18/11/2023 18comments  |  Jump to last

Paul "The Esk" Quinn writes in The Guardian:

"Everton have been penalised for poor decision-making – poor governance playing a huge part. How ironic if the Premier League was, in turn, damaged, its reputation and integrity brought into question due to the poor decision and poor governance of this commission?"

» Read the full article at The Guardian

Reader Comments (18)

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 ()

Karl Masters
1 Posted 19/11/2023 at 00:53:55
All valid points.

£19.5M is roughly what we paid Player X in wages over 3 years. It's come down to one player's salary being the excess we have spent.

If it's a breach, it's a breach. But being as it's unintentional, you'd have thought a suspended sentence of 3 points would seem reasonable as a warning to understand the rules better.

It's like getting 10 years in prison for shoplifting. Out of all proportion! Witch hunt from a organisation hellbent on keeping the government regulator out of football.

Jerome Shields
2 Posted 19/11/2023 at 13:09:21
Yes, the Premier League have really opened a can of worms. In addition to the points raised by Paul the Esk, the Premier League have been monitoring and reportedly enjoyed the full cooperation of Everton for 2 years.

They appeared before the Final Accounts became available to have found Everton compliant. In the report, there appears to have been a problem with loan treatment in the accounts and an issue regarding Player X transfer payment. Obviously there was close monitoring of transfers, much to the annoyance of Evertonians, so it is hard to believe that treatment of loans and transfer monies was not monitored.

I still think that the Auditor's Report in the Final Accounts spooked the Premier League. But it could be said that the Premier League could not act until the Audited Final Accounts were presented. Though it is hard to believe that there were no opportunities to raise issues.

All responsibility and blame has now been firmly placed on Everton. Could the Premier League be running for cover, and in the process inadvertantly into the long grass which is full of snakes?

Peter Gorman
3 Posted 19/11/2023 at 15:11:43
From the BBC original news article;

"Similarly, the commission found that both the loss of a naming rights agreement with Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov's company USM Services Limited and a rise in stadium-related costs following Russia's invasion of Ukraine could be considered "the type of event that businesses experience".

How they came to that conclusion is pretty mystifying. It is not an everyday experience of any business to have the UK government impose sanctions on a major sponsor and primary source of the owner's wealth.

This is the kind of 'reasoning' by the commission that the club has to appeal against.

John Kavanagh
4 Posted 19/11/2023 at 20:50:24
Thank you, Paul the Esk, for getting the article in the Guardian.

This deliberate persecution of Everton by the so-called 'independent' commision is a complete stitch-up. Apart from a points deduction equivalent to a £15-£20 million fine (even if we do manage to stay up), they've also wantonly opened us up to secondary compensation claims from other clubs that now pose an existential threat.

I can't escape the feeling that the Premier League and FA will soon be expecting invites to the opening fixture at the new Liverpool stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock.

You can bet that, long before their cases come up, the rules will have been changed to ensure any Sky 6 culprits get off completely or with just a warning letter for committing far more serious transgressions and refusing even to co-operate, like we foolishly did.

In the consoling words of Bluto in Animal House 'You fucked up. You trusted us'. If Man City, Chelsea et al ever do face a commission, it will have three monkeys on it rather than the hired assassins we got.

ps: Paul the Esk, I hope your health is still improving as I totally rely on your financial reports!

Brendan McLaughlin
5 Posted 19/11/2023 at 22:04:52
Aw Jesus, Jerome #2,

Not the fecking Auditor's Report... again.

No matter how damming the Auditor's report... if we had not breached the P&S limit, there would have been no independent commission.

Even if the Auditor's Report had been super positive... we still would have faced the independent commission because we breached the limits.

As I said last night the Auditor's Report didn't feature, didn't get a mention, at the hearing.

There's a reason for that... it's totally irrelevant.

Brendan McLaughlin
6 Posted 19/11/2023 at 22:22:11
Jerome #2

Where does the narrative that Everton were being closely monitored by the Premier League come from?

