Compensation claims against Everton to be decided by same panel

Meanwhile, the Saudi Barcodes are cleared to loan players from their owners' other clubs, against the wishes of the Premier League.

It's not corruption, it's just rank incompetence, and a laughably illogical governance of the sport in this country.

This is worse than the Spanish Inquisition and we should refuse to comply with anything they say or do.

I read it on an 'X' link put up on Grand Old Team, but can't confirm whether it's fake news or an actual portion of an Athletic report.

I know the commission said they didn't use that criteria, but still ended up with the same outcome as if they had have used it.

This isn't "Poor Everton" or "Let's feel hard done by". This is a witch-hunt. Man Utd are apparently £1B in debt, no sanctions. Chelsea apparently had shell companies owned by Abramovich paying into Chelsea, no sanctions. City have 115 irregularities hanging over them for over a year, no sanctions.

I'm not sure I want to watch this crooked Premier League anymore. Let the Euro 6 go and destroy all pyramid football across the continent. Let the football league start again and be competitive like it was before Sky.

The commission heard how, on August 10 this year, five months after Everton's case had been referred, league officials put forward what was described in the report as a “sanction policy”.

According to evidence supplied by its chief executive Richard Masters, the league proposed “a fixed starting point of a deduction of six points, with an increase from that starting point of one point for every £5million by which the club had exceeded the PSR threshold of £105m. Further adjustments could be made to reflect aggravating or mitigating features”.

The commission said it rejected this framework.

“The commission is concerned that the adoption by it of a structured formula such as is advocated by the Premier League would be inconsistent with the unrestricted powers conferred by rules w50 and 51” its report said.

“We consider that it is not for a commission to introduce such a structured formula even on a case-by-case basis. We consider that we are required by the rules to hear and consider the mitigation, after which we have a wide discretion to impose any of the sanctions listed in rule w51.

“If the Premier League wishes to impose a mandatory structured formula on a commission dealing with PSR breaches, it can do so. In that event, the commission would be required to comply with those rules. But as things stand at present that has not been done: the commission has the wide discretion conferred by rules w50 and w51.”

In other words, the commissioners would be disregarding the league's suggestion and applying their own discretion.
Crucially, they still reached the same conclusion as the league: a 10-point penalty for an overspend of £19.5million, with their adjudication summarised in the final two pages of the report. None of this is likely to have been lost on Everton's lawyers.

The Athletic has since been told the aforementioned sanction framework was only meant to be used for Everton's case. It is understood no such league-wide sanction policy is in the pipeline at the moment and that such a change would need to be communicated to clubs formally and via the handbook. Everton were unaware of the league's recommendation both at the time of their referral and approaching the pre-trial review in early October.

I'm not sure where the 'no sporting advantage' myth came from, but it seems to have spread pretty significantly. It's definitely not in their decision.

It appears that the laws of natural justice do not apply. Everton FC are part of a private members' club (the EPL), and that club can apply its own judgments. I don't know who “the EPL” actually are, but everything indicates that the power within it lies with the more moneyed clubs.

The main motive of those clubs now is to demonstrate that the EPL can regulate itself, that there is no need for our government to bother itself with its own regulatory body (the philosophy of the Tory party for many years).

However, a secondary motive, based possibly on vindictiveness, may also be in play. The members of “the independent commission” have shown their nature in the initial 10 point punishment - I fear they see their work as unfinished.

Go all out to fight our way out of the relegation zone based on Dog's of War, F... everyone, The World's Against Us and anything else we can use

If these so called "independent" commissioners, as they surely will, find in favour of every other team having a claim against us, immediately go into administration.

If we're clear by 9 points all well and good, if not the F... them all

Sod them, go into administration, when the amounts are awarded and let them whistle for it. I don't want us in this corrupt league anymore. Our owner and board need to be banned from football and fined.

Football is supposed to be fun but the fun has long gone for me and been replaced by worry and anxiety regarding Everton FC. As someone on meds for this condition and others, I begin to doubt if it's worth the hassle but maybe that's what the EPL want. A curse on all their houses.

The decision to allow the barcodes to loan players from teams owned by the same owner shows the tail wags the dog.

This is a football world best forgotten it's so rotten.

Exhibit a

Exhibit b

Jack , and we voted for it , because of the 777 link

“The seven clubs that blocked ban on signing loan players from partner teams were (according to sources) Newcastle, Sheff Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Everton, Wolves, Forest. “

Putting David Phillips on this enquiry definitely proves that it wasn't ‘an independent enquiry' but more akin to putting a member of your extended family on jury service.

Everton are trying to push through a deal with a group that owns several football clubs, so this must have been the reason they voted for this?

I haven't posted about this debacle yet.

For this particular thread I should point out that the BBC inserts the word 'could' instead of 'to' above...but we all know what will happen, no matter who was on the panel.

Football is no longer about 22 men and a ball at 3 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon. Those who have the game by the throat at the moment want it to be theatre. VAR is just theatre. It generates column inches and intrigue.Our situation is a sideshow for other supporters, but a living hell for us.

I have read many people dispute the 'conspiracy against us' claims, but can that really be denied any more? Whenever we find ourselves at the mercy of the EPL we come off worse than anyone else - Oumar Niasse, £300, 000 for a pitch invasion ( which was entirely peaceful...apart from Patrick Viera), an unprecedented 10 point deduction soon to be followed by compensation claims. Start joining the dots...

The Everton hierarchy need to take some of the people who write on this site into their appeal meetings, or at least consult them, as I am sure they would tie the panel in knots, and they would do it with passion.

For me this is the end of the road with the EPL. Do we really want to be part of this any more ? It is like being in an abusive relationship.

We should start an exodus.

The Football league as inaugurated in 1888 would not have lasted three weeks if it had been anything like the horrendous mess that we have now.

Since 1992 football has been in terminal decline and our present plight is emblematic of that decline. No we haven't helped ourselves, but I feel I have been witnessing our slow and ineluctable death at the hands of others for sometime, both inside and outside the club.

And if this does all blow over, and by some miracle we survive and prevail, the question will remain: do we really want to be part of this anymore ?

Oh...and if we go out of business, it would not be long before there would 11 men sporting the badge of Everton on their chest on Stanley Park being watched by 50,000 fans because one thing is for sure no-one would defect to the RS.

It was always planned that KC David Phillips and the others would take the original case and the subsequent compensation case. The points appeal will be dealt with by a different set of panelists.

I imagine that the appeal by Everton will take place in the first instance and then if that is upheld, the compensation case will be heard. If the appeal by Everton is successful, then there will be no need for the compensation case?

I also think that it was wrong, regardless of the debate of the merits of the case that the deduction was immediately imposed. It should have been suspended upon appeal.

Imagine being on the end of a capital punishment charge, you're found guilty and immediately dragged off to be executed, but don't worry, you can appeal at a later date!

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

That's difficult to believe.

As long as our 22/23 loss (to be added to our P&S 3 year calculation) is less that the 19/20 loss (to be removed from the calculation) our revised three year total should fall and there should be no grounds to punish us further,

The relevant wording is W.27. At any stage the Commission may indicate (either of its own accord or as a result of representations from a Person, Club (or club) and in any event in its sole discretion), that if the complaint is upheld, it may wish to exercise its power under Rule W.51.5 to award compensation to any Person or to any Club (or club). If the Commission so indicates, it shall notify the parties to the proceedings and the relevant Person, Club (or club) of this fact. The Commission may then make appropriate directions as to
the receipt of evidence of loss from the relevant Person, Club (or club) as well as directions on the receipt of evidence in response from the parties to the proceedings.

Like the original proceedings, the commission has discretion to award any amount they see fit. This of course still relies on causation, so any club would have to show how EFC's breach led to its loss. Theoretically, very difficult but with these clowns!

