08/04/2024 344comments  |  Jump to last

Everton have been hit with a second sanction, with the latest Independent Commission into the Club’s breach of the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) recommending that they be docked two more points.

The Blues make unwanted history by becoming the first top-flight side to be sanctioned twice, with both punishments being levied in the same season, also without precedent, and still face the possibility of a further points deduction in the months ahead over disputed stadium costs.

As before, this latest points penalty takes immediate effect, reducing Everton’s tally from 29 to 27, drops them one place back into 16th, behind Brentford, and reduces the cushion between themselves and both Luton Town and Nottingham Forest to two points.

The Club have announced their intention to appeal the decision which was based on a breach of £16.6m which, the Commission, chaired by James Drake KC, determined, should initially merit a five-point penalty.

Article continues below video content

That was reduced by three points on the basis that Everton have already been punished for 75% of the rolling period under consideration for the breach (ordinarily three years but the "Covid-19 seasons" of 2019-20 and 2020-21 have been combined for the purposes of PSR), the Commission's acceptance of one head of mitigation around the loss of sponsorship revenue from the suspended USM Holdings deals following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and, like Forest, an early admission of guilt on the Club's part.

A statement from the Club reads:

In January 2024, Everton were charged by the Premier League for breaching the permitted Profit and Sustainability thresholds for the assessment period ending 2022/23.

The matter was referred to a Premier League Commission, which has today announced Everton will receive an immediate two-point deduction. While the Club’s position has been that no further sanction was appropriate, the Club is pleased to see that the Commission has given credit to the majority of the issues raised by the Club, including the concept of double punishment, the significant mitigating circumstances facing the Club due to the war in Ukraine, and the high level of co-operation and early admission of the Club’s breach.

Everton remains committed to working collaboratively with the League on all matters relating to PSR but is extremely concerned by the inconsistency of different commissions in respect of points deductions applied.

The Club would like to place on record its thanks to the Fan Advisory Board and other fan groups for their submissions during this process, and to all Evertonians for their ongoing patience and unstinting support.

The Club and its legal representatives have begun the preparations to appeal the Commission’s decision.

Everton were first hit with what was a record 10-point deduction in November that plunged the Toffees into the relegation zone at the time. That sanction was later reduced to six points following a partially successful appeal and, despite setting a Premier League record for successive matches without recording a victory, Sean Dyche has managed to keep the Club above the dotted line in the meantime.

This latest decision from the second Commission can be appealed by Everton and, together with Forest’s decision to appeal their four-point penalty for breaching PSR, must be heard and a verdict delivered by 24th May.

That exposes the League to the danger that the 2023-24 season could end before the final relegation places are decided.

In addition, the issue is further muddied by a continuing dispute between the League and Everton around £6.5m associated with the construction of the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock. As Paul Joyce of The Times reports, "the League considers that these costs fall to be considered as a loss for the purposes of the PSRs.

"The club contends that these costs are not losses, given that they relate to the construction of the stadium and have been capitalised in their audited accounts. This issue, and the question of whether any additional sanction should be applied, will be resolved by the same Commission at a later date. It is unlikely to be before the end of the season."

If the new hearing isn't heard before the end of this season it throws up the possibility of further sanctions being imposed next season. 

The Commission report published today noted that, "in fairness to the parties in these proceedings, the Commission decided that the issues [related to stadium interest] which remain cannot be dealt with in accordance with the timetable set out in the Standard Directions.

"The Standard Directions will not, therefore, apply to the remaining issues."


Reader Comments (344)

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 ()

Brent Stephens
1 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:02:39
So we now drop to 16th below Brentford.
Jamie Crowley
2 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:02:48
That is actually good news.

Now we know our goal for safety.

Paul Hewitt
3 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:06:32
Could have been worse.
Brent Stephens
4 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:07:43
From EFC website:

"The Club is pleased to see that the Commission has given credit to the majority of the issues raised by the Club, including the concept of double punishment, the significant mitigating circumstances facing the Club due to the war in Ukraine, and the high level of co-operation and early admission of the Club's breach."

James Fletcher
5 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:08:13
I was expecting another 6 (xD) so this is more like 4 points back!
Andy Meighan
6 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:09:39
They were determined to give us another deduction.

We've got to beat Brentford, Nottm Forest and Sheffield Utd.

Should be well okay then, whether we do given the way we've suddenly stopped creating opportunities is another story.

The sooner this shitshow of a season ends, the better.

Rennie Smith
7 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:10:55
I'm "happy" with just 2 points deducted.
Jason Broome
8 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:13:15
Docked a further 2 points.

That isn't bad. I was expecting at least 4!

James Newcombe
9 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:13:27
Two Point Super Bloos!

Seriously though, we'll have to play a lot better to stay in the Premier League.

Dave Williams
10 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:16:03
I couldn't agree more, chaps – this is vital news and it could have been much worse!!
Christopher Timmins
11 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:17:55
Amazing how expectations can be managed. After the first punishment, the second one looks like a victory!

We have work to do but there is no reason why we can't improve our position before the end of the season.

Mal van Schaick
12 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:17:59
The Premier League are bringing the Premier League League into disrepute. They are ruining football.
Brent Stephens
13 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:18:30
Summary from the report:

1. The Commission imposes an immediate deduction of two points by way of penalty for the Admitted Breach.

2. The Commission considers a deduction of two points appropriate for the following reasons:

2.1. In line with what was said in the Everton FY22 Appeal, any breach of the PSR is significant and justifies, indeed requires, a deduction of three points.

2.2. A further two points are to be added to reflect the quantum of Everton's breach, being c.£16.6 million or 15.8% above the Upper Loss Threshold. The starting point, before any consideration of aggravation and/or mitigation, is therefore five points.

2.3. The PL makes no allegation of aggravation.

2.4. Everton relies on a number of matters in mitigation. The Commission accepts that Everton is entitled to credit, in mitigation, in respect of the following matters: (a) the fact that the Club has already been penalised in the Everton FY22 Proceedings for losses in years which overlap with the years at issue in these proceedings; (b) the loss of sponsorship revenue from USM Services Limited; and (c) the fact that Everton admitted its breach of the PSR at the first
opportunity. We consider that (a) justifies a reduction to Everton's penalty of two points, and (b) and (c) together justify a reduction of a further one point.

2.5. The Commission rejects the other grounds of mitigation advanced by Everton, which generally reflect the ordinary vicissitudes of a professional football club and/or the results of Everton's own commercial decisions, and we have concluded that Everton's cooperation was not exceptional.

2.6. In total, therefore, the Commission imposes a sanction on Everton of two points.

3. In reaching that conclusion, the Commission has had regard to the following matters:

3.1. A sanction must reflect the aims of the PSR in the wider context of the Premier League, being a joint venture of all the clubs. A sanction must uphold the integrity of the PSR. It must also ensure public confidence in the Premier League. The Commission concludes that a sanction of two points is proportionate to those aims, taking into account the particular mitigation advanced by Everton and accepted by the Commission.