I know Everton released a statement that they were keeping the Premier League fully informed. Everton also stated that they had not breached P&S rules until they later admitted that they had. I've never seen anything from the Premier League to suggest they were "hands on".

In fact, the independent commission's report reflects upon this when they suggest that financial oversight of individual clubs by the Premier League is pretty much reliant on "good faith".

Jerome Shields
7 Posted 19/11/2023 at 23:30:54
Brendan, it was widely reported at the time. I will search it out for you later in the week.

Spent all day in hospital A&E, my sister had a serious fall requiring urgent surgery and I am still working at this ungodly hour. I was well ahead with the work, but my brother-in-law was found dead 2 weeks ago and the electrician's brother fell down the stairs on Monday and died.

Only relief was the excellent thread on ToffeeWeb, which you were a vital part off. Your query brought in Ernie and Steve and many others.

Brendan McLaughlin
8 Posted 19/11/2023 at 23:41:56
For fuck's sake, Jerome mate #7,

You don't get it easy and the last thing you need is me taking potshots

Ok.. I'll pay for the Guinness whenever, wherever...

Jerome Shields
9 Posted 20/11/2023 at 00:15:03
Brendan # 8

Actually found the legal text from 2015.The reports detailed the practical application, but you can see the bases of implementation.Trying to find those in the blizzard of the biggest points deduction in history is nearly impossible.

From the Book:

Sports Law and Practice: Regulating Sport

(b) The Premier League

B5.91 The Premier League faced a number of issues regarding the implementation of its own cost controls, mainly due to the enormous discrepancies in wealth between the biggest clubs in the Premier League (who have some of the largest trading income of all clubs globally) and the smaller clubs (who generate far smaller amounts from their own ticketing, sponsorship and merchandising arrangements, and so depend to a much greater extent on central distributions from the Premier League's broadcasting deals). In such circumstances, a fixed costs cap would be very unfair on the bigger clubs, while a break-even requirement based on percentage of turnover would risk entrenching the bigger clubs towards the top end of the table and restrict the ability of smaller clubs to compete with them by using benefactor funding.

B5.92 Effective from the 2015/16 season, the Premier League adopted Profit & Sustainability Rules incorporating a rolling three-year break-even requirement similar to that used in the UEFA Club Licensing Regulations.

1. Clubs losing an aggregate of £15m across the relevant reporting period have to demonstrate their ability to meet future payments to football creditors as well as their obligations to the Premier League. Traditionally this has required a letter of support from owners that they would provide the necessary funding to cover the losses. Clubs losing more than £15m but less than £105m in aggregate across the reporting period are required to:

provide future financial information for the next two seasons; and

provide evidence of secure funding (to the satisfaction of the Premier League).

2. Any failure to satisfy these requirements could lead to the Premier League:

requiring the club to agree and adhere to a budget;

requiring the club to provide further financial information; and

refusing an application by the club to register new players or enter into new contracts.

3. In addition to these measures, any club losing more than £105m in aggregate across the reporting period may be charged with breach of the Premier League rules and referred to a disciplinary commission with broad powers to: 4. reprimand the club, impose an unlimited fine, suspend the club from playing, deduct points from the club, order matches to be replayed, recommend expulsion of the club, order compensation, ban registrations, or impose such other penalty as it thinks fit.

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

Premier League Rules E.52 to 59.

Ibid, E.57.1 and 2.

Ibid, E.57.3 and E.15

Premier League Rule E.59 states that the £105m figure will be reduced by £22m for each season (out of the previous three) that a club was in an EFL division rather than the Premier League. Premier League Rules E.58, W.17 and W.49.

I insist on paying for the Guinness.

Barry Hesketh
10 Posted 20/11/2023 at 01:19:35
I've just read Paul's summation of the Commission's report, and he like so many others, claims it is already established that Everton had no sporting advantage – Paul if you read this post, can you please inform everybody, where this phrase appears and in which document. Thanks

Summary of the Commission decision, aggravating factors, mitigation claims and the sanction

Stephen Davies
11 Posted 20/11/2023 at 02:01:06
Does anyone know what last year's Accounts look like? Are we presently sailing close to the wind? Will the Premier League be scrutinizing these once published?

