25/03/2024 104comments  |  Jump to last

Nottingham Forest are appealing the decision by an independent commission to deduct them four points for breaching the Premier League's Profitability and Sustainability Rules. 

The East Midlands club were found to have exceeded the permitted threshold for losses for the 2022-23 season by £34.5m, £15m more than Everton, yet were handed a smaller sanction than the six points that the Blues were docked after their appeal reduced the penalty from 10 points.

For that reason, there has been speculation as to whether Forest would end up appealing their sanction but they have now officially lodged their appeal having expressed their disappointment at being found guilty by the commission to begin with.

The outcome of Forest's appeal has ramifications for Everton, not only in terms of any points they may be given back but also the timing of the next verdict. The Blues' second independent panel is sitting today, tomorrow and Wednesday after which the Club will discover if they are to be deduced further points for a second breach.

Article continues below video content

All appeal decisions must be in by 24 May, five days after the season ends.


Reader Comments (104)

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 ()

Charles Ward
3 Posted 25/03/2024 at 18:43:08
It will be interesting to see what their grounds for appeal are considering that, relative to ourselves, they got off lightly.
Terry Aylward
4 Posted 25/03/2024 at 18:54:46
So, now that they're not co-operating, could the 2 points that were rescinded be reinstated if they lose the appeal?
Paul Hewitt
5 Posted 25/03/2024 at 19:13:57
Cheeky buggers. I hope they get more points added.
Barry McNally
6 Posted 25/03/2024 at 19:21:12
Why don't we agree a 4-point deduction now, reduced by 2 for being good boys, and further reduced by 2 for not appealing?

You'd never know, it might work!

Christine Foster
7 Posted 25/03/2024 at 20:03:56
That sound of banging in the Premier League boardroom is the sound of nails being hammered into their coffin. What a complete and utter fuck-up they have made in the management and application of PSR. Worse still, rather than look for a sensible out in the realization that the rules are not fit for purpose, they double down and compound their own stupidity.

The whole concept of the application of points deductions for financial failures is arbitrary and unfair on the teams, the fans and everyone involved with the operational arm of a club.An unmitigated disaster brought on by arrogance and intransigence of a board with no football experience, just banking, commercial and financial.

Yet now they have presided over the Tipping Point of Chaos, when, after the last ball has been kicked this season, they will decide on who they can and wish to relegate.There is a fine line that borders incompetence with corruption; once crossed, it is impossible to erase the smear.

The clubs in the Premier League should have an emergency meeting and stop this headlong pursuit of feigned self righteousness by a board who clearly have scant regard for the damage they do to the clubs themselves nor for the brand of the Premier League. What should follow is the resignation of this board for bringing the game into disrepute.

Tony Abrahams
8 Posted 25/03/2024 at 20:07:30
What's the point in getting promoted if they're not going to allow teams to be really competitive?
Tony Abrahams
9 Posted 25/03/2024 at 20:11:24
The verdict for the appeal not being made public until after the last ball has been kicked = they haven’t got a fucking clue what they are doing.
Paul Hewitt
10 Posted 25/03/2024 at 20:14:34
Tony, they don't want anyone being competitive, only the Big 5 (not 6 because Spurs are crap).
Tony Abrahams
11 Posted 25/03/2024 at 20:33:24
Surely very good grounds for an appeal, Paul?

These shambolic rules need exposing for what they are doing to the game, for the clubs who want to at least try and become competitive.

Kevin Edward
12 Posted 25/03/2024 at 20:38:38

Say Forest's appeal is unsuccessful, then does that mean it's likely that the Premier League will wish to land us with more or less points than 4 as another penalty?

Our club will definitely appeal if more than 4 (I assume); might not bother if less.

I can't see Forest being successful as, even the Premier League will struggle to align less than 4 with our original 10 and then 6.

It's points deduction Bingo. No surprise that, if 4's the magic number, then it's more than one win, so cannot be recovered in one game (although the season will probably be over).

We really need to win at Bournemouth, it's going to be out of our hands if we don't help ourselves.

Christine Foster
13 Posted 25/03/2024 at 20:40:04
People ask why the word 'corruption' is often used in relation to the treatment of clubs by the Premier League administration.

Consider this: the season has finished, titles won, 4 other teams have gained the honour of Champions League qualification.

Along come the Premier League and announce that that three of the top four have broken rules with respect to the interpretation of PSR 3 years previously.

Points are deducted, the titles rescinded for the past 3 years, awarded Champions League places also affected, clubs in 6th or 7th for the last 3 years are suing because of lost income being denied access to the Champions League.

Far fetched? Of course it is, it would never happen. It never should happen. But by the same measure neither should it happen to clubs at the other end of the table.

To do so shows the difference in application of rules, the application and impact of sanctions. In short, an inherent unfairness applied to those they wish.

The Premier League clubs themselves should draw the line under this and stop it now.

Dale Self
14 Posted 25/03/2024 at 20:42:05
Indeed, that is not good form from those weasels. Someday there will be a comedy based on this. Forest just blew up their soft landing.
Ernie Baywood
15 Posted 25/03/2024 at 21:12:16
Christine @13 – is that Premier League corruption, though?

Or corruption by the clubs who knew the rules and broke the rules?

There has to be some accountability with the clubs here. What if the rules that were broken were something else? What if it was later found that clubs bribed referees or opponents?

Ernie Baywood
16 Posted 25/03/2024 at 21:17:26
Tony 11,

I doubt appealing the rules themselves will get them anywhere. The commissions so far have all said that the rules themselves were out of their hands.

Though I do agree the rules for promoted clubs are particularly dumb.

I could see them appealing whether cooperation and an early plea was worth 2 or 3 points.

