're right to remind us of the wording of the Premier League's original referral statement.

One concern I would have with your assessment period is that it doesn't seem to include the additional allowance made for the Covid pandemic, which (from memory) increased the period from 3 to 4 seasons, but something about averaging the losses of the Covid affected seasons?

Not sure if this was ever entered into the Premier League Handbook, and which edition? Sorry to be so uncertain… may be you recall what this was and how it affected the P&S calculation?

Will Mabon
53 Posted 19/10/2023 at 22:13:34
Perhaps adjustment is the operative word?
Michael Kenrick
54 Posted 19/10/2023 at 22:17:34
Brendan @40,

But if we're still under the financial threshold, then I would have thought it's a case of "nothing to see here".

I like your attempt at clarity and simplicity but it really is a question of how Everton got their figures below the financial threshold – by claiming a series of exemptions.

It could take just one claimed outgoing that the club classified as exempt in the final accounts, whereas the Premier League think it was not exempt – that could then take them over the financial threshold.

Definitely a lot to see here – there must be something pretty serious if Everton have employed a KC – but we mere nothing supporters won't get to see any of it until the fate of our club is decided by the faceless three sitting on the commission.

Brendan McLaughlin
55 Posted 19/10/2023 at 22:22:25
Brian #50

Of course I know that but as Graham #51 points out the P&S limit is calculated very differently from the loss figure shown in the publicly available accounts which is what you are quoting.

We weren't considered to be in breach of P&S rules prior to 20/21 despite our actual losses being much higher than £105 million.

Something changed in 21/22.

Jerome Shields
56 Posted 19/10/2023 at 22:28:15
Brian #50,

I think Brendan is referring to the Commission's remit.

Brendan #40,

Good point regarding construction costs, but I can't see the Premier League getting involved in Everton's tax affairs.

It is more likely that, having worked closely with Everton over 2 years, monitoring and guiding them in remedial action to prevent a breach of the Profitability and Sustainability Rules, and giving assurances that Everton were on the right path, that the Auditor Report spooked them.

They suddenly found themselves holding the baby should anything go wrong. The independent commission will probably go through the figures for the 2-year period to verify them, hence Everton's expression of confidence at the time.

But in the meantime, outside the independent commission, there is pressure on Moshiri to sort out the 'going concern' issues mentioned in the Auditor's Report: funding of the stadium and club operations (working capital, aka cashflow).

The main aim of the Premier League will be to maintain a large Premier League club with a new stadium in a sustainable position, whereas the main aim of the FCA is to ensure that those who takeover Everton are able to fund their commitments, very much aware of the impact of doing so for a major UK City and their community.

I think it is safe to say that neither the Premier League nor the FCA have confidence in Moshiri running Everton, and they will take whatever they can get from him before he leaves.

He will definitely lose his shirt on this one.

Brendan McLaughlin
57 Posted 19/10/2023 at 22:34:34
Michael #54

Perhaps I could have worded it better,

My "nothing to see here" was specifically related to Jerome's apparent suggestion that the Auditor's Report was the catalyst for us appearing before the commission.

I was only arguing that suggestion was incorrect.

Of course there's potentially a lot to see here.

Graham Fylde
58 Posted 19/10/2023 at 22:35:17
I am not sure if this helps but I have some figures from the Esk for the years in question which, as you rightly say Michael includes the additional Covid calculation.

The Esk would point out his figures are estimates where he had no actual numbers but I think his figures are generally excellent.

Aggregate PSR position -£164,918k
Permitted losses -£105,000k
Excess losses £59,918k

I agree with Brendan, something changed that the Premier League took exception to. Can anyone remember when the stadium build was capitalised because, as Brendan pointed out, that would change the treatment of interest??

Brian Williams
59 Posted 19/10/2023 at 22:46:31
Brendan, thanks for the extra info. 👍
Michael Kenrick
60 Posted 19/10/2023 at 22:49:16

Thanks for that. And sorry, I probably took it out of context; I think I can see what you meant if I re-read it differently.

I would be very surprised if the P&S breach has anything to do with the 'going concern' issue raised in the Auditor's Report as Jerome has invented — it was specifically in the context of Everton being relegated.

Hey guess what. We weren't.

Brendan McLaughlin
61 Posted 19/10/2023 at 22:49:55
Bang on, Graham #58,

"Can anyone remember when the stadium build was capitalised?"

Not saying you're right but it's likely to be something as dull as that!

Jerome Shields
62 Posted 19/10/2023 at 23:04:28

I have been at Board meetings where Auditors reports have been discussed, before being made Public, (not at a AGM in Everton's case ) and what was in it was taken very seriously. Fortunately I was never at one in which where 'Going Concern' Issues where raised, especially with a Regulator breathing down the Boards neck.

I would say that it would have been pretty vocal with concern, giving the implications when the Final Accounts were made Public.

We are talking about two attempts at a Auditor Report here.

Brendan McLaughlin
63 Posted 19/10/2023 at 23:24:32
Jerome #62,

I think I echoed your obvious unease when I stated above that the "going concern" note was very heavily caveated but, as Michael points out above, it was also massively predicated upon relegation.