Do I read those paras correctly??

Is anyone else like me willing to read a Gomes update to cheer up?

I honestly think the club should go into administration and take the 9 (assumed) penalty. I think we could still kick on and stay up even with such a deficit not that I am actually sure I would like the club to be part of this corrupt shit show any longer.

Just seems that at every turn there is another boot ready to kick us down again and yet there are teams left right and centre seemingly breaching the same rules in far greater ways than Everton have done but because of who they are the investigation process drags on to be forgotten.
Man City
Man Utd
Chelsea
And now Newcastle permitted to sign loan players from teams controlled by their new (fit and proper) state owners.

I can honestly see the 777 sale being deemed improper, work on the new stadium ceasing imminently and us being told Goodison has failed the safety rating so can no longer host matches.
Anything else the PL could do that I missed?

Alana Sugar took the FA to court….and won!!!

We should do the same

Surely, then, City, Forest, Bournemouth, United, Skunks, and Chelsea, must be charged as well? How can City get off the hook, on the scale of their charges?

But it would seem, that their is no impartiality, and by design, plenty of prejudice, towards Everton FC, with this hand picked tribunal.

Colin, your right, this is a systemic effort to take Everton to the abyss.

I hope the rest of the EPL, take solidarity and go on strike, but that won't happen, so it's Everton FC and Evertonians, v the rest.

Everton, hopefully will do their home work well, for their appeal and reflect on other clubs involved in discretions over the years including the RS, West Ham, Spurs, and United, all for various charges that were in the EPL rule book at the time.

I'll deffo be going to church more often now, and I believe Everton, must and will commit to the biggest battle in the clubs history, on and off the park, and prevail.

But time for United on Sunday, and the campaign to stay alive as a football club, starts this weekend.

UTFTs!

So we get penalized for not suing him, now he cane sue us because he didn't actually face charges. Given the report said it was the FA and not us who banned him, shouldn't he sue the FA? Or the police? But hey let him sue us too, add him to the list, deduct 50 points, put us into administration.

I've said it before, at this point I'd spin off the new stadium as a separate entity, buy Marine, change their name to Everton 2.0, and work our way up the league. It would be cheaper and easier.

John, I don't know about the "Premier League official". Which one is that? What's his (paid?) position with the League?

Not saying all plater bought are shiiite. We did throw a lot of money down the drain, tough. Any barristers opinion please??

Seemingly we thought the PL wouldn't show their teeth - but then they did. And our feeble excuses didn't help us at all.

I think the ten points sets a marker down to other clubs and if we didn't want to be the test case then we should have behaved differently.

But this is getting ridiculous. They're going to drive us under. 10 points, compensation potentially driving us to administration and another 9 or so points, and we haven't really talked about the next 3 year period to be assessed (they stated our loss trend got worse in FY2023).

We've got little defence, but the PL have set off a runaway train that is going to take out the whole league.

They'll have to take big points off City, Chelsea and who knows who else. The league table is going to be full of asterisks. And the compensation claims against the likes of City will be incredible. Years of merit payments, titles, and Champions League football.

The next few years are going to be very messy.

I was thinking about this today. The ex mayor blaming complaining fabs for causing stress that expedited his demise. But just imagine the stress of knowing the real problems at the club behind all the bluster and PR campaigns. That would do you in eventually. Although, after everything else Kings Dock, Arteta money, watch this space, check is in the bank. Would you be that surprised if he did do a Reggie Perrin?

Having gone down the road of making an example of us, the same judge, jury and executioner is not going to find in our favour.

If they do then they may not get a bean as we fall into administration, or perhaps thats the intent. Because more and more pain is only going to make it happen.

The seeds to this situation started when Kenwright got into bed with messers Green and Earle and offshore loans, but more than that, it was the total absence of commercial acumen, for so many years our income and presence in the market place was a disgrace. You couldn't even buy a shirt. We have never really recovered, our lack or income means higher debt ratios, lower league places, less appearance money, bigger losses and its a disappearing trick waiting to happen.
The disparity in the league between 6 clubs and the rest under the current structure reinforces their status, their profits and the disparity grows each season.
No club below then can break into the elite, yet it is those very elite who are responsible for the excesses that we are paying for.
There is no doubt until a level playing field is established its a case of the EPL protecting their cash cow, their golden egg.
Abandon FFP. its the only way a few can now break the glass ceiling.
Finally, if the EPL want to set a max 12 point limit, are they suggesting that the likes of Chelsea or Man City can ONLY have a max of 12 points for their sum total of offences?

Yes that was me and at least on face value, from what we know so far, I can see no reason why the same panel should not consider compensation. I've seen no evidence of bias in their findings to date. But I imagine it will be a lot trickier proving and calculating compensation than demonstrating breach, given the open goal we left them.

There are two important issues for me. First, that the panel that decides our appeal on points deduction is not the same as before. By far the weakest part of the commission's finding was point 139, which amounted to, well we reckon it's 10 points. It was in contrast to the forensic approach in the previous 138 points. Another set of lawyers, without any real precedent to work to, could easily come up with a different guesstimate.

Second, and even more important, is that the sale goes through. As it stands, and from what I've read, it looks like we are protected from claims through Moshiri's guarantees. It appears that any cost arising from the breach, whether relegation or a compensation claim, comes straight off his proceeds. The threat is, if he can pull out (or the agreement isn't actually signed) or the FA decide to deem 777 as unfit for ownership. If the latter happens, I'll start to believe conspiracy. Short of a last minute white knight, that could be us done for.

I was thinking the same re maximum points bring limited to 12 if Man City etc were guilty. But someone said it was 12 points per breach??

Also if we are sued, should we not sue anyone above us found guilty?

Whole thing is ridiculous and could go on for years…

I don't believe that the FA did ban Siggy. If that was the case, then there are a fair number of other players who should have been suspended, including the P fella from Arsenal.

If I'm wrong, then I apologise, but the club did make this statement at the time (who do you believe, this or a flawed panel?):

“Everton can confirm it has suspended a First-Team player pending a police investigation” a club statement said.

If this was indeed the case, then GS was treated poorly by the club and I hope that he does get some compensation through suing us. Remember, he lost much more - proportionately - than the club did as a consequence of charges that were eventually dropped.

If the club did indeed actively consider suing GS, then they are a bunch of utter gobshites. Hang on, apparently not, because they chose not to do so because of mental health considerations. Empathy and quick knee-jerk reaction, what more could you ask for in a board?

Hang on (x2)! Silly me. The FA/PL whoever obviously got in touch with the club striking while the iron was hot to order us to ban our player and we said plaintively absolutely lads, consider it done, we're Everton, we always do things right, and all those other clubs always say to themselves "so what would Everton do".

Logically the FA banning Siggy makes no sense versus Mendy, Greenwood, Johnson, Partey etc but whether they did or didn't the commission mentioned this in response to Everton's claim for extenuating circumstances and said such a ban along with the Ukraine was an an “expected” business event. So if the FA didn't ban Sig — as seems likely based on previous Everton statements and FA actions — then Everton seemingly lied to the commission.

Link

When reading Ian Herbert's excellent article about the stadium I still think it's tough in the extreme not to give us a some fiscal leeway when we are trying to create an important piece of regenerative infrastructure without any public money as other clubs have benefited from.

I know we've all done this to death over the past week or so and I think most of us feel the same and will continue to comment.

We were found guilty and got punished. No getting away from that.

The punishment was harsh and now we appeal it with a hope we can reduce it. I just hope we put up a more coherent and less flakey argument than it appears we have done to date.

The fact the same commission will review the claims to sue us is, well, quite frankly ridiculous.