Or whether, once the Commission banded their breach as 'significant', they shouldn't have given them the same 3 point additional punishment as us, given an assumption that ours included aggravating factors (ie, objectively misleading figures).

Anthony Hawkins
17 Posted 25/03/2024 at 21:27:27
The whole rule for what a promoted club can spend in their first season is ludicrous. The same '3-year period' should apply to all or none. Chances are that Forest might breach purely on the basis of trying to maintain status quo; however, there's nothing yet to say they would.

The independent commission should also measure against the sanity of the rules and feed that back to the Premier League to state they need to take a degree of responsibility and action.

John Chambers
18 Posted 25/03/2024 at 21:31:58

Part of Forest's need to spend so much was because the team that got promoted had 5 loanees, including Garner, as part of their first team.

If they had actually built a team in the Championship, they would have required significantly less expenditure after coming up.

Peter Mills
19 Posted 25/03/2024 at 21:39:31
When we refer to “the Premier League”, to whom are we referring?

Not for one minute do I believe it is some kind of equal democracy between all the constituent members. There are powerful forces at work, the power always lies with the money, and those with money always want more of it.

Andy Finigan
20 Posted 25/03/2024 at 21:49:36
Two great posts, Christine. Forest know exactly what and why they are appealing.

If Everton had a chance of a consensual outcome as long as we didn't appeal that has now gone and more chance of a bigger sentence which will help Forest stay up. I don't blame them as I would do the same.

I really bope this leads to the downfall of Masters and Co for such a shocking made-up bollocks of a kangaroo court that has no rules.

Christine Foster
21 Posted 25/03/2024 at 21:50:28
Ernie, the corruption is the in the reality that for one set of clubs such sanctions are not and would not happen, whilst for another set of clubs it does.

The vested interest in Brand ensures such things happen. It is the application of selective punishment for some but not all that is as corrupt as a bung.

Should any club accept bribes or initiate bribes no matter where they stand, it is corruption.

Anthony Hawkins
22 Posted 25/03/2024 at 21:54:16
@Peter #19 - I doubt many imagined the amount of money that is generated/earned/splashed at the current top 6 clubs was on the radar at the time the rules were agreed and signed off by all clubs. Had it been a consideration I highly doubt many of the clubs would have agreed to it. The rules were made at a point in time and few if any had the insight that clubs would be bought by owners with bottomless pockets. Add to that the cost of players, especially those at the top of their game has skyrocketing. Messi's buyout clause was considered ludicrous at the time yet other players are now being traded at that value, if not more. Hell, Kane being sold for £82m towards the end of his Spurs contract is a great example of transfer fees having gone mad!

The issue isn't so much of whom are we referring to with regards 'the premier league' as much as who the EPL is supporting vs punishing. Had the EPL acted sooner with Man City, they would have and should have been charged seasons ago before they got out of hand. May be they will get punished. May be they'll weasel their way out of it somehow. In the meanwhile, the clubs at the lower end of the league aren't receiving the same benefit in the slightest. I also sincerely doubt Forest and Everton (Chelsea are yet to be seen) are the only clubs who've breached PSR or any other rules. A breach is a breach even if it's £1m etc.

Brent Stephens
23 Posted 25/03/2024 at 22:07:41
Anthony #17 I might misunderstand when you say "The whole rule for what a promoted club can spend in their first season is ludicrous. The same '3-year period' should apply to all or none."

The Commission did apply the full, relevant 3-year period. In fact, they calculated the spend in a way Forest didn't want and which was to Forest's disadvantage.

Bobby Mallon
24 Posted 25/03/2024 at 22:15:37
Ernie @15 yes accountability but a fine, not 10 points.
Nick Page
25 Posted 25/03/2024 at 22:17:23
Saw some Forest fella on Sky, and he made some valid points. They basically played three games whilst in breach, lost two won one, so by his reckoning they've gained minus one point. Fair enough. It's more interesting that they're actually appealing the 4 (6 -2) point deduction cos they're pissed. And rightly so.

As opposed to Everton who were “delighted” to be given 4 points back, from an initial ten that was just plucked out of thin air with a lesser charge against the PSR rule and end up two points worse off, despite (apparently) cooperating with the commission throughout. So someone is telling porkies. Was probably Kenwright as that PoS lied every time his lips parted.

So if Forest were given 6, and cooperated they get 4 and we get 10 less 4 on appeal and end up with 2 more than a team 75% more in breach than we were (assuming a breach is a breach, regardless). And we were fucking delighted! FFS. If Forest appeal and get 2 or 3 back, then what? Our appeal was actually against a ridiculous penalty but their appeal is against any penalty.

Everton this.

Why has nobody made the argument that the PSR limits haven't been inflation adjusted for TEN years? It's ludicrous and the whole thing falls apart on that basis alone (wages and transfer fees etc have all increased dramatically).

Just you wait until Everton become the first club and only club in history that will be punished for the same “offence” twice. And then the rules are scrapped at the end of the season.

By the way...

Mike Hayes
26 Posted 25/03/2024 at 22:31:53
The whole hierarchy at the Premier League want sacking and banned for life from any involvement in football.

Whoever came up with VAR wants beating about the head with a camera and the whole of the so-called top referees sending down to the National leagues and replacing with decent honest refs. Those arseholes have opened Pandora's box and I hope they suffer for it.

Ernie Baywood
27 Posted 25/03/2024 at 23:24:43
Bobby, that's not a solution.

There need to be some kind of rules in place to stop teams financially doping, but also to stop owners taking the kind of risks that threaten the existence of clubs. A fine doesn't address either.

I completely take the point that the rules favour the rich, and that so far they've only been applied to two clubs, both at the lower end of the revenue scale.

But we signed up to those rules, and no-one as yet has demonstrated that they won't be applied equally to others.