3.2. The recent decision in The Premier League v Nottingham Forest, PJLP 2024/1. Although that decision is subject to appeal, it presently stands, and the Commission takes the view that the penalty in that case is broadly consistent with the penalty imposed by the Commission here. The penalty imposed on Nottingham Forest before mitigation was six points. Everton's sanction in the two cases, FY22 and FY23, after taking account of the effect of “double counting” but before any further mitigation, is nine points, which is justifiably higher as Everton has exceeded the Upper Loss Threshold in two consecutive

3.3. In relation to the double jeopardy issue, the guidelines promulgated by the EFL set out the position the EFL would take where a sanction has been imposed previously. Those guidelines are undoubtedly a helpful and compelling benchmark. However, the Commission does not consider that they can be transposed directly into the Premier League Rules.

4. The penalty of two points is to apply immediately. Whilst the Commission appreciates that Everton has already received a deduction of points in the present season as a result of the Everton FY22 Proceedings, the Commission regards an immediate penalty as the fairest solution to all other clubs within the Premier League, and the Commission has regard to the strong statement in the Standard Directions that all clubs and the Premier League have expressly agreed to resolve alleged breaches of the PSR within the relevant season where possible.

The Panel takes the view therefore that it would be inappropriate to postpone the penalty until sometime next season, not least because that may achieve nothing more than deferring the question for another day and another Commission.

Dave Lynch
14 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:19:42
Big relief that.

I was expecting the worse TBH.

Brian Harrison
15 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:22:00
I think I would have happily excepted a 2-point deduction. The club have already appealed the decision, apparently the Premier League wanted a 5 point deduction.

At least we now know the worst case scenario, and most importantly 2 points clear of relegation so we don't have to rely on other teams – it's in our own hands.

Chris Leyland
16 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:23:29
We got 5 points but reduced to 2 because we get 2 points back for double jeopardy and 1 point back for Ukraine and admitting the breach l at the earliest opportunity.

That is an appalling adjustment for the latter 2 mitigating factors and is why we are rightly appealing.

Barry Rathbone
17 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:28:12
In our own hands now…
Chris Leyland
18 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:28:28
Reading point 20 of the report, it looks like we are getting done again at another hearing over the capitalisation of interest in years 2021, 2022 and 2023.
John Keating
19 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:29:30
Just shows what a complete joke the first deduction was.
Ernie Baywood
20 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:29:31
Actually, Barry, they still might punish us further judging by the first few pages of the report!
Ray Jacques
21 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:31:06
Well at least now we know and they can get on with winning the points.

Win the 3 home games against Forest, Brentford and Sheffield Utd and we will be okay. Strange how the amount was half of what we were above the drop zone. Wonder how they worked that one out?

Just stay up, get rid of the clowns who own and run the club, and yet again try to start from new.

Dave Abrahams
22 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:32:15

Yes, eight points deducted in one season and some fans are happy with that!

I hope the club are taking the appeal seriously.

Forest got 2 points back without an appeal, and they are now waiting to see what happens to their actual appeal.

The whole rules and punishment operation stinks, it's just a game to them and, if this further 2-point deduction is carried out, then the punishment for clubs already charged must be like-for-like with Everton's.

No fines introduced as is being suggested – Man City could be fined £1B and walk away laughing.

Brent Stephens
23 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:32:34
What's interesting are the two comments:

The Commission accepts that Everton is entitled to credit, in mitigation, in respect of the following matters: (a) the fact that the Club has already been penalised in the Everton FY22 Proceedings for losses in years which overlap with the years at issue in these proceedings.

And further down:

In relation to the double jeopardy issue, the guidelines promulgated by the EFL set out the position the EFL would take where a sanction has been imposed previously. Those guidelines are undoubtedly a helpful and compelling benchmark. However, the Commission does not consider that they can be transposed directly into the Premier League Rules.

So double jeopardy taken into account by the Premier League – but not in the way the EFL would do?

Ian Pilkington
24 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:33:19
If the appeal is rejected, the club cannot possibly accept another deduction in the same season for a breach in a separate P&S accounting period, thanks to the corrupt Premier League moving the goalposts.
Rob Dolby
25 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:36:53
All of this just underlines the need for proper governance.

We have had 10 points, Forest 4 points and now us 2 points. Inconsistent rubbish.

This all just makes the Premier League look weak and incompetent given the real elephants in the room are Man City, Chelsea and Newcastle.

Leicester getting a points deduction even before being promoted would put the icing on the cake.

Watch the luxury tax come in next year and all is forgiven.

They are doing their best to get us relegated and have shown a real lack of compassion for the fans, local jobs and regeneration.

The whole thing stinks.

Chris Jones (Burton on Trent)
26 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:38:02
This 2-point penalty should be applied to next season. That it has not been applied thus means we have in effect suffered double-double jeopardy, with a unique treble potentially coming soon.

Pat Kelly
27 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:38:51
Bramley More Docked.

We shall overcome.

Kevin Prytherch
28 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:43:06
Surely, since Forest got 2 points back for cooperation - we should also get 2 back for cooperation instead of just 1?

At the very least - based on Forest's precedent, we should get 1 more point back.

Rob Halligan
29 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:44:50
If they've given us 1 point back because of the war in Ukraine, then shouldn't we have therefore got two back, seeing as the war in Ukraine was not accepted as mitigating circumstances within the first charge? How can one mitigation count in one charge, but not another?

Premier League – Corrupt as Fuck!! A Sunday league is run better than those corrupt bastards.

Roger Helm
30 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:46:02
So the two offences are over multiple seasons, but the two penalties are in the same season, to maximise the chances of relegation – clever!

Also it gets us and Forest punished before they decide that points deductions are the wrong way to deal with these offences – to avoid offending Man City and Chelsea.

They are so transparently corrupt, they don't even care.

Chris Leyland
31 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:46:15
It's clear from the full report that the Premier League are out to get us. They wanted us to sell Player B in Summer 2023 (Onana or maybe Branthwaite) and to sell Player C (Gordon) in Summer 2022 rather than January 2023.

They also allege that our transfer spending from Summer 2022 to Summer 2023 was reckless even though Thelwell pointed out in his evidence we are one of only 4 clubs to make a profit on transfers in that period.

Ian Jones
32 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:49:21
There is a mention of mitigating factors including the situation with regards to our main sponsor and Ukraine. Were those not factors that didn't appear to warrant mitigation in our first sanctions.

Also, it mentions that the 2 covid seasons have been lumped together... rolling period under consideration for the breach (ordinarily three years but the "Covid-19 seasons" of 2019-20 and 2020-21 have been combined for the purposes of PSR).

Is the combined seasons concept new? Have to admit, I've read and seen so many comments about this rolling 3-year period that I am now confused!

Chris Leyland
33 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:52:02
The worst part of the Premier League's evidence is that they wanted the commission to ignore the Forest decision and instead use the first Everton commission as the benchmark.

Basically, they wanted us punished more than Forest again!

Brent Stephens
34 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:52:25
Kevin #28 absolutely!
Paul Hewitt
35 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:53:02
So we're getting a point back because of the war in Ukraine.

They really are making it up as they go along.

Donal Armani
36 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:53:49
The ‘double jeopardy' mitigation only amounted to 2 points off the initial 5 point sanction.

This seems niggardly (given 2 out of 3 years overlap) and well worth appealing.