And where does the suing stop? The top six for denying six places in the league? Forest for overspending and buying 138 players (deliberate exaggeration, but it was a lot)? Previous examples where there has been multiple financial settlements?

I could go on, but let's face it, all clubs have been at it for years. Including those now wanting to sue us.

They didn't get relegated because Everton spent a lot of money on average players. They got relegated because they didn't win enough points.

I pine for the day we get back to football.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it does seem like the knives are out for Everton and I can't understand why. It's not like we got English football banned from European competition for 5 years.

The vast majority of opposition supporters like us. And I meet a lot on my travels.

Sunday is going to be an emotional day at Goodison. Wrath and fury springs to mind. Make it passionate, but let's keep it sensible and not give an already gang of circling hawks more reason to dive in to justify their incompetency in decision making. Entitlement and abuse of power springs to mind.

Forget Everton for a minute, we are being made an example of. Those clubs suing us, the Premier League, the media. They are forgetting the people who support our beautiful game. The supporters. It is us who will suffer the most.

I'm going to get dramatic and political now.

There is a Covid enquiry taking place. It's not the British public in the firing line, it is the leaders.

The Nurnberg Trials didn't target the German population, it targeted those responsible who were in positions of authority and making the decisions.

Going all dramatic relating to my personal experiences. From the school playground, to the Army, to the IRA and Loyalist terrorists. The various groupings in the former Yugoslavia. The Taliban.

Stand up to bullies who pick an easy target. They soon back down. Stand up and fight Everton. Get me on the panel to stand up to those people in grey suits.

Manchester United and three points on Sunday. That is all we can focus on right now.

It's only Wednesday before the next match and as usual I have music on in the background. Ray Charles "I can't stop loving you" and Elvis Costello "Oliver's Army".

Don't accept this Everton. Fight it. If they pursue, then similar proportional punishment has to be applied to others.

I'm not dismissing the mismanagement and incompetence of how the the club has been run over decades. But there has been a mismanagement of football in general and it genuinely feels like we've been singled out.

A strange red sky over the park where I walk the dogs every day this morning. The last time I saw something similar was the Palace match. A sign? Wishful thinking but right now I'm really only thinking about Sunday. That is what is directly in front of us.

Just a small point, the individuals on the appeal body won't be same as those who were on the original Commission. Doesn't mean to say we can't question their independence but they will be different individuals.

Yes, there are some mitigating circumstances, most notably the loss of our Oligarch sponsorship, but that apart it appears we simply spent money when none was available. Sadly the troubles of the last few years look set to continue and it seems most likely that we will eventually find ourselves in administration.

Even now, we do not have an experienced board of Directors, or the management personnel to run the Club responsibly. Who knows when this night mare will end ? But you can be sure it will not end well for our once famous and well respected Club.

If administration or any relegation occurs, they will also suffer.

Was he suspended on full pay, other than appearance and performance bonus?

It is perfectly legit for the Club to suspend a player under police investigation for abuse.That right would be written into their safeguarding policy and the players contract.
Unfortunately it is normal in the UK for such a investigation to take two year before a innocent person is exonerated.

If he was not paid then it is a totally different matter.Unless there was a clause in his contract, something I have never heard of before.

A La Liga club can appeal to CAS, e.g. Julian Araujo transfer to Barcelona.

A Bundesliga side can appeal to CAS (even against a Premier League club) as Leipzig did against Leeds.

The FA of a country can take an appeal to CAS, e.g. Germany against FIFA.

Premier League clubs can take a case to CAS against UEFA judgments e.g. Liverpool, Tottenham, Manchester United, Arsenal, Wolves, Leicester, Burnley and Chelsea against Man City/UEFA.

As CAS state “An appeal against the decision of a federation, association or sports-related body may be filed with the CAS insofar as the statutes or regulations of the said body so provide.”

But under PL rules no club can appeal any sanction made by the PL to CAS, the rules don't allow it. The PL wouldn't want a body they don't control checking their judgement. They ensure that their own ineptitude, bias and corruption can't be challenged. It stinks. Shame on all the PL clubs who signed up to this power grab while all they obsessed with was their own cut of the TV money.

Ian Jones. That is a very good and more important point.

Danny, way too early. We don't yet know who they are. But do know that they will be drawn from the second half of the EPL panel. Initial Commission members are chosen from the first half of the panel. Appeals body members are drawn from the other half. I don't know what you mean by being from the same club?

We, as fans, have had no say in any player selections, wages or other totally inane contracts offers to ill-suited managers and players. Yet We are the ones most affected.

By club, I mean those at the Brunel Building near to Paddington Station, the Premier League HQ.

Hopefully see you Sunday mate and you can console me or knock some sense into me.

Derek, let me know if you're around.

I'm not sure that going into administration, leaving these issues behind us and ‘phoenix' again from the Championship might not be a terrible idea!!!!

Maybe if James Maddison could take a penalty properly, then Leicester probably wouldn't have gone down. Maybe if Leeds weren't getting hammered every week, and try and win a few points, maybe they wouldn't have gone down. Maybe the same with Southampton, who, even had we been deducted ten points last season, would still have finished bottom. These three teams went down because they were shite, nothing at all to do with PSR. I agree that only Leicester have a case as such, but hark back to the first sentence this paragraph.

We all know what the outcome of this referal for compensation will be, so just cut out the middle man and tell the said clubs to get their claim in. We can then tell them to fuck off, because we're going into administration and won't be able to pay you a penny. It will also cost you millions in lawyer fees, and while we're at it, you can also pay back your parachute payments. So after all that, that should hopefully see you worse off. 🤞🤞🤞

I would also suggest we don't start over hyping everything, I thought that greeting the players with all the flares just put more pressure on them. We don't want players losing their heads and possibly going down to 10 men which wont help. Our support over the last few years has been as good as any I can remember, so just keep that level of support and we will be fine. There are still 26 league games left and I don't see us having any problem putting daylight between the bottom 3 and ourselves, provided we don't have a bad run of injuries.

Now I am sure Goodison will be at its most brilliant hostile self on Sunday, but lets not lose perspective this is a tough game and Man Utd will be desperate to get their season back on track.

It's be share by many but the initial measures weren't closed punishment, which it should have been. This opens the club to further claims, which is currently estimated at £300m. Let's assume only 1 of the claims is successful as we're only one club and could only exchange places with one other. that's £100m off the bottom line. Next season we have to make that up or risk falling foul of the same FFP rules. At best, this means a limited transfers. At worst selling a number of players to make up the balance: Pickford, Branthwaite and DCL? If, for whatever reason the balance is made up... do we get fined again? Do we get another claim against us?

To add to that, the PL are not encouraging openness and honesty from the clubs as Everton went to the PL for support and assistance. The outcome is horrendous.

Rolling the impact is not only a significant number of clubs being brought to account but they too will become open to lawsuits. Are we saying the last 3 years league tables were wrong and will be redressed? How many of those relegated clubs will open claims because 'Man city or Utd beat them on the final day of the season'?

Whilst I hope the appeal will find sympathetic ears, I'm not convinced. The best we can hope is for a small points reduction, but the claims may still come.

The only potential route forward, aside from administration would be for 777 to complete the takeover quickly and hope they have deep pockets as they claim.

If this plays out as the EPL wants ( as many of us suspect) we will be relegated AND bankrupt.

For £20 million.

THing is, I honestly don't think that any right minded football fan wants to see this happen. No matter how partisan they are. I actually think that when this happens (and I actually think it probably will happen now), all it shows is this is only what the EPL wants.

They sold (a long time ago) sporting integrity for money and power. THey are now desperately trying to hold on to it. WIth us to the dogs first. And I think that most (maybe all ?) football fans will know it.