If City have actually broken PSR rules (and it's not clear to me that is one of the 115 charges) then they should be absolutely ripped by a commission for delaying the punishment by years. Let's see if it happens - what I do know is that the Premier League have charged them.

I don't know of any other club that's been charged. So who should be punished?

Sam Hoare
28 Posted 26/03/2024 at 07:58:43
Presumably they would only have appealed if they were extremely confident of no more points being added.

In some ways, I feel it could be a win-win for us. If they lose and get more points added on to their deduction, then that obviously helps us (and teaches us not to appeal a lenient punishment). If they win back points and their deduction is reduced to 2 or 3, then that surely sets a helpful precedent for us in our second PSR case.

Charles Ward
29 Posted 26/03/2024 at 08:53:21
Anthony at 22 - we had an owner ‘allegedly' with bottomless pockets but maybe not in the same league as Abramovich.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if we had financial management as competent as the vast majority of other Premier League clubs.

And, in different circumstances, if Usmanov was still funding the stadium, thus freeing up funds to buy top players, and had installed a business-savvy CEO and effective Chairman, would we have any sympathy for Forest?

Eric Myles
30 Posted 27/03/2024 at 02:25:37
Ernie #27,

"There need to be some kind of rules in place to stop teams financially doping, but also to stop owners taking the kind of risks that threaten the existence of clubs. A fine doesn't address either."

The principle behind it is sound but, by making a points deduction, it actually threatens the existence of a club in the lower part of the table due to relegation and the lower income that would entail.

Jerome Shields
31 Posted 27/03/2024 at 08:53:30
Forest have nothing to lose by appealing. After all, Everton got a deduction in points after their appeal.

I would query the claims regarding Everton losses against Forest losses. The Everton figures bandied about are the figures that Everton presented to the commission. They were not accepted by the commission. The actual Premier League Everton figures were never revealed.

This is in line with the terms that the Commission was originally set up by the Premier League and probably to avoid getting caught up in a tax investigation.

Forest were acknowledge by the Commission as being fully co-operative and it was taken into account in the sanction they received. What I took from this was that Forest presented accurate and correct figures to the Commission.

Everton were referred to the Commission when their highly qualified audited final accounts became available. Everton publically held to the argument that the figures monitored over the previous two years by the Premier League were correct.

I also came across a report that Everton presented a claim at the Commission that they had lost £200 million in sponsorship because of the Ukraine war fallout, but when asked by the Commission to provide evidence, they were unable to produce a signed contract.

When Everton were approach independently regarding this Contract, they admitted that one had not been drawn up. I concluded from that Everton where never threatened with sanctions because of Russian connections. If there had been a contract, they could have legally enforced it.

Everton did publicly announce USM sponsorship, regarding the Stadium naming rights and Finch Farm which did appear in the accounts,

The whole PSR process is a mess in implementation and finishing after the end of the season adds to that.

Charles Ward
33 Posted 27/03/2024 at 09:14:56
Jerome, the problem with Everton's ‘figures' is that they were probably conjured up by our worshipful masters (in between lying about fan strangulation) hence the auditors BDO walking away from the club's accounts.

The worrying thing is that the only way we, the fans, seem to get any clear indication of the financial status of our club is when the information is dragged out of the administration during a quasi-legal process.

I don't know how accurate Swiss Ramble is but this puts our losses over a three year period as £381m. Surely that is unsustainable?

Financial Fair Play, 2021-22, 19 June 2023

Jerome Shields
34 Posted 27/03/2024 at 14:05:07
Chris #33

'The Premier League is referring Everton to an independent commission for an alleged breach of its profitability and sustainability rules.

The assessment period for which Everton have been charged covers four seasons from the start of 2018/19 to the end of 2021/22.

Everton are only the second club to be charged with breaking Premier League financial rules after Manchester City were charged last month.

The Merseysiders recorded losses of £371.8m over the past three years. Premier League rules allow clubs to lose a maximum of £105m over three years.'

Sky Sports, 25 March 2023.

Everton claimed £170m of this was because of Covid, bringing them down to £202m. They then claimed adjustments brought them down to £113m. Using the Everton figures the Premier League said the loss was £123m. That is where the dispute over interest and other adjustments is centred as per the report. But the Commission did not state that they accepted the adjustments and there is no mention of the £170m write off only as a note attached to the Final Accounts 2022 referring to 21/22.

But the bottom line is that these losses are still having a impact on Everton going forward. I have rounded off some figures.

Jerome Shields
35 Posted 27/03/2024 at 16:28:19
By the way, Chris, thank you for your Swiss Ramble source. Very informative. Nottingham Forest not included since not promoted at that time.

Chelsea are not mentioned yet. But they have had a transfer ban, sanctions where applied to Ambramovich who walked away and the new owners have self-declared anything they found. But they still blew a massive hole in the 3-year loss threshold.

Charles Ward
37 Posted 28/03/2024 at 09:26:13
Gerry, I think Whyness is just looking for clicks.

If Rabinowitz has prepared our defence, and unless the case is given to the most junior barrister in his chambers, then I'm sure we'll have excellent representation.

Brian Harrison
39 Posted 28/03/2024 at 10:27:54
So our second appearance before a Premier League independent commission has finished and the results of the commission's findings will be known next week.

I have no idea what if any points deductions will follow this latest hearing but I think a further points deduction would be a bitter blow for players and fans alike.

So Everton with another first, the only club ever hit with the possibility of two separate points deductions in the one season.

Ian Wilkins
40 Posted 28/03/2024 at 10:29:30
I'm surprised Rabinowitz didn't appear personally, even if only for the scene setting or closing summary, it's a pretty important hearing for us.

Outcome is anybody's guess. A manageable 1 or 2 points or a draconian unfair 6 points. We have to take this into our hands, on the pitch, starting this week. We are in control of our own destiny, let's grab it now and take away the last day (post-last day?) misery and uncertainty. Time to be positive.

