09/02/2024 228comments  |  Jump to last

The Chief Executive of the Premier League, Richard Masters, remains insistent that Everton were treated fairly and impartially by the independent commission and sanctions process that saw the club deducted a historic 10-point penalty last November.

As such, he says he won't release either his witness statement to the independent commission or Premier League board minutes relating to the charges against Everton.

Following a hearing in Westminster held by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Masters was formally requested by the committee's chair, Dame Caroline Dineage, to clarify certain comments he made in that hearing.

Dame Dineage wrote to Masters asking him specifically to clarify what he meant when he referenced “small clubs" in the Premier League and she requested greater detail on the sanctions framework itself.

Article continues below video content

On the issue of his small clubs gaffe, Masters said:

“Everton and Nottingham Forest are valued and respected members of the Premier League. Both clubs enjoy successful histories, have strong and passionate fanbases, and make a significant contribution not just to the Premier League’s vibrant competition, but also to their cities and local communities.

"By reflecting the committee member’s framing of the question, I did not intend to suggest otherwise. It would be incorrect to infer from this that there is any unfair treatment based on club size, as suggested in the committee’s media statement. Indeed, the point I made was the opposite, in that the Premier League board applies the rules consistently, irrespective of the club in question.”

Where releasing the minutes of internal discussions within the League regarding how Everton came to be charged and penalised, Masters said that he would not comply with the request.

“As the committee will appreciate, being a private business, it is not our practice to provide or publish minutes of Premier League Board Meetings," he wrote. "Nor are we able to publish submissions the Premier League Board or executive make as part of confidential legal proceedings.

“At all times during this process, the Premier League has sought to treat the club fairly and with respect. Of course, as the competition organiser and administrator, it is also our role to ensure fairness for clubs that have adhered to the rules. That means enforcing our rulebook consistently and impartially.”

The letter from Richard Masters to DCMS Chair in full:

Dear Dame Caroline,

Thank you for your letter following the recent Committee session, and for the opportunity to follow up on my evidence in writing. I will also reference the Committee's media statement in replying

Classification of Clubs

First, you asked about whether a distinction is made between 'big' and 'small' Clubs within the Premier League. As you will recall, I was asked a question by a Committee Member who used the term "big Clubs" when arguing that there is cynicism about certain Clubs' ability to use legal means to ensure that cases "take ten years or never come to fruition".

In response, I sought to emphasise that the Premier League's Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSRs) apply equally to all Clubs. Furthermore, I am happy to confirm that, while Clubs can be delineated by many different measures, no such criteria or classification is used by the Premier League.

As I said in my evidence, Everton and Nottingham Forest are valued and respected members of the Premier League. Both Clubs enjoy successful histories, have strong and passionate fanbases, and make a significant contribution not just to the Premier League's vibrant competition, but also to their cities and local communities. By reflecting the Committee Member's framing of the question, I did not intend to suggest otherwise. It would be incorrect to infer from this that there is any unfair treatment based on Club size, as suggested in the Committee's media statement.

Indeed, the point I made was the opposite, in that the Premier League Board applies the Rules consistently, irrespective of the Club in question.

Everton case

Secondly, you raise the issue of fairness and transparency in the recent Everton case and request certain confidential documents. We respect the role of the Select Committee in holding Government to account and seeking insight from relevant industries on matters of public policy.

We value the opportunity to provide such input and answer questions. As the Committee will appreciate, being a private business, it is not our practice to provide or publish minutes of Premier League Board Meetings. Nor are we able to publish submissions the Premier League Board or Executive make as part of confidential legal proceedings.

However, I hope I can address the Committee's questions as this is an important matter, and I am grateful for the opportunity to provide additional clarity further to my oral evidence to the Committee. At all times during this process, the Premier League has sought to treat the Club fairly and with respect. Of course, as the competition organiser and administrator, it is also our role to ensure fairness for Clubs that have adhered to the Rules. That means enforcing our Rulebook consistently and impartially.

This is the first time that a breach of the PSRs, and a resulting sanction, has been determined by an independent Commission. We therefore acknowledge that the role of the Premier League, our regulatory framework and the duties of the independent Commission require explanation, particularly to fans. Given the sanction that was imposed (which is awaiting an appeal), it is also understandable that the process has generated passionate debate.

As your letter points out, the Premier League was entitled (and expected) to make a submission with a recommendation for the sanction in this case, just as the Club was (and did). In regulatory cases, it is normal practice for both parties to do so. It is a process that assists the independent Commission in determining the appropriate and proportionate sanction by enabling it to understand each side's position on the issue. The Premier League did not establish a "policy", but rather made a submission to the Commission that provided the Premier League Board's recommendation for considering the sanction in this particular case.

Your letter appears to suggest that, although the adoption of the Premier League's recommendation of a sanction in the Everton case was rejected by the independent Commission, the Premier League's recommendation of "a structured formula" may somehow generate a perception of unfairness or "moving the goalposts". We do not agree. As stated above, the Premier League was expected to provide a view as to what it considered to be the appropriate sanction in this case, in order to assist the independent Commission. A sanction without any underlying basis or explanation as to how it was arrived at would have been of limited assistance.

The Board rightly felt that the most appropriate way of assisting the independent Commission was not simply to submit a particular number of points to be deducted, but to explain the method by which it had arrived at that view. considering the extent to which the Club had exceeded the relevant threshold in the Rules and how that should be taken into account; and considering the specific aggravating and mitigating factors that it considered to be relevant to this Club in this.

The Committee's media statement suggests that this submission somehow makes the Commission less than independent. As I explained to the Committee, the Judicial Panel, and the selected Commission that heard this case, are entirely independent of the League. The Panel members are appointed by an Independent Chair in a process in which the League plays no part, and members of each Commission are appointed by that Chair independently, again in a process in which the League plays no part. Each member of the independent Commission that heard this case was a senior and experienced lawyer or financial expert, including one former member of the judiciary.

The Commission considered that a 10-point sanction was appropriate and explained why over a detailed 41-page Decision, having considered the facts and submissions advanced by both parties over a five-day hearing and precedents from other cases.

Everton was provided with complete transparency as to the Premier League Board's view on the appropriate sanction in this case. So as to provide as much notice as possible, it was communicated to the Club two months before the hearing, with detail of not only the sanction that the Board considered appropriate, and in the interests of transparency, how it had arrived at that answer.

Recent PSR charges

As the latest PSR charges have only recently been brought forward, and we await the judgment of the independent Appeal Board in respect of the first Everton case, I hope the Committee will understand that I cannot provide details about how the Premier League Board will approach the question of a recommendation of sanction in these cases, save that (as with all disciplinary matters) the Board will consider the appropriate approach based on the particular facts of the case. We will of course inform the Clubs in question, and the independent Commissions, once we are in a position to do so.

Finally, I can confirm that the most recent PSR cases will be heard according to Appendix 1 of the League's Rules (p533 of our Rulebook), which are designed to provide certainty for the League and Clubs as to the membership of the League in the subsequent season. This aims to ensure sanctions take effect in the Season in which the Club's latest annual audited accounts are submitted.

I hope this letter will be beneficial to ensure that the Committee has the fullest possible understanding of the Premier League's regulatory framework

Yours sincerely,

Richard Masters
Chief Executive


Reader Comments (228)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer ()

Ian Wilkins
1 Posted 09/02/2024 at 19:16:31
Tighty worded legal response. Nothing to see here.

This point about acting as the League's safe keeper… where was the keeping when Man City breached the rules 115 times, over 10 years??? Yes, they have been charged, but after 10 years! Why not after 10, 20 charges, after 2, 3, or 4 years?

Why not sanctioned for failure to supply information as requested? For continued breach of rules?

And why, if nothing to hide, simply publish the minutes, dispel the scepticism and we all move on? What is it going to take to get to the truth here?

Years, I guess, and (Post Office, Hillsborough, FIFA) journalism. Such a sorry state of affairs.

If you are hopeful of a successful appeal outcome, against a backdrop such as this, in a controlled Premier League process, then I'm sorry but you are going to be very disappointed.

Tony Abrahams
2 Posted 09/02/2024 at 19:42:19
I'd be very surprised if many people expected him to release anything regarding the case revolving around Everton, anyway.
Ben King
3 Posted 09/02/2024 at 19:45:35
Feels like Masters is doubling down on his justification to punish Everton.

There's no sense of a desire for fairness.

Jeff Armstrong
4 Posted 09/02/2024 at 19:55:42
Or, he's answered the questions asked of him, even at the time the question of him referring to Everton and Forest as small clubs was absurd, he didn't.

He's still a cunt though.

John Raftery
5 Posted 09/02/2024 at 20:05:13
In my view, the ‘small clubs' comment is secondary to the lack of transparency.
Tony Abrahams
6 Posted 09/02/2024 at 20:13:56
Indeed, the point I made was the opposite, in that the Premier League Board applies the rules consistently, irrespective of the club in question.

This statement is a complete load of shite, imho.

Dave Ganley
7 Posted 09/02/2024 at 20:16:31
There is no transparency – otherwise, Masters would have no problem issuing the minutes. Hiding them just makes the Premier League look like they are covering up to mask their bias.

I'm thoroughly sick of their pathetic justifications of punishing us and now trying it with Forest when the beloved Sky 6 get away with what they want. Reading this just magnifies why the Premier League need independent regulation as they are making a complete dog's bollocks of this and making themselves look like compete amateurs in the process.

Problem is, unless someone steps in to insist on independent regulation, then they'll get away with it again.

Nigel Stephens
8 Posted 09/02/2024 at 20:25:42
This proves it's corrupt. Twice, he's been asked to release the minutes and refused to do so.

Unfortunately, I suspect we won't succeed in our appeal and this will eventually end up in the real world of a Crown Court. How sad is it that? Football is being played out by legal people.

Kunal Desai
9 Posted 09/02/2024 at 21:09:42
Slimeball shithouse, that Masters. The type of prick who would drink his own piss if it meant he could single-handedly send us down.
Jack Convery
10 Posted 09/02/2024 at 23:09:39
Everton should ask the rest of the Premier Leagueto make Masters release these minutes. Those that say no, we can already guess… but one day the others may find themselves in our boat and they need to act now.

The final solution is for the so-called small clubs to resign from the Premier League en masse until something is done to cease the corruption, the cover-ups, the making it up as they go along ethos and their inability to hold Chelsea and Man City to account.

Sick of it, the whole shit-show that Premier League football has become. No wonder so many fans are disillusioned with game right now.

Christine Foster
11 Posted 09/02/2024 at 01:34:50
Should the appeal fail, I hope the club will publish in full, all meeting minutes it has at its disposal, including the witness statements of Masters.

Exactly what have we got to lose? We may already be relegated should we cop another points reduction, even fall into administration should they fail to rubber stamp the takeover.

Secondly, I would litigate a case against the Premier League in a civil court. Sue them. Bring them down.

This refusal by Masters to comply with requests made by the parliamentary committee in such an arrogant manner, equivalent to two fingers, will be his downfall and lead to a confirmation of the independent regulator. (Not the Premier League version of "independent", I may add!)

Everton have a right to exist, but we waited too long to exploit the opportunities that others took. Cash-rich buyers could spend what they liked without sanction, establish platforms that left others behind with no hope of competing on or off the pitch.

Transparency is honesty. In the absence of transparency, there is a question mark over truth. Where there is an absence of truth, the void is filled with lies and self-interest; corruption begins here.

Jerome Shields
12 Posted 10/02/2024 at 06:44:16
It appears that the delay in the release of the Appeal decision, which most expected on Friday, was so that this cover-my-ass justification could be released and the fallout reaction gauged.

There is no doubt that the Premier League is finding itself under pressure as this denial upon denial letter shows. The question will not go away and Dame Caroline will respond, since evidence asked for has been refused. I am sure that the Parliamentary Committee asking for clarification acted on their legal rights.

Clearly all clubs are not treated the same since Man City with over 100 breaches has not been referred to an Independent Commission. Why the delay? Chelsea were sanctioned by the government via its owner, but clearly the Premier League have failed to act on breaches which the new owners have made the Premier League aware of. Therefore there is evidence of clear breaches of the Profit and Sustainability Rules by Chelsea, which have again not been referred by the Premier League to an Independent Commission.

There has also been a change of process during the investigations of the Independent Commission and this has continued with possible changes by the Premier League in August.

Talking about digging a hole, Masters is a master at it. Years of legal actions could be the result.

I know of occasions where minutes of tribunals were claimed not to be admissible, but the known facts can be drawn on making attempts to withhold information, as Masters is trying to do, redundant. If there is something being hidden, this letter could spectacularly backfire on the Premier League and on Masters in particular.

John Keating
13 Posted 10/02/2024 at 06:53:37
Masters says he informed Everton of the Premier League recommendation they would put to the “independent” commission 2 months before they sat.

Given that the “independent” commission more or less followed Masters recommendation, Everton must be hauled over the coals in their naivety to think the result would be anything less.

They should have kicked up publicly the day the Premier League told them, 2 months before the commission sat.

Derek Thomas
14 Posted 10/02/2024 at 07:21:02
If there's nothing to hide...

Makes you wonder what else lurks in those mysterious depths.

Sometimes the 'cover up' can cause more trouble than the deed(s?)

Keep on holding their feet to the fire, Dame Caroline.

David Vaughan
15 Posted 10/02/2024 at 07:53:15
I hope dear Dickie Masters has spent as much time as he seems to have taken drafting his (empty) reply on updating his CV...
Mal van Schaick
16 Posted 10/02/2024 at 07:57:34
I would have thought that the publishing of the minutes of the meeting would be legally binding on request from the aggrieved party, as in a Freedom of Information request.