Brent Stephens
37 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:54:22
Rob #29 agree.
Steve Mink
38 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:54:51
It's like a new signing!
Danny O’Neill
39 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:56:06
This is frustrating at best, more annoying.

Given they are making this up as they go along, will they now go after Man City, Chelsea and Aston Villa?

Who are these people? A self-appreciation society. I wish they would travel with me around the country. They can even come out at 6 am with my 3 foot tall, 52 kg boy dog if they want in their grey suits. I'm not far from Paddington.

I'm being petulant. I'm just angry.

The only people being punished here are the supporters and they've gone for easy targets as they don't have the balls to go for others.

Ian Horan
40 Posted 08/04/2024 at 14:57:13
Just need to move on and put our energy into the on field events now!!!

Just need 777 Partners to be blown out the water now.

Rennie Smith
41 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:02:50
How ludicrous does that initial 10 point deduction makes them look now?

The issues and mitigating factors are pretty much the same. They are an absolute shambles.

Frank Crewe
42 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:03:14
Don't forget, Forest have appealed their 4 point deduction.

My guess is they'll get 2 points back. That would currently put them on 27 points as well.

Nick Page
44 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:04:03
“Just need to move on…..”

I mean, for fuck's sake. That's the absolute core problem at this football club. Bending over for TPTB. Shameful.

Grow a fucking pair of bollocks, Everton, and take this to ECAS. Or at least make it a legal issue. After all, this is a business beyond being a football club.

Mark Tanton
45 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:05:57
Who'd have thought , at the time Moshiri bought the club, that £500M later, we'd actually be worse off.
Ian Wilkins
46 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:06:02
The main takeaway here is the complete inconsistency across the three PSR independent hearings.

Everton's first hearing 10 point deduction is now exposed as a complete farce, only partially corrected by the Appeal hearing. The 6 point deduction remains unjustifiable, especially in light of Forest's hearing. Indeed that hearing acknowledged they couldn't follow the Everton decision.

How you can agree with double jeopardy, Ukraine impact and good behaviour (admitting guilt and working with PL) and make that a combined 3 point mitigation is grossly inconsistent and unfair. Good grounds for Appeal.

James Lawton
47 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:06:35
I think the result of the appeals will depend solely on the league tables at the end of the season. Penalty points will only be reduced if it does not affect the relegation issues.

There would be too much comeback for the Premier League if their appeals decisions relegates other clubs, and we know what a bunch of weasels they are. Meanwhile, over at the Etihad…

Larry O'Hara
48 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:08:15
The biggest disgrace is fuck-all for Man City and Chelsea.

Totally and utterly corrupt.

Jamie Crowley
49 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:09:31
There are inconsistencies to be sure in the application of the rules but, for me, I think they wanted a harsher penalty but realized the Premier League would be directly responsible for relegating a club.

So they popped us to ensure we were just above the relegation line at the time of sanction, and can now therefore claim (twisted, warped claim up for debate) that they are not directly responsible for Everton going down. It's in Everton's hands now. Win and stay up.

And this is why I'm actually pleased. We hold our destiny in our own hands.

With the absolute circus that is Everton in regards to the way we are run, the reckless spending and mismanagement, and the jokers that present ownership are trying to sell the club to? If Dyche keeps us up it's a miracle. Eight points deducted with a horribly run club and bang average talent, coupling with a lack of scoring ability, staying up is darned near walking on water.

Sean Dyche might put his men behind the ball against a 10-man Burnley, and he might be playing ultra-conservative and we're not seeing the 15- to 20-shot counter-attacking Everton we were watching earlier in the season, but Dyche is playing the math game. He knows we need points and he's literally playing the most boring, protect the points style imaginable. But he's doing it to save this club from relegation.

Eight points in the end deducted. Sean Dyche, do whatever you need to to keep us up. I don't care about the style of play right now, our survival and swerving ruination is on the line. Do whatever you must to ensure Everton staying in the top flight.

Two points above safety now. Crawl over that line bruised, bloody, and beaten, but crawl over that line in any manner necessary.

Alec Gaston
50 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:09:50
In total, the Premier League wanted 17 points deducted - this is a result of us trying to hoodwink them and there is a definite vendetta.

Anyone understand the hearing which has been deferred to a later date?

Paul Kossoff
51 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:13:10
Two points will do me, I was terrified we would get four or six. Still very unfair but with 27 on board we should be safe with 34, surely achievable.

Hopefully that's the end of it with the new rules coming in season's end. Now the team can concentrate on playing with no distractions and no more Dyche excuses.

Steve Brown
52 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:14:31
So to summarise:

1) The commission arrived at a ruling of a 5-point penalty.

2) The principle of double jeopardy should apply due to overlapping years of assessment covered by the charges, reducing the penalty by 2 points.

3) The loss of revenue for sponsorship of Finch Farm by USM Holdings is now accepted as mitigation (unlike the last commission ruling), and Everton's early guilty plea is accepted, reducing the penalty by an additional 1 point.

Oh, and the Premier League are still challenging the interest on the stadium, so there will be another hearing at the end of the season.

If anyone still claims that the Premier League is not out to get Everton, take the time to read the 60 pages of the commission report. It is scandalous.

This is heading to the arbitration and or the High Court in the summer. Relegation will be resolved then if we are still up.

Lynn Maher
53 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:21:04
Richard Masters and the PL = Paula Vennells and the Post Office. Everton = Sub postmasters.

Found guilty by the biggest charlatans going! Making the rules up as they go along.

I'm absolutely fuming at this moment. Time for the Corrupt posters again I think.

Karl Meighan
54 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:21:17
Am I right to say these rules were not in place when Abramovich bought Chelsea and Mansoor bought Man City?

They pretty much bought success with their wealth so not only did they have this advantage, which is their good fortune, but also the advantage and fortune to then see rules put in place which stops other clubs doing the same?

I'm quite sure I've read that these rules are in place to stop clubs spending beyond their means and getting themselves in financial trouble. I don't see how taking points away and maybe getting a club relegated can help them in any financial way — surely this only adds to their problems???

Steve Brown
55 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:21:42
The commission actually agrees that the Premier League have been gobshites with us!

§256. In this case, we have read and considered with care the parties' submissions in this respect, set out above at paragraph 159 above and not repeated here. In our view, many if not most of the criticisms levelled against the Club in this respect by the PL are unwarranted, overstated, or both. In our view, the Club has indeed cooperated with the PL in the presentation of these proceedings according to the Standard Directions (to which the Club consented from the outset) albeit in a manner that protected (quite properly) the interests of the Club.

Brent Stephens
56 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:22:48
The penalty is 2 points less than I feared. Quantum of breach gets us only 2 additional points whereas Forest's quantum of breach got them an extra 3 points (before final calculation).

I also feared that they wouldn't take into account the fact that we'd already been clobbered for FY22 but they seem in some way to have allowed in mitigation for double jeopardy (para 2.4) despite what they say in para 3.3 re double jeopardy).

But I'm baffled at only 1 point being allowed for the combination of cooperation and loss of USM sponsorship.

Jack Convery
57 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:24:17
So it's 2 points. Smack my Aunty Fanny across the arse.