Dave Abrahams
41 Posted 28/03/2024 at 10:37:08
I don't know if Rabinowitz appeared or not but I think he forcibly made some points during his appearance at the appeal which will be used again at this second charge, if not by him then by some excellent representation as pointed out by Charles @37.
Michael Kenrick
42 Posted 28/03/2024 at 11:07:49
I'd love to believe that Everton knew exactly what they were doing in managing their appearances before these commissions… but reading the decision reports published so far, that is not the impression I get. So dropping the "super silk" gives me a very uneasy feeling about this.

Perhaps Everton were disappointed that they didn't see more of a return on investment before the appeal board? After all, what should have been good solid arguments in favour of no less than seven grounds of mitigation — presumably argued in earnest on behalf of the club by Mr Lawrence Rabinowitz KC – were all just summarily brushed aside by the first commission and the appeals board.

It then depends how much credit you can place at the feet of Rabinowitz for the 4 points Everton were given back. Since these were legal arguments, maybe he earned his crust here.

But I worry that this indicates Everton may have given up on arguing the mitigation angles, especially having received nothing in terms of even grudging recognition of the issues, and may thus have concluded that it would be a waste of time, effort and money to have Mr Rabinowitz present the arguments for the club a third time (it would have been second time for him as counsel).

Worse still, they may have decided that little is to be gained from strong legal argument (including against double jeopardy) compared with overly compliant and obsequious cooperation, as manifested by Nottingham Forest in earning them a 2-point reprieve — albeit they have now gone down the appeal path also.

Let's hope the club's judgement in playing or not playing certain cards here bears fruit… but it does little to assuage the fear that yet another substantial points deduction will be heading our way — just so that the sanctions are shown to be 'consistent'.

Tony Abrahams
43 Posted 28/03/2024 at 11:22:41
I have always been of the opinion that we will get another points deduction.

I'm hoping the Premier League have got a genuine fear of facing the wealth of Manchester City in a courtroom and bring in double jeopardy which might make things easier when they determine their punishment, whenever they get around to trying to punish them.

Eddie Dunn
44 Posted 28/03/2024 at 11:32:06
I hope that the Premier League have already assured Everton that there will be no further points deductions, and so Everton have accepted the situation and will have their knuckles rapped and have a suspended sentence, fine, or transfer embargo instead.
Michael Kenrick
45 Posted 28/03/2024 at 11:38:26
The more I dwell on this stuff and re-read he decisions, Tony, the more troubled I've become by the Man City case, when I you read things like this (which will no doubt concern Christine too):

Although FFP regulations may not be designed to maintain a level playing field in terms of resources available to clubs, it is vitally important for the integrity of the competition that the FFP regulations are applied, and applied equally to all clubs in that particular competition.

Yes, pursuing all 115 charges is a monster task. But surely they should not have been allowed to carry on profiting from their breaches season upon season with apparent impunity when it comes to amassing trophies?

Why didn't the Premier League pick out a subset of charges that could be dealt with quickly? Or are they all so intertwined that this could not be accomplished?

Either way, all talk about the integrity of the competition is severely compromised while this situation drags on unresolved.

Brent Stephens
46 Posted 28/03/2024 at 11:50:13
Football Insider says:

"Rabinowitz was involved in the appeal hearing and has helped Everton prepare for their second case – but will not be present at the independent commission this time."

As Charles #37 suggests, as Rabinowitz has helped Everton prepare the case, it might just need a competent colleague to handle the case at the Commission hearing.

The recent hearings in relation to the government handling of Covid have had a lead and supporting lawyer, both putting questions at different times. Rabinowitz might have a much more lucrative case at this time that he needs to attend.

Dave Abrahams
47 Posted 28/03/2024 at 12:05:08
Tony (43)

While I have always believed that we will not, or deserve to get any more point deductions, nor did we deserve the 10 points, reduced to 6 points, punishment in the first place.

As John Lewis, Civil Rights Activist in the 1960s, said in 2019. “When you see something that is not right, not just, not fair, you have a moral obligation to say something.”

I know that there is a vast difference to the way Black people were treated, and still are, then and the way Everton are being treated over this but we should be more robust in verbally defending our case, and not weakly accepting another 2 points deduction, as quite a lot are amongst Everton fans.

Christine Foster
48 Posted 28/03/2024 at 12:09:33
Michael, thanks for the heads up, I share the concern over an initiative that alludes to Financial Fair Play does the exact opposite, even worse, that it's acknowledged.

With respect to Man City, they are specifically charged with 7 breaches of PSR from 2015-16 and, whilst the rest of the charges are bad enough by themself, I see no reason why those breaches cannot be addressed with the same degree of zeal Everton face?

Anthony Hawkins
49 Posted 28/03/2024 at 12:13:47
@Michael #45.

I wrote a post asking why some items couldn't be challenged independently, then deleted it. I came to the conclusion that the charges are all intertwined, eg, openness could disclose financial impacts which could affect the balance of PSR or FFP.

Equally, the accounting anomalies could also affect PSR and FFP etc etc. If the items are handled independently, the club could be charged but then a knock-on impact from the wider case could cause the same case to be re-opened.

Danny O’Neill
50 Posted 28/03/2024 at 12:29:57
Dave @47,

It's not our way. We are a city that doesn't accept fools gladly. Apart from me when it comes to Everton maybe!!

Stand up and fight, Everton. Don't accept it. Don't back down.

In the interim, just win games. Whatever they try to do to us, throw it right back up the proverbial. If we win games, we will be fine.

Sorry to revert to type but, to use a military analogy, you are never defeated until you accept defeat, even when the odds are seemingly against us.