Masters's resistance to comply with the request obviously raises questions about him being a fit and proper person to adjudicate on the panel in the first instance.

Therefore, the original verdict is null and void, and must be thrown out.

Paul Hewitt
17 Posted 10/02/2024 at 08:29:03
You have to ask, but what is there in them minutes that the premier League and master's don't want you to see?
Paul Hewitt
18 Posted 10/02/2024 at 08:29:04
You have to ask, but what is there in them minutes that the Premier League and Masters don't want you to see?
Danny Baily
19 Posted 10/02/2024 at 08:38:27
Presumably a Freedom of Information request would oblige them to release the minutes?

Even if heavily redacted/blanked out, these would be interesting to see.

Barry Williams
20 Posted 10/02/2024 at 08:48:33
This is obviously very telling and a major admission of wrongdoings by the Premier League.

But what is just as revealing is that, though this is a major story, none of the major sports news outlets have run with it.

Brian Denton
21 Posted 10/02/2024 at 09:14:07
Danny (19),

I think a Freedom of Information request can only be made of public bodies, which the Premier League isn't.

Barry Williams
22 Posted 10/02/2024 at 09:14:53
I am also surprised that this thread has garnered so few posts thus far. This is a major issue me thinks.
Danny O’Neill
23 Posted 10/02/2024 at 09:18:28
I can't add much to your words, Christine.

I'm going to sound a bit dramatic, but I will revert to George Orwell's Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

I can just see the pigs sat in their Paddington HQ smoking cigars and sipping whiskey, sneering and smirking in self-appreciation.

I would question if many of them have played or followed football in their lives. I would like the opportunity to talk to them, but they would probably shit themselves.

Unlike us who grew up on the terraces and put in the miles, cost and hours, that includes those following abroad. My son is currently in the States and will be up early in the morning to watch the match. They are detached from football.

Self-regulating. Who do they think they are? Some sort of National Intelligence Agency that doesn't have to disclose most matters? Excuse my French but "Bollocks!"

Anyway. Good luck to the travelling blues today. What happens on the pitch is what matters.

Our club. Our game. Our Everton.

Brian Denton
24 Posted 10/02/2024 at 09:29:02
Another one to keep an eye on:

"The Premier League may face a new legal challenge from one of its own clubs after approving new rules that would limit the ability of teams to buy ­players or strike sponsorship deals with parties related to their ownership.

An amendment to rules ­governing associated party transactions (APTs) was approved by clubs at a league meeting on Friday, after they had been informed of the risk of legal action should they do so. The ­identity of the club that is considering legal arbitration has not been made public, but is understood to be the ­champions, Manchester City."

(Source: The Guardian)

In summary, it looks like a club is lawyering up to safeguard against a dubious source of income falling foul of Profit and Sustainability rules.

Andy Riley
25 Posted 10/02/2024 at 09:30:58
Isn’t Masters in contempt of Parliament?
Kevin Edward
26 Posted 10/02/2024 at 09:30:59
The Premier League won't back down now, and I'm not sure that any of the deducted points will be returned.

It seems like a fight to the end, they are determined to make an example out of our club, they have been at it now for so long, both on and off the pitch.

This guy believes he's untouchable, as many of these self-serving executives lording it over billion-pound businesses often are. But the least I expect as a fan is for the club to go down swinging, kicking and screaming.

We can stay up this season, but this nonsense is going to roll on and on for years. The only thing that might stop it is the European Super League, which is likely to signal the end of this Premier League fiasco.

If people like Masters are effectively able to decide on clubs' league positions behind closed doors, with no challenge, then surely football must move into the court rooms for litigation?

It's no longer football, but it is still Everton and I want to be proud that, after nearly 30 years of drought, to see us start punching again.

Martin Farrington
27 Posted 10/02/2024 at 09:43:02
Several instances of contradiction and hypocrisy within that grammatically poor reply.

Including:- "minutes and discussions before the panel convened are legally protected material"

Yet Masters is blabbing away in releases to the press beforehand stating what the punishment should be, etc.
Therefore negating any perceived legal privilege.

The Premier League's Board meeting minutes are not protected by lawyer-client privilege. Only material between the two is. It does not stop you seizing and reading it to ensure no criminal offences are committed between the parties. As long as that is so it cannot be used.

He is confused about corporations and the Companies Act, in particular Section 37. Therefore Masters is partially right but for the wrong reason. There is no onus on him to release them. The Premier League is a private company.

His argument re the 10 points is again flawed. He quotes precedents; there are none. He mentions how the Premier League came to its 12-point reasoning, but there is no structure to base this upon.

The Premier League set-up is designed to give a nod that it is a legally well-oiled machine whereas, in fact, if you scrape the surface, you realise it is a house of cards purely designed for its own benefit.

It is a sham.

Alan J Thompson
28 Posted 10/02/2024 at 09:46:44
Well, being a private business, they must surely let all clubs who constitute the Premier League know what these private or legal issues are.

Sounds like a load of bullshit to me.

Paul Hewitt
29 Posted 10/02/2024 at 09:49:32
The other members of the Premier League board must be shaking their heads and thinking "What has Masters got us into?"

The only thing they should do now is sack that gobshite Masters and reinstate our 10 points. Drop the second charge and the one against Forest.

And put a proper plan in place for next season over clubs' finances.

Tony Abrahams
30 Posted 10/02/2024 at 09:52:02
Some very thoughtful posts on this thread, all pointing to the end of the current Premier League regime, but that last paragraph of Christine's is as good as anything I've ever read on these pages.

If they are your own words, Christine, then I think you honestly need to get them patented. 💙

James Marshall
31 Posted 10/02/2024 at 09:58:51
IMO what this achieves is rubber stamping an independent regulator — Masters has now himself made sure the Government definitely appoint one ASAP, so he's shafting himself and his organisation in the process.

I was quietly confident in our appeal – now I feel we might get a couple of points back, absolute tops, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if we get either, A) nothing, B) some points back, or C) some points back and then another deduction from the second charge, putting us back on probably 10 points deducted anyway.

I fail to see the Premier League being backed up on this one, since the furore surrounding it seems to signal them circling their wagons to fight off all comers.

Nobody at the Premier League, or the wider football world would really give a shit if we go into administration — it's dog eat dog and we now have every chance of ending up in a tin of Pedigree Chum.

Christine Foster
32 Posted 10/02/2024 at 10:16:07
Tony, they are indeed my own words, borne out of disgust of a game once loved and the arrogant vindictiveness of an organization which believes itself to be immune from criticism or question.
Jonathan Haddock
33 Posted 10/02/2024 at 10:17:42
The Premier League might think that this response shows that they have been reasonable and fair. However, they've done the absolute opposite. It shows that the PSR system they have developed is fatally flawed.

The Premier League decided that there would be no sanctions policy on PSR, leaving it completely down to the independent commission. Masters states however that the Board was required to submit a proposal for sanction against Everton. In other words, we have no policy but we have to make a recommendation on each case as we see it.

This makes the claims of sanctions independence a complete farce, where transparency and fairness fly out of the window. Without any consistent, established clear sanctions guidance, the whole process is shown to be not fit for purpose.

It astonishes me that the PL could respond like this and not receive the derision it deserves. Do they think anyone is stupid enough not to see right through this argument? They're just making an even bigger regulator-sized hole in their foot.

I hope that the DCMS committee responds with the put down that Masters deserves. Equally, the continued lack of transparency shown, should lead to a strengthening of the Football Regulatory Bill coming forward this month.

Bit by bit, our game is being ripped from us and soon it will sink into the swamp of its own creation. The game is a community and heritage asset of the country and must be protected in the same way as things like national parks or listed buildings. That can only be done by government and without idiots like Masters at the helm.

Tony Abrahams
34 Posted 10/02/2024 at 10:27:58
That reply made me think of the Christie Hynde classic:

So If you're mad, get mad, Christine – because I'll stand by you!

Christine Foster
35 Posted 10/02/2024 at 10:47:45
Tony, you should hear me after I've had a couple, I get that bitter, my pancakes don't need lemon.

This season feels different, Tony, I feel there is a real vendetta being played out by the Premier League, possibly to appease those clubs who threatened them with legal action should Everton not be made an example of, and of course, to play the part of self-appointed policeman over rules without frontiers. Too late. For years we have dug our own grave, but Masters is determined to kill us off.

Once again, the question is not of guilt but of the power to inflict injury. They have already gone too far. All they do going forward is self-harm, we are past the tipping point of fairness.

Les Callan
36 Posted 10/02/2024 at 10:48:04
I said on a different thread last night that I couldn't make head nor tail of this. Still can't, and I've read it umpteen times.

Is this charlatan really telling us that the Premier League told Everton two months before the supposed independent commission met, what the likely outcome would be? The man's a fool.

Let's hope the parliamentary committee pursue this further. Time for Andy Burnham to show his teeth.

David West
37 Posted 10/02/2024 at 10:51:31
This just shows that the Premier League shouldn't be the competition organiser, administrator, responsible for fairness and impartiality.

As he says, it's the first time PSR has been breached and with no clear sanction policy set out in the rules, therefore its seen as they are making the rules up as they go, because they never thought these sanctions would come into effect. The whole process hasn't really got clarity, transparency or fairness. It's like we are the guinea pigs to see how the process would be enforced.

On the minutes, they should publish them if there's nothing to hide; however, it would leave them open to every club who feel aggreived to ask the same, and as we know it's a pact. Everton's part of that pact, and it wouldn't surprise me if the club and other clubs wouldn't want all these minutes of meetings published, as we would all see the greedy and self-serving lot for what they are.

The one question that I don't believe he was asked at the committee was, how can you be docked more points for going £19.5M over the PSR limit, but if you are put into administration for no longer being able to meet your commitments, you only get docked 9 points?

How could he justify that?
How would he have answered?

Only 1 or 2 of the committee had a real sense of the issues and Masters's contempt showed he knew they didn't know what they were talking about.

A regulator will no doubt be brought in, filled with another load of people who will be puppets, and we will be no better off.

Christine Foster
38 Posted 10/02/2024 at 10:54:23
Make Andy Burnham the new independent regulator.
Les Callan
39 Posted 10/02/2024 at 10:58:55
Great idea, Christine.

Get it done asap, then he can sack Masters and rescind any Premier League punishment on the Blues!

Barry Lightfoot
40 Posted 10/02/2024 at 11:03:02
I like Jack's idea, get 6 clubs from the Championship to replace them and tell the Sly 6 and the Premier League to do one.
Paul Hewitt
41 Posted 10/02/2024 at 11:16:38

I'd get 6 clubs from the Scottish league. Then tell the Sly 6 and Premier League to do one.

Paul Birmingham
42 Posted 10/02/2024 at 11:21:27
Jeez, let's hope Masters and his cronies get done as well for perjury and perverting the law.

His stance is a cover-up, speaks like he's Al Capone when he was brought to justice.

The lack of action against Man City since 2009 raises corruption and it surely must be the case that Everton have been polarised and treated unfairly.

I hope Everton's KC can dismantle and finish him and his cronies off for good. English football will never be the same.
His scant information on his business guidelines suggest it's all biased and I hope the KC has gone through the Premier League's and Masters's bank accounts.

Now to beat Man City.


Ian Wilkins
43 Posted 10/02/2024 at 11:35:26
The club has made some serious errors, we are not blameless, but it's frustrating as hell we can't get a fair trial or hearing.

This is a private members club. Its appointed management has an agenda. It sets and marks its own homework. There is no independent recourse, including legal or parliamentary (until a regulator is installed).

That said we can't give in. We must continue to make as much noise as possible, to get the real facts aired on all forums possible. We need to make the noise constructive, personal attacks (understandable as they are) probably don't help.

We've got to find a more productive route, with some supportive sources. The club needs to engage the best professionals, irrespective of cost, to fight its corner, get its points heard beyond the Premier League. Use every contact it has.

Our future is at stake here.

Barry Williams
44 Posted 10/02/2024 at 11:38:21
Now, not knowing the legalities in the UK (my take on Japanese law is actually better due to being involved in a legal case there with a construction firm for the best part of 18 months!) even though the Premier League is a private firm by all accounts – that doesn't give it carte blanche to act any way it wishes, surely.

Especially when we consider the impact on the actual local community and indeed city wide impact, it is in the public interests to keep Everton going – surely the Premier League has legal obligations here.

Not only is a part of the city being revitalized, the city as a whole will benefit from the new stadium in terms of other events being attracted to the city, and massive amounts of revenue generated.

Now, add into the equation Everton in the Community – though a registered charity I believe, its association with Everton is what gives it its clout and effectiveness, surely (again).

I can certainly see this case ending up in the Crown Court and that would open a monstrous can of worms for all involved.

Happy to be told if I am talking rubbish here, or barking up the wrong tree.

Tom Cannon
45 Posted 10/02/2024 at 11:40:15
This is fairly typical nonsense on every level.

If we start with the first point about applying “the rules consistently” but the Premier League's clear and unambiguous wish to deduct 12 points from Everton was “leaked” in advance. This wish has never been denied, so the fairest thing to do would surely be to release what punishment it wants Man City, Chelsea and others to receive. No chance!

On the second point about the “independence” of the legal advice. These are lawyers appointed by and paid by the Premier League. Only recently, the UK Supreme Court made clear that the responsibility of lawyers is to their client (not the law, justice or fairness)… in this case, the client is Premier League.

Frankly and sadly, I have no doubt the lawyers appointed by the Premier League will do what their client wants.