How delightfully good of those Commision chaps, to take into account a War and our good intentions and not give us the 5 that the evil, caped baddie Mr Masters of Sod All wanted.

A PSR system so useless it is being disbanded by these inglorious self-elected charlatans as we speak and we all know why don't we?

A curse on all their Houses. As they get ready to to let off Man City, Chelsea etc with a tap on the financial wrist. You know the same teams that wanted to leave the Premier League in the lurch and go and play comfy ball with their elite European mates. For which they received a 'don't do that again' slap on the wrist.

Corruption, Corruption, Corruption. Now it's here, it won't ever go away, believe me.

I was expecting 4 but I'm still angry as you may have noticed !

Brent Stephens
58 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:24:38
Steve #55 excellent.

Better for us to try to read what the report actually says than jump to knee-jerk reactions and assumptions about what this Commission has "done" to us.

Charles Brewer
59 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:28:54
Just as well Everton supporters haven't murdered anyone (on two separate occasions), and the club hasn't tried to wreck the entire professional football system in England.

Personally, I don't want to see any measures whatsoever against Man City or Chelsea, or the billion-quid-in-debt Manchester (middle of the table) United since this will show up to an even greater degree the utter corruption behind this increasingly worthless "sport".

Paul Hewitt
60 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:29:10
So we have been docked 8 points for two different offences in the same season.

Chelsea, who have admitted to illegal payments to players and agents, going back many years, and have sent the Premier League all the evidence they need, still haven't been punished.

And as for Man City, forget it. Nothing will happen to them.

Anthony Dove
61 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:31:36
A deduction of 2 points seems fair to me.

With regard to any appeals, I don't think you can have any adjustments affecting the relegation places at this late stage of the season, and certainly not after it has ended.

Ernie Baywood
62 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:36:05
3 points

+2 points for scale of the breach (they rejected the Forest Commission interpretation)

–2 points because we'd already been punished for ~50% of the three period's losses

–1 point for immediate guilty plea and loss of training ground sponsorship

= 2 points deduction

Note it was the training ground sponsorship they accepted mitigation for. In the last hearing, we claimed mitigation for loss of early payments on our stadium naming rights deal with zero evidence that they would ever have existed. The training ground sponsorship deal clearly did exist – it had been in place for some time.

There's a lot to take in with this report. This Commission seems to have disregarded the Forest Commission and gone down their own path.

They do seem to benchmark us against other penalties (ie, us and Forest) but there's a heck of a lot of justifying going on.

And note that there's still a question over the total of the breach which they have committed to resolve at a later date. In theory, if they follow their almost-but-not-precisely-mathematical model it could result in another 1 point deduction.

They have said that they don't need to adhere to timing requirements on that though so it sounds like it wouldn't be this season.

Paul Washington
63 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:37:50
Wolves and Spurs have gone over the spending rules but... 'reasons' have been found to disregard their breaches.

Animal Farm's famous quote springs to mind... yet again!

Jonathan Tasker
64 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:40:31
I still think Everton will stay up.

The bookies have us at 5/1 to go down.

Ernie Baywood
65 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:48:42
Anthony #61,

I agree, but whether it happens or not won't be anything to do with impact on teams or leagues. If there's a case, then they'll do it.

Andy Crooks
66 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:55:19
I am dealing with this by imagining that Burnley got a late equaliser. The huge upside to this approach is we avoid the morale sapping effect that such an actuality would have brought. And, this is a big plus, Michael Kenrick's report does not have the additional hundred comments of invective that such an outcome would have generated.

The key to supporting Everton: find the silver lining.

Brian Cleveland
67 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:56:59
Isn't the war in Ukraine a reason for "force majeure"? If so, that means that all reasons for not complying with a contract are suspended until the reason for the force majeure goes away (end of war and removal of sanctions) or until circumstances can be adapted to resume the contract in a manner that is the best possible solution for both parties.

Our overspend was less than the amount of sponsorship provided by USM for Finch Farm wasn't it? That's not just a mitigating factor, it's a fundamental factor causing the transgression.

Am I missing something?

Roy Johnstone
68 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:57:36
I'm not moving on from this. This whole hypocritical shitshow, which has contradicted its own rules needs calling out.

If we are not looking at the High Court or CAS to contest this, we are a disgrace of a club.

As Nick @44 said, Grow a pair and fight this. Get the gofundme back up and do what we did before.

Ray Robinson
69 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:57:45
Has any reasoning been given for how 2 separate deductions can be applied in the same season for 2 separate three-year accounting periods?

The eventual (ha!) deductions for Man City and Chelsea will be ginormous.

Soren Moyer
71 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:58:12
It is not acceptable at all! The club should take those bastards to civil court, for fuck's sake!

How can we be punished for the same breach twice in the same season!!!!!!?

Phil Greenough
72 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:58:58
Can anyone please explain how the Premier League can use, in their own words, a rule that is not fit for purpose?

Given they are to replace the antiquated rule in August, they should scrap any points deductions given to us and Forest and then review using the new rules.

Jay Harris
73 Posted 08/04/2024 at 15:59:09
Eight points in one season is an absolute joke.

We would have only got 9 points going into administration, clearing our debts, and making a fresh start.

The corrupt bastards have already conceded that these rules are not fit for the purpose by wanting to change them at the end of the season to protect their media darlings Chelsea and Man Utd etc.

This is so unfair and they know it but, in the meantime, Masters enjoys his lavish salary and the support of the "Masters" Six.

Ed Prytherch
74 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:01:24
Did they make the 2 points deduction based upon the arithmetic in #62 or did they come up with a deduction and then manipulate the arithmetic to match?

I suspect the latter.

Alan J Thompson
75 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:01:52
I think I've lost sight of why these rules were brought in and I might not be the only one but it appears it is either to send clubs broke through relegation or somebody trying to prove to themselves that they are in charge.

Mind you, how many points could we be docked for next year's breach or won't it be necessary if we sell 2 or 3 of our better players to balance the books and lose TV appearance and prize money because of it?

It's becoming a Catch-22 situation for us — but with little chance of catching Man City and Chelsea.

Pete Neilson
76 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:05:10
It's a lottery. Their thoughtful sentencing summary, including taking into account how we've been a good club and sucked up our medicine, is simply embroidery trying to disguise a rotten, not-fit-for-purpose governance structure.

As for their concern alleged breaches of the PSR are within the relevant season, Man City the elephant in the room?

Pat Kelly
77 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:06:20
If the PSR rules are scrapped, any Club who breached them while in place should suffer the same penalty applied to Everton. Otherwise, we should take it to Court, not the Premier League's kangaroo court, their independent Commission. We need to fight both on and off the pitch. Advise the Premier League we will see them in Court.

No more being “pleased to see that the Commission has given credit to the majority of the issues raised by the Club” (EFC statement). Did Moshiri take away our balls as well?
Christy Ring
78 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:11:05
How can anyone say 2 points is fair, on top of the 6 points already deducted?

The Premier League wanted us docked 17 points — is that
not showing the club is being targeted and victimised, considering there was nothing set in stone about point deductions in the first place?