We have a lot of matches and travel ahead of us. Fight Everton and Evertonians. We can do this.

Brian Harrison
51 Posted 28/03/2024 at 12:40:14
I don't believe that the Premier League have the appetite or the wealth to take Man City on. When you allow nation states to own clubs, then it makes it much harder to bring cases like this.

Man City have already said they intend suing the Premier League for a billion pounds over how they address sponsorship deals. Something I think PIF at Newcastle may also consider.

A nation state just tells businesses to sponsor their club and of course the nation state can reimburse that sponsorship in a number of ways.

Seeing Leicester have said they will take their case to a civil court if charged with breaking the P&S rules if they gain promotion.

Also, the Premier League have said that there will be changes to the P&S rules next season, so again it will no doubt give wriggle room to Man City and Chelsea.

Also I don't believe that the Premier League would want to do anything that damages their brand and punishing the possible Premier League Champions and the possible Champions League winners, I doubt that very much.

Is it right that money influences these decisions? Absolutely not… but unfortunately that's the way of today's world.

Tony Abrahams
52 Posted 28/03/2024 at 13:32:02
I simply don't expect Everton to fight, Dave, because we are absolutely rudderless.

The owner doesn't speak, and the board members who tried to throw the only people with the conviction to fight for the club, under the bus, have been sacked or are no longer with us.

We all know that Everton Football Club are a complete shambles and it will remain this way until Moshiri finally departs.

When I stop and think how Manchester City are operating and winning everything with all these charges hanging over them, then it is apparent to me that the Premier League are terrified of their owners, Michael. We will see…

Jay Harris
53 Posted 28/03/2024 at 13:43:03
And it gets worse, Tony.

We are told that we couldn't afford the lawyer who won the appeal to represent us in the recent hearing.

It seems Dyche and Thelwell are the only ones that are paying any attention to the rudderless ship.

Brendan McLaughlin
54 Posted 28/03/2024 at 14:01:52
Jay #53,

Where did you get it was for financial reasons that Rabinowitz didn't represent Everton?

I've also seen it suggested [not a particularly relable source] that it was because he was already committed to another case.

Dave Abrahams
55 Posted 28/03/2024 at 14:04:35
Tony (52),

Yes everything you say is correct but I have to believe that our case in the second charge has been covered by Mr. Rabinowitz through his representative and the result will be in our favour.

If it goes against us, it would be natural to think other clubs will get the same punishment as us, but different commissions might see things differently and the rules change this year so will Everton, Forest and possibly Leicester be the only “fall guys”?

That's the way the law is formed, says our mate Brent, even though the rules are changed after only one year of being used a different way, with only two offenders being punished and the rest starting afresh with their slates being wiped clean.

Paul Tran
56 Posted 28/03/2024 at 14:12:05
The irony is that the people who spouted that morally superior 'Everton Way' rubbish were happy to side with Philip Green and a Russian oligarch to prop up their own non-winning, uncompetitive culture.

Whoever ends up running the club, I hope they chuck out the fig leaf of the 'Everton Way', 'getting the club', and focus on instilling a winning attitude throughout the club.

People may bleat about Man City's money and 'Kopite behaviour', but they win things regularly. Success leaves clues – I wish we'd start paying attention to them.

Michael Kenrick
57 Posted 28/03/2024 at 14:27:34
Oh jeez...

Dave, their slates are not being wiped clean.

Brian, Leicester City are not taking the Premier League or EFL to court.

Jay, who told you that we couldn't afford the lawyer?

Brian, the Premier League are taking on Man City – date set… just not published yet.

And Man City are not suing the Premier League for a billion pounds…

What is this? Wack-a-Mole? Jeez!

Allan Board
58 Posted 28/03/2024 at 14:34:36

At the end of the day, it's all bollucks anyway. Nobody can foretell what's going to happen at any tribunal or in any courtroom.

One thing I do know that's got to happen though: Everton must win 4 or 5 more games out of 10 – or once again, they are relying on other teams losing to stay in the Premier League. I think Forest will win their next 2 games as well. Luton, will lose their next 2.

Dyche needs to release the handbrake and let these players play – stick Dobbin or Danjuma up front with Calvert-Lewin and get Coleman back in the team. Put Gomes at No 10 and get someone else to do his defensive bit, because he is a liability at that.

Give Calvert-Lewin some help up there and he will get 4 or 5 goals in the next 10 games. Probably go in off his arse or the back of his head, who gives a shit.

Dyche won't change now though, and if I hear "Well, we should be on 31 points really" once more, I will bloody implode!! Forget that — just win some games of football!!!!

Get after Bournemouth, they are weak right through the middle of their team. Sit back and you will get beat Seany boy! I am telling yer!!!

Brent Stephens
59 Posted 28/03/2024 at 15:33:52
Dave #55,

"The rules change this year so will Everton, Forest and possibly Leicester be the only “fall guys”? That's the way the law is formed, says our mate Brent, even though the rules are changed after only one year of being used a different way."

You're at it again, Dave, you cheeky rascal! That's not what I said and you know it. I said absolutely nothing about the Premier League changing the rules. I did refer to case law being developed by the Commissions and Appeal Bodies as they hear cases. Even you can see the difference?!

Tony Abrahams
60 Posted 28/03/2024 at 15:52:46
I just wrote something similar and also quoted our neighbours, with regards what you've said Paul T, on another thread.

It's funny that you mentioned Philip Green because I was talking to someone yesterday who was telling me they can't believe how much Moshiri has been borrowing. Some of it seems very murky, possibly because their diligence has gone that far back, and Green's name was there in black and white, with connections to Everton's past.

Dave Abrahams
61 Posted 28/03/2024 at 16:34:09
Brent (59),

The commissions are all different, so who knows what will turn up after the next two? Are not the premier league choosing these commissions? Aren't they choosing which club is getting charged? Did the Premier League recommend Forest be deducted a certain amount of points like they recommended we should lose 12 points?