I recall that we were scrambling around to sell that young full back at the end of the transfer window. Could we be punished again?

Matt Traynor
12 Posted 20/11/2023 at 03:40:59
I listened to TalkShite yesterday (problem getting my VPN working to listen to another station).

Anyway I don't give a hoot what ex-players turned pundits think, but they had David Dein on – former Director (Chair?) at Arsenal, and also previously on the Board of the FA.

He felt the penalty was harsh, and the Premier League had painted itself into a corner. He was also glowing in his memories of our former Chairman, and positive about the club in general. The more respected figures like this get in our corner, the better for us.

Alan J Thompson
13 Posted 20/11/2023 at 05:48:48
Other than the "independent" commission and the Premier League, has anybody come out and said they believe the penalty imposed is fair, reasonable and justified particularly in light of penalties and possible penalties for others' actions and positions?

And if this commission has used the legal proceedings from the case Sheffield Wed v the Football League on which to base "their" penalty rather than penalties imposed by football's governing bodies, are they inviting us to take legal action?

Paul [The Esk]
14 Posted 20/11/2023 at 09:10:14
No 10. Barry thanks for picking up on that point. My apologies, I published the wrong draft, my final draft used the term "no quantifiable sporting advantage".

The argument being if you can't quantify the advantage, which is there just as a general principle and is not quantified and backed by evidence, how can it form part of the justification for the sanction?

Jerome Shields
15 Posted 20/11/2023 at 09:38:09
Stephen #11,

The financial year for Everton ended on the 30 June 2023. As yet, no figures have been released.

It was around this time last year that the 21/22 Accounts were published. Normally for an AGM in January. But Everton do not have an AGM anymore.

Brendan McLaughlin
16 Posted 20/11/2023 at 21:46:28
Jerome #9

Thanks for that.

On the other thread there were a lot of posters criticising the Independent Commission for mentioning compensation but it's clear from what you've posted that this is certainly within their remit.

Stephen #11

The 22/23 Accounts will almost certainly show a loss and will be scrutinised by the Premier League.

That's not really the issue though. The calculation of a clubs P&S figure covers three years so as long as the 22/23 loss is lower than the 19/20 loss (which will no longer be included in the calculation) our P&S figure will fall and we should be fine.

If, however, the 22/23 loss is greater it will increase our P&S total and the amount we've breached the £105 million limit by. In that case I think we could be subject to further punishment.

Jerome Shields
17 Posted 21/11/2023 at 00:11:48

It does show the background to what we have seen over this pass two or even more years.Even Moshiri Letter of intent to provide funds.

As you say it also shows the scope of the remit regarding punishment.

The problem I have is having thrown the whole book at Everton, will they be prepared to do so with Clubs that have breaches.In other words Man City with a 100 breaches should be in the Vauxhall Conference and the Compensation. if it is possible to work out, should pay for Bramley Dock in Everton's case.

As a Friend said to me all the Premier League Clubs could have a case to answer.

Paul Kossoff
18 Posted 21/11/2023 at 00:26:28
Luton had a massive thirty points taken off them back in 2008.
They were docked 20 points by the EFL for leaving administration without having made a company voluntary agreement with creditors, before a further 10 were taken away by the FA for financial misconduct relating to transfers.

2007-08: Leeds United (15 points) - failure to exit administration correctly
They failed to agree a company voluntary arrangement with their creditors and were therefore put up for an expulsion vote - the first club to suffer the fate since Barnet in 1993.

Other clubs voted for Leeds to retain their status but, just six years after playing in a Champions League semi-final, they were handed a 15-point deduction.
2021-22: Derby County (21 points) - administration and financial mismanagement
The point is you are dealing with a bunch of self appiniated self ordained twats. who don't give a toss about history or communities, our demise at the hands of these Bastards hasn't finished yet. Prepare for further kicks in the bollocks.

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