This is Masters and his cohorts trying to stay in charge and stop a government independent regulator from taking over. We should be going to the European Court of Arbitracionfor Sport, bypass the Premier League like Man City did, and fight the illegality of this.

Total injustice, we're the scapegoats and sadly we've no owner or board with any bottle to take them on.

Steve Brown
79 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:12:46
Bottom line is this.

If we win 2 of our remaining games, then Luton will need 9 points from their remaining 5 games. Next up for them is Man City.

Jamie Crowley
80 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:14:18

When they change the rules to accommodate their cash-cow clubs, and they will absolutely do that, any lawsuit will be akin to burning money.

Any court will recognize the Premier League applied the relevant rules of that time period. Rules are subject to change, and the Premier League was well within their rights to apply the rules that were applicable at the time of judgment.

Any case would be torching money on legal fees – money we don't have. It would never, ever be a case that could remotely be won.

Phil (Kelsall) Roberts
81 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:14:32
I reckon they decided on the penalty because of Calvert-Lewin's fluky goal and felt we should only have got a draw.
Mike Gaynes
82 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:14:33
Fuck them. We will shove it up their ass and stay up anyway.
Andy Meighan
83 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:14:42
Christy 78.

Absolutely spot on.

Done twice in the same season. I'm currently on holiday in Turkey having a lovely time… but, when I got the news, I felt like I'd been kicked in the plums.

How much more can one fan base take? It's so wrong.

Dean Williams
84 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:15:44
Can any of the more educated ToffeeWebers enlighten me.

If the rumours are true that Man City and Chelsea will escape points deductions in place of fines, how come we are being deducted again? Cheers.

Joe Corgan
85 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:15:54
The thing I don't understand is how penalties relating to different sets of seasons can be applied in the same season.

Either our original penalty should have been applied last season or this new penalty should have been applied next season.

If we're relegated by a couple of points, this alone would be massively unfair without even looking at the penalties themselves.

On the other hand, perhaps we should be grateful that no penalties were applied last season!

Andy Meighan
86 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:18:06
Great post by Charles Brewer at 59.

Well said, pal.

Andy Crooks
87 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:18:48
Pat @ 77, that is a very interesting point.

It would be fundamentally wrong if the rules are changed and dragging a case allows serial wrongdoers to escape deductions.

I fear that will be the case and that we will accept it.

Jamie Crowley
88 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:18:53
Christy @ 78,

It's not a "total injustice."

It's an absolute joke, it lacks any degree of intelligence, and they are completely making shit up as they go.

But we did break the rules. So if you're in breach, you can't define a judgement to be "total injustice" because you stupidly opened yourself up to donkeys hurling sanctions!

And they are absolute dumbass donkeys. This thing is ridiculous. But we broke the rules bud, and opened ourselves up to this mess where we've been fucked.

Let's not abrogate total responsibility here. Out financials are a disgusting mess.

Brian Wilkinson
89 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:24:41
It was around what I was expecting 2 points but I thought it would have been 4 with two knocked off for early agreement and double jeopardy, and the premier league still being seen as punishing us but by not as much.

It stinks to high heavens but could have been a lot worse, at least now we know where it stands, I am certainly not accepting it as a victory, but on the other hand will gladly take the two point hit, rather than 4 or 6.

That two point could be a better scenario than no points, it will galvernise the team and supporters again, so in some bizarre way, I think the 2 points handed out will do us more good than anything, the injustice of further points will fite the team and fans up even more.

Pat Kelly
90 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:24:43
Jamie, #80, are you saying Man City and possibly others haven't breached the rules now in place?

Of course rules are subject to change. But you can't delay enforcing them in selected cases and then change them to ignore breaches while they were in force.

There are 115 charges pending against Man City. They can't be expunged by a new set of rules.

Derek Knox
91 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:29:32
While I am somewhat relieved at only getting another 2-point deduction, I also feel as with the first 'penalty' they are punishing the wrong people. By that I mean the team and the fans, who have played no part whatsoever in the mismanaging of the club.

I would rather have seen the guilty punished by large financial penalties, as well as the Iron Maiden, the Rack and any other medieval tortures. As usual, the real guilty walk away rewarded or scot-free!

Alan Corken
92 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:31:00
Sentiment here seems overwhelmingly to be that 2 points is unfair, mostly because the application of PSR regulations seems to be haphazard at best.

To be honest, it's hard to disagree with most of what is being said. The rules are a farce, they are inadequately framed, and consequently randomly applied.

The best course of action for the Premier League would be to admit this, wipe out all penalties, and seek to put something robust in place that can achieve whatever the hell it is they are attempting to achieve.

In saying that, we should be careful not to let Moshiri off the hook. The P&S rules are not fit for purpose, but Everton are a fucking shambles. That is Moshiri's doing – not PSR, not the independent commissions, and not the Premier League.

Moshiri is the guilty party and the points deductions – no matter how clumsily handled – are a reaction to his ineptitude.

Dave Cashen
93 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:31:12
Jamie 49

Last paragraph. In a fucking nutshell, mate.

Pat Kelly
94 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:31:22
Andy, #87, yes we can't accept it.

Otherwise, we may as well accept we are nothing more than whipping boys.

Gerry Clarke
95 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:31:59
The commission is a joke; we were allowed 1 point back for loss of sponsorship and admitting the charge.

So, had we not admitted to the charge, would we have got half a point back! 🤔

Pete Jeffries
96 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:39:10
Despite our club helping the city to regenerate not just the north, but the city as a whole, there is one glaring lack of support from our neighbours, Liverpool.

Having given them our support in times of trouble, their silence is deafening all the way from the USA. Whatever happened to the old chant "Merseyside... Merseyside"?

Anthony Hawkins
97 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:42:40
Let me get this straight:

1. Originally, the Premier League encouraged the independent commission to charge Everton 12 points, which the they reduced to 10 points based on various calculations.

2. The Appeals Commission reduced the deductions to 6 points on appeal and improper application of the guidelines.

3. Nottm Forest were deducted 4 points despite their overspend being greater than ours, which is being appealed.

4. For the second charge, the Premier League encouraged the commission to charge Everton 5 points, which the commission did but reduced to 2 points based on various calculations.

5. Everton are appealing.

At which point is the Premier League not interfering with proceedings when making recommendations which the commission are clearly taking into account? How are the commission applying consistent rules if any arbitrary number is being arrived at?

Broken rules or not, this approach cannot be sustainable and who knows how the charges are being calculated?

Nick Page
98 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:43:54
“Moshiri is the guilty party and the points deductions, no matter how clumsily handled, are a reaction to his ineptitude.”

Oh yes, it was all the guy who was sticking his money in to buy players and a new stadium. Of course it was never the parasite that sucked the life out of the football club over 25 years to make himself look better.

The same man who brought Moshiri in as an investor and then wanted to stay in total control. Moshiri's biggest mistake was trusting Kenwright and not immediately removing the twat and installing a professional board rather than Bill's mates.

They're all guilty of gross mismanagement but circumstances have also moved against the club, and the Premier League as per usual decided to make an example to subvert government oversight. The biggest problem with Everton is that they fall for it every time rather than sticking two fingers up and telling them where to go.