Next you'll be denying me and Tony are not your mates!

Brent Stephens
62 Posted 28/03/2024 at 16:38:13
Dave you and Tony are my mates! Tony is getting much of this right!
Tony Abrahams
63 Posted 28/03/2024 at 16:40:44
Take no notice of him, Brent, he's dead clever really. I asked him for your e-mail address and he told me it was somewhere in Southport!
Brent Stephens
64 Posted 28/03/2024 at 16:59:23
Tony, that's brilliant! I'll have to change my email address now!
Brian Harrison
65 Posted 28/03/2024 at 17:43:47
Michael @57,

Daily Telegraph 22/3/2024 Leicester City to take legal action against the EFL and the Premier League.

Daily Mirror and the Daily Telegraph 9/2/2024 both stated that Man City were preparing to sue the Premier League.

Now I know you shouldn't believe everything you read in newspapers, but I haven't seen anything that would contradict those stories.

As for the date of City's hearing being set for later this year, well why didn't Masters tell the select committee the date? Do you not find that rather strange? Surely they will have told Man City the date so what possible reason could Masters have for not telling everyone when that date is?

Dave Abrahams
66 Posted 28/03/2024 at 18:25:54
Brent (62), Thank God for that, something positive from our exchanges.

Brent, I have no problem with your views on the Premier League and the commissions. To be honest, to me, they are all part of the system created by the Premier League and it isn't fit for purpose which has been apparent for a long time.

Everton are now waiting again for next week's result which is nerve-racking for us fans and could have an effect on the players if it hasn't already done so.

By the way, Tony is only having you on that I said your e-mail address was in Southport. I'm not that daft — I know it is in Formby!

Brent Stephens
67 Posted 28/03/2024 at 18:33:20
The sooner our case is settled, the better, Dave. And Forest's case. We can then get back to talking about football.

ps: I haven't moved to Formby – that's just my summer residence.

Danny O’Neill
68 Posted 28/03/2024 at 18:35:41

You can meet with Brian Murray. The poor lad is surrounded by the other side!

Dave Abrahams
69 Posted 28/03/2024 at 19:28:49
Brent (67),

Yes, getting back to talking about football, it's not that easy these days, is it?

Anyway we have another thing in common, Norris bleedin' Green is just my summer residence!

Danny O’Neill
70 Posted 28/03/2024 at 19:37:48
Not Norris Green, Dave, but I once had to live with my Mum's Aunty in nearby Croxteth. Tough place in the '80s. I wouldn't have called it a summer residence!
Bill Gall
71 Posted 28/03/2024 at 20:35:13

I lived in Norris Green from 1940 to 1976. Danny, my future wife lived in Croxteth. We lived in Kirkby when we were married from 1970.to 1976 and moved to Canada.

I will be back home in April and would like to meet other Everton supporters. In Liverpool from the 19th April until the 29th.

Dave Abrahams
72 Posted 28/03/2024 at 20:39:15
Danny (70),

It's strange, Danny, I've lived in Norris Green a lot longer than living close to the City centre but always feel more comfortable when I'm back down there. I very rarely drank in Norris Green, same as my mates who moved out but we drank together in town and around the same area we grew up in.

Nothing bad about Norris Green or the people up here, I just feel happier back in town.

Dave Abrahams
73 Posted 28/03/2024 at 20:50:13
Bill (71), Yes I know your wife lived in the Four Squares so you might be familiar with places around there, strangely I lived in town around the same time as you lived in Norris Green 1940- 1974.

It will be a pleasure to meet you, share a drink and compare notes about those times when you played football then coached and managed a team around, was it Joe Royle's old school?

I'll find out when we meet and talk about your late wife's old school which was the same as mine, except I went to The Friary boys school and your wife went to the girls school which was right next to the terrace my Nin and aunty lived in.

Bill Gall
74 Posted 28/03/2024 at 21:55:15
Dave (73)

Yes my wife lived in the 4 squares I believe it was Queen Anne Place, always talked about the nuns in the Friary who sent her on the roof for misbehaving and it poured down, said she was soaked right through to her knickers. I don't know about you but she said she and her older brother and sister were evacuated to North Wales during the war, I ended up in Kent as my mums older brother lived down there. I would like to meet you as I am trying to get together with family and friends. Any local pub will do, I am stopping with my brother he is not far from Chillwall 5 ways if that is how you spell it.

Jerome Shields
75 Posted 29/03/2024 at 10:34:47
I think that Moshiri was never ever in control of anything. He has been a figurehead and pawn throughout. He still is.

I also think his holding of wealth is owned by other parties. He may appear to have the trappings of a billionaire, but that is his payment for being a puppet. He is completely owned. I think that Wander is in a similar owned camp.

I also think that Philip Green had something to do with the Moshiri - Kenwright link-up. Both Moshiri and Green are Monaco residents. Green would have all types of murky connections.

The outside American interest I suspect has a Moores connection, the same connection that was the revival bid to Moshiri, but Kenwright refused, because he wanted to be still in control.

Charles Ward
76 Posted 29/03/2024 at 10:39:40
Bill - Childwall Five aways I'll have you know!

Not far from Gateacre pronounced “Gataker” by us locals.

If you're looking for a pub steer clear of the Highwayman in Belle Vale. Always was dodgy.

Jerome Shields
77 Posted 29/03/2024 at 11:05:02
'Farhad Moshiri acquired a 68.6% stake in Everton FC in 2016, becoming the majority shareholder. Philip Green, a British businessman, was associated with Moshiri through a previous business relationship. Green helped advise Moshiri when he was initially looking to invest in a Premier League club before Moshiri settled on Everton. However, Green does not have direct ownership or involvement with Everton FC.'