And we're not talking about two attempts at Auditor's Reports here – there was only one firm of auditors privy to the 20/21 financial information.

Jerome Shields
65 Posted 20/10/2023 at 02:05:26
Brendan #63,

Still it was stated in the Auditor's Report mid season, before the season was ended. The heavily caveted nature of the report was the second auditor covering their ass.

My understanding is that one auditor resigned because of the final accounts, and was replaced by another auditor. The auditor for the coming year is put forward for appointment at the previous years AGM or, in Everton's case, at the board meeting that finalised the previous year's accounts, since they do not have an AGM. That is where I got the' two attempts' from, which having posted it on reflection felt I had been unclear.

Hopefully the above is clearer.

Eric Myles
66 Posted 20/10/2023 at 02:46:56
Michael #32,

What you say about company / profit tax may be true but it's my understanding (but I don't know where I got it from) that it's related to VAT.

Jim Lloyd
67 Posted 20/10/2023 at 07:46:02
John (41),

I wondered at the time, why the 3 Board members (those who were so cruelly treated by our awful fans!) so suddenly resigned with (I assume) fair old payoff. I can understand thunder thighs resigning so suddenly. Her being so stressed after being cruelly headlocked by (someone or other), who no-one seems to know, and the police are still waiting for info from the club, I understand.

And the one-time Legend also being thanked profusely for his noble service to club and supporters. And, no doubt, receiving a very nice leaving present; also resigning (probably due to stress), as well.

Anyway, I would have thought the CEO (during the period in question) and the Chief Finance Officer (during the period in question) would be brought back, by the club, to act as witnesses by the club. Both being the major officers in charge of the good running of the club during the the time in question.

In fact, I can't understand how the Chief Finance Officer was allowed to resign, considering he was the man who (we hope) was closely involved in all of our financial dealings during the time in question!

The Chairman is recovering from a major illness and may well not be in a position to give any information of the period in question.

Kevin Prytherch
68 Posted 20/10/2023 at 08:08:00
“I can understand thunder thighs resigning so suddenly.”

What a load of sexist shite.

Jim Lloyd
69 Posted 20/10/2023 at 13:15:32
Not really, Kevin, you might consider it sexist, but the point was that no evidence whatsoever has come to light regarding the "headlock".

The fact that the board stayed away from the ground while Everton were facing a quite possible/probable relegation before resigning was, in my view, appalling.

The Chief Executive Officer. along with the Chief Finance Officer, were, along with the Chairman, responsible for all aspects of the good running of our club during the years in question. They might well volunteer to attend the independent commission… but I doubt it.

Kevin Prytherch
70 Posted 20/10/2023 at 15:55:54
The fact that you choose to refer to the only female member of the board by a derogative term based on appearance while not demonstrating the same consistency in describing male members of the board is sexist. You have singled out one person based on their gender to make that type of comment about.

Why didn't you refer to the Chief Finance Officer, the one-time legend, or the chairman as “thunder thighs”?

Jim Lloyd
71 Posted 20/10/2023 at 16:08:12
Get a life, Steve.

If it is as you view it, then I am a sexist in your world. I would have referred to the Chairman as a fat twat and I've never called a woman that. As for the Chief Finance Officer, I've never seen him.

As for the point raised. Any views on their early/ I'd have called Sharp Thunder Thighs but I didn't call him anything. As far as I'm concerned, he's no Legend to me.

Mark Taylor
72 Posted 20/10/2023 at 16:08:16

That might be true if it wasn't for the fact that Kenwright gets called much, much worse, as has Moshiri. The CFO much less so because I don't think he made much in the way of decisions.

In fairness, I don't think Barrett-Baxendale did either, but she was supposedly our CEO, so head above the parapet. I also recall on this thread, or similar, some pretty unkind descriptions of Sharp, but I don't think anyone called that misandry.

Whether one should be throwing insults, mild or more serious, at any of the management team, male or female, might be a matter of debate. Some of it of course comes from anger and frustration at the mess this collective have made of things. And in the case of the headlock, what is perceived as lying, maybe correctly.

Ray Roche
73 Posted 20/10/2023 at 16:14:54

I don't want to get involved in any sort of sexist (or otherwise) argument, but what I will say is Ian Wright gave our fans, (who he had previously praised in the past along with admitting a long-standing affection for Everton) some grief on MotD following the ghost headlock report.

However, a couple of days later, he clearly seemed to have been given some more accurate information about the 'incident' and retracted his comment and apologised to the fans via his social media outlet. Something about that ghost incident clearly stinks to high heaven.

Kevin Prytherch
74 Posted 20/10/2023 at 18:14:53
Jim – that comment, “thunder thighs”, was sexist.

In my world? Try a dictionary definition – I think you'll find it's more than just my world:

Characterised by or showing prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
"old-fashioned sexist attitudes".

Peter Gorman
75 Posted 20/10/2023 at 18:26:43
I used to call her Little Miss Dynashite.
Jim Lloyd
76 Posted 20/10/2023 at 18:27:39

You'll just have to get on with it.