The problem for the EPL is that they are trying to broker this thru the courts. They think the law holds the power. BUt it doesnt. Not in this case - its actually public opinion which holds the power. And I think public opinion is already swinging against them. When (if) we are forced into bankruptcy and as a result relegated, I think the EPL have under-estimated the force of public opinion against them. It may be the (short term) end of Everton as we know it, but it will most certainly be the end of the EPL as well.

one thing is worth restating though. I think we must reject the analysis that this is just 'grandstanding' to show that the PL are toughening up. You don't put a billion pound business out of business just to prove a point. this is political

I'll be amazed though if 777 stick around now. I just can't see that Farhad will have agreed to a clause which indemnifies them against any costs incurred by this commission. Much more likely he'll have hedged his bets, such that the deal only goes through following the verdict if both parties are happy. Again, another disaster, as our wise and all knowing overlord isn't putting in another brass farthing so into administration we would go unless there is another buyer waiting in the wings.

It wasn't that the PL simply changed their minds.

Moshiri had advanced interest free loans to finance the stadium but strangely Everton deducted interest in respect of these interest free loans from their P&S calculation.

When the PL discovered that the wool had been pulled over their eyes they subsequently disallowed the interest element.

It was the Premier league that advised us to sell Richarlison, it was the Premier league who advised to sell Gordon, we should counter act and say our position on the field was weakened, as a direct result of the Premier leagues advice, and that had we not sold both players, we might of finished in a higher position last season, which because of a lower league placing, has cost us additional extra prize money and the possibility of other clubs trying to Sue, because we finished with less points than we might of had.

We had no reason to sell either player, if we are to be believed, that it was stadium costs, we never gained an advantage as a result of the over spend, if anything it weakened our team.

If you look at Forest who brought in well over 30 players last season, had Everton done that, I would say fair enough, we gained a sporting advantage, but we haven't, all we did the last two seasons is be transparent with the Premier league, they ill advised us to sell two of our players, so why did the Premier league not pick up on the money being in the wrong account.

Why is it that Spurs picked up Richarlison for £20 million less,who by the way signs for one of the elite six, as a direct result of them finding out, would not be surprised if someone within the Premier league tipped Spurs the wink to bid lower.

If those teams have an ounce of decency they should hold their hands up and say we got relegated down to our own doing and not as a direct result of another team gaining a sporting advantage, we never cheated and brought in players that gained us extra points.

Anyway let's see how this all pans out, going to be tasty on Sunday.

It makes me raise the question:
While we had two legal people arguing our case to the Commission, did we lack a finance expert when it came to actually speaking to the Commission.

Below, I have reproduced the article (from the Derby Evening Telegraph). But the key quote from Maguire is:

"This is why perhaps Everton have taken position A on the matter and the Premier League have taken position B."

Of course, I could be talking bollocks, barking up the wrong tree. But there has to be some reason why we were hit with such a severe penalty.

The article (from the Derby Evening Telegraph):

The dark circumstances of Derby County's administration sparked a change that affected the points deduction handed to Everton last week.

When the Rams' case went before an EFL commission, there was nobody with a financial background hearing their case. Sport finance expert Nick Igoe sat on the commission that found against Everton, and another expert has explained that decision.

Football finance expert Kieran Maguire told his Price of Football podcast: "I can understand the viewpoint, but if we take a look at the case of Derby County when it was up before an EFL commission, one of the criticisms levelled at the commission was that there was not somebody with a financial background.

"If evidence is being presented to three people, you know, let's say it was a jury, we're effectively a three-person jury. Having expert knowledge, in my view, is beneficial, because you hear things once and you scribble down and you try to interpret what that person has said.

"My personal view is that having somebody such as Nick Igoe on the panel is beneficial because it could be that a lot of the ultimate penalty and a lot of the ultimate sanction does rotate around some very technical accounting issues.

"So if you hear something, yeah, I know that when I explain things once to a class when I'm teaching, a lot of people are going, I didn't really understand that, but they don't really want to ask the question again and again. That's why I do video versions of all my lectures because it allows people to understand that bit and then go and watch the video.

"So by having somebody with an accounting and finance background, it allows them to see if there's a question coming from one of the legal people and say well this is the rule and I can point you to the actual accounting standards where this comes from and this and say this is equivocal or this is ambiguous.

"This is why perhaps Everton have taken position A on the matter and the Premier League have taken position B.

"My view is that if you've got two lawyers, you don't need three and therefore having somebody from a financial background, given that this case, if it was something to do with the a player or an incident on the pitch, get the accountant off. But this all relates to financial issues, so therefore having a financial background is a benefit."

It could also be that the Everton representatives naively hoped the show would guide the board away from a financial deep dive into a more pragmatic way of thinking. In reality what this probably reflected is the club didn't consider the issue to be important enough financially. In essence, the punishment could have been upgraded because they felt Everton weren't taking it seriously enough.

All conjecture as I don't know.

Liverpool are leading the push,for the Premier League to resolve Manchester City's financial fair play case!

Football reflects our wider society, get the bottom feeders to fight amongst themselves, ensure that the higher echelons are protected and continue to help them enhance their position over time, and if a few of the lesser lights endure injustice or hardships tough, that's the way the cookie crumbles - suck it up suckers.

Hi Robert

Thank you for your email.

We appreciate you taking the time to contact us to share your view.

The link below contains the information we are able to share on the independent Commission's findings. It includes links to the independent Commission's full written report and a further related decision by the Chair of the Commission. It also contains a summary of relevant Premier League Rules:

Everton FC deducted 10 points by independent Commission (premierleague.com)

The article also outlines the processes and Rules used to define Premier League investigations and the powers of the Commission. You can read or download a copy of the Premier League Handbook at the link below. The relevant sections are E (Finance) and W (Disciplinary).

premierleague.com/about/publications

Kind regards,

Hisham

Supporter Relations

It's pretty obvious, that a re-hash of the arguments set before the appeals commission will only result in that commission coming to the same conclusions as the original commission in which case the punishment will stand.

I can't see how the new commission will reach different conclusions, with new evidence deemed inadmissible, and if they don't come to different conclusions, then they surely won't be able to justify any reduction of the penalty?

No they don't have to prove we gained a sporting advantage the Commission have already decided that we did.

The other clubs have to prove that they suffered financial loss directly as a consequence. Not that easy to do.

First stop should be hiring and consulting the best lawyers in the land followed by an injunction stopping this penalty being applied and partly on the basis that other clubs actions still to be dealt with may have an affect on the outcome.

Sweat the bastards!

Barry, I agree. The case, the evidence, and the arguments against us were collectively so strong, and our own defence so embarrassing and weak, that I don't see we can do anything other than plead leniency (and I'm not aware of any complaints from Everton about lack of due process, independence of the Commission, etc).

We didn't deny we'd broken the EPL spending limits. We pleaded mitigations (presumably in the hope of leniency). Those arguments for mitigations were essentially not seen as strong by the Commission, who spoke about us being "less than frank". Not only that but the Commission actually stressed the number and level of "aggravations". They referred to our "failure to manage finances"; "intention to gain a sporting advantage", "irresponsibly taking chances that things would turn out", and our "consequent culpability [being] great".

Ouch!

What you have in your last para on this post is the most critical thing right now. If your suspicion is correct, we are in dire straits.

But if I may cheer you up, would 777 really have made a down payment of £50-80m without a water tight sale agreement that spelt out the level of compensation shortfall as indemnity against relegation and/or compensation claims? After all, they were well trailed.

I'd like to think 777 is not quite as amateur and slapstick as our owner and his useless board...

They have already – quite correctly – found the club guilty of not only going over their long-established limit of £105M but also of trying to mislead the commission as to how they tried to justify their losses.