We could speculate that Philip Green helped his friend Bill Kenwright, to finance the running of Everton. We could stretch it further and speculate that Philip Green was an adviser to Usmanov.

Tony Abrahams
78 Posted 29/03/2024 at 11:19:10
How could Bill Kenwright refuse, Jerome? Surely he was only a bit-part player when dealing with the Usmanov's of this world?

A part of me struggles to think that Bill Kenwright is dead (sorry for being so disrespectful but that's what liars do to me) but if he his, then maybe they need to exhume his body if he had the power to make such an influential person change track Because he didn't want to be truly exposed.

Dave Abrahams
79 Posted 29/03/2024 at 12:18:16
Bill (74),

Yes, The Chillwall Fiveways is dead handy for me, the 61 bus will drop me right outside that pub.

Dave Abrahams
80 Posted 29/03/2024 at 12:46:51
With apologies to Charles @ The Childwall Five always will suit me, Bill. I spelt it as I pronounced it, this Scouse accent spells loads of names wrong. Woolton was one, most of us townies called it Wooton when we were going to Woolton Woods as kids, it never bothered the conductors on the bus, they knew where we meant.
Charles Ward
81 Posted 29/03/2024 at 13:13:21
Dave I was being pedantic. We always pronounced it Chilwall, just up the road from Caldies.
Dave Abrahams
82 Posted 29/03/2024 at 13:24:05
Charles (81) Fair enough Charles.
Mike Doyle
83 Posted 29/03/2024 at 13:25:50
Dave 79,

You are taking me back. The 61 used to take me to school and back. The Five Ways was my local / regular meeting place in my late teens & early 20s (Eugene Cato was the manager).

But times change. Last time I went in there the barmaid asked me which part of southern England I was from – and it's not a Higson's pub anymore.

Bill Gall
84 Posted 29/03/2024 at 13:31:32

I don't need any advice on the scouse language, I was born there, lived there for 36 years, and have been back on numerous occasions.

I don't now what our arrangements are going to be as my son will be with me. As far as Woolton Woods go, that was where we had our first ground in the Liverpool and District Sunday League.

I am trying to find out if anyone goes to their local during the week as it may be easier to meet there rather than promise where I will be on any given days apart from the Everton games.

Dave Abrahams
85 Posted 29/03/2024 at 13:42:02
Bill (84),

Fair enough, whatever you decide I'll do my best to be there, no matter what day is best for yourself and family.

Jerome Shields
86 Posted 29/03/2024 at 13:50:20
Tony #78,

I know Bill is out of the equation (RIP) but his involvement in Everton right from the start started a chain of events.

I remember Jeffrey Robinson being described as someone who enriched himself at huge costs to the companies he was involved in. Bill Kenwright never did have the competence to run a football club, but he stayed on to enrich himself, using the assets of Everton to do so.

He got involved with anyone who would help him do so, including Philip Green who had a connection to Moshiri and Usmanov to do so. The running of the Club was a secondary consideration and, when it was able to realise a profit, he took it, but was able to keep his snout in the trough on the same wages as before. That is why Moshiri's take over not the Moores Connection takeover got chosen. It allowed him to do so.

I don't think it is any different now; the 777 Partners deal imo is a similar scenario. 777 Partners and Moshiri & Co are together in the richman's game and therefore there is no interest in other independent parties.

It is not about the running of the club, it is about getting rich at the club's expense. But it is not about the value of the asset, it is about moving the money around by loans and other methods. 777 Partners will persist and money will be produced, because the money is useful as it has the opportunity to be used legitimately.

This whole saga could go on and on in such a scenario.

Danny O’Neill
88 Posted 29/03/2024 at 14:02:49
Bill, All,

When we lived in Liverpool, my wife was confused by some of the names of districts.

Childwall. Pronounced Chilwall but spelt "Child Wall"

Huyton. Pronounced "Highton"

Gateacre. Pronounced Gatecer but spelt Gate Acre.

Bill, I used to take my son to Camp Hill most weekends. I was in Woolton at the weekend for a family funeral Bill. I love the place. A self-contained village within a city.

True story. Camp Hill is also were I took my first steps into coaching. I was watching the kids train and the coach got frustrated, threw the towel in and stormed off.

The kids and parents were looking around, so I stepped in

I digress slightly, I played for Speke Town with my uncle a few times back when they played on the pitches outside the Dunlops Social Club. That was a tough football upbringing as a youngster!!

Eric Myles
89 Posted 29/03/2024 at 14:06:20
Jerome #75 "I also think that Philip Green had something to do with the Moshiri - Kenwright link-up. Both Moshiri and Green are Monaco residents."

I've been saying that since Moshiri was first announced as the buyer 8 years ago.

Eric Myles
90 Posted 29/03/2024 at 14:09:51
Mike #83, I also used to get the 61 to and from school and get off the stop before Childwall Fiveways at Cardinal Newman.
Bill Gall
91 Posted 29/03/2024 at 14:16:41
Thank you Danny
Another note, as you study military history I just wish my Father in Law was still alive for you to talk to.During the 2nd World War he volunteered to join another regiment, was sent to Burma, I will give you the name of who he served under and I believe the name will give you an idea of what and where they were. Orde Wingate if that is the correct spelling, I believe their nickname was the Ghurka,s
Colin Glassar
92 Posted 29/03/2024 at 14:24:43
Chindits, Bill.
Mike Doyle
93 Posted 29/03/2024 at 14:45:15
Eric #90] me too. Attended Newman in the mid-70s.
Eric Myles
94 Posted 29/03/2024 at 14:48:01
Me too Mike, finished my O Levels in 1975.
Bill Gall
95 Posted 29/03/2024 at 14:48:42
Thank you Colin I should have remembered that, you can tell with some of the photographs had, his hat looked like one the Australian armed forces have with the brim turned up one side.
Danny O’Neill
96 Posted 29/03/2024 at 15:27:57
Yes l think it will be the Chindits.