I like the term "thunder thighs".

Mark Taylor
77 Posted 20/10/2023 at 19:35:42
One thing that one can say about Denise Barrett-Baxendale is that it is charlatan-type behaviour to use an honorary professorship in your everyday life.

That's just not done. You are not a real professor, don't pretend.

Dave Abrahams
78 Posted 20/10/2023 at 20:08:38
Mark (77),

That's why in most of my posts concerning her I referred to her as Mrs Barrett-Baxendale.

Don Alexander
79 Posted 20/10/2023 at 20:16:59
Professor of Delusional Bullshitting Buffoonery is presumably acceptable I hope?
Brendan McLaughlin
80 Posted 20/10/2023 at 22:23:31
Mark #77,

Someone makes a sexist "thunder thighs" comment and you're minded to reflect on Barrett-Baxendale's use of the "Professor" title.

Man's world eh?

Michael Kenrick
81 Posted 21/10/2023 at 08:43:25
Too right, Mark @77, I don't think I could ever get beyond that pompous nonsense.

I don't have a good word for Bill Kenwright either, but you'd have thought he'd have had a word in her shell-like – at least he had the nouse not to flaunt his honourary doctorate before the plebs.

Alan McGuffog
82 Posted 21/10/2023 at 09:05:56

I've scoured this thread for the descriptions of male members but I'm still intrigued.

Jerome Shields
83 Posted 21/10/2023 at 10:38:55
I am just glad she did not get back with Everton in the Community. The ones that did run it are just getting on with the job.

I think it was Kenwright who wanted a matching blonde beside him and made the first sexist remark regarding Denise. As Kenwright's personnel assistant she did okay, but never stood up to scrutiny as a Chief Executive.

At Everton in the Community, she had good people to depend on, who knew their job; at Everton FC, she didn't. Only ones under the patronage of Kenwright – like herself.

Mark Taylor
84 Posted 21/10/2023 at 10:42:49
Brendan @80,

No idea in what way criticising Barrett-Baxendale in the way I did arises from it being 'a man's world'. Just a judgement, and I think a correct one.

See my post at 72 for a broader perspective on insults thrown at our board members. As I said there, calling someone a bit fat is pretty mild compared to the stuff that, rightly or wrong, is thrown at other board members.

Christine Foster
85 Posted 21/10/2023 at 11:10:54
I am afraid that Barrett-Baxendale to me is a person filled with an over-active sense of her own importance. An arrogant inferiority complex bolstered by an honorary token award for services to the community.

Now when it comes to actually running the club… well, she failed miserably. She neither led nor directed it to success nor prevented its financial failure.

As to reference to any sexist comments.. insensitive sexist personalised insult? Of course it was, but nothing more than you hear every day — not personally, I might add, but I wish I had a penny…

Will Mabon
86 Posted 21/10/2023 at 11:21:40
Men have thighs too.

Pansexism is very triggering.

Jim Lloyd
87 Posted 21/10/2023 at 11:31:46
I think if anger and frustration gets in the mix, I'm not likely to be the most polite person around. I am still at a loss to see the three senior people in charge of all Everton's affairs disappear like smoke, first from the ground, leaving us to try and help carry the team to safety. Then to read that they'd resigned and, according to one of them, it was their decision.
They would have known that all aspects of our club during the years in question were going to be minutely investigated.
The manner of Sharp's "one man and his dog" reputedly mumbled when the supporters were organising opposition to what was going on. DBB's supposed headlock, Kenwright's warning from "security" to stay away.
"Thunder Thighs" might be sexist, might not be; but it is an exaggeration of her "robost torso. I've often called Kenwright names, that I'd never call a woman. I don't really give a cats arse about Kevin calling me a sexist, although I didn't intend to hurt his feelings. It was the manner of his response that goaded me. It was a bit like the Puritan Witchfinders in the 17th century. Sexist...burn him at the stake! But no comment whatsoever about our Board members, disappearing before the mucky stuff arrived.
Anyway, I'll probably always be a sexist without intending harm or being derogatory anyone, except Kenwright!
The point being that Ingles and DBB diappeared, right in the middle of our darkest hours. Now they might be called and willingly act in the Club's defence.
When they do, then I'll call them True Blues.
Brendan McLaughlin
88 Posted 22/10/2023 at 21:37:09
Just saw Kirsten Dunst apologising for fat-shaming a waitress 10-12 years back.

Perhaps in TW 30-35 years…

Ed Prytherch
89 Posted 25/10/2023 at 15:33:16
Colin #93 Exactly.
Barry Hesketh
90 Posted 09/11/2023 at 18:17:45
Shamoon Hafez of BBC Sport offers a summary of Everton's current off the field issues. Nothing new for Evertonians but perhaps some of the answers are imminent?

The club are now awaiting their fate and it is understood the judgement will be passed to Everton's lawyers, who will have 24 hours to deliberate, before it is published on the Premier League website.

Everton: When will FFP hearing and 777 Partners takeover uncertainties be resolved?

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