Having read the report in full (only once mind!), I believe the club has no wriggle room to re-defend their case, they would only be delivering the same argument from a different angle, as nothing new has happened since the guilty verdict.

The severity of the sentence and how they reached the verdict (ie, 10-point deduction) is also defined within the report.

Having said the above and in a mood of desperation, for me the club has three areas in which they can attack the verdict.

a) In my mind, some of the accounting practises used on which the panel based their argument can be questioned.

b) 9 points for going into administration has to be the benchmark for any such punishment, as that is a case of last resort.

c) A political argument and the damage it will cause the city if the club are forced into administration as a result of this panel's decision. A Government Regular may take a more serious view of this angle than the present panel.

I get where you're coming from, and it's annoying that the club didn't get a signed, sealed and delivered go-ahead from the Premier League to protect itself from falling foul of the P&S on things relating to the stadium that could or couldn't be used to alleviate the clubs losses.

From the outside, looking in, it does appear that the 'clowns' in charge of the club, thought they were being clever and had found a loophole to reduce the 'losses', but all too late, it found out that it wasn't that clever and has only served to annoy the Premier League, even more than it could have, if the club had been more transparent and had sought proper formal advice from the Premier League.

I think I've said all I can on the subject.

All I am thinking about is beating Manchester United at Goodison on Sunday.

We shall not be moved.

Quarter final next month under the Goodison lights.

Marching with pride and defiance. Loud and proud.

https://twitter.com/mikeygow/status/1727324898652311595

We are experiencing a 10 point deduction NOW. I understand that we have been found (technically) guilty and that we must receive a punishment.

I recognise that our evasion of relegation impacted on other clubs, notably Burnley ( in '22) and Leicester ( in '23). I know that other clubs were involved, but that their case is weakened by their performance being so poor compared to our's. Hence, it is being suggested that only BFC and LCFC will have any right to claim compensation, and that these claims if successful could send us into administration.

Our breaches of PSR were suspected at some point going back 'a few years'. Now those breaches have been confirmed and we are being punished now.

We were not punished in either of the previous two seasons, because the EPL had not actually brought a case against us due to their own inertia - one might make reference to our transfer dealings in that time and our cooperation with the EPL, but that clearly didn't cut any ice with the panel. So, they have let this situation fester and impact on us, BFC and LCFC.

So, if we had been docked points two seasons ago we would have been relegated, BFC would have survived and no-one would be claiming against anyone. If we had been docked points last season the same situation would be extant, but with LCFC maintaining their premier league status.

My point is that the club's ineptitude could only have led to one historical points deduction, and thus would only have seen us relegated once. Not twice. So how can more than one club have any claim against US as a result of the EPL dragging their feet over the matter ? We carried on playing to survive in spite of any 'prosecution' of this case and attained our own safety in good faith with the tacit approval of the EPL at that time.

So, now we face a current penalty and the double jeopardy of a compensation claim from both BFC and LCFC ? How can that be ? I can see that one of those clubs might have a possible claim ( irrespective of its specific merits ), but not the other. In truth, as we are receiving our punishment now, I think that the past is irrelevant and neither club have a claim and I would exhort them 'suck it up' just in the way that we have been told to.

To be punished once is enough, and anything more than that is actually going to affect our ability to operate as business. So, shouldn't this be referred to the Office of Fair Trading ?

By the way I am not even entertaining the 'sporting advantage' debate.

Furthermore, if the claims being made against us by BFC and LCFC are successful, then do we not have right to sue the EPL for their supervised neglect of the whole situation.

This conundrum has been keeping me awake at night, so if someone could put me right I'd be very grateful...or do I have a valid point ?

Help.

This does not represent a “sporting advantage” – if anything, it shows the exact opposite that our “performance” was deteriorating from 2018-19 onwards. This trend obviously continued into 2022-23.

We could all see this. How can any commission come to the conclusion that a £19.5M overspend over these 3 seasons gave us a sporting advantage?

That is a very fair point and a good summation of the inherent contradictions here.

If we are to effectively take the cost of another relegated club, in the form of compensation for being in the EFL, then how can a points deduction this season, if it leads to relegation, be reasonable. It surely has to be one or the other.

If we, for example, paid Leicester compensation equivalent to it being us going down, how can it be proportionate for this seasons points deduction to still apply?

I wonder if, at the very least, if our points deduction is not a means to mitigate compensation claims?

In any case, while it's hard to appeal the breach – we were bang to rights – how can anyone prove loss from performance gains? How can you quantify those? Leicester have the best case. Had the case been heard last season, we would be down, and they escaped, and if they can prove that our behaviour prevented it being heard last season, then they have a good chance on that line of argument.

I thought I was going mad with this idea, but I think it holds water.

And to expand on what you say The Premier League are culpable for spinning this out unnecessarily. Their indolence, premeditated or not, is not our fault.

It is theirs and we should have grounds to claim against them (The Premier League). Or put more succinctly: they have needlessly exacerbated a situation... but we all know that they are not fit for purpose at best... at worst,... well we all what they are in that case.

That, Mark, I think may be a very salient comment. Would it be fair to surmise that had this investigation concluded last season, or even the season before, the points deduction may have been less? So it may be quite possible that an arbitrary figure of 3 or 4 points per season may have been thrown at us, with a couple added for good measure.

It all becomes incredibly convoluted and impossible to quantify the contagion effect of the timing of different sanctions, or indeed how we may have reacted.

The practical difficulty is that the Premier League have never implemented real-time reporting so that breaches are not dealt with contemporaneously. Given the commission introduced an immediate deduction for us then both of the points you made should follow – retrospective application is double counting and we could only have been relegated once, not twice.

Of course, if this was to be heard in a court of law rather than the commission, I'd be much more confident of the position!

'When Rangers were relegated to Scottish 3rd Division, the SFA ran all the leagues. It not the case in England, so it may not be possible.'

So, if the expectation is that Man City or Chelsea might end up further down the leagues if found guilty of whatever, it might not be that simple

Just a thought

The only possible affected clubs would be Burnley who are already in the Premier League and Leeds who have a good chance of returning this season. Why should Everton pay out any club for the long-winded way the Premier League decide to go about their business.

Yes, presumably if the likes of Man City were kicked out of the Premier League, then they would have to apply to the Football League to be admitted to one of their leagues? Would they be accepted? to which league / division? etc?

It centres around the Sheffield Weds case that the independent commission used as a precedent.

I'll leave you to read it, it is fascinating and encouraging. Best I've seen so far.

https://twitter.com/mikeygow/status/1727136418114285948

Also, the appeal needs to be sorted sharpish. Imagine that we are in the bottom three at the end of the season, say three points from safety, the proverbial will hit he fan if their decision becomes "do we reduce the penalty to six points because it was too harsh in the first place" and we stay up or "do we send them down by reducing the penalty by a couple of points, because we are nice" and we still go down?

This "no sporting advantage" thing is I think a misunderstanding of what the commission have said.

They make it very clear that, because there was a breach of the PSR threshold, then that means by definition Everton had a sporting advantage over other clubs who remained compliant with the P&S rules.

They have not said expressly that a sporting advantage was present, they have inferred that one would exist, ie, they have proceeded on the assumption that one was present.

The only possible advantage we have, is that we do have an opportunity to gain enough points ourselves, to ensure we stay up, but it won't be at all easy.

Since when did football stop being a contest of scoring more goals than your opponents and become a contest of who could make the most money.

My irk is not with you, btw, it is with the 'modern' shiteness of the game where everything is about money. It's a dog's-turd of a situation and not the 'sport' I grew up loving. Might as well be called Tesco United.

The confusion arises because the Commission conclude in the report that Everton did not deliberately gain a sporting advantage but as you suggest they also accepted the legal precedent that sporting advantage automatically arises from a breach of PSR.