Moving on to the issue of releasing minutes. The claim of confidentiality is a let-out. The Office of the UK's Information Commissioner is clear “minutes of senior level policies and strategies, eg, board meetings, should be published on a regular basis.” If the Bank of England can publish the minutes of the rate-setting committee, it's hard to see and good reason why the Premier League can't.

But of course, it's all a sham. The Premier League is run by a for and by lawyers and bankers. Look at the composition of its Board. The last person to join, a Hedge Fund executive!

Hedge Funds are among the most parasitic, poisonous twists in the financial system over the last few decades. They are typically designed to build debt, avoid tax and exploit workers… sounds familiar?

Dave Cashen
46 Posted 10/02/2024 at 11:42:01
This chinless bastard has gone straight to the top of my dartboard list.

Clive Thomas is still there, but relegated to 2nd place. Rafa drops down to 3rd, I never thought the day would arrive when Jimmy Case would be ousted from the top three.

Good job I'm not one to bear grudges.

Andy Meighan
47 Posted 10/02/2024 at 11:56:35
Let's face it, we're not getting one single point back.

And it makes me laugh when Forest keep getting a mention, I can't see their points deduction.

Without the risk of sounding paranoid, this cunt sounds like he hates us, reading between the lines.

Him, officials, not one single penalty all season, manager being booked for fuck all, and disallowed goals… no wonder we feel that the world is against us.

Oh and look who's the VAR today – only that bastard Oliver! I'll bet he's rubbing his grubby little hands, the horrible twat.

And I'm not apologising for my foul language.

Anthony Hawkins
48 Posted 10/02/2024 at 12:13:41
I can't bring myself to comment properly about Master's response, so will treat it with the contempt it deserves. He's been given rope and hanging himself by it.

Anyone saying this is the first time the PSR has been breached. No, it's the first time a charge has been levied against it. As others have stated, Man City and Chelsea breached it prior to Everton, yet have still to face charges.

There are clubs publicly finding loopholes in the rules, eg, publicly funded ground upgrades. You want to talk about fair? Give Everton some public funding!

Nick White
49 Posted 10/02/2024 at 12:57:42
I am surprised, being a private business but with a very public image, they did not deduct Man City points for the five (I think) counts of failure to cooperate with their investigation. They could have done it when they were miles ahead... maybe 3 points... then they could sit back riding the "Man City unique situation" forever and have the lawyers keep it dragging on for decades.

I get that they don't care about us... but sacrificing plucky and beloved little Forest too? — all to keep the regulators away...

Jim Wilson
50 Posted 10/02/2024 at 15:37:54
Masters has not only disrespected Everton but he has been disrespectful to the Premier League and to Parliament.

This is what you get when you appoint someone who is not up to the job. He is clearly a yes-man who is following orders of the people who gave him the job.

Masters doesn't even pass the Premier League's first principal:

1. Integrity

We expect all Premier League Personnel to conduct themselves with integrity and in a manner that reflects positively on the image of the Premier League and football in general. We expect all Premier League Personnel to be reliable, professional, honest and trustworthy both in dealings with each other and third parties. This guiding principle informs the others that follow, and encompasses all aspects of our activities.

I find it astonishing that Masters is still in his post as CEO. He is a joke and the Premier League clubs should have sacked him long ago. I only hope that Caroline Dinenage now does everything she can to sort the Premier League out, but unfortunately it is rotten to the core.

Too many clubs have their own agenda and I will be astonished if the club across the Park are not very much behind what has been going on. After years of receiving support from Everton Football Club during their hard times, I find their silence on this absolutely despicable.

We were mugs in 1986 falling for the 'Merseyside Merseyside' bullshit – and here we are today left to fight for our survival on our own.

Les Callan
51 Posted 10/02/2024 at 15:48:29
Imagine this:

A man is charged with stealing a bag of groceries. Two months before his court appearance, he is told by the crown prosecutor that his hearing will be held in secret, in front of a judge and jury appointed by him, and that when he is found guilty he will get two years in prison.

He will be able to appeal, but that hearing will also be held in secret in front of a different judge and jury, but again appointed by him.

A few months later, he is told that he has been charged again for stealing the same bag of groceries, and will face further proceedings again in private, again by a different judge and jury, but again appointed by him.

Oh and by the way, he is told that that chap Mr Sevensevenseven who has promised him a job and a house when he gets out of prison, is a scumbag and has been warned to have nothing to do with him.

( I've made all this up haven't I ………..or have I?)

Kieran Kinsella
52 Posted 10/02/2024 at 16:02:04

I'd alter your analogy slightly and say that the grocery thief didn't steal the groceries per se but took two bags out to his car where he said he left his wallet and he'd return and pay.

But whilst he was inside, his mate who was looking after his wallet and had lent him 50 quid, was nicked by the Old Bill.

Meanwhile, said mate who also happened to be his slumlord agreed to sell the flat he rents to Mr Sevensevenseven but the bank plan to foreclose as Triple S commited mortgage fraud while obtaining the loan. Now your fellow is potentially homeless and the Old Bill are charging each grocery bag as a separate crime.

Meanwhile, his neighbor who hatched a scheme with 5 mates to rob the entire grocery store of all its inventory gets a slap on the wrist. And a Mancunian gang who have committed hundreds of robberies haven't been charged as its too much paperwork for the Old Bill to bother with.

Jack Convery
53 Posted 10/02/2024 at 16:07:11
And to think we helped create this bastard organisation. Frankenstein is real.

I for one will not forget the silence of the RS… or am I just bitter?

David West
54 Posted 10/02/2024 at 17:50:18
The recent transfer window inactivity shows the rest of the Premier League clubs are now going, "Oh, this is what the rules we voted for look like when put into action. Shit, we'd better stop spending billions … Oh no, we can just change the rules!"

So I'd say the Premier League have got what they wanted, a warning shot. Just give us 8 points back, move on to the real corruption.

Peter Mills
55 Posted 10/02/2024 at 18:16:56
Jack #53,

One would presume that Liverpool wield a considerable amount of power within the Premier League, with the ability to influence decisions.

Perhaps they already have...

Paul Hewitt
56 Posted 10/02/2024 at 18:45:02
Reports saying a growing number of clubs are not happy with Masters.

He'd better get his CV up to date!

Bobby Mallon
57 Posted 10/02/2024 at 19:06:12
You don't need to deal with requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as a small privately-owned business unless you provide services on behalf of a public authority.

Does this apply to the Premier League?

Jeff Armstrong
58 Posted 10/02/2024 at 19:37:30
Results have gone our way today after our defeat, no further away apart from Brentford, but on Friday we will get 5 points returned (my take cos everybody wins in a shit sandwich) which will put us above Brentford with a home game against Palace to come.


Paul Hewitt
59 Posted 10/02/2024 at 19:55:10
Will we definitely find out next week about the appeal?
Tony Abrahams
60 Posted 10/02/2024 at 19:57:36
I personally believe that, if the Premier League had not given Everton a points deduction, thus giving the promoted clubs a massive lift, then it would have been a very boring season on the relegation front, with the three promoted teams possibly being relegated by Easter.

One of the major arguments between Masters and Parry was a massive contradiction of sorts, with Parry saying that the parachute payments are giving the relegated clubs an unfair advantage and Masters saying that they need to keep them so as to enable the promoted clubs to be competitive when they qualify for the Premier League.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it felt before Luton suddenly found a bit of confidence and got to grips with the Premier League and it wouldn't surprise me if things like this might have been discussed many times by Masters and his bosses.

Jeff Armstrong
61 Posted 10/02/2024 at 20:10:35
Next Friday is the day of our 5 points return, PH.
Paul Hewitt
62 Posted 10/02/2024 at 20:20:34
You heard something, Jeff?
Paul Ferry
63 Posted 10/02/2024 at 20:26:13
I really hope that you are right, Jeff, but where have you heard this from mate?
Paul Hewitt
64 Posted 10/02/2024 at 20:28:10
5 points not enough for me, Paul. I want all 10.

The robbing bastards.

David McMullen
65 Posted 10/02/2024 at 20:35:25
"Being a private business, it is not our practice to provide or publish minutes of Premier League Board Meetings. Nor are we able to publish submissions the Premier League Board or Executive make as part of confidential legal proceedings".

What are they hiding? They may hide behind being a "private business" but they're a very public organisation and all the 20 clubs in the Premier League are shareholders. Therefore, surely those clubs (including Everton) have a right to this information?

Jeff Armstrong
66 Posted 10/02/2024 at 20:42:52
Super Silk finished his case last Friday, he was at Goodison next day, if you have had a good week and fee, your ego takes you to a place to gloat and flex a muscle or two, especially for a Tory, they win very little at the moment.

Result was always determined for mid-February, next Friday is 16 February, they release these things late Friday afternoon so no comeback, or phones ringing to explain things as it's Friday afternoon (honestly, this is a thing).

5 points return suits all parties.

So no, sorry, I know sweet fuck-all... like everyone else.

But this is what will happen.

Brian Williams
67 Posted 10/02/2024 at 20:47:48
For fuck's sake, Jeff whatever you're drinking, have one less. 🤣

For what it's worth I see 3 scenarios.

1) No change.

2) 4 points back.

3) All points back.

If it's anything other than that, then the drinks are on Dave Abrahams.

Jeff Armstrong
68 Posted 10/02/2024 at 20:56:47

5 points to us means you're in the chair.

Tony Abrahams
69 Posted 10/02/2024 at 21:10:15
Number one on your list is one of Dave’s favourite shouts, Brian!
Brian Hennessy
70 Posted 10/02/2024 at 21:23:05
I spoke to a very good source today who almost never gets it wrong. He told me that the appeal verdict is that we are to get back between 0 and 10 points.

If he is wrong on this one, I'll buy drinks for everyone.

Neil Copeland
71 Posted 10/02/2024 at 21:25:01
Brian, you missed one:

We get an extra 5 points for having the audacity to appeal.

Jeff Armstrong
72 Posted 10/02/2024 at 21:33:22
Brian 84, I don’t actually drink, but feel free to speculate.🧐
Jim Wilson
73 Posted 10/02/2024 at 21:47:41
Peter @ 55 - 'Perhaps they already have' - I agree
Ray Jacques
74 Posted 10/02/2024 at 22:38:24
We were guilty so 10 points back isn't going to happen.

We will at best get 5 points back, but they will then take them back in April when we are done again. It's just another example of the imbeciles who have been 'running' Everton FC.

Hopefully forest also get a 5-point deduction so at least we gain on them.

Unfortunately it's another relegation battle and looking at the upcoming fixtures, I don't see a good run until April. Not good for my ticker.

Barry Williams
75 Posted 11/02/2024 at 05:19:17
Just thinking about sporting advantages – was Man City's bench worth about £½ billion???
Danny O’Neill
76 Posted 11/02/2024 at 09:53:36
Barry, I've just said to Tony that my son, who watched early doors in the States, told me that apparently our starting lineup cost less than Grealish, who was on the bench.
George Stuart
77 Posted 11/02/2024 at 10:30:24
It occurs to me that, in declining to publish the minutes on the basis of being a private business entity, this dick has gotten to the heart of the matter.

Everton are a business company. Our goal is to make money by playing football and winning trophies, or at least trying to.
The relationship between these self-governing, self-serving and self-regulating entities has never been clear to me.

The rules of law and of business should be clear and enforceable. Independent bodies, nudge-nudge meetings in the pub or restaurant should not be allowed. Nor should making it up as you go along.

Fifa and the International Olympic Committee personify this sort of approach. Independent and ungovernable. I don't know why nations put up with it.

Good on the States for prosecuting Fifa. Though I don't see Sep Blatter languishing in jail anywhere.

Dave Abrahams
78 Posted 11/02/2024 at 11:03:18
Jeff (6),

5 points or more back and I'm in the chair, no problem Jeff, everyone's welcome as long as they are all like your good self @72!!

Brendan McLaughlin
79 Posted 11/02/2024 at 11:14:52
Dave #78,

You do know that Guinness Zero reflects the alcohol content rather than the price...

Dave Abrahams
80 Posted 11/02/2024 at 11:37:04
Brendan (79),

No, I didn't know that, but I know that people used to say that Guinness is good for you and I used to think so is water and it's free.

That's one of my favourite sayings: “The best things in life are free” — just love it!!

Mark Murphy
81 Posted 11/02/2024 at 11:58:19
Dave, are you quoting the Flying Lizards there???
Dave Abrahams
82 Posted 11/02/2024 at 12:02:40
Mark (81),

No Mark, not being funny, never heard of them. Tell me about them.

Raymond Fox
83 Posted 11/02/2024 at 12:20:47
Rating what will happen with the appeal, I think it goes:-

2 points back: 40% chance,
4 points back: 25% chance,
0 points back: 35% chance, and
10 points back: zero chance.

They will not like to back down by much, if at all.

Ian Wilkins
84 Posted 11/02/2024 at 12:57:31
Sounding like it's decision day back end of the coming week. None of us (save those present at the Appeal) have a clue which way this is going.

We would all like to think some common sense and fairness will prevail, and a points reduction follows. Truth is there has been a complete absence of both of those things so far, and statements from Premier League suggest there is no movement from the intransigent self-serving position they have taken throughout.

We have to hope that our Silk has done a super job and at least some of the Appeal panel see reason, act impartially, and can get past the Premier League bias.

It's going to be a long week…

Jim Wilson
85 Posted 11/02/2024 at 15:09:19
Raymond @ 83 - I think if you put the word 'suspended' at the end of each of your percentage predictions that would be fair.

It would also suit all concerned.

No one is then backing down and the Premier League are then seen to be dealing with Everton, who have never before broken any rules and have always behaved impeccably, even when getting banned from Europe through no fault of their own, in a fair and measured way.