Ian Pilkington
99 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:48:36
I find it amazing that anyone on here can find this latest farcical ruling “acceptable” or “a relief as it could have been more”.

Donal Armani
100 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:54:06
Ernie Baywood @62,

So, our cumulative PSR loss of £121.6m broke down as follows (para 203)…

2022/23 £62.7m 51.6% of total
2021/22 £3.9m 3.2% of total
2019/21 £55.0m 45.2% of total

As we had already been penalised for 48.4% of this latest rolling 3-year breach, the Commission saw fit to mitigate our initial 5-point deduction by 48.4%.

This equates to 2.42 points but, “dealing only in whole numbers”, was rounded down to 2 points, with the other 1 point mitigation coming from the loss of Finch Farm sponsorship revenues.

The difference between rounding down to 2 points and rounding up to 3 points is barely £2m!

Every point matters to keep us safe, so perhaps just one more search down the sofa for the Arteta money before the Appeal is heard….

Frank Sheppard
101 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:54:57
So we drew against Burnley at the weekend after all, without Burnley being awarded a point!
Dave Abrahams
102 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:56:01
I feel slightly satisfied that, while some fans on here thought or feared we would get 4 or more points deducted, a lot of fans are giving sensible reasons why they are disappointed that we have been deducted another 2 points and still feel, quite rightly, that it is 2 points too many.

I think there have been different commissions hearing the charges for each case, which is basically wrong in my opinion.

Liam Heffernan
103 Posted 08/04/2024 at 16:58:06
As I understand, we have been deducted 8 points for in total going £36,1M over PSR but Nottm Forest were deducted 4 points for being £35.4M over PSR. Can anyone in their right mind make sense of this?

These deductions were just plucked out of the air by the Premier League. It's 'in your face' injustice.

Anthony Hawkins
104 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:01:19
If there's any good news out there, it's that Everton can accommodate losses of £38m for 2024 and still be within PRS over a 3-year average...

Aside from that, it's carnage.

Gary Rimmer
105 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:01:31
Steve @52, totally agree with your comments and strongly recommend that people read the full report, as you suggest.

The takeaway points for me….

(i) Everton's legal representatives put up an extremely strong legal defence and should be congratulated;

(ii) The Premier League offered some unbelievable views against Everton's mitigations, not least the fact that Everton should have taken into account the Salisbury Poisonings and Annexation of Crimea before putting all its eggs in one basket (Usmanov) (p. 15)!

Based on the Premier League submissions to the Commission, they really do appear to be out to get Everton;

(iii) The Commission is to consider further breaches regarding capitalisation of interest at a later date (p.7) – but it doesn't appear that any further sanction would apply this season;

(iv) The Commission clearly states that there is a case for sporting advantage (p.53, para 232).

The club is right to appeal the sanction despite the fact that several have suggested that Everton should just accept and move on. Many of the Commission's conclusions were based on the decisions made by the ‘Forest' Commission.

Everton could potentially benefit from decisions made at the Forest appeal — but only if Everton have registered their own appeal.

John Pendleton
106 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:02:19
Docked 17 points (so far) in one season before mitigation and still not in the Bottom 3.

Dyche may well have overseen our worst run but the fact that we're still fighting is worthy of some acknowledgement.

Yes, we all want better but right now he's squeezed so much more out of the squad than in 2022-23.

Mark Ryan
107 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:05:58
At least when the likes of Man City and Chelsea get charged, they can call us and ask, "What would Everton do in such circumstances?"

Nice one, Bill… your legacy.

Stephen Davies
108 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:06:08
Apparently there is an ongoing dispute and we could be docked further points at a later date.

Remarkably, the written reasons revealed that this was not the end of the case against Everton following a dispute between them and the Premier League about the scale of their breach, which the latter asserted was almost £23.2m.

The commission said the additional £6.56m would be considered “at a later time” and that “a further hearing will follow”, suggesting the outstanding matter would not be resolved before the end of the season.

It added: “The commission is acutely aware that there are many stakeholders – to name some: the PL, Everton, the Everton fans, all other Premier League clubs, the public – interested in the speedy determination of these disciplinary proceedings. Nevertheless, in fairness to the parties in these proceedings, the commission decided that the issues which remain cannot be dealt with in accordance with the timetable set out in the Standard Directions. The Standard Directions will not, therefore, apply to the remaining issues.”

Jamie Crowley
109 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:09:51
Pat @ 90 -

Of course rules are subject to change. But you can't delay enforcing them in selected cases and then change them to ignore breaches while they were in force.

But Pat, that's exactly what they are going to do. They'll argue there was a lot more exculpatory evidence to gather, etc, for the delay. Then the argument will be the league can only sanction the club with the rules they have at the time of the hearing. And there's no legal way to deny their right to do so as the governing body of a private league.

Pat - we're gonna get fucked so hard when it comes to comparisons to Man City and Chelsea. It's inevitable. Just as in society, there's a two-tier system of justice. Money and power equates to leniency or denial altogether.

Pat, it's so, so gross and we see it here in our country continually. It's going to rear its ugly head in your beloved sport in a major way with this situation. Just buckle in.

I could be wrong. Anyone claiming to know Man City and Chelsea's fate are full of it. Prognostications are inaccurate. But with the way the people in power manipulate the system, I see no reason to believe the Premier League will be any different.

Neil Lawson
110 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:09:51
An appeal is crucial – not least to ensure the issue remains very high profile and causes the maximum embarrassment and difficulty to the Premier League.

I would suggest too, that the club seek to judicially review the decision(s) and to create maximum disruption.

So many people are saying we will be okay at season end. I wish I could agree. Playing as we are, we are unlikely to beat anyone without huge slices of luck. So, be proactive and go on the attack. Something our manager certainly will not do until a game is as good as lost.

James Marshall
111 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:11:40
Hang on a minute, didn't they say that the war in Ukraine was not accepted as mitigating circumstances in the first points deduction, but now they've accepted it for the second?

Or have I missed a meeting? If that's the case, then surely we should take them to court over the whole debacle.

Have a missed something? Anyone else feel like they're being gaslit by the Premier League?

And another potential punishment on the way? Are you fucking kidding me???

Chris Leyland
112 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:14:49

The strange thing about it is that the commission seem to disregard a lot of the Forest case if it benefits us and rely on our first case as the precedent but they also rely on the Forest case for some aspects.

The ‘super' KC should be able to drive a coach and horses through some of those arguments at an appeal.

Rob Halligan
113 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:22:23
So far, there have been four different independent commissions, we've had three and Forest have had one, and all four have come up with different conclusions.

Bearing in mind both clubs have appealed, that will be six different commissions, and no doubt those two will also think differently.

Fuck me, the Premier League might as well have gone and dragged three or four lads out the dole queue for a couple of weeks and let them make the decisions.

Paul Ferry
114 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:26:30
Phew! I was nervous just hopping out of bed, well plodding with heaviness.

This probably satisfies both sides but it's a telling indictment of the amateur fiddlers and toy-owners who have been running our club, and let's start with the late greatest Evertonian who brought us to this and should never - never have anything not even a bog - named after his sleazy, grubby, narcissistic name and fame.

Make no mistakes, the blame here lies squarely on the shoulders of the Coronation Street actor and the absentee landowner.