To be on 4 points after 14 games and still be just 2 points from safety suggests that the points total required to stay up this season will be lower than in previous seasons. 32 points will likely be enough to stay up.

This is a good team that Sean Dyche is putting together. It's got hunger and some good quality. We'll be comfortably okay come the end of this season.

Barry @139, that's a good idea.

But do the Premier League have a documented Code of Ethics?

As surely Everton are being discriminated against if the clubs with the most charges are having no action taken against them?

UTFTs!

I can only quote the commission report (#92):

"A breach of the PSR involves an overspend in excess of £105 million above the target of a nil PSR loss. It is therefore at any level a serious breach. Further, as was recognised in Sheffield Wednesday FC v The Football League Ltd a breach of the PSR will confer a sporting advantage on the defaulting club, to the detriment of
competing clubs who have managed their finances more responsibly.

Alex, I can only assume that at least 14 of the Premier League clubs voted to approve this principle at the time it was adopted by the Premier League, back in 2013? Probably including Everton.

I agree that Everton no doubt agreed to it. But the fact remains that football is as much, if not more about business than it is outscoring your opponents. Sad, really.

They do go on to say that it is proper to draw an inference that a sporting advantage is gained, but I think this is weaker than them saying 'breach of rule = sporting advantage'.

And I think they are right to be cautious. The principle that breach of accountancy rules automatically confers a sporting advantage is clearly nonsense if you think about it.

I thought the Commission accepted the legal precedent determined in the Sheffield Wednesday case that a breach of financial limits confers a sporting advantage.

Pretty clear to my mind – unless I am mistaken on the wording – that they accepted Everton had received a sporting advantage.

They did not say, an accountancy breach must equal sporting advantage.

I think they ended up with sporting advantage can properly be inferred from a breach… and they then chose to infer it.

I need to read the report again as I've obviously missed the point where the Commission characterised it as an accountancy breach.

I thought they simply saw it as a financial breach and ipso facto a sporting advantage was conferred.

Be helpful however if you could point me to the relevant sections?

Para 95. I'm not sure there is a difference between financial breach and accountancy breach in the context I was referring to?

I was making the point that us getting our deductions wrong on the stadium automatically conferring an advantage on the pitch is clearly a nonsense.

The Premier League at P.90 were arguing that financial breach automatically leads to advantage. The commission say at P.95 that an advantage may properly be inferred.

It's not the same. An inference is a deduction that may be made from the available evidence: it is not a statement of fact.

From the report P.92:

Further, as was recognised in Sheffield Wednesday FC v The Football League Ltd a breach of the PSR will confer a sporting advantage on the defaulting club, to the detriment of competing clubs who have managed their finances more responsibly.

Yes, that's their summary of the Premier League's contentions.

And the Commission did not suggest that the application of that precedent was in any way incorrect

In fact in P.95 that you refer to they state:

"We also recognise that the inference of a sporting advantage is one that should properly be drawn from the fact of a PSR breach"

In other words they are saying it's more than merely an inference — it's the correct inference to draw from the fact of a breach.

If a door slams, you can infer that the person who walked through it was in a bad mood. but that inference may be wrong. there is an element of doubt there, it may vary depending on the circumstances.

I was just trying to make the point that it is not set in stone that breach must equal advantage, rather it is an 'inference' that can properly be drawn.

To use your example, the Commission agreed with the inference that the person who slammed the door was in a bad mood was the proper inference to draw.

You also still haven't addressed why the Commission accepted the legal precedent outlined in the Wednesday case without qualification.

I've been an Evertonian since I was a wee boy in the 80s and my old man was a season ticket holder in the 60s and 70s. He's sadly no longer with us.

I'm absolutely livid with the Premier League and the corrupt twats that run it. I'll haunt them for this 10-point deduction for the rest of my days. Money, power, corruption...

And he decides our fate? — What a corrupt crock of shit.

I have been following Everton too long to expect any clemency from anyone. No – we are on our own and the only thing we can do is fight our way out of it.

Pick your battleground. If we are to win this fight, it will be at Goodison and other football grounds around the country – not at any bent commission, tribunal, or court of law.

In other words it's down to the fans, the manager, the players, and last but not least, every person who earns a living working for Everton football club. Their livelihoods are threatened.

We have admitted that we exceeded the £105 million threshold, so focus on the mitigation and the penalty rather than fighting the charge.

Particularly as the Premier League did move the goal-posts on the question of writing off interest on stadium loans.

Either way onwards and upwards.

Everton should be concentrating on limiting the compensation and with better arguements, claw back what has been seen as point-deduction overkill, in reduced compensation. Public pressure has reduced the point deduction from 12 to 10 points.

The remit for the Independent Commission already exists. It will remain to be seen whether Everton is being made an example of, when the Premier League deals with other worst-case scenarios.

Going by present standards, clubs could face expulsion from the Premier League, against the backdrop of an emerging European Super League or something similar with Arab connections.

How, if not by appealing?

This is the email address to send to the premier league:

Info@premierleague.com

You should get a reply from Hisham. I've sent two emails so far, and he has replied to both.

Appeal by all means to keep the whole argument going. The points deduction was carefully worked out. Severe enough to get noticed, but not enough to relegate Everton. If they were relegated, it would be more difficult to pay compensation.

Now the compensation has to be worked out. The Commission was ambiguous regarding the effect on competing teams' survival. So it will take a substantial amount of evidence by competing clubs to claim compensation. Everton will be able to put forward their arguments against.

The fact that Moshiri has an agreement with 777 Partners could mean that the costs of compensation could fall on him and the present state of Everton's finances could remain the same. The Commission will be very interested in Moshiri, because that is where the money is, that if received, may not affect the Premier League.

The compensation is always the money available equivalent to the settlement plus costs. That is where the real action is, all the rest is dressing and manipulation.

Yes Moshiri is 'You're the Man'. The Golden Goose is about to get plucked.

I haven't had time to read the commission's report, but a few posts are now adamant that they said we did gain a sporting advantage?

Could someone enlighten me please?

Assuming 777 Partners are accepted by the authorities and have money to invest into this accounting period, how do they do it without affecting P & S rules? As I understand it, they can't just lob £200M into the pot.

Can any accountants on here please explain what can actually happen?

The way it's been done by Moshiri is in the form of interest-free loans, with these later converted to equity by the issuance of new shares in Everton FC Co Ltd.

This must be all above board as the major mode of Everton funding … otherwise, the nasty commission would have been all over it!

However, according to some computer calculation (yeh, I know), we have the hardest run in to Christmas. Besides, we're only a Branthwaite red card away from destabilising our defence.

I think we will escape relegation but only with the aid of a points reduction on appeal.

As for compensation, there appears to be a growing acceptance that it is inevitable. I'm of the opinion that a sporting advantage is unprovable and that, even if Burnley or Leicester do put together a plausible argument for it, only one team can win it.

After all, if Burnley have a case, then we shouldn't be punished for the fact that the deduction wasn't applied at the end of the 2021-22 season, ie, any case that Leicester City might have would become a matter between them and the Premier League.

As for Southampton, Leeds and Forest, their claims are laughable.

In Burnley's and Leicester's cases, the effects of parachute payments would have to be taken into account.

One uncertainty is whether that cost is included in current/new P&S calculations and whether that leads to another breach for a later year. That's complicated. The other is whether the sale agreement has been signed and is legally binding.

The points appeal is obviously the side which would give us a tangible impact on our prospects, if we can reduce the penalty.

However, I think we may have a stronger case defending the compensation part than the points appeal part. Apart possibly from Leicester, who could advance a very different case on timing of the points deduction, affected clubs will, IMHO, have their work cut out to quantify a performance advantage that would have put them down.