My Belfast born Grandfather served with the Inniskilling Fusiliers.

I have his former cap badge that sits with his Burma Star and other medals.

He never spoke about it.

My 8 will sit alongside once I get them framed as I won't were them again.

Bill Gall
97 Posted 29/03/2024 at 15:42:26
Yes Danny,
There were not many who spoke about the war, My Father in Law very really spoke about his Burma experience,except once when he was drunk and talked about eating rats and snakes and their Burmese native guides coming back with various enemy body parts.
He developed Malaria there, and never got over it I think that was a factor that later in life was a factor in his death.
Bill Gall
98 Posted 29/03/2024 at 15:45:39
On a brighter note, I guess I booked the rite time to come home as Everton have 3 home games starting with Forest at home.
Alan J Thompson
99 Posted 29/03/2024 at 15:51:37
Funny how paths cross, the 61 bus also passed Quarry Bank school although I was born and raised in Woolton and was in the year behind Joe Royle. Tom Saunders son Dave was in the same class, Steve Coppell a year or three behind, Billy Liddel's twin sons were there to take their GCE's, Graham Smith who arranged those games Everton played in Texas, Bob Paisley's two sons also attended and I was at Primary School with the younger son when they eventually built a school in Out Lane before that it was a church hall in the Village although I spent most of my early childhood in hospital having been born with club feet.

I also played against Speke Legion who I think later became Town once or twice for Mackett's Grenadiers in the Liverpool League and we reached the quarter finals of the Liverpool (or Lancashire?) Amateur Cup beaten by Lucas Sports who were later, too late for us, disqualified for playing semi professionals.

Anyway, how and when will Forest"s appeal be heard?

Mike Doyle
100 Posted 29/03/2024 at 15:59:26
Eric 94] I was a couple of years behind you - and left in 77. My year group included David Higgins - great player - who later a long career at Tranmere.
Eric Myles
101 Posted 29/03/2024 at 16:07:46
Did you ever have Mr. Clancy as a chemistry teacher Mike? Would have only been in your first year maybe as he was gone in my third year.
Danny O’Neill
102 Posted 29/03/2024 at 16:08:42
Bring your luck Bill and enjoy.

Watching Everton is a privilege as as much as it is a traumatic experience right now.

I probably won't sleep much tonight and watch Howard's Way again!

Hope to meet you.

Mike Doyle
103 Posted 29/03/2024 at 16:16:41
Yes Eric. Remember Jim Clancy from
My first year or 2 - he had gone before I left. Strange school Newman. Had some very good teachers I thought, but - and probably because of its classification as a ‘secondary modern’ - general expectations of the pupils was lower than they deserved.
I remember telling one teacher that I planned to go to university- he replied that I should have more realistic goals!
Rob Halligan
104 Posted 29/03/2024 at 16:21:40
Bill, if you’re looking for somewhere for a possible get together, then I can recommend Allerton road, between Queens drive and Rose Lane. There are loads of new bars and restaurants opened down there in the last few years, as well as some decent pubs such as The John Brodie and The Allerton Oak. And for Dave Abrahams, the 61 bus also stops down there.
Danny O’Neill
105 Posted 29/03/2024 at 16:36:38
Allerton Road is a good shout Rob.

I would also recommend the Rose of Mossley, close to Mossley Hill Station and close to the station for the main line into Lime Street.

Jerome Shields
106 Posted 29/03/2024 at 22:07:25
Eric #89,

I have just copped on regarding Philip Green's involvement. But to get it confirmed he was advisor to Moshiri and Usmanov regarding their Arsenal investment just confirms my perspective regarding the current situation.

777 Partners just fit the type of vehicle that the drivers of Moshiri would use. 777 Partners are going to be around for a while. They will contest and worm about everything.

I don't think they will have any trouble coming up with money, but Everton will be in the doldrums for years, because of the web they are caught up in. Green could still be an advisor.

Eric Myles
107 Posted 30/03/2024 at 01:50:36
Mike #103, do you remember the story of how Mr Clancy came to leave. (I never knew his name is Jim until now!)

Agree with you about the teachers, they certainly gave me support. I didn't know what I wanted to do and decided on A levels and a few of the teachers' recommendations swung it for my parents to agree.

There were some pretty useless kids at the school though which is probably why it got its reputation. Although in the X-stream, there were only 5 of us that had further academic ambitions and 3 of them dropped out, the other 2 of us made it to uni.

Eric Myles
108 Posted 30/03/2024 at 02:01:20
Jerome #106, in my case it was putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5.

Involving Chairman Bill's ill health, Green's payment for Gregg's shares, and Green and Moshiri having yachts in Monaco.

But now you say that Green and Moshiri knew each other before this which cements my thoughts.

Jerome Shields
109 Posted 30/03/2024 at 10:36:01
Eric #108,

Yes, Green was advisor to both Moshiri and Usmanov in their Premier League investment in Arsenal. He was also advisor to Kenwright as we all know. Your 2 plus 2 giving you a 5, now looks as if the answer is 4.

Giving Philip Green's history regarding BHS and their appearing to have been little consideration other than regulatory parameters regarding solvency. It is quite concerning that such an association should exist and probably still does in the super privacy of Monaco.

I still maintain that, given the source of the money which means it was worthless, having it in play even as high interest loans does give it a value it never had before.

I therefore expect the 777 Partners saga to go on and on. The Premier League appear to have control, but in reality they don't. Moshiri's reply to FAB is that of a Puppet or Muppet as I would call it.

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