That said, the North Wharf Road bloodsuckers wanted 5 points. Let's enjoy their disappointment.

I understand that there is a possible third cut concerning interest costs linked to building the ne stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock, but if that happens, it will be over the summer.

We know now what is the worst possible thing the North Wharf Road guillotine could do to us. Thankfully, the performances that Ernie Baywood and Co were getting the knives out – even after our first win in 13 games – have got us to a position where we can deal with this.

Jonathan Oppenheimer
115 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:27:52
Everton's board and owner plus the Premier League equals the biggest clown show of all time.

May Richard Masters and Farhad Moshiri and all the rest who are either no longer with us due to death, shit management or board incompetence forever have their genitals deep fried and pummeled by the best fans in the world.

We will remain up and one day soon rise again to our rightful place in the top flight.

John Raftery
116 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:29:10
James (111),

Richard Kenyon's evidence to the Commission covers the timing of payments from USM.

‘Pursuant to the Finch Farm Agreement….. USM Services was to pay Everton £20m, in instalments on 30th June 2022 (i.e. the last day in FY22, which sum was attributable to and would be accounted for as income in FY23) and on 3 January 2023.'

The main point was that the sanctioning of Usmanov did not have a material effect on our accounts for FY22 but it did for FY23.

Pat Kelly
117 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:29:30
Jamie, maybe you're right. But unless the deciding factor is when the breach is committed, and not when the hearing takes place, then I think it's time to stop following the Premier League.

We're probably past that stage already. I've really little desire left to be arsed about it all.

Christy Ring
118 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:36:51
How can different independent commissions make sense?

If I have an interview for a job, one position available and 1 other candidate, they interview us, and pick who they think is best suited for the position.

How can they judge if they have different people interviewing both of us?

Billy Shears
119 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:38:11
It's up to the lads now to get back the points in our remaining games...

1. Just stay in the Premier League.
2. Sack Dyche and hire the Rangers Gaffer.
3. A total restructure of our club is needed, from top to bottom.
4. Gut the squad.
5. Improve scouting and transfers.
6. Give the youngsters a chance in our first-team squad from time to time.

Paul Ferry
120 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:39:18
Billy, who is going to do all those things (which I agree with by the way, apart from the Rangers gaffer, no thanks)?

This eclipse craze over here is doing my head in.

Mike Hayes
121 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:41:01
Dear Premier League,

A big fank oo for allowing us to be shafted by you yet again. Pwease, pwease, pwease shaft us again any time you want, we will have our trousers down ready.

Pwease make sure you do your utmost to ensure we either drop down to the Championship or out of the League – whichever you prefer.

All our love, Mosh and the gang – luvs oo!!😡😡

James Marshall
122 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:42:30
John @116

Aah okay, thanks for the clarification re the Ukraine issue. 👍

Paul Ferry
123 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:43:57
Mike Hayes, the North Wharf Road cronies are not the real culprits here.
Barry Rathbone
124 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:46:05
Excellent result for both the authorities and us. They get their sacrificial lamb and put the fear of god into the rest and we are left with our fate still in our own hands.

Neutrals won't be happy that a club throwing cash around with total disregard for the rules weren't obliterated but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Pat Kelly
125 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:47:23
Christy, it works like this:

Each interview panel rejects the candidate they interview. The employer then selects the one they want.

As long as he doesn't support Everton.

Brendan McLaughlin
126 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:50:40
Everton win for the first time in quite a while.

Liverpool are knocked off the top of the Premier League.

Our second PSR breach results in only a 2-point deduction.

I've had worse weekends.

Kevin Edward
127 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:51:36
What a shambles, the Premier League and commission are still not fit for purpose.

Yes it is 2, and not 4 or 6, but there's nothing to celebrate here, we can still get relegated if we don't put away the ‘must win' games.

Good that the club have appealed, we cannot accept this posturing from the Premier League.

Maybe it was mentioned already that this 2 adds us up to 8, which is twice what Forest have for their breach, so the commission twats are probably slapping each other on their backs for a job well done.

Then the next bunch of knobs reduce Forest to 2 points on appeal, so we then have 4 x Forest as our ‘punishment'.

So full-on appeal, and more banners and booing is required to show the Premier League that we are alive and kicking and Goodison should be absolutely rocking for the last home games.

Also, now this ‘good news' is out, we should go to Chelsea in a raucous mood, fans and players alike.

Jim Wilson
128 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:54:53
Getting a 2-point deduction on top of the unjust 6-point deduction is an absolute disgrace

Receiving it in the same season is beyond comprehension.

The Commission admitting that Everton can't be blamed for not knowing that there was going to be a Ukraine war is basically saying they were not guilty of any breaches.

Masters asking for a 17-point deduction, nearly 50% of last season's total, just shows how he has targetted Everton and is clearly following orders from a third party who want Everton relegated. Trying to influence both hearings is unforgivable.

This Commission should have concluded that because Forest only received a 4-point deduction compared with Everton's 6 points after appeal, the only right and proper thing would be to restore parity and now give Everton a zero-point deduction.

The list of injustices is almost limitless but this part of the Commission's statement is beyond a joke:

'Fairest solution to all other clubs'

The fair outcome of not giving a points deduction does not affect any club. Luton Town have received two massive boosts to their season. First they were told "don't give up, we've deducted Everton 10 points" and now they are told "keep going, here is another 2-pOINt deduction for Everton."

And still there will be those who say there is no conspiracy.

Happy with a 2-point deduction? You must be joking. Just because it could have been worse, and it would have been if they could have found a valid reason for it to be, does not make the decision right.

The process has been totally corrupt from start to finish.

Paul Tran
129 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:55:22
Great news. I'm celebrating my 60th birthday in the Perthshire Highlands and the Premier League have given me a present which has allowed me to increase my portfolio of 'Everton not to be relegated' bets. And they are making themselves look increasingly inept in the process.

And remember, none of this would be happening without the hard work of Young Mr Grace and The Oligarch's Mate.

Paul Ferry
130 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:56:14
Jim (W),

That was a longish post mate, but you never once mentioned the people who are mainly to blame for this.

Paul Birmingham
131 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:58:00
Not punch drunk, but angry at the fact Man City it seems will get judged on a different set of rules for the said PSR crimes, when their case is heard next year.

This Premier League management I despise and my contempt is total for them.

As it stands, as they make these outcomes up, there clearly is no set of standard rules, could Everton take them to court for gross incompetence?

I doubt it as Chairman Bill (now deceased) with Moshiri, contrived to make Everton FC into the worst managed Premier League club. But there is a bias which is without doubt. Man City have got away in context with murder!

What next, who knows, but hopefully MSP get to take over the management of EFC very soon.


Tony McNulty
132 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:59:13
Given some of the player acquisitions we have made, I still think we should play the "diminished responsibility" card.

They might end up handing us some bonus points.

Paul Ferry
133 Posted 08/04/2024 at 17:59:27
Happy Birthday PT!!!!


Ahhhhh, I remember you when you were a teenage denim-clad, suede booted sort of trog with flowing long locks!!!!

Derek Knox
134 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:00:21
Paul T, how are you mate ?