I'm not sure how we can make a positive argument against what appears to be an arbitrary level of points deduction. Best chance might be using the 9 points for administration as a baseline.

The Premier League's address is 57 North Wharf Road. London. W2 1HQ.

It will be pretty difficult for Everton to avoid the dreaded drop, unless the draconian points deduction is significantly reduced or overturned.

We can argue that, due to the lowish points that our competitors at the bottom have accrued so far, that gives Everton a fighting chance for survival; let's hope so.

Having said that, the lowest number of points needed to avoid relegation in the past 10 years has been 29, Fulham were relegated in 18th spot on 28 points in 2020-21.

The highest required was in 2015/16 when Newcastle were doomed to the Championship having gained 38 points.

The average number of points required to beat the drop in the previous ten years, is 35, which if that total was required this season would mean that Everton need a further 31 points from the 26 remaining matches.

If we get lucky then we'll require the lowest amount of points (29), which still means we'll require just under a point a game to survive.

Given we have only played Liverpool away and Arsenal at home from the historically entrenched top group, that means that we still have to play a good number of fixtures that in normal circumstances we would find difficult to get points from.

The result on Sunday is paramount, as it always is, even if the circumstances surrounding the game are probably going to overshadow events out on the pitch.

Get that points deduction overturned, and we'll be in with more than sporting chance of survival, if we don't, it'll be a very testing and nail-biting start to 2024.

Ahem, especially during an unbeaten streak, seriously.

The sporting advantage is mentioned six times in the report:

1. "breach of the PSR will confer a sporting advantage on the defaulting club, to the detriment of competing clubs who have managed their finances more responsibly."

2. Repeated above

3. "We also recognise that the inference of a sporting advantage is one that should properly be drawn from the fact of a PSR breach, and that sporting advantage will have been enjoyed for each of the seasons on which the PSR calculation was based – in this case, because of Covid, four seasons."

4. "The fact that that sporting advantage cannot be quantified but must be inferred underlines the need for a sanction that imposes a proper punishment."

5. "For example, a deliberate cynical breach of the PSR to achieve a sporting advantage might increase culpability beyond that already arrived at by the extent of the breach. We do not think that this is such a case. Everton may have taken unwise risks, but it did so in the mistaken belief that it would achieve PSR compliance: it is not a case of a deliberate breach."

6. "The Premier League relies on the decision in Sheffield Wednesday FC v The Football League Ltd: a sporting advantage is to be inferred so that anything other than a points deduction would be simply inappropriate."

So a breach of PSR is viewed as conferring a sporting advantage. On this issue all we've been found not guilty of is having broken PSR deliberately. But most bizarrely and worryingly as it can't be quantified it must apparently result in a previously undefined and random punishment. It's truly Kafkaesque that ultimately we are being punished for something that is impossible to express or measure.

The fact that we gained no true sporting advantage because we were run by idiots isn't covered. We didn't need a report to confirm that.

I don't think either Ray or myself are claiming that Everton will definitely be relegated. Speaking for myself, I'm merely pointing out how difficult it will be, with the 10 points deducted.

I can't see how a 25% reduction of 40 points, the usual target for a club in our circumstances is anything less than a huge handicap to the team. We are possibly not nearly as bad a team as this time last year, but we are far from an accomplished Premier League team either.

I was very confident, prior to last Friday's announcement that Everton would end up quite comfortably in mid-table. That might still prove to be the case; however, the size of the points deduction will play more than a significant part as to where we end up.

We can't just grit our teeth and whoop and holler our way to winning points, the team still has to win out on the pitch and that will be just as difficult to do as it was prior to the points deduction.

Unlike the other teams down there, we are on a decent run at the moment, and as we all know, are only down there due to this points deduction. The other teams are down there because they are shite, no other reason for it.

Luton, Sheffield United and Burnley have 15 points between them. None of these three are going to go on any kind of winning streak, and once we get out of the Bottom 3, we will stay out of it, points re-instated or not.

Why should our current form change as a result of the deduction? Simple answer is, it won't. Going on current form, I think, and know, we can beat Man Utd, and Forest next week. Trust me, now is not the time for any club to be playing us.

Sheffield United @ 1/5
Luton Town @ 2/9
Burnley @ 8/13
Everton @ 2/1
Bournemouth @ 5/2
Fulham @ 7/1
Nottingham Forest @ 8/1

Your post pretty much nails the lie that the Commission did not find that we gained a sporting advantage.

Perhaps we should have introduced the fact that we gained a sporting advantage but monumentally fucked it up as a "mitigating factor"?

That's a misrepresentation of what I wrote. The historical mathematics of the situation, I have clearly set out, and it will only take one of those Bottom 3 sides to get their act together, in order to challenge Everton in the relegation stakes.

If the team does what we all want the team to do and picks up lots of points this side of 2024, we'll likely be okay, but if we don't and the others begin to pick up points more regularly, then we could start 2024 in the relegation places.

It's not a prediction that I made, rather a guideline to historical facts that highlight the difficulties we face, if the deduction of 10 points remains in place.

Last week, we needed 21 points to get to the average safety total of 35, today we need 31 points to reach that target. Obviously the lower the safety target becomes, if the other teams at the bottom continue on their current trend, the better our chances of survival.

Okay mate, you've made your point, but citing me as being fearful is true, as I've been a supporter of this club for a long long-time and it's difficult enough to be optimistic in normal circumstances, never mind this weird period we find ourselves in.

However, do you think that the bookmakers' odds fail to take into account historical mathematical trends?

Instead of the normal January blues, Everton know they are in a fight early on and all the recent years' experience will count, as well as the resilience that has counted in their survival in the past.

They are actually playing better football than they have played for years.

We're on a good run – How often have we “turned the corner” in the past?

We're by no means cut adrift but we have a difficult run-up to Christmas. Are we really going to take too many points off the likes of Man City?

The other teams are bound to pick up some points as they play each other.

The three promoted sides are crap but how do we know one of them might just put a run together? Like Forest did last season – and they were crap too. Or Leicester in the season before they became Champions.

We have a thin squad. Who knows what injuries and suspensions might do?

There's another transfer window coming up. Who knows who will buy whom and whether we might have to sell?

I'm an optimist but a realist too. But let's not get too overconfident too soon. It'd be a helluva lot easier with some of those deducted points restored.

I was a pessimist last season but I was proved wrong. Realism manages expectations – I'll move over to that for now.

To your question, oddsmakers definitely account for historical outcomes, it's in the job description. Note they do not have us going down. My point was about rhetoric alone.

Ray199, sorry for any friendly fire. There is a list for either side of the argument. While one of the obvious ones could make a run, Forest and Bournemouth do not convince. By next transfer window we could be clear enough to maximize our chance of staying up as well.

Overall, the team itself under Dyche could make this their cause and they all know clubs are watching intensely. Perform here as a group and everyone gets their share. This potential far outweighs the headwinds for me.

We also have in our favour this year the African Cup of Nations. All of the other teams around us will be much more disrupted than we will, only Gana likely to be away. Here is a list from the BBC: Africa Cup of Nations: Which Premier League players could be going?.

This could cause some players to be away for about 5 weeks and as you can see Forest, Sheffield Utd, Luton, Bournemouth and Burnley are likely to lose key players.

Thanks for your explanation.

No I don't have 3 l's in my name but don't have the tech wizardry to correct it.🤪 Still it keeps me unique from all the other Russell Smith ToffeeWebbers.

I should get that sent off to the Premier League:
Info@premierleague.com

The only uncertainty for me is when will the rulings on the other clubs' compensation claims actually be given, this season or next? So, in this scenario, will the 9 point deduction happen this season and take our total deduction to 14-15 points or will it be next season I wonder? Either way Moshiri's legacy will have been the destruction of our club.