I do understand that a fine opens the door for other clubs to think that spending too much and paying a fine won't bother them so a points deduction is more of a deterrent.

So Everton being told it is 5 points suspended, but do it again and it won't be suspended is the proper way forward. Same for Forest.

Then bring in some sensible rules.

Paul Washington
86 Posted 11/02/2024 at 17:50:42
Mark @81 and Dave @82,

'Money' is an excellent 60s rhythm and blues song by Barret Strong. It was later covered by the Flying Lizards about 1979-80.

Mark Ryan
87 Posted 11/02/2024 at 17:58:20
I see a St Valentine's Day massacre. No reduction whatsoever.

After what has happened, I simply cannot see a backdown happening. I'll wait to be astonished if there is any reduction whatsoever.

George Cumiskey
88 Posted 11/02/2024 at 18:42:50
Can't see the arrogant Masters admitting the Premier League got it wrong.

I'll be really surprised and happy if we get any points back.

Terry Farrell
89 Posted 12/02/2024 at 07:31:05
Masters is a fuckwit and taking the PL down a rabbit hole and will lose credibility with the global audience.

What's wrong with the Jack Walker Blackburn Rovers story? What's wrong with the Welcome to Wrexham story? It's what fans dream of and couldn't happen in the PL.

We could all write a book on why what is happening to Everton is plain wrong and disgusting. Where is the support from other PL clubs or their fans? Silence – especially from Klopp and our neighbours!

Jim Wilson
90 Posted 12/02/2024 at 10:44:14
Spot on, Terry @89.

I honestly believe if Liverpool Football Club stood with Everton like we did for them, our problem would go away.

By not supporting us, it is clear Liverpool is on the side of the Premier League, is part of the corruption, part of the problem.

Liverpool know their influence is huge and their silence tells us everything we need to know.

Brian Wilkinson
91 Posted 12/02/2024 at 13:02:41
All it takes is the other 14 clubs to get together and say we are leaving the Premier Lleague and forming our own league.

They will shit themselves being left with just 6 teams in the Competition.

Nick Page
92 Posted 12/02/2024 at 13:12:59
If you ever wanted to see evidence of a supposed governing body having something to hide, then this is it.

"Oh but we're a private company so we can do what we like" is the worst excuse ever and something a man with little to zero integrity like Masters would hide behind.

I work for a private company that is heavily regulated and everything we do is recorded. Everything. Fair or not fair. And you have to comply as you have a responsibility for fairness.

His lack of nous is astonishing. And you have to wonder why a marketing man is running a supposed footballing governing body… Hmmm.

They won't give the points back, they're far too arrogant. And this will end up where it should have first gone, in the actual law courts. There is a deeper conspiracy at play here and it needs uncovering.

Ray Roche
93 Posted 12/02/2024 at 13:13:04
Paul @86,

It was also covered by The Beatles on ‘With The Beatles' LP in 1963 Tamla Motown song.

Pete Neilson
94 Posted 12/02/2024 at 13:27:11
“That means enforcing our rulebook consistently and impartially” said Masters with a straight face.
Michael Connelly
95 Posted 12/02/2024 at 13:28:18
Only read the last few comments, but I think Jim (85) that hopefully the 'suspended' word is the get-out-of-jail word for all parties.

The club will be happy if it's xx points suspended, and at least the Premier League will also be seen to be capable of imposing some form of punishment.

And if they are proposing to change the rules at the end of the season in any case, hopefully that means that any penalty this season can't be upheld.

Brian Wilkinson
96 Posted 12/02/2024 at 13:42:28
Make no mistake we are at our lowest right now, but in time this will be sorted out, we just have to ride the storm.

In just over a year, we should be clear of any future breaches, have new owners in place, a brand new stadium, with more revenue coming in, naming rights for the stadium, the stadium although at the moment is hampering our P7S, will be the very thing that resets our football club going forward for a new beginning.

For now, let others scoff at the wooden seats, at obstructive views, lack of direction.

Once we get owners in place, and a board that can run a football club, we will be the envy of a lot of teams, when they visit the new stadium… our time will come.

Stuart Sharp
97 Posted 12/02/2024 at 13:48:34
Paul & Ray,

Jerry Lee's version, live at the Star Club, Hamburg, is the business.

Brian Wilkinson
98 Posted 12/02/2024 at 14:08:14
Paul and Ray, thought I would throw in Instant Karma for Masters, while you are on the song front, and add a quote from the Green Mile, Dead Man Walking, this will finish Masters off.
Mark Murphy
99 Posted 12/02/2024 at 14:09:52
Dave, the Flying Lizards were a one-hit wonder from the '70s with a female lead singer who had a weird voice.

Tbh I was expecting you to roundly chastise me for overlooking The Beatles far superior rendition but it was a half-arsed attempt at humour for which I apologise.

See you in the Harlech before the Palace game???

Stephen Davies
100 Posted 12/02/2024 at 14:54:24

I'm sure that 'Lead Singer' with the weird voice was the Secretary.

Dave Abrahams
101 Posted 12/02/2024 at 15:04:22
Mark (99) I just played The Flying Lizards version of Money, the singer wasn't bad half singing and half talking the song. I like Jerry Lee Lewis but wasn't fussy on his live version, what a piano player though, nearly as good as Liberace. The Beatles I could take them or leave them, gimme the Rolling Stones any day. Lennon and McCartney wrote some great songs that will last but as entertainers, The Beatles didn't impress me a lot.

I'd honestly love to see you again but the walk from the Harlech to the ground is a big effort now, sorry to say with my jelly legs, as my wife calls them, but I'll get there for one game before the end of the season, promise!!

Brian Wilkinson
102 Posted 12/02/2024 at 18:17:28
Dave, I would give you a piggy back from the Harlech, but I might offend you with my new Beatle Xmas hat I might be wearing.

I do like The Stones but The Beatles to me are on par with you and an endless tape loop of Alan Ball viewings, never tire of it. A bit like Marmite, The Beatles, you either love them or hate them, I think they were brilliant.

Neil Copeland
103 Posted 12/02/2024 at 21:34:37
The RS agenda is aimed 100% at bringing Man City down so there is no way they will show support for us because we are the catalyst in their view.

A thought occurred to me that Masters may have actually dropped a hint when he claimed that Everton‘s points deduction is subject to appeal which is what the asterisk means (during the meeting with the government committee).

I thought it was simply more of his bollocks at the time but now I am thinking (hoping) he is actually telling us that we may get some points back.

Paul Saleh
104 Posted 12/02/2024 at 23:00:18
If the appeal goes against us, can we go to the court of arbitration for sport?
Karl Masters
105 Posted 13/02/2024 at 02:47:53
I've thought all along they will halve it or make it 6 points reduction.

But then they will take at least another 5 points off us in April, maybe more if the breach is really the £86M I read somewhere and not the £19.5M of the previous breach.

So we need points on the pitch – we could be down to 10 points so need 25 points from the 45 remaining … 8 wins, 1 draw, 6 defeats. It's possible and the next 3 matches – Palace, Brighton and West Ham – it's vital we get at least 7 points.

Bobby Mallon
106 Posted 13/02/2024 at 09:07:45
Karl Masters.

We are going into administration, like it or not. It's sad times for a club like Everton.

I just wish the fans would buy the club. Surely between fans around the world, we could do it. Even if it's just to keep the FFP or what ever it is, in check.

Bobby Mallon
107 Posted 13/02/2024 at 09:20:51
One more thing.

I do believe the Premier League and Liverpool are scared of us getting into a new stadium and this is why we are being persecuted by Masters and Co and no one from Liverpool has said anything about the disproportionate deduction.

A new state-of-the-art stadium taking the young fans away from the shite. Big companies sponsoring us. They don't want it to happen.

Brian Harrison
108 Posted 13/02/2024 at 09:45:20
I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories as to why the Premier League came down on Everton and now Nottm Forest, it's because they don't want the government to appoint somebody to oversee the administration of the rules.

So the facts are that Everton overspent the £105M that each club is allowed, and seemingly Forest have done the same. We also were allowed to offset our original overspend by getting what many considered a way to generous allowance for the Covid period. I think we claimed that Covid had cost us £112M whereas a club of similar size Aston Villa claimed only half that amount.

Now we certainly have mitigating factors which were glossed over by the original commission. I would hope our new legal team would have certainly expressed that view more forcibly than seems to have happened before the original commission.

I do think that, unless we receive a significant reduction of the points deducted, then I fear we will again be punished for our 2nd transgression. At least we won't have long to wait as we were promised an answer before the end of February.

John Williams
109 Posted 13/02/2024 at 10:25:05
Bobby 107.

That statement, you are joking?

Danny O’Neill
110 Posted 13/02/2024 at 10:29:09
It's not a forgone conclusion, Bobby.

And we don't need to get into a paranoia and conspiracy theorist mentality.

We have a football match to play on Monday and then points to win over the rest of the season as well as clawing back at least some of those taken away from us.

We could take this the other way. The Premier League has cornered itself and may have to back down under now ministerial pressure.

Andy Duff
111 Posted 13/02/2024 at 12:13:04
What's starting to annoy me is fans are allowing themselves to be gaslighted.

I keep seeing posts from fans saying that they will accept some points back and almost be happy.

I'm convinced it was a plan all along give us 10, we all kick off, then reduce it and we are all grateful.

Nothing but all 10 points back should be accepted.

As can be seen from this reply, the Premier League does not know what it's doing.

Danny O’Neill
112 Posted 13/02/2024 at 12:26:37
I think all of us just want the points back that we have watched us earned this season, Andy.

As supporters, that is out of our hands. All we can do is turn up at Goodison on Monday or watch from a distance and urge the team on to get those points back on the pitch.

We didn't deserve that punishment.

Let's hope it gets put right.

Stephen Davies
113 Posted 13/02/2024 at 12:42:35
Sir Jim Radcliffe receives Director's & Owner's Test Approval from the Premier League.

Meanwhile, over at Goodison Park ...

Ray Jacques
114 Posted 13/02/2024 at 13:02:10
Andy, we broke the rules and therefore should be punished. We are also under investigation for a second default. Ten points back won't happen.

The punishment is disproportionate, hence it will be a case of how many we get back. I reckon 3 or 4, but there is no science, reason or logic to that.

Andy Duff
115 Posted 13/02/2024 at 13:35:14
Ray @114,

Show me where it's documented that points deduction is the punishment for this? Show me where the 20 clubs agreed to this?

There's absolutely no justification for a points deduction at all, in fact, I doubt there's not a single club in world football that's been done for this.

As for the second punishment, don't make me laugh – that's double jeopardy; not even the Football League are that stupid to do that, only the Premier League.

There's not a single Everton fan that should accept any points deduction at all. You've just proven my point. Fans are being gaslighted to accept this. Let's take 10 points… give a few back… and the plebs will be happy...

I'm not calling you a pleb – it's a figure of speech – so sorry if it reads like that!

Ian Pilkington
116 Posted 13/02/2024 at 14:12:16
We should be looking at a refund of all 10 points and instead a fine commensurate with the £3.7M levied on the Sky Six for attempting to join the European Super League.

Furthermore, the 10-point deduction is at present costing us 5 places in the league table, which based on last season's prize money would cost us £9.6M, a disproportionate fine in itself.

Billy Roberts
117 Posted 13/02/2024 at 14:29:17
Andy @111 & 115,

Well said, couldn't agree more. Yours should be the default setting of every Evertonian as far as I am concerned until the appeal can convince us that the 10 points was indeed the biggest crime committed in top-flight English football since its inception.

Another thing that I am genuinely puzzled by is Forests overspend? I have looked and searched but cannot find anywhere a figure in the public domain (like our £19:5M) of Forests overspend in question.

If we are ultimately punished, then we can easily apply our penalty to Forest, can't we? Remember Forest's tipping point was only £61M so they have to have overspent more than us, therefore a larger penalty, whatever the final fine-points deduction is.

Like Masters says – transparency and consistency!!! Yeh, alright, Richard… I don't fuckin think so.

These EFC and NFFC cases have to be resolved this season, the Premier League have said that already, so where is the NFFC details or predicted penalty that we were seeing well before our hearing? How come there are no leaks or info regarding NFFC?

If someone has anything on this, please post, it will be crucial to the final relegation places but it seems to be not gathering much interest or debate.

John Chambers
118 Posted 13/02/2024 at 15:31:17

I don't think that the “overspend” for either Forest or ourselves has been made public for the latest charges. I believe our £19.5M only came out after the first hearing.

Derek Cowell
119 Posted 13/02/2024 at 16:30:40
Everyone can speculate what may happen with this appeal so I am going to have a go too.

Based on the panels punishment of 6 points for the actual breach of the £105 million plus 1 point for each £5 million over that, if our KC manages to have our further mitigation allowed by the panel down to what we have heard the club considers accurate at about £8 million instead of £19.5 million, then we will be looking to get only 2 or 3 points back. This is the most that I am expecting.

Then on our second breach (if found to be true and double jeopardy is allowed) we will be looking at at least a further 6 points plus 1 or 2 more, depending on the size of the breach.

So we could end up with a total punishment of between 12 and 16 points plus over the 2 charges. Forest on the 1 charge could therefore end up with at least 6 plus extra points depending on the severity of their breach.

Our first punishment, upheld to some extent on appeal, then sets the precedent for our second one and Forests'.

This will in all likelihood relegate both clubs before the rules are changed in the summer and everyone else then gets away with it.

I hope I am wrong but I would not trust Masters, the 'independent panel' or the EPL to run a bath.

As everyone knows this has been done by the EPL purely to try and head off a Government regulator.