Young Mr Grace ?

Was his first name Dis ? a.k.a. Gordon Clegg in Coronation Street !

Brent Stephens
135 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:01:28
Para 2.5 "we have concluded that Everton's cooperation was not exceptional".

So we only got 1 point allowance for that but Forest got 2. I'd like to know how our cooperation was less than Forest's.

Paul Tran
136 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:08:08
Cheers Paul, I think I look better now than I did then!

Derek, I'm in much better shape these days, and my wife's health is improving too!

Yes, Young Mr Grace is our erstwhile chairman. The leader of an old-school organisation operating on nepotism, a sense of entitlement, and meaningless 'values', cruelly exposed by changing times and serial incompetence.

Peter Jones
137 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:09:52
Jamie Crowley #49,

You're absolutely spot on. The ultimate bore at this stage is not scraping points. Survival first and foremost.

I truly believe Dyche is doing his very best in very difficult circumstances.

Sean Mitchell
138 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:12:45
This shit show of a season needs to fuck off now, and so does Moshiri.

Worst ever. Period.

The Premier League don't care about people's lives, jobs, etc.

Bunch of corrupt horrors.

Paul Ferry
139 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:13:17
Great news on the dual health front Paul. Have a fabulous day.

Bison burgers? Aging whisky?

Peter Mills
140 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:13:35
Who is the force behind this vindictive attack on Everton FC? Who wields the power within the English Premier League?

Masters is merely the puppet.

Brent Stephens
141 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:14:45
Further to my #135 post querying why we didn't get 2 allowed for cooperation, is the answer in this extract provided by Steve #55?

§256. In this case, we have read and considered with care the parties' submissions in this respect, set out above at paragraph 159 above and not repeated here. In our view, many if not most of the criticisms levelled against the Club in this respect by the PL are unwarranted, overstated, or both. In our view, the Club has indeed cooperated with the PL in the presentation of these proceedings according to the Standard Directions (to which the Club consented from the outset) albeit in a manner that protected (quite properly) the interests of the Club. [my emphasis]

Bill Gall
142 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:18:50
The sad thing about this whole farce is it will be only Everton and Forest that will be punished as next season the ruling will be changed so the super rich clubs who started this whole fiasco will be under different ruling that will suit them.

I wonder if someone can get an answer from the Premier League why they want Everton relegated, as they are trying their hardest to achieve this.

The 11 players on the pitch have nothing to do with this yet they alongside Everton's fantastic supporters are the ones being punished, and have no say in who is running or owning the Funny Farm.

Pete Neilson
143 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:21:07
The decision only publicised after the Burnley game. Richard Masters, public image being all important and wanting to save his own incompetent arse, doesn't want to be seen significantly affecting relegation.

I've read the full report but trying to rationalise their findings is a waste of time. The Premier League leadership are blaggers and chancers. They're scrambling for their lives to prevent the government imposed regulator.

Mind you with Denise Barrett-Baxendale as one of the advisors, what could possibly go wrong with that?

Johan Elmgren
144 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:22:38
How on earth is the best league in the world is run by bunch of incompetent clowns??

How did it come to this...

Paul Ferry
145 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:27:52
Johan Elmgren (144): Can I just tweak that a bit please?

How on earth can the best club in the world be run by bunch of incompetent clowns? How the hell did that happen?

That is where the real blame lies, Johan.

Lynn Maher
146 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:28:51
Seriously considering buying an abacus, to keep track of our points deductions!
Tom Bowers
147 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:30:13
This is a numbers game and the mind boggles at the sheer magnitude of the attention being given by the Premier League whilst not addressing what is going on in the game on the field.

One assumes that all of the other 18 clubs have conducted their affairs correctly over the last few years and only Everton and Forest have had stupid people doing the financial paperwork.

Everton are fighting against all odds it seems to stay up and, with a handful of games to go, need every bit of luck to do it considering the poor squad they have.

The incompetence of the Premier League in addressing the problems on the field is just unacceptable, namely the use of VAR which seems like a waste of time.

Originally, they said making referees full-time would improve their interpretation of the rules. Newsflash, it never happened.

We now have 4 officials who cannot make good decisions and then incidents get referred back from VAR to the referees who couldn't get it right to begin with. Go figure. This has to stop.

Which clown in the Premier League put forward that the linesmen and lineswomen would not flag until 5 minutes after the infringement? So ridiculous!!

Andy Walker
148 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:31:21
Quite surprised we're appealing this. We could end up finishing say, 2 points above the relegation zone, but we wouldn't know if we were safe until the appeal is concluded, which may not be until be 24 May.

The result of the appeal could be the imposition of a higher points penalty, the Premier League wanted a 5-point deduction, not 2 points. That scenario would see us relegated after the season had finished, simply because we appealed.

Chances are we won't know if we are going to be relegated until after the appeal is concluded. Of course, it could work in our favour if we were in the Bottom 3 at the end of the season and won the appeal.

Charles Brewer
149 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:33:09
Not sure we're out of the woods yet. From today's Guardian:

"Everton face another hearing into their second breach of Premier League profitability and sustainability rules, raising the possibility of a third points deduction, after being docked two points for a £16.6M overspend up to 2023.

The financially troubled club were hit with their second points deduction of the season on Monday to leave Sean Dyche's team 16th, two points above the relegation zone. But, owing to a dispute between Everton and the Premier League over stadium interest payments, the case remains unresolved and is expected to drag into next season."

I take it that someone has read about Cromwell's corpse being dug up and hanged and regards this sort of endless invention of punishments as suitable punishment for Everton doing what every other club has been doing.

Johan Elmgren
150 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:38:50
Yes, Paul, of course they are not blameless, but the way this has been handled by the Premier League is just appalling.
Dave Abrahams
151 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:38:58
Steve (79),

To be honest, the bottom line really should be “If Everton win two more games, then Luton will have to get eleven points”.

That is without this patently obvious unfair 2 points deducted.

Makes a big difference to me.

Jim Wilson
152 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:39:01
Paul Ferry @130 - That's all been done mate.

Just because our board were a gang of idiots doesn't mean the Premier League should do what they have done.

Everton were incompetent.

The Premier League are corrupt!

Rob Jones
153 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:42:55
How come the first commission didn't accept our the war as mitigation, but this one does?

The fucking thing stinks.

I'm glad it's only 2 points, but the entire fucking thing is ridiculous.

Paul Ferry
154 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:43:21
Agree, Johan. Agree, Jim!

But we are the donkey/chicken and the North Wharf Road sleazy crew are the cart/egg.

Paul Tran
155 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:43:48
Cheers Paul, I don't drink alcohol anymore. Had a big lunch – a big slab of Perthshire lamb with the usual sides.

Been a good day, though, sunny two-hour walk this morning.

Eddie Dunn
156 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:44:32
The Premier League have displayed to the government just how inept they are as an organisation. The disparity in the different commissions and the variation in their respective conclusions have thrown any semblance of fairness out of the window.

To say I am relieved that it is only 2 points simply illustrates the haphazard way things have been decided.
We have been judged very differently to Forest, which is totally wrong.

I hope that now the staff and team can get on with their jobs and get us to safety. I won't criticise Dyche