Obviously if (more likely when) we enter administration Bradley Moore will be lost to the club and we'll probably end up doing a deal to lease it back off 777 or another opportunist investor, ensuring we are forever shackled with huge lease payments. Ultimately we will be shafted with no reasonable expectation of ever recovering.

Every club could produce their own list of injustices.

It just so happens that one of the biggest injustices I've ever seen in our league was this season, when Liverpool scored a legitimate goal which was checked by VAR, confirmed as legitimate and then disallowed due to a level of incompetence that can surely never be surpassed.

Dear Hisham,

Thank you for your reply, even though it is a computer generated reply, and not your own actual words.

Seeing as your organisation has decided to remove ten points from Everton Football Club, ten points which I will deem to be points obtained from away games at Sheffield United ( 1 point), Brentford (3 points), West Ham ( 3
Points) and Crystal Palace (3 points), can I reasonably expect your organisation to reimburse the travelling Everton fans the money spent on tickets for these games?

As Everton sell out their entire allocation for away games, I have come to the figure that 9725 tickets were bought by Everton fans, at a cost of £30 per ticket, (We'll forget there were concessions) meaning £291,750 was spent by Everton fans for away games which are now unofficially deleted from the record books, meaning they were unofficially played.

You can send this money to Everton Football Club, who hold a record of every person who bought tickets for these aforementioned games, and they will be able to reimburse all the travelling fans who now had a wasted journey, three times to London and one to Sheffield. If you have got any interest in fans, then you may well consider also factoring in the cost of transport for these games, after all, it's not cheap travelling to London from Liverpool.

I remember very well, when the Premier league decided to punish the six clubs who threatened to breakaway from the Premier League to set up the European Super League, all done behind the backs of the Premier League by the way, that the only punishment given out was a fine, with a combined total of £22M, about £3.5M per club, (not a points deduction or even relegation), with a statement from the Premier league saying “Well, it would be unfair to punish the fans for something they had no control over”. Well, this points deduction is something that we, as Everton fans had no control over, and therefore you are punishing the fans as well as the football club.

I look forward to your reply, but somehow do not expect a favourable response

I can only remember a few, like the Bolton goal disallowed back in the 1990s, which Bolton supporters say was the reason they went down and we stayed up. The fact that there was over an hour left of the game to play and there were about 30-odd games left in the season suggests that the game had no bearing on the final positions.

VAR disallowed what looked to be a perfectly good injury-time goal by Mane in the derby game a few years back – we would have been up in arms if we'd had the goal disallowed.

Add in that game against Wimbledon.

I am sure there many more where we got lucky.

I was directly in line with the incident and the referee, Stevie Wonder, missed the clear foul on Nev. People go on about us getting away with one at Bolton but that's not the case.

A replay would be inappropriate. The point is this was possibly the worst ever example of being on the wrong side of incompetence from officials.

Also Billy, it was worse than the Man C handball because unlike the handball, firstly it was a goal as opposed to a possible penalty, but most importantly neither the referee or VAR thought an offence had been committed and both thought a goal had been scored, yet it wasn't given.

I hadn't realised that those of us who have raised perfectly legitimate concerns about the realistic chances of Everton overcoming the 10- point deduction would be looked upon as being part of the tinfoil hat brigade. Common sense, eh?

If points were won by passion and emotion alone, Everton would be champions. I'll be there on Sunday, being as passionate as any other Evertonian, and hoping we can win the points, but like in so many of Everton's upcoming fixtures, it's not a given that the 'outrage' caused by the points deduction will automatically lead to that outcome.

I don't see how, at the moment, 2 clubs could sue over the current issue. The offence was in the 2021-22 figures when Burnley finished in 18th. They are the only team that would have had a significant change in their circumstance if a points deduction had been applied in that season.

What would Leicester City's claim be for last season? Everton shouldn't have been in the league so we would have stayed up? How can they say what impact Burnley, if they had stayed up, would have had.

If anything, their claim should be against the Premier League for being incompetent in their ability to apply meaningful rules. Obviously if we have broken the limits when our 2022-23 financial results come out, that changes the picture.

Lastly, this fiasco does highlight a problem with the Premier League rules. Any club breaking the financial rules can not be penalised in the season they broke the rules. In our instance, the accounts for season 2021-22 were not available until March 2023.

Even now, I believe the Premier League have said clubs they are interested in only have to submit their 2022-23 accounts in January, so halfway through the 2023-24 season.

I think they should make all Premier League teams submit their accounts by mid-June each season so any penalty can be retrospectively applied and any changes such as relegation, Premier League prize money etc can be amended before the following season.

At least that is how I like to remember it.

Re. 10 points; We're guilty, get a straw and suck it up... Do No Appeal because...

Because??? If we win, which we might, we could end up with perhaps -5 points... and 5 points suspended.

This season, 10 points is just about do-able.

But if we blot our copybook next season which is not unimaginable, then we'd be pinged again plus the 5 suspended points.

We spent a lot of money in an attempt to get a sporting advantage (which is acceptable practice – speculate to accumulate and all that) and the investigation agreed that the intent was to become more successful and therefore recoup enough money so we wouldn't fall foul of the PSR.

Problem was the plan failed and, despite the money spent, we didn't get better – we got worse, which meant we were then facing a shortfall which we weren't able to regain even by patently having to budget and sell some of our better players and prospects.

We then attempted some creative accounting to improve our apparent compliance to PSR.

We've been punished for the failure to actually comply with PSR but our speculating is not a non-compliance in itself and, if we'd actually improved, we could have made enough money to be compliant.

So now our non-compliance to PSR means we are automatically facing another ‘punishment' by being liable to paying some other clubs compensation because it ‘has to be inferred' that we gained a sporting ‘advantage' because of our overspend.

Doesn't the fact that ‘our plan' to cover the overspend with better returns from improving our results got a tacit approval from the investigators show how ludicrous it is to award compensation based on inferred sporting advantage because we wouldn't have breached the PSR if we had actually gained a sporting advantage?

I haven't gone through the league positions both pre and post ‘overspend period' but, if memory serves, we have a good case if we argue inferred advantage cannot trump actual decreased performance.

This is the big flaw that the club bosses could work on, in my opinion. Surely any prosecution for a breach has to come hand-in-hand with an assessment of what advantage was actually gained; no apparent gain, or even worse performance, and the idea of anyone receiving compensation is ruled out.

It's just ridiculous that something as intangible as sporting advantage can be measured to the level where you can accurately assess who gets compensation and how much.

You could potentially make it a flat rate by assuming that the team that gained advantage would have otherwise finished bottom of the league.

It's like a thought experiment so tortuous does the logic become. Chelsea and Man City have both obviously gained more from their transgressions so theoretically we deserve some compensation from them. If we hadn't been previously disadvantaged by their advantage, then perhaps we would never have breached PSR.

The whole thing is such a ridiculous exercise in subjectivity. Before pursuing EFC any further, the Premier League must be forced to show they are setting precedents that they guarantee will be applied to everyone else. Until that happens, our punishment must be suspended and marked as under review.

It sounds as if this appeal process could take us some way beyond the New Year. That being the case, and if we feared that we could end up after appeal with some of the points suspended provisionally until next season as you say, which might hurt us next season, we could presumably withdraw any appeal later this season if we felt we'd accumulated sufficient points to give us a good degree of confidence of avoiding relegation this season. So go into appeal and keep an eye on how well we're doing in the league?

Feels like a man sent to the gallows before hearing the appeal.

Subjective explanations are not worth the toilet paper they are written on.

Should no quantifiable explanation be forthcoming, then no compensation should be determined. If it is, it's a miscarriage of justice and we should refuse to pay.