Derek Cowell
120 Posted 13/02/2024 at 16:35:33
Actually no I think Forest may still survive in my above scenario as Burnley and Sheffield United look doomed.

Derek Cowell
121 Posted 13/02/2024 at 16:57:37
Blooming heck, I've just looked at the league table and I am revising my view again.

As it now stands even if we get 6 more points knocked off and Forest get 6 or 8 we are still in with a chance of surviving in a big battle with the bottom 2 and Forest and we've got to play them all at home yet.

Silver lining, eh!!

Bobby Mallon
122 Posted 13/02/2024 at 17:03:21
John 109, I'm not joking.

At the time the dodgy 6 went behind the league's backs, I think it was Moshiri and Everton who where the only team to say out loud they should be punished with a points deduction.

Now look what's happening to us! Yes, I know we went over by £19.5 million but 10 points is a fucking crime.

Bobby Mallon
123 Posted 13/02/2024 at 17:05:32
Steve 113,

I just heard that – and people still think there ain't a conspiracy!

Bobby Mallon
124 Posted 13/02/2024 at 17:12:02
Andy Duff @115, another great post.

Evertonians are being complacent lately. We need all those points back (as the song goes) every fucking one of ‘em. We are being crucified by Masters and the rest of his cronies. We need to get back to more protests and get these points back.

Dave Abrahams
125 Posted 13/02/2024 at 17:42:12
I have said from the time we received the 10-point penalty, that it was over-the-top the crime didn't warrant such a huge punishment.

Since then a lot of fans, all entitled to air their opinion, have offered 2, 4, 5 or 6 points back, three or four demanding all 10 points back..

And a lot are saying we will not get any back or will be surprised and grateful if we get any, surprised me that.

The Premier League and their officials have taken the piss out of this club with the 10-point penalty and I will be amazed if that is allowed to stand.

I think we will get at least 6 back and nothing further on the second charge but I know as little as the next man… but I know the difference between getting a fair trial and a fixed one.

I hope our barrister has sorted the fixed one out.

Mal van Schaick
126 Posted 13/02/2024 at 17:55:27
Andy #115.

I will also go as far as saying our lawyers should be looking at suing the Premier League for reputational damage, and the effects on the squad, for having to play knowing that (through no fault of their own) their stress levels were affected, because of the situation they were subjected to, in not only the battle to survive in the league, but to save the very existence of our club. I sincerely hope that we launch a massive claim against the Premier League.

Andy Duff
127 Posted 13/02/2024 at 18:55:28
Mal @126,

I said something similar only the fans should do it. A civil case with say any funds won going to EitC or local grassroots football. This might force the Premier League to release the minutes.

Brian Wilkinson
128 Posted 13/02/2024 at 19:39:46
This makes interesting reading on Masters.

On 9 September 2020, Masters was accused by Newcastle United of not "acting appropriately" in relation to the Premier League's blocking of the attempted takeover of the club by a consortium consisting of PCP Capital Partners, Reuben Brothers and the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia.

This was following accusations from the consortium that the Premier League had deliberately misapplied their Owners' and Directors' test in order to frustrate the deal, due to improper influence from various third parties to block it.

On 29 September 2021, a Competition Appeal Tribunal heard that Masters and the Premier League "Abused its position" after it was "improperly influenced" by outside agencies such as the Qatari owned media outlet, BeIN Sports.

On 28 March 2023, Masters told the MPs that he could not comment on whether Newcastle's connection with Saudi Arabia was being reinvestigated following a US court case, which described the Saudi PIF as “"a sovereign instrumentality of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia”. The court case also said about the PIF Governor and the Newcastle chairman, Yasir Al-Rumayyan, that he is “a sitting minister of the government” with “sovereign immunity”. It raised concerns about the degree of independence between PIF and Newcastle.

Coronavirus crisis

On 9 September 2020, Masters told the BBC that it was "absolutely critical" for fans to be allowed back into stadiums to watch Premier League matches as soon as possible, as Premier League clubs stood to suffer £700m in lost revenue if the 2020–21 season (running from 12 September 2020 to 23 May 2021) was played behind closed doors. However, on 22 September 2020, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that spectators would continue to be banned from attending all sporting events in England until the end of March 2021, at the earliest.

So he held up a takeover bid for another club, sounds familiar, then he states clubs could lose up to £700 Million in lost revenue due to the virus, but then says Everton had over-inflated their losses which was very close to his reckoning and would not accept our loss estimations.

Michael Kenrick
129 Posted 13/02/2024 at 20:43:12
Mal @126,

Sorry to be the voice reason here but I just don't think you would get very far trying to sue the Premier League.

Let's look at 'reputational damage'. If ever there was an indictment of the self-inflicted Kenwright years of mediocrity, followed by his own personal cash-in on what was left of our withering reputation when he got Farhad Moshiri involved, I think you nailed it there.

Then there's the complete incompetence of those he put in charge of day-to-day operations at the club who knew full well and were also told repeatedly by the Premier League — and beyond that, should have been able to figure out themselves with a bit of their own real-time fiscal monitoring — just how big a hole they were in before the Premier League finally lost patience and decided to make a convenient example of them.

These arseholes were so fucking incompetent, they were convinced they had a robust defence, which ultimately consisted of Farhad Moshiri mouthing off to the commission after they had backed down and stupidly admitted a breach — rather than employing someone like Rabinowitz and really mounting a robust legal defence from the day they were charged.

Brian Wilkinson
130 Posted 13/02/2024 at 20:56:18
Cannot disagree with a single word of that Michael K, hit the nail on the head and spot on.
Steve Cotton
131 Posted 13/02/2024 at 21:14:59
If we don't get any points back it means we will get battered by the second charge without a doubt, so if that's the case go into administration immediately as we will be down anyway.
The 9 extra point deduction should be applied immediately so we start next season with a clean slate.
Next season we will be outside the PL so we can sue them for forcing administration the exact opposite of what PSR is about.

This will also cost Moshiri millions and we can clear the decks financially.
Ok it's not ideal but with no points back and more to follow we will end up down anyway...

Billy Roberts
132 Posted 14/02/2024 at 11:28:06

Thanks for the info, John, or the info about the lack of "info", I should say!

It's been so drawn out that it's hard to remember the timeline of events, I certainly know there was definite talk of a 12-point deduction well before our "impartial" hearing.

I eagerly await the details of NFFC's overspend but meanwhile, I am hearing nothing of NFFC's potential charge.

Surely this appeal decision has to be announced this Friday?
How long does it take 3 people to decide on this "crime" of the century?

12 Angry Men would have sorted this out in one afternoon!!

Brian Wilkinson
133 Posted 14/02/2024 at 15:24:05
Whether 777 Partners get approved or not, Everton will not go into administration, Moshiri will see to that; he knows once the stadium is up and running it will be a buyer’s dream.

If no one is waiting in the wings, Moshiri will keep hold of his assets and continue until another buyer is found.

There is no way Moshiri is going to let the club go into administration, too much to lose.

Kieran Kinsella
134 Posted 14/02/2024 at 16:46:36
Dave @125

I love the arbitrary numbers fans come up with for points being returned. 5? no higher? 7? no lower. It is like The Price Is Right.

I am in the 10 points back camp simply because there are too many discrepancies, flaws and inconsistencies in the whole "FFP" process.

Danny Baily
135 Posted 14/02/2024 at 16:52:44
I suspect we'll be waiting until Friday lunchtime now. Was hoping for news today.
Dale Self
136 Posted 14/02/2024 at 17:18:16
Brian 133, consider that getting rid of Moshiri by any means necessary was the sole purpose of the Premier League action.
Brendan McLaughlin
137 Posted 14/02/2024 at 17:22:55
Anybody think the announcement of the decision will be delayed until after Monday’s game?
Ray Roche
138 Posted 14/02/2024 at 17:30:32
Bad news was usually delivered on a Friday afternoon when firms etc were closed for the weekend.
Mark Taylor
139 Posted 14/02/2024 at 18:12:43
I may have missed this but does anyone know who appoints the Independent Chair who then appoints the members of the Commission?

And does that person serve for a fixed term?

John Chambers
140 Posted 14/02/2024 at 18:20:26
Billy, you are right about the PL demand for a 12-point deduction. I think it was just prior to the review starting, despite the fact that I'm pretty certain it had supposedly been agreed between the PL and Everton there would be no comment until the commission had finished.

All the “mood” music seems to say our appeal result will be announced Friday. The result of the second charge is going to be around 12 April based on the original Premier League timeline.

My best hope is that we get a few points back on appeal and our losses are sufficiently low in 22-23, say £10M, that in the second charge we can show we are aligning to the Premier League rules (effectively £35M per year).

Hopefully in that case our KC could argue that any overspend is purely down to the years we have already been penalised for so we shouldn't be penalised again

John Keating
141 Posted 14/02/2024 at 18:40:11

A guy called Murray Rosen picks both panels, those determining the charge and those in the appeal.

I think there's about a dozen members to pick from. He is appointed for 3 years, with 2 more years to go. So it appears this bunch can be picked for either “independent” panel.

I'm not sure who pays these wasters but to me how they can be called “independent” is a mystery. Seems to me they're just a bunch of mates who all have a big expense account and it would surprise me that 3 appeal members would go against their mates' decision.

Mark Taylor
142 Posted 14/02/2024 at 18:47:13
Brian @133,

I think, on the contrary, that there is a 30-40% chance (and I may be conservative) of administration. We are loss-making on a monthly basis.

There is still apparently £50M plus required to fund the completion of the stadium. Hence 777 Partners have ended up cash-flowing us to a far greater degree than I suspect they envisaged, not far short of £200M according to Paul the Esk.

All that needs to happen is the Premier League to refuse 777 Partners. Moshiri has shown no inclination to throw good money after bad, possibly because he has no more money left to throw.

In the event of administration, expect legal cases to flow.

For what it's worth, the other odds would be 10% (if that) of Moshiri continuing, 30-40% 777 Partners completing, and the balance for the famous last-minute mystery buyer…

Brian Wilkinson
143 Posted 14/02/2024 at 20:02:34
I cannot confirm this, but heard from a source that the three panel consisted of Clive Thomas, Clattenberg and Collina, with Stevie G observing and ready to step in, to ensure the right punishment is handed out.

With Simon Jordan waiting to announce it and stick the boot in.

Has anyone ever heard an Evertonian on TalkSport, phone in, and give a good balanced view? They must take calls then select the ones that make the caller sound like an extra from the film Deliverance! I've yet to hear a fellow Evertonian be selected. We meet at games and all have a well-balanced knowledge, so where the hell do TalkSport time after time have fans on talking shite and being embarrassing.

I do wonder if they are Evertonians on the call.

Billy Shears
144 Posted 14/02/2024 at 20:26:07
Bollocks we were, you fuckers want us down... plain and simple. Sorry to disappoint you but we'll stay up yet again just to spite you useless bastards.

VAR, rules that footy fans can't fathom, trying to ruin both Cup competitions, and now fucking Blue Cards???

The Premier League?... you're having a fucking laugh!!! Fuck off.

Mark Taylor
145 Posted 15/02/2024 at 00:23:25
John @141,

Thanks for that. But my real question is, who appoints Murray Rosen in the first place? If it's not God, it must surely be the Premier League? And who pays him?

Being an 'independent' anything is hard these days.

John Keating
146 Posted 15/02/2024 at 07:20:10
Yes, I fully agree, Mark. In my opinion, there is no way anyone can be totally independent. Rosen and his mates have to be paid, a no doubt huge amount, by whom?

I think it has already been accepted that the “independent” panel was indeed influenced by the “guidelines” given by the Premier League prior to their decision.

Ray Jacques
147 Posted 15/02/2024 at 08:28:55
We are at home on Monday evening live on Sky chucklevision.

They won't announce the result of the appeal until after this, the shithouses, I reckon.

Eric Haworth
148 Posted 15/02/2024 at 09:20:22
John #146,

I don't think any of us are in the slightest doubt that “he who pays the piper, picks the tune” and I think we're all clear that words such as “independent” and “guidelines” have never had any part to play in this “kangaroo court”.

The Premier League have been judge & jury throughout this pantomime!

Mark Ryan
149 Posted 15/02/2024 at 10:17:01
Surely the club have been told when the appeal outcome date is set.

Why has that date not been announced to us?

Jerome Shields
150 Posted 15/02/2024 at 10:40:40
Maybe I am reading too much into the Stadium announcements and the eminent, but not quite there yet, naming rights deal.

Bad news normally delivered on Friday.Get old Joe the F.... off interview on Friday and let him beat himself up over the Weekend and he will be thinking different on a Friday .Had a friend called for a meeting at the Gleneagles Hotel on a Friday.Put his golf Clubs in the boot .Turned out he was made redundant .On the way out drove around a roundabout five times trying to work out what to do.

But I agree that the Sky influence may mean to don't, hear anything to Tuesday..After all the travelling protesting Evertonians were ghosted during the Man City match.

But out of Frustration and despair Evertonians will be born with new words and new powers.Prohecy is a affliction of the articulate.

Michael Kenrick
151 Posted 15/02/2024 at 11:48:38
This "independent" thing rapidly became a massive stick with which to beat the "corrupt" Premier League throughout this whole sordid process.

I know it's hard but you have to stand back and pause for a moment, think how they could actually do this dispute resolution. I think the meaning here is very limited: independent of the other clubs in the Premier League.

Yea, some diligent digging quickly threw up how some of the commission members had worked on cases involving other clubs. But, if the guys were to be any use at all, wouldn't you want them to have some previous experience in doing what they were being asked to do here?

Independence from the Premier League as an adversary in the quasi-judicial process has to be more nuanced. Of course they are being paid by the Premier League, that's a no-brainer. Does that automatically make them corrupt?

No, I think it only means they are being paid to perform a service which requires them to be independent, to act impartially in a quasi-judicial process, to assess the submissions, evidence and witnesses fairly.

Now whether they did that or not has been the subject of massive debate and may only be shaded if the appeal commission go some way to redress the seemingly disproportionate sanction and the failure to properly consider the unquestionable impacts of the various mitigating factors.

Yes, we can scream 'bias' and 'corruption' at every turn but the fact that they found against Everton after the club backed down from its initial bullish approach, eventually admitting to there having been a breach and then having Farhad Moshiri himself leading the presentation of their case… it is perhaps no wonder they received little sympathy from the original independent commission. Reading the decision document, a scathing disdain of the club's performance throughout is all too evident.

Our central hope has to be that Laurence Rabinowitz has done enough to redress at least some of the corporate incompetence exhibited by Everton FC throughout the whole process prior to his appointment. I just hope it wasn't a case of "too little, too late".

Christine Foster
152 Posted 15/02/2024 at 12:08:57

I might have given them far more leeway if their continual emphasis in press releases, arguments and responses, wasn't on the "independence" of the commission when in fact it is no such thing.

Yet their continual reference to it as independent to the lesser mortal man, would seem to say it was impartial and was appointed without their agreement or direction of members. You cannot be independent from an employer.

Danny O’Neill
153 Posted 15/02/2024 at 12:41:39
Everton provide update on new 52,000-capacity stadium — Sky Sports News, YouTube clip

GBP £1.3 billion to the UK economy.

Thousands of visitors to the city of Liverpool and thousands of jobs created.

I'm so excited about this but heartbroken at the same time. I think we're going to go through a range of emotions.

Michael Kenrick
154 Posted 15/02/2024 at 12:52:26
But Christine, your premise all the way through (and you're not alone in this), seems to be that a perceived lack of independence from the Premier League itself is a major reason why the commission ended up punishing Everton in the way they did and therefore the whole thing is corrupt.

It's a hard one to prove or disapprove, as are all conspiracy theories. But think about the judiciary who are paid (presumably) by taxpayers' money (either via government or crown) and yet are required to reach impartial judgement in their myriad of cases against all and sundry. It's like saying "Well, they would enforce the law as that's what they are required to do by those who employ them."

Christine Foster
155 Posted 15/02/2024 at 13:26:26
But Michael, this is not a conspiracy theory at all, that premise is based on the comparison of judicial impartiality from government in determination of laws passed by parliament after due and detailed process in comparison to a private company with a set of rules by way of a handbook, that does not detail process, judgement or sentence in any form other than vague comment. Furthermore no violations of their PSR rules have ever been implemented, despite other more serious breaches occurring before ours.

The government passes laws are several full readings, by two houses of parliament to be governed by police and the judiciary who are non-political but interpret the law in many cases despite what government would like to see.

By comparison, a commission of people with expertise in various areas that the Premier League hire are not interpreting law, they are giving opinion based on incomplete rule structures formulated many years ago in an era past by agreement in principle with member clubs, half of which are no longer even in the Premier League.

This is not law, it's out-of-date rules being enforced selectively by appointed parties of the league itself. The fact it is headed up by Mr Rosen to me is window dressing, not a conspiracy theory at all.

John Keating
156 Posted 15/02/2024 at 13:47:05
Thing is, Michael, even the judiciary are not independent or impartial in their judgement.

Look no further than yesterday's case against the female Palestinian protesters who more or less got off with it, we now find the judge was not exactly impartial, based on social media contribution.

I would suggest it is almost impossible to be independent or impartial when one side of the argument is the side that pays your wages.

Both panels on this sorry case are from a very few select team and I believe this in itself is not independent or impartial. Had the net been cast far and wide to select these panels with minimal knowledge of each other, then I personally would have found the process more acceptable, but a selected few? No not for me. Then the word corrupt is easier to mention.

Dave Abrahams
157 Posted 15/02/2024 at 14:03:44
Christine (155),

Another brilliant post. I said to you weeks ago that I wished you were going to the appeal with our barrister to give him a nudge here and there.

Too late now but maybe the barrister had plenty up his sleeve to convince the commission to change their sentence.

In other words, I hope he was as sly and devious as them or even more so.

Mark Taylor
158 Posted 15/02/2024 at 14:10:20
Michael @151 and @154,

I think we have been mostly on the same page on this. I saw no evidence in the commission findings which suggested bias. Unfortunately, they filleted our defence very eloquently.

The problem was – and still is – the choice of punishment which just happens to mirror what the Premier League recommended. Co-incidences do not prove conspiracy but it does then raise questions. The more so when one considers that by far the weakest aspect of the commission's findings was in formulating that level of punishment.

The lack of a clear precedent didn't help but let's face it, that part was wafer-thin on the rationale. Hence people do then look at relationships and I am certainly in the camp that it is nigh on impossible to be truly impartial if you are being appointed and paid by one of the two parties involved in the hearing.

Not that I would propose arguing that case in the appeal. I think as you said previously, that would be to compound our problem. There is speculation that a re-working of our accounts excluding the stadium would have left us under the threshold. If that were true, then even if we have technically breached because of our poor paperwork on the loans (so the 6 points may end up staying) we cannot in reality have gained any sporting advantage as a result, so the 4 points are removed.

While on the speculation side, I wonder if we will end up being found in breach again, and be given 6 points, but these to be suspended because of 'double jeopardy'?

Jerome Shields
159 Posted 15/02/2024 at 14:50:11
The Premier League was set up independently to make more money for its members, including Everton. Under government pressure and rogue activities of some of its members, it found itself having to play catch-up on the regulatory side.

Principally because its members want to be self-regulated, so that they can continue as before and continue to make even more money.

In Everton's case, there has been a belated attempt by Everton to fight their case. This has primarily been brought about by the pressure of various Everton supporters' interests, whether individual or groups.

The Premier League and Everton never expected to be under this pressure. The Premier League thought it was going to be a faceless organisation that could just announce sanctions, without question. Their Chairman is still faceless.

Everton thought that they were compatriots in the Premier League decision-making process and they could continue their arm's-length investment strategy, which they are continuing with. Hence the out-of-this-planet feel. Premier League clubs are banded together with Sky to keep the lid on things.

Yes, after the match against Crystal Palace, the announcement will be made. Everton already know the result of the appeal. The result and the timing of the announcement will be to keep the money-making treadmill going.

All the parties involved, except Evertonians, are everything that they have been called, but it's all about continuing to make money. As much as possible… uninhibited.

Ian Wilkins
160 Posted 15/02/2024 at 15:18:46
Mark @158,

The Esk raised this point about restating Accounts to reflect a different accounting treatment of loan interest. I think this was his argument as to why we would be successful at Appeal and second charge.

I can see where this is coming from but wonder why we didn't do this in the first place? And secondly, why we wouldn't have done this for the recently submitted accounts (second charge), learning from the first.

We do seem to have been incredibly naive or stupid in terms of the treatment of these loans and associated interest payments.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of our accounting, the sanction imposed is disproportionate and the process followed lacks a framework and therefore transparency. This will always make any penalty subjective and therefore open to question of fairness.

Dave Abrahams
161 Posted 15/02/2024 at 15:23:01
Jerome (159),

Have you any idea if we'll be happy or sad when the announcement is made?

Jerome Shields
163 Posted 15/02/2024 at 15:42:25

Being Evertonians, we are destined to suffer, but there is always hope.

Paul Hewitt
165 Posted 15/02/2024 at 15:48:12
Well, if they're keeping the outcome till after the match on Monday, then I'd say that doesn't sound good.
Dale Self
166 Posted 15/02/2024 at 15:57:44
Paul has been wrong so often that I think post 165 is a good sign. Take yer pick.
Brian Williams
167 Posted 15/02/2024 at 16:01:11
I'd say if they're keeping the announcement 'til after Monday's match that's a good thing!
Paul Hewitt
168 Posted 15/02/2024 at 16:03:54
Not this time Dale. I have a bad feeling.
Michael Kenrick
169 Posted 15/02/2024 at 16:17:54

I think you've gone round the houses a bit there. The job of the independent commission was to follow the rules as laid down in the Premier League Handbook. Which is what they ostensibly did — up to the point where they said they had tossed aside the Premier League's submitted guidance on punishment … only to implement it exactly as presented in the Premier League's sanctions 'formula'.

The fact that half the clubs who may have voted for those rules are no longer in the Premier League is totally irrelevant. Each season, the current members of the private club assert their support of the Premier League structure, hierarchy and handbook by default.

Anything else would reduce it to the level of a Marx Brothers film where Groucho proudly states: "I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member."

The possibility that the rules are out of date or did not account for inflation is also completely irrelevant. Rules is rules. You're in the club, you have to accept and abide by the rules. You can't just go into a mad little paddy, running around and screaming how awful it is because you get caught and then punished primarily through you own crass stupidity and lack of nous.

A lot of Blues seem to have gone for this far too simplistic response of "It's a conspiracy and the Premier League are corrupt and are out to get us." Unfortunately, the card protests at games have only reinforced this typical scouser victimhood "The world's out to get us" mantra, without presenting clear evidence of exactly what they are claiming.

I think as intelligent Evertonians we need to have a much more sophisticated and nuanced response that recognizes the parameters under which this is playing out.

Jay Harris
170 Posted 15/02/2024 at 16:36:05
How can any panel be called independent when it is being put together by KC Rosen who has a long affiliation with Leeds who he has reportedly represented on a number of matters?

Why not let Rabinowitz choose the makeup of the panel or at least one of them?

Michael Kenrick
171 Posted 15/02/2024 at 17:07:38
Jay @170,

How do you square Murray Rosen's supposed allegiance to Leeds United with him being a member of Arsenal FC?

Dave Abrahams
172 Posted 15/02/2024 at 17:08:20
Michael (169),

Whether the rules are out of date or not, I do not think that you can be allowed to change them halfway through when a club is being charged for an offence and being sentenced for that offence.

I think that is a massive part of our appeal against this sentence and I hope it has been used.

Michael Kenrick
173 Posted 15/02/2024 at 17:14:14
Dave @172,

That does sound bad.

So, I'm curious... which of the rules have been changed half-way through in a way that would affect the sentence imposed on Everton?

Brian Harrison
174 Posted 15/02/2024 at 17:40:50

I don't believe the conspiracy theorists and I don't believe the Premier League set out to get us, but I do believe they were looking to prove to the Government that they could govern without Government intervention.

Everton admitted that they had transgressed the P&S rules, but there were very important and financially crippling decisions that were out of the club's control that the commission just brushed aside. Namely our main investor and sponsor being prevented by the Government from putting any more money into the club.

Now I would hazard a guess that, if any other Premier League club had been given a sanction with immediate effect to its main sponsor, many would have found themselves in a possibly worse position than we found ourselves.

I would imagine our new KC leading our appeal would have been more forcible in putting that point to the commission, and as was widely reported in the press that USM was prepared to pay Everton £30M to be front of the queue when it came to naming rights. So, because of the sanctions, we lost that £30M which would have wiped out our £19.5M overspend.

I listened to a post by Henry Winter the other day and he said his father was one of the architects who designed Candlestick Park, one of the iconic stadiums in America. And he said he finds it incredible that a club like Everton, who themselves are building an iconic stadium in one of the most deprived areas of the country, are being punished for what is an overspend that is largely due to the stadium build.

I am a little surprised that you find the card protests that it helps reinforce the Scousers victimhood. So I take it you think we got a fair hearing and should accept the 10-point deduction and get on with it.

Dave Lynch
175 Posted 15/02/2024 at 17:44:07
The new rules that are coming into force will only cement the rich clubs' stranglehold on the Premier League.

Wolves are, it is reported, having to sell their prized asset in order to make sure they comply with FFP. It's reported that the "Big 4" are already sniffing round.

How long can or will the rest put up with this blatant bias and gerrymandering?

Dale Self
176 Posted 15/02/2024 at 18:16:04
Paul, on the timing, the Premier League would not want one relegation-threatened team to get an advantage against another by announcing before a direct contest between them. It might be a good sign, really.
Will Mabon
177 Posted 15/02/2024 at 18:26:23
Dave, 175:

I was just reading of and pondering the same thing. The system overtly in its intended action.

If there was any kind of fairness or balance being sought or engineered, the opposite effect would prevail, ie, such players going to Burnley perhaps, and not to teams already having a squad value of multiple times the cost.

John Keating
178 Posted 15/02/2024 at 18:30:11
Michael 169

I have to say I am very disappointed that you find it unfortunate that the poster protests show us as scouse victims.

I take it then that you believe nobody, be that supporters, politicians, business people, should show any outward sign of protest against the 10-point decision. We should all have sat back, accepted the decision in silence and awaited the appeal.

Sorry, Michael, you are entitled to your opinion but there are many who seriously do not agree with it.

I applaud every single supporter, intelligent or not, who have marched, protested, waved posters, messaged their MPs and done whatever to show their disgust at the decision of the Premier League's “independent” commission.

Personally, I am glad, and proud, of what we have done rather than have “..a much more sophisticated and nuanced response…”

Will Mabon
179 Posted 15/02/2024 at 18:34:19

One could make a case for the effect of the outcome in either direction, on the field of play.

I could however imagine there being thought given to avoiding an embarrassingly strong protest before and at the game...

Larry O'Hara
180 Posted 15/02/2024 at 18:50:57
John (178),

I agree fully: not victims but protagonists fighting injustice…

Rob Halligan
181 Posted 15/02/2024 at 19:09:21
So one or two think the appeal decision will not be announced until after the Palace game. Why, exactly?

That it may give either team a psychological advantage, or perhaps if it goes against us, some think there will be one almighty protest aimed at the Premier League.

There will not be one member of the Premier League in attendance on Monday night, so I doubt they will have anything to fear, unless Richard Masters was thinking of standing on the centre spot at half-time to announce it, in which case it would be a full 10 points returned!!

If the decision is not to our liking, then there is the home game after that, and the one after that to protest, plus a few away games.

My own personal opinion is that, the longer it goes, the more likely a positive result. If it was to go against us, with all members of the appeal panel saying “Nah, you're getting nothing back”, then that decision could have been easily announced last week, but because it's taking a bit longer than expected, perhaps they're thinking “Yes, they've got a point, maybe the penalty was too harsh.”

Anyway, from what I've heard, and this apparently has come from within the club, is that we will get 5 or 6 points back, but we can only wait and see… and pray! 🙏🙏🙏

Paul Birmingham
182 Posted 15/02/2024 at 19:18:21
Agreed Rob, and hoping for big positives from this appeal and in view of what may happen, with the other charge.


Karl Masters
183 Posted 15/02/2024 at 19:24:28
Although I can't see it happening, we should get all the points back. A fine or suspended points deduction of up to 5 points would have sent out a message to other clubs.

The Premier League have blown any chance they had of avoiding Government regulation by their botched handling of this.

To think a club could still be relegated or stay up 5 days after the season ends, depending on an appeal, is ludicrous and shows that the Premier League want to pull all the strings despite saying they are here for all clubs.

John Keating
184 Posted 15/02/2024 at 19:43:14
Rob 181,

In my opinion, if we only get 5 or 6 points back, then we should immediately go to arbitration.

Again, in my opinion, we should not get one single points deduction, not one for this alleged £19.5 million overspend.
Either a monetary fine or suspension.

Regardless of the appeals commission decision, I believe protest against Masters and the Premier League should continue.

They have been shown to be totally incompetent and unable to run their business. The sooner the Government step in, the better.

After this Everton and Forest nonsense is over, I reckon the Premier League Clubs will meet and get their processes in order and completely revamp their so-called handbook.

Brian Williams
185 Posted 15/02/2024 at 19:52:31
Arbitration is not an option seemingly.
Christine Foster
186 Posted 15/02/2024 at 20:04:43
Michael @169,

I didn't think I went around the houses at all, but to be a little bit more direct, I don't believe it's a conspiracy, but I do believe we are being made an example of. I don't believe your interpretation of independence is not what people understand it to be.

The Premier League's deliberate and repeated use of the term is misleading as they are their employer. So in this perspective, I have to disagree with you.

Not playing the victim, but the fact remains we are the victim and any case we put up would be seen by some as such. Nuanced responses fly over the heads when you're being hit with a hammer.

We are in the wrong place at the wrong time because of the incompetence of those who owned and run our club, a gift for an opportunist Premier League who needed to demonstrate it could manage its own affairs without a regulator.

Perfect Patsy that's done its job.

Rob Halligan
187 Posted 15/02/2024 at 20:25:44
John #184,

Totally agree mate, the punishment definitely does not fit the crime. At best a suspended points deduction and a fine should have been the punishment, or maybe a transfer embargo for 12 months.

Another thing that does my head in, is other teams fans who chant "Cheating bastards, you know what you are". I think some of these fans need educating on exactly what the overspend was on, as it was certainly not for any sporting advantage, unless a three quarter built stadium has managed to score a winning goal or save a penalty in the last twelve months!!

The most ironic being Man City last Saturday, with their impending 115 charges. Man city fans were also changing "Cheating gets you nowhere". Maybe they saw the irony in that as it seems "Cheating has got them everywhere!!

Dave Abrahams
188 Posted 15/02/2024 at 20:32:00
Michael (173),

The very fact that they will alter the way FFP is looked at sometime this year, meaning that every club from then will be treated differently from the way Everton were charged and sentenced.

Most of the clubs are already operating their finances in a different and more prudent way since Everton were punished and made an example of.

Why were Everton chosen to be the scapegoat and guinea pig, we weren't the first club to be in this predicament but we were the first to be charged and sentenced.

Michael Kenrick
189 Posted 15/02/2024 at 21:09:00
Dave, I think you're conflating a number of things you've read or heard to reach that conclusion.

The rules under which Everton were charged for the first breach have not been changed half-way through, as you suggest. They remain the same as they were when Everton were charged, and when the commission concluded and presented its findings, the 10-point deduction.

If the Premier League clubs agree to change the rules in the future, every club (including Everton, if they are still in the Premier League!) will be subject to those new rules. But that hasn't happened yet. And it would not affect either the first or second alleged breaches.

Well, actually, things did change a bit for the second breach, but I don't think that's what you posted. The second breach comes under additional P&S rules provided in an Appendix to the Handbook for last season, mainly around an accelerated timetable based on the earlier submission of accounts and PSR calculations to get things concluded by season's end.

It seems Everton were warned multiple times during a 2-year period when they were having the Premier League review their transfers, but failed to heed the warnings. Saying they were chosen to be the scapegoat and the guinea pig reeks of that good old scouse victimhood again.

I think it's much more likely that the confluence of dreadful recruitment, lousy players, terrible managers, ridiculous contracts, Covid, Player X, Player Y, the trashed transfer market, th Ukraine War and Russian sanctions — all those things coming on top of Moshiri's financial madness in funding the stadium construction initially with interest-free loans — and all overseen on a day-to-day basis by the incompetent triumvirate of Kenwright, Barrett-Baxendale, and Ingles, led us to where we are today.

The timing of the Premier League's fight with the Government over an independent regulator kinda pales into insignificance in comparison… but it's great fuel for a classic conspiracy theory that only serves to deflect from the culpability of the real incompetents who created this mess and lacked the smarts to prevent it from overwhelming us.

Bill Gall
190 Posted 15/02/2024 at 21:13:07
My own opinion is that the premier league formed a committee to look at what the consequences are at a club who fails to follow the FFP regulations. What they failed to do was give a figure of any penalties that may occur if clubs fail at any level of the regulations.
I do not now if any other club has been investigated, but after Everton were investigated it seems most of what has been written, is more about who was on the committee, their professional abilities, and bias towards other clubs. There seems no information on how they came up to a 10pt draconian verdict, or what level or amount of failure their verdict was reached.
I believe that we as supporters should have been given, at what levels are the Club's going to be given to receive a Max or Minimum enforcement of the regulations, or are Everton with being the first to be investigated just been given what the committee decided is the correct punishment at the level their infraction of the rules were, or is their a higher or lower level. There has to be a level of how rules are made, and if there are various levels on how the infraction will be enforced.
As supporters we are quite right to be pissed off when Everton receive a punishment that has never been given before, and looking at the January Window showed how close other clubs are to being, either just within or over the FFP rules.
Its not who was on the committee that is the problem it's what the level of infractions are punishable for.
Laurie Hartley
191 Posted 15/02/2024 at 21:16:16
Dave # 188 – the only answer to the question in your last paragraph that I can think of is that they were told what to do by the government – “or else”.

Farhad Moshiri and therefore Everton football club are guilty by association wth Alisher Usmanov.

Everton owner received £400m from Alisher Usmanov companies, documents suggest — The Guardian, 26 September 2023

John Keating
192 Posted 15/02/2024 at 21:27:26

The “independent” panel may well have come up with no points deduction.

They may have come up with a 20 quid fine.
They may have given us a 2-point suspended sentence.
They could have just said to behave in future.
Obviously they didn't.

However, what the so-called “independent” panel did do was to inflict on us a sentence which the Premier League themselves made known what they, the Premier League, expected us to be given.

Why would the Premier League announce what they expected our fine to be before the “independent” panel sat?

Now I know many say there was no conspiracy between the Premier League and the “independent “ panel but does it not seem a bit strange the panel came to the decision the Premier League wanted?

Ian Wilkins
193 Posted 15/02/2024 at 21:29:39
Michael @189,

You are presenting a strong defence for the Premier League position, I don't think anybody disputes that we have contributed to our mess through mismanagement.

Would you agree that the Premier League failed to give enough weight to some mitigating factors, Russian sanctions; Stadium loan interest etc, when considering Everton's allowable losses?

Would you agree that the 10 point sanction is wholly disproportionate (9 points for administration)?

Would you agree that the Commission failed to justify the 10 points, and there was no basis for it?

I think we all agree that some punishment is due, but the degree of sanction is wrong and unjustifiable.

To Christine's point, the Premier League were trying to demonstrate self-regulation but, in the event, have made a complete mess of things.

Michael Kenrick
194 Posted 15/02/2024 at 21:36:06
John @178,

"I take it then that you believe nobody, be that supporters, politicians, business people, should show any outward sign of protest against the 10-point decision. We should all have sat back, accepted the decision in silence and awaited the appeal."

I've posted quite a lot on this issue, including a piece where I tried to second-guess the sort of things that could be presented at the appeal in support of Everton's case, so I think you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere that I have posted anything even approaching the nonsense of your paragraph above.

I try to avoid fabricating an image of the other person's beliefs created from something they never said or even hinted at, but I do recognize it as a common internet trope. Well done.

John Keating
195 Posted 15/02/2024 at 21:57:38
Well, Michael, it is quite obvious by your post that you think the poster protests are not the way to go.

This poster protest is by far the most visual protest so far and 30-odd thousand matchgoers certainly think it's okay.

You may try to avoid an image, however, I would suggest you read your post again. It certainly indicates that the 30-odd thousand poster wavers are not as sophisticated and nuanced as you think they should be.

I don't know what a common internet trope is but I do know what I read.

Bill Gall
196 Posted 15/02/2024 at 22:17:58

My point is, regardless who made the actual decision, and that has to be proved, there has to be a level of each infraction that is over what is allowed.

Everton, if what we are led to be aware of, were £19.5M over, so does that mean you get 1 point per £2 Million? So if say Nottingham Forest are over by £30 million will they be docked 15 points?

I support any peaceful objection by supporters — I just don't understand how or at what level either a fine or points deduction is arrived at.

Brent Stephens
197 Posted 15/02/2024 at 22:20:41
For balance, I recall Michael being critical of the Premier League, the Commission, and its level of sanction, as well as being critical of Everton's management of all things financial as well as their presentation of their case before and during the Commission hearing.

Apologies, Michael, if I have any of that wrong.

Barry Rathbone
198 Posted 15/02/2024 at 22:21:39
John @195,

The protest has CORRUPTION as its totem — a totally unprovable allegation and as such looks like unthinking sulking.

UNFAIR has more credibility but that horse has bolted so we're stuck with kopite-style inaccuracy. Pretty crap really.

Jim Wilson
199 Posted 15/02/2024 at 22:23:57
There are greater minds than me on here for sure.

But two points are clear to me.

1. The 'Independent Commission' was not independent. It was working for the Premier League and Masters felt comfortable to come up with a points deduction formula during the hearing and tell the Commission to use it. He compromised himself and the Commission and made the process flawed. Therefore the punishment should be quashed by the Appeal Board. Masters brought the Commission into disrepute. That should be dealt with by the clubs.

2. The Commission refused to accept valid mitigating circumstances.

The cancelling of Sigurdsson's contract should have been accepted. The Ukraine war affecting the sponsorship deal and funding was/is totally relevant. And the rejection of Covid as a mitigating factor astonishes me.

We had a killer pandemic that Masters said could cost clubs £700m, Spurs received a £175m BOE loan to keep them afloat, clubs did their best to get the games played risking health, players, coaches, stewards, staff. People risked their lives and then Masters comes along after the country reopens and shits on Everton. Everton just had to be the unlucky club who happened to be the ones spending big at this moment in time and building a new stadium and have been made to pay for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But if you think this would have happened to one of the Big 6 you are out of your mind. Once covid struck PSR should have been paused.

We know our club have been completely incompetent but my god the big criminals in all this is Masters and the Premier League.

John Keating
200 Posted 15/02/2024 at 22:36:46

I think I read somewhere the 10 points was arrived at by charging 6 points for the fact we went over the £105M.
Then 1 point for every £5M over that.

So that's the additional 4 points for the £19.5M over-spend on the £105M limit.

John Keating
201 Posted 15/02/2024 at 22:48:25

Corruption may, at this time, may be unprovable; however, as the Premier League refuse to submit documentation to parliament and the media, then there will always be a doubt.

Similarly, we could also say being unfair may be hard to prove. Mind you, looking at a definition of corruption, it may well be the more accurate of both words.

John Keating
202 Posted 15/02/2024 at 22:55:40
Brian @185,

Brian, I think Premier League rules allow for arbitration after an appeal decision in certain circumstances.

I believe due process being one of them.

Pete Jeffries
203 Posted 15/02/2024 at 23:09:46
A football club is more than just a business, run exclusively by the present owners, namely those who are guilty of financial mismanagement.

It's a club, and the players, coaches, juniors, staff and those thousands of us there for a lifetime, namely us the supporters, who are all innocents in this, should be taken into account.

We are the ones who will suffer the consequences when the Moshiris of this world move on to pastures new, leaving us in the proverbial shit.
This is where the unfairness comes into it all.

Brian Williams
204 Posted 15/02/2024 at 23:12:17
Hope so, John. Just going by what I read in several places at the outset:

However, if the original decision is upheld they are reportedly not able to turn to the Court of Arbitration for Sport as a final resort.

Brent Stephens
205 Posted 15/02/2024 at 23:32:49
Brian #204,

Yes, grounds for appeal are much more restrictive than one would imagine.

Highly unlikely we'd have any reasonable grounds for appeal.

Brendan McLaughlin
206 Posted 15/02/2024 at 23:38:38
Someone produced the Premier League rules relating to matters going to arbitration on TW quite recently.

The rules were quite vague and I don't think it was stated who actually made the decision to refer a matter to arbitration.

Perhaps... an independent commission?

Brian Williams
207 Posted 16/02/2024 at 00:10:39
Eric Myles
208 Posted 16/02/2024 at 03:43:48
Rule W.71 only allows parties to introduce new evidence if it was not available at the time of the initial hearing, and could not reasonably have been obtained — so it is not the case that the process effectively starts from scratch. The appeal board can allow the appeal, dismiss it, or vary the punishment imposed.

Crucially, Rule W.79 explicitly states that the appeal board's decision will be final — subject to the league's arbitration rules, set out in Section X. These provide an exhaustive list of circumstances where an appeal board's decision can be challenged through arbitration, and they are worth reproducing in full.

A decision was:

X.4.1. reached outside of the jurisdiction of the body that made the decision;

X.4.2. reached as a result of fraud, malice or bad faith;

X.4.3. reached as a result of procedural errors so great that the rights of the applicant have been clearly and substantially prejudiced;

X.4.4. reached as a result of a perverse interpretation of the law; or

X.4.5. one which could not reasonably have been reached by any Commission or Appeal Board which had applied its mind properly to the facts of the case.

Clearly, these are designed to set a high bar, with the appeal board decision intended as binding barring the most exceptional circumstances. If a party challenges a decision on these grounds, an arbitration panel made up of senior solicitors or barristers is convened and called upon, marking the final port of call within the Premier League's process.

Interestingly, this rules out an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). 

From Brian's #207 Link

Brendan McLaughlin
209 Posted 16/02/2024 at 10:06:27
Reading that article, I still can't see who actually makes the decision to refer the matter to arbitration. The article also suggests that the courts are still an option for Everton.
Brent Stephens
210 Posted 16/02/2024 at 10:52:35
Brendan #209, does X.7. provide the answer as to how arbitration is triggered?

X.7. An arbitration shall be deemed to have commenced (and for the purpose of Rule X.2 a dispute shall be deemed to have arisen) upon the party requesting an arbitration serving upon the other party (and copied to the Board) a request in Form 25.

X8-X11 then sets out the process for the appointment of arbitrators.

Brian Williams
211 Posted 16/02/2024 at 11:12:29
Thanks to whoever (Michael?) converted my mess to an actual link.
I'll have to learn how to do that one day!
Dave Abrahams
212 Posted 16/02/2024 at 12:10:05
Michael (189), No, I don't think my post goes under the “ Old Scouse Victimhood “ claim.

The new rules which will come into force sometime this year have given every club the warning that the rules are there to be enforced. If they didn't take those seriously before, they are certainly doing so now, and they have taken what happened to Everton as what will happen to them, so we were guinea pigs.

That also applies to being scapegoats, why were we chosen first to answer to breaking the rules(?) when we were not first in the queue accused of breaking them?

I can only speculate what the new rules will be but I won't be surprised if they give the Premier League a way out of charging other clubs like Everton were.

I might add that there are hundreds of people in prison now serving very long sentences they didn't deserve but were made an example of to stop the crime they were sentenced to: A different type of court but that's what happened to Everton – and that's fact, not claiming to be a victim.

Christine Foster
213 Posted 16/02/2024 at 12:42:16
Dave, injustice is injustice. It has to be called out for what it is. Someone has to lose, money, face, status or respect. Someone wins when others lose.

So here's one for Michael: who wins, Michael, Justice? Honesty? Transparency? Or is it others' self-interest, political expediency, power? Where I sit, fans lose big time, owners do too, the only winners are those who want to keep the power.

They say the rules are there for all, that we all signed up to them. But they lacked the specific detail and remedy of any breach. The clubs may have agreed with the principle but the devil was always in the detail. Something only ever alluded to.

Dave Abrahams
214 Posted 16/02/2024 at 12:53:03
Christine (213),

I'm too old to get into any serious bother but, if by chance I do, I'll call on you to defend me, Tony might even pay for your return ticket from New Zealand.

I'm glad Michael Kenrick didn't defend us at the first case against us – we wouldn't have any club left to support!!

Brian Harrison
215 Posted 16/02/2024 at 14:21:45
I wonder how the Select Committee who interviewed Masters will respond to their request to produce the minutes from their meeting being turned down.

I am sure that Masters will have made sure that no decision over our appeal was made public until after our Sky televised game against Crystal Palace. The last thing Masters wanted was another demonstration by Everton fans on a live Sky game, although I am sure his friends at Sky would have blanked out as much as they could of any protest.

Quite ironic that our appeal against the points deduction and the decision over the possibility of 777 Partners becoming our new owners or not, depending on the decision, will happen within days of each other.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think we will get any points back, and I also think that we can expect a further points deduction when the commission decide our 2nd transgression of the rules.

And should it be decided that 777 Partners are not proper owners then the chances are we will end up in administration. I know these are the worst possible outcomes but this is Everton, although I am sure Michael will claim I am playing the victim card.

John Keating
216 Posted 16/02/2024 at 16:21:01
Friday afternoon and the lackeys of the Premier League "independent" appeal panel must be quaffing down bottles of Moet in some West End wine bar celebrating a job well done. Preparing themselves for the next "independent" panel the Premier League assign them too.

Surely the vultures in the media must know the make/up of the panel and be sitting with them on their large expense accounts and getting them treble G&T chasers.

I can't believe some "usually reliable source" won't let slip the outcome. How many bottles of Moet does it take to loose lips?

Christine Foster
217 Posted 16/02/2024 at 23:37:45
Dave @214,

The trouble is, I am only lucid when I first wake up. As the day goes on, depression with all things EFC sets in and destroys my mental ability to think about anything else!

My GP (a scouser and a Red) just wants to give me anti-depressants because he thinks I must need them being a Blue!

One day soon, it's my intent to have a jar or two with you and Tony in the Bramley Moore... it's one of my few strands I hold on to sanity!

Ray Jacques
218 Posted 17/02/2024 at 21:41:17
I am dismayed that thousands of Evertonians, never mind the club itself, don't have a firm date when their fate will be decided. In fact, it's a fuckin disgrace.

How on earth, after the appeal has been heard, can there not be a date set when the decision date is confirmed to the accused? It absolutely stinks to high heaven.

I've had a drink and it's really pissing me off. Just tell us what's happening. They must know.

Christine Foster
219 Posted 17/02/2024 at 21:44:38
It's worth remembering that the Premier League is owned by each of the 20 clubs in the league and the FA, they each have an equal share in its structure and, upon relegation, must relinquish that share to a newly promoted club.

The business, fixtures and administration of the Premier League are the responsibility of its board. However it is the FA who sanction the footballing rules. The board manages the finance and running of the league in accordance with the rulebook.

"Yeah, yeah... we know all that," I hear you say, but it's a private members club where influence, therefore money, is paramount. Why any aspiring club would vote to limit the ability of a new owner to pour money into a club is not done to protect the owner or the club, but to ensure those who did exactly that prior to PSR rules, are always above the rest.

As a result, the financial gulf between those 6 or 7 clubs is huge and grows intentionally every season. It is now impossible for clubs outside the top clubs to challenge consistently for any honours or European places.

The league rules protect those who made the money by the same restrictions now in place. Every season, the gulf gets wider. In truth, the Top 6 clubs are never going to vote for any rules that change this and it is why they fear an independent regulator with powers to make things more equitable for all clubs.

But it cannot persist as a league in this format; go, do your Super League stuff, but either accept a regulator or leave the league.

Corruption is a volatile word, it's not as obvious as a bung here and there, it's power, power of life and death, power to influence in your favour at the expense of others, power to abide by fashioned rules that favour a few, not all.

Times change, rules become defunct, rules and laws are reinterpreted in different situations than their original intent. Sanctions for rule-breaking change too, fairness cannot be maintained if rules and laws are not reflective of current situations – pandemics, wars, laws, force majure – but instead favour a few.

Protected. It's why it has to change.

Tim Welsh
220 Posted 18/02/2024 at 13:29:59
Ray @ 218,

The image that I have had for some time now is that of a cat playing with a half-dead mouse. The club, the manager, the players and the fans are the plaything, in case you didn't guess.

Still, it makes for 'good copy' for the media.

Christine @219,


The sooner either we or the boy band clubs are out of this deeply uncompetitive competition, the better. Football has so little to do with results as to be laughable. Everyone knows it, but very few face it.

The Premier League is a twitching corpse, populated by minnow clubs (Luton, Bournemouth, Burnley...) who are just happy to be there and will co-operate whilst they labour under the delusion that they are 'top flight'.

And to think Sir Philip Carter was the man who signed us all up for this...

Paul Tran
221 Posted 18/02/2024 at 14:53:37
Of course, the really interesting thing here is that, if the Premier League really believed in its processes and how they were consistently carried out, our sentence would be upheld and they'd get the green light to do us again at the second charge.

I suspect that they know they've overstepped the mark and that, whatever happens now, they'll get stick, maybe even a writ, off one or more clubs.

My view is that this delay could be down to the Premier League getting everyone around the table to come up with a mutually face-saving solution before they change their rules in the summer. A hard square to circle, but that's what happens when you mix incompetence and arrogance — we all know about that, don't we?

Anthony Hawkins
222 Posted 18/02/2024 at 18:03:08
The delay is more likely to avoid a vocal protest tomorrow night.
Christine Foster
223 Posted 18/02/2024 at 19:45:48
PSR should be scrapped. Full stop. Its intent was, supposedly, to prevent clubs from going bust due to irresponsible ownership or management and yet it is having the direct opposite result. Perversely wealthy owners are not allowed to spend their money as they see fit.

The pre PSR elite, who, I might add, were allowed to spend fortunes to become the so-called elite, have used their power and influence to pass limits that enshrine their position at the top and forever widen the gap between them and the rest.

No club in the Premier League should go bust, I think Scudmore said that, the money is so vast... but the limitation on others to challenge has killed competition.

The new squad-cost ratio is no better, linking squad cost to 70% of income... absolutely obscene. So Man City has £1 billion turnover, it's squad cost limit would be £700M, Everton's would be about £150M on current numbers. They are broad brush numbers but you get the drift.

The gulf will only get wider, the only way that scenario works is if you are all within a similar range of income... otherwise, the already privileged will be ring-fenced from the rest.

Tim Welsh
224 Posted 18/02/2024 at 20:14:19
Christine, once more; Amen to that.

I think football is really reflecting what is happening in the rest of society and the six teams with more money than the others (I cannot bear to call them by the commonly used epithet, as plenty of other clubs in England are big) will soon be seeking their own 'gated community'.

As someone once said...'I'd rather be a sparkle on a shiny sea than a diamond on a dung heap'. The Premier League is one big dung heap.

Danny Baily
225 Posted 18/02/2024 at 20:42:58
Finally sounds as though something is imminent.

Last time out, the rumour was a 6-point suspended sentence. Let's hope the rumour mill has it wrong again.

Christine Foster
226 Posted 18/02/2024 at 20:56:26
Tim, a dung heap indeed.. but it has to be better and how would an independent regulator achieve that?
Some thoughts..
1. No club in the Premier league can spend more that 100m a season on transfers irrespective of turnover or income from any other source. (The immediate effect is clear, home grown talent is required to fill gap, clubs can sign players normally swallowed up by larger clubs)
2. Teams can only have a max of 5 overseas players in there squad. They can only remain with the club for a maximum of 5 years and move on.
3. Transfer windows are abolished.
4. No club can have more than 25 players registered for the league at any one time.
5. Parachute payments if relegated are abolished. Clubs should have enough liquidity to survive relegation without help.

I am sure there are other options but the game as we know it is failing, the premier league is already splitting itself into two divisions, the haves and the have nots.. the gulf is killing the league.

Danny O’Neill
227 Posted 18/02/2024 at 21:06:12

Those people are so out of touch with football.

I doubt they actually understand football.

Hundreds of thousands of supporters attend football matches every week, complemented by millions who follow it globally.

Tomorrow there will be nearly 40,000 Evertonians at Goodison, with many in the streets without a ticket. And those of you following at ungodly hours around the globe.

Those gobshites should come and visit us. I've said before, they can gladly sit next to me. They wouldn't have the balls.

Excuse the French. No offence meant.

John Keating
228 Posted 18/02/2024 at 21:57:46
We’ve had numerous posters saying those of us using this word are more or less out of order
Using it on the posters on matchday, out of order
Well we know the word is sometimes, well, used in conjunction with a bung, a monetary gain but lets see what it also means.
A willingness to act dishonestly
To change or debase by making errors,
Unintentional alterations
Lack of integrity or honesty

The PL IS corrupt

John Keating
229 Posted 21/02/2024 at 09:26:38
One of the biggest issues the EFL have with the Premier League is parachute payments allowed to relegated teams. Quite rightly, they say it gives relegated clubs an advantage over Championship teams. The Premier League counter this by saying relegated clubs have players on higher paid contracts, these would financially damage them due to loss of Premier League earnings

I see the Premier League are having a meeting today to discuss the long-standing issues of payments to the EFL and will include parachute payments.

Compromise has to be the order of the day. However, do not be surprised for the Premier League to decide if, and when, parachute payments are amended or scrapped. It might be certain teams relegated who will determine the Premier League's decision

Anthony Hawkins
230 Posted 21/02/2024 at 12:48:15
Ironically, I can see the ‘small clubs' who have lower wage bills being the ones who don't benefit. The big clubs with huge salaries will get the parachute payments.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.

How to get rid of these ads and support TW

© ToffeeWeb