DCMS Committee seeks clarification from Masters over Everton sanctions

With that having been said, obviously there are double standards and he was idiotic for phrasing it that way as it gives critics another point to latch onto. Although, I don't think the "small... not small" debate is really a key issue that will swing the argument either which way.

The lack of clarity, lack of consistency, and lack of process should be sufficient to do that.

I think the language used is incredibly important. It gives credence to the accusation that some clubs are seen as ‘small' and therefore an easy target. As opposed to the untouchable, unpunishable cash cows of the so-called Big Six.

I may be wrong but the more this type of language is challenged the more it shines a light on the Premier League's ridiculous attempts to prove some level of sell governance in reaction to the government's white paper.

Just my opinion of course.

Leaving all cynicism about the way the Premier League might actually view the big six versus the rest aside, it's probably unfair to damn for what might have simply been mis-speaking.

The other point about the inconsistency over the sanctions framework is the key point and one where Everton really might have a case in the appeal.

Sadly, I suspect the Rat Masters will dodge it all, saying he cannot comment as the issue still has to be decided by appeal. But this gives him a right good public rollicking.

And confirms that the independent regulator he does not want may be with us sooner rather than later, assuming the government gives the bill adequate time to get through Parliament.

I thought Masters was inferring Premier League clubs see themselves as "big" but won't be treated any different to lower league spuds ergo Everton and Forest are "big".

Didn't cross my mind he was calling us "small"!

Some writers have already advanced that with some decent work. This could be the turn where the Premier League has to start fully explaining their actions.

His comment about small club was not in reference to EFC but subconsciously elevating the Sky 6 to another level and everybody knows it but can't say it out loud. Either way, it created the opportunity for her to raise the question.

Then the real point at issue with regards to the apparent inconsistency in reference to the sanctions framework, along with the specific date of response by 8 February, signifies where the lady is going with this. She wants the Regulator in and doesn't like the self-governance the Premier League has set for itself.

Whether that results in the Premier League revisiting the points deduction only time will tell – but, for me, the underlying reference in her letter bodes well for us. But this is Everton …

'Further adjustments could be made to reflect aggravating or mitigating features. The rationale for these guidelines is given in the evidence of Mr Masters."

The mitigation put forward by the club, including a political ruling by the UK Government that our lucrative sponsorship with a Russian organisation must immediately cease, is extraordinary and compelling — despite a war in Europe and the associated political fall out being a once in a lifetime event, the Commission deemed it to be a normal commercial risk with no adjustment made to the sanctions. Unbelievable.

I believe the complete and flagrant ignoring of such mitigating factors will form a major plank of our appeal along with why a sporting sanction should be applied to what was a financial issue.

We need to know what Masters's direction to the 'Independent' commission was in these regards. I believe that such directions will undoubtedly demonstrate that Masters was controlling the 'Independent' Commission from the get-go.

However, whilst I expect us to get a reduced points deduction, it will then be topped up by a further deduction for the 2nd charge — effectively, we'll end up with the same total of 10 points deducted. At least Forest would then be below us, putting another club in the relegation scrap.

I also fear a Starmer government would be unlikely to indulge a hobby horse of Andy Burnham, whom he sees as a rival.

The chair of the DCMS committee can see they have been "moving the goalposts".

The witness statements and the minutes of the meeting should be in the public domain, considering how many people these affect. If there's nothing to hide, why hide!

If the Premier League wanted to show how they could regulate fairly themselves, they should have done away with all the secrecy and smoke and mirrors.

Andy Burnhan has done every Evertonian proud the way he's challenging the status quo. The process is not fair and transparent, the process has been tainted and it raises suspicion of foul play.

Surely if we win the appeal and the reason for the first charge is found to be in error, it will invalidate the second charge – unless he already knows the decision about the appeal has already been made!

I would ask the Premier League when exactly was the guidance tabled that the punishment is or is not levied at? Also, exactly when the 'independent' commission was convened?

The reason for these questions fall to an article I read before Christmas. The Premier League only handed the table of punishment over to the commission half way through their investigation of us.

Finally, if the government creates a government ombudsman to regulate and oversee the Premier League, they don't trust them. If it is created, maybe all of their records, books and transactions should be investigated.

His concluding words about the sanction decision process:-
"While that may not be clear, we believe it is fair" – sums up succinctly the waffle he spoke prior to that.

Masters's arrogant appearance reflected this. His objective was to get through his questioning and back to facelessness.

But he now finds his answers questioned. To be questioned in the face of a Bill on football regulation could provide a continuing agenda for further debate. I know his 'small club' claim may be seen as innocuous, but it does open up questions regarding a level playing field in the Premier League. The query regarding sanctions brings into question the process and independence of the commission.

They are an attack on self-regulation, difficult to answer, but require that they are answered.

The 'small club' thing is probably a slip of the tongue but it provides tonnage to turn it back on him over how he views any clubs outside the '6'.

Cough up, Masters.

I think the conscious bias Masters displayed was unprofessional and showed up himself and the Premier League being out of its depth, ignorant, uncooperative, and hopefully, this will be proven when the Everton appeal hearing takes place.

Well done, Andy Burnham, for fighting Everton's corner.

Football has changed in the Premier League for the worse and I hope Everton can take the Premer League to the cleaners in terms of the punishment they've dished out.
UTFTs!

Nothing more than semantics.

The real concern is that this is what the DCMS Committe now choose to lead with.

Even at £100,000+ Rabinowitz is a necessity and will hopefully prove to be money well spent.

I would hate to think we suffer under these corrupt rules, and, teams charged under the auspices of the Government regulator escape with a lesser punishment for an equal or more serious charge.

The committee is 100% anti the pseudo-independent nature of the Premier League. To instruct an independent commission then lead them in what the outcome should be, or allow them to use an alternative outcome? How so?

The total ignorance of any and every mitigating circumstance presented by Everton was appalling. The rules state mitigating circumstances would and could be considered yet significant events were completely ignored, which shouts unfair application of rules. Then there's the change of rules which just happen to coincide with charges against one of the big six. Coincidence or convenience?

The committee are neither stupid nor blind and I commend them.

Everton"s attempt at mitigations were pretty much "I forgot my homework" and not unexpectedly floundered.

Loan interest not allowed against the stadium costs, if we weren't building the stadium we wouldn't need the loans. Leaks to the press regarding the punishments we were facing and it goes on.

All we can do as fans is carry on with the protests, I don't think the "Premier League – corrupt as fuck" chant does us any favours. There was a banner outside the Brick when we played Man Utd – I can't remember all the lines but it finished "Every point you take, every move you make, we'll be watching you" – Pity we can't adopt that instead.

I understand your perspective; however, given the inability for the board to accept our position meant the club had to table alternatives. Those alternatives weren't completely in isolation and when pooled do make a significant impact.

I think the club should have been more conscientious but they are hamstrung and then taken advantage of.

No offence but I don't often agree with you… but on this thread I do.

After all, if Everton's transgressions are ludicrously to be punished twice, then what happens next year when the past third of a transgression shows up on the Mastersmeter???

Masters with his over aggressive treatment of Everton has also made it completely impossible to ever bring any judgement against any of the big clubs because any such judgement on the same scale would put at least two of the big clubs out of existence.

The problem here is not so much any club not being in compliance with the regulations. The problem is simply having a Premier League that is being run at least as badly as our club has been.

We will beat this not because we didn't breach the league's unworkable financials but because we did and they simply don't have a workable way of punishing us.

The Club had the same attitude as Masters. They had their Chief Executive on Premier League committees and appointed to Government working groups regarding regulation. Everton were way ahead in their answers to the Fan-led Review, with their Chief Executive, a Professor no less, no doubt giving lectures on how to quell Fan protest.

They were vocal for the Premier League in the face of a breakaway European Super League and probably involved in the paltry sanctions imposed. They had a Chairman in the know, who was assured by other Premier League clubs that Everton were a model on how to do things.

Yes, they were well-in with the football authorities. They were working with the Premier League on monitoring their finances and were self-assured they fulfilled the Premier League's financial requirements, even pre-empting the Premier League with what appeared to be public assurances of compliance.

But the Premier League turned on them. The Everton Chief Executive suddenly went dumb, a big ask for her, as her fellow committee members decided to put Everton up for investigation. Everton were third in the queue in millions spent. One breach was no problem; others had more, even one with over a hundred.

Surely this was still a formality and Everton's preparation for the Commission which was just named as 'independent' to suit. Everton had the inside track, they knew what was going on, nod-nod, wink-wink.

Then, after the sanctions, it emerged that rules had been changed during the process. "We didn't know" came the reply from Everton. Their lack of defence was laid bare, as they tried to get in front of the Evertonians and their outraged supporters from Reading and beyond who pointed out the gaping holes in the Premier League's defence of sanctions.

Everton appoint a KC 2 months later, leaving ToffeeWeb posters to quander (rhymes with Wander). Chairman Mao saying in his Little Red Book: "A leader a mile in front of his army is a fool." Everton where a mile behind theirs.

We make the rules, it's our club. To join, you have to accept that. We can basically do what we want, the rules are minimum guidelines of membership, and generally apply to most members.

If we think you have broken the rules, we will ask our appointed "independent commission" to confirm and penalise you. We shall of course give advice to the commission on what punishment is appropriate.

You have the right to appeal, not that it will do you much good, but for the sake of good governance, that option is included.

You must understand there is a difference how we can of course apply any rules across our membership. Small clubs will be dealt with quickly and efficiently as the outcome is of far less importance to us or the media; however, it is important to stress that in such cases any sanctions applied must appear to be robust and punitive to demonstrate to government that we can of course, manage this great enterprise without their aid.

It is imperative to understand that, as a commercial institution, we must do everything to protect our brand. That brand revolves around several clubs to whom punitive sanctions cannot therefore be applied irrespective of the number of charges or failures they demonstrate.

In such cases, if the transgression is deemed severe then the league shall revisit the application of rules or the rules themselves.

Should this occur, it will likely impact on those smaller clubs of little note. In such cases, the old rules shall still apply. Such advice shall be given to any appeal commission in the unlikely event of this occurring.

Please note: There would be considerable damage to the board of the Premier League and its global standing if these rules are not applied. Therefore, for the sake of appearances, examples must be made of a number of clubs, preferably well-known and respected but no longer vital to our branding, to ensure the longevity and integrity of the board.

We wish you success (insofar as we wish).

There's already an argument (not made by Everton) that a points deduction (sporting sanction) is also a financial sanction, as the loss in league placements is substantial (each place being worth c. £2.5M).

More concerning is the case of Man City. Some of the allegations are pure financial doping – the sort that Rangers were guilty of a few years back, and saw them effectively wound up, stripped of titles and demoted to the lowest league.

But they weren't owned by a foreign state. A state which raised the case of the football club and the potential charges (ie, against one of its "assets") in a recent diplomatic meeting — which mysteriously got little mainstream media reporting. Certainly no media analysis or commentary.

The way the previous board sleepwalked into the situation makes one almost feel they were set up to fail. The fact that absolutely no-one outside of L4 gives a fuck about us makes you fear that we'll still be punished – and other clubs with more powerful and vested owners will not.

I've seen our fans on sites such as TW questioning the motivations of Andy Burnham, suggesting this is all part of an effort to raise his profile. Like he needs it...

Thank fuck he is using his position to push this because, as much as the efforts of the fans to arrange protests are laudable – they are just noise easily ignored. Andy's efforts – motivated as a fan – will at least make the Premier League think about their next actions, even if the general media is still in the "you knew the rules" camp.

The days of seeming self-regulation should be taken away and they have to be held to account.

As for 'independent', I obviously have no inside information, but don't make me laugh. The Premier League influenced the decision and, as mentioned above, shifted the goalposts at the 11th hour despite our cooperation.

It was almost like throwing the prosecution a bung. And now they've gone for double jeopardy, whilst by their own admission, they admitted the so-called rules were not fit for purpose and they are changing them in the summer.

Whatever happens to us, I think the Premier League in their Paddington HQ, far removed from those who actually play and follow football as we have done all our lives, are going to come under increasing scrutiny. As will football. I hope they feel uncomfortable.

This is a positive for me.

Well done, Andy Burnham, for raising and driving this. As regular posters know, I met him on a train platform recently. Great person and passionate Evertonian. I told him he should be Mayor of Liverpool. Forget that, put him on the board at Everton.

The main issue here is the sanction policy moving forward. I assume the rest of the clubs are unhappy with the rules, hence why Masters said there will be rule changes. This opens the Premier League up to a fat lawsuit from Nottm Forest and especially Everton.

If the rules, as they are currently being administered, are changed due to clubs wanting to vote them down due to the anti-competitive nature (turnover means the biggest always have the most to spend), then when another club gets charged under the new penalty rules, it will most likely result in a lighter sentence.

Should the lighter sentence, if applied to the two clubs, means they would've survived, then this demonstrates that firstly the rules have been changed to appease the clubs in the Premier League, and secondly that, for a matter of fact, the two clubs should've remained in the league.

His 'small club' remark tells us all that the two-tier system actually exists – no shit, Sherlock.

I think you're right about the stadium and infrastructure costs, but the difficult one really is the knock-on effect, especially since losing the sponsorship of USM which was directly stadium-related.

One figure I heard suggests that it could have been as much as £200M, which represents a massive hole in Everton's finances, even if spread over a number of years, and more crucially it meant having to find money to fill that hole… which inevitably resulted in increased losses for the business as a whole, pushing them deeper toward the PSR vortex.

That makes the offhand rejection by the independent commission of the mitigating circumstances created by Putin's horrible war on Ukraine even more egregious because it could not have been foreseen, it was an entirely arbitrary decision by the UK Government to sanction Russian businesses in the UK, and completely out of Everton's control, and yet they were expected to somehow make good, with no allowance for the massive effect on their finances that would have significantly increased their losses, directly impacting the club's profitability and sustainability.

But I'm not so sure about your belief that changing the rules will give Nottingham Forest and Everton cause to sue the Premer League. Yes, it sounds unfair, but you have to factor in that the very nature of the Premier League is of a private members club in which a super-majority of those member clubs agrees to the rules that are put in place — and here's the crucial bit that I cannot emphasize strongly enough — a super-majority those clubs (at least 14 out of 20) have to agree to any changes.

This is not Richard Masters acting on a whim. In putting forward the squad-cost ratio approach for consideration by the clubs, the Premier League is proposing a more direct way of controlling the sporting advantage issue by limiting investment in the playing staff and tying it to a club's revenue.

It will still favour those clubs with greater revenue and thus could be viewed as even less competitive than the current structure. However, any kind of financial restriction is a limit on the free-for-all that existed before and was deemed to be unsustainable for football.

But hardly a basis for any member club to go suing the hierarchy. That just ain't happening.

The logic of your last paragraph is difficult to grasp unless both clubs are in fact relegated. Which they are not at this point in time. However, it does suggest yet another angle that could be used to argue against the 10-point sanction at the appeal. If controlling the squad cost ratio is to be the way forward, then Everton I am sure can show that, for the past 2 or 3 years, they have drastically reduced squad costs in a concerted effort to be compliant, even to the extent of imposing a wage cap — and that, in and of itself, has conferred upon Everton a massive sporting disadvantage which has seen them venture to the brink of disastrous relegation — not once but twice in that time since the breaches were alleged.

“Every point you take
Every move you make
We'll be watching you.

Love that, Geoff., “We're simply the best
Better than all the rest”

Enjoyed your post, that is the Premier League for sure.

Allan #38,

Everton have been scrapping the bottom for years. Kenwright sold his shares as his tenure was on its last legs, mortgaged to the hilt... He would have eventually sold Everton for two pigs, but he was lucky enough to sell Everton for a goose with a golden egg. No new stadium would have ever been built.

Moshiri managed the building and financing of the new stadium and by all accounts has done a good job. The problem is that his main backer disappeared. He had to find alternative finance, which was difficult with the burden of a badly run club.

He had handed the running of the club to Kenwright who, within 2 years, had it on its knees. MoshirI intervened financially but found himself up against a culture perpetuated by Kenwright which worked against him.

Moshiri had not got the required knowledge to run such an organisation, never mind his football knowledge. God knows in his nativity what he had agreed to. He did well keeping the finances of the new stadium going, and it will be built.

The new stadium will probably prevent Everton disappearing into lower-league media obscurity, though many fans would be glad of being back to football. Had Moshiri not arrived,

Everton would have continued on its 20-year decline with the pillars of Goodison and would under the Chairmanship of Kenwright been in breach of the Profitability and Sustainability Rules in some form with no way back, either in the Premier League or Championship.

They would almost certainly not have been the central protagonist in a Parliamentary Committee holding the Premier League to account.

Why? Because the main motivation of Everton progress is generations of Evertonians.

That's the way I see it, although many will disagree, all on Moshiri with the main culprit over 20 years getting off very lightly and with a very healthy bank balance… pity you can't take it with you!

Pretty bizarre to say something so important to the argument is ‘semantics'.

By dictionary definition pretty much anything can be called semantics.

It's important enough for the DCMS to ask for clarification and backs up many people's idea that the Premier League is set up nowadays to protect the few at the expense of the many.

Calling it semantics is agreeing or saying it basically doesn't matter. It does matter. We're in a league where the richest club on the planet (Newcastle) can't spend money because it may upset the status quo.

The DCMS want to challenge language like that, and rightly so, but some Blues on ToffeeWeb……

Without doubt Moshiri's legacy will be our new stadium. Had he, and his backer, not appeared, we really would have had our safety certificate rescinded.

However, also without doubt, the biggest mistake, ever, Moshiri made was, after getting control of the Club, was keeping Kenwright and his acolytes in place. Had he binned the lot of them and brought in real business people, we may well have been sitting pretty fighting for a European place and financially sound.

The new stadium was Moshiri's high point; keeping Kenwright there was his lowest.

Keep it up, “ Every rule they break” is the one, they even altered one halfway through being charged and sentenced!!

I'm shocked at your regulations. I note, there ain't no sanity clue!

(Q- Marx Bros "Night at The Opera / The Damned)

When Kenwright's shares were being offered for sale, Keith Harris, Everton Director, publically said that no-one would agree to the terms and conditions that Kenwright was asking for. Moshiri obviously agreed to a lot of these conditions. Why?

In my opinion, because it got him in at a discount and his backers were more interested in managing their money, rather than managing the club.

The primary investment was a dockland development and someone who could keep the authorities off their back. Moshiri managed to isolate himself in the immediate term from his backer when Ukraine blew up but their faith in assurances regarding the Premier League were misplaced.

Long term both may be coming home to roost. That is the rearguard action Evertonians are possibly currently fighting.and punching about their weight at.

I know a Management Consultant who was a worldwide specialist in takeovers. He told me that the taking-over company's culture has to dominate, or else you might get a reverse takeover which is always a disaster. What culture Moshiri represented is very open to question, if it was ever at all relevant to the management of the club.

"Semantics? Yes...does that mean it's not important?"

Well actually, yes...if it's semantics, it does mean it's not important.

Masters didn't introduce the term into the conversation, he simply replied to a question using that description as that was the term used in the question posed to him by a member of the Select Committee.

Some are now trying to portray this as a sort of "smoking gun" rather ignoring the fact that no-one on the Select Committee chose to challenge him on his use of the term at the time.

It isn't even a storm in a teacup.

Someone else may have introduced the term but that doesn't mean Masters simply had to keep using it. In fact he really should have made a point of refuting the term or defining what was meant by ‘small clubs'.

Someone in Masters position should be actively saying ‘there are no big or small clubs, just clubs.' The fact that he was seemingly happy to keep it in as a descriptor is what is telling.

Shows either:
a. there is a big 6 and the little clubs... or
b. Masters is not up to the task.

So, Richard, which is it?

It has become part of the agenda because it now has been included by the Committee twice in questions. Masters has to answer the question.

He did not query the term the first time, and therefore verified it. The second time, he may query it, but it will be in the debate to be latched onto anyway.

This will also drive down transfer fees and players wages for all but the most elite players in future transfer windows. The Premier League will view this as justification for our 10-point deduction and their hardline approach.

Sacrificial lamb for dinner, stitched up, served with a helping of vindictiveness. The ploy worked, teams are panicking into selling players, cutting costs, brilliant!

Well done, Mr Masters! Shame about Everton... what a patsy though, again... tell you what we will give them some good news..

For desserts, 777 are approved..

With a duly appointed new "independent commission" already briefed, whereby any appeal decision would be made after the season ends (no ability for those pesky fans to embarrass us at games again). It all sounds like a very convenient stitch-up. We've been done up a kipper...

Based on a 1+1, the outcome would seem correct. What we're also aware of is a just punishment and that the rules also state mitigating circumstances could be taken into account. Neither of which seem to have been taken into consideration.

What also appears to be lacking is pragmatism, insofar as applying punishment aimed at avoiding administration endangers the going concern entering administration. Is that truly the intended application of the rules? I think not.

On the basis the rules have been breached, apply the appropriate punishment. That's not what is happening today.

What would be the recourse if punishment is applied prior to the season end, we're docked x number of points yet, in the unlikely event, on appeal, the point deduction is rescinded? Would the points be reinstated or do we start the new season with positive points (won't happen!)? The commission outcome still seems very wayward to me.

Something that has always stunk for me is the timing of the original commission, which was mid-season during closed transfer windows. The outcome was known and the Premier League also knew there was zero possibility for the club to correct the balance (eg, with player sales) before accounts were due to be submitted.

Had the hearing been in the summer or, for instance, January, there was time and means to resolve the issue. I guess that was the plan all along.

Everton were fined £300,000 after the celebrating fans ran on the pitch after we avoided relegation last season. I think it was stated that our fans may have endangered player safety.

The outcome of the Everton case will set precedence regarding financial investigations into other Premier League clubs' finances and subsequent punishment.

I can't see the judgment against Everton being upheld, as we know that other Premier League clubs are charged and therefore, if the case against them is proven, those clubs have to suffer punishment as we have done. The context and severity of their punishment is firmly under the Everton microscope.

I can see a ‘can of worms' being opened and the Premier League open to scrutiny themselves.

This is our club, our history and our future and the divisive rules are bringing the whole situation into disrepute!

I think I understand your second point but unfortunately, I don't think it would have been possible for Everton at that late stage to do anything in terms of player sales to affect the accounts which led to the first PSR charge.

Those accounts were closed at the end of June 2022 and could not be changed by any player sales after the charge (in April 2023), or the commission hearing (in October 2023), or the sanction (in November 2023).

Reading the judgement, it seems the commission believed Everton were given plenty of warning over a period of around 2 years that their player purchases were running too close to the wind and were the primary cause of the first breach.

Furthermore, it contains an ominous assessment that Everton had still not changed their ways in the subsequent season (2022-23) and may explain why Everton had no option but to submit PSR numbers for the period ending 2022-23 that were in excess of the allowable limit, hence the second PSR charge.

There was never any time or means to resolve the issue after those problem accounts were submitted.

Also "money no object" Newcastle have failed in being able to sell Almiron for £30M to help them stay within the rules. I am sure come the meeting at the end of the season, clubs will be demanding the Premier League change the qualification for staying within the P&S rules going forward.

I've been saying for some time that there will be a few looking nervously over their shoulder.

Forest and Villa.

Newcastle reportedly overspending by £75M.

There will be others. They've all been at it and have been for years.

And then we have the unsurprising Premier League impression of an ostrich with its head in the sand over Chelsea and Manchester City.

First he said Everton have been over spending for years, wrong, they have been selling players and working hand in hand with you.

Then when the 6 were mentioned, he said it was a none sporting advantage which was quickly pointed out that so was Evertons on interest costs to the stadium.

Our defence team will destroy masters in the coming Days.

After being so hell bent on trying to make Everton an easy target, to justify no need for outside regulators to come in, I really believe this will come in now and Everton will indeed succeed on being so harshly treated.

They have destroyed their very own yellow tie deadline Day, most teams are being very careful with spending.

Masters time is numbered in his current position, the Premier league is on its knees on keeping a lid on the most blatant corruption and favouritism, where is Panarama or Roger Cook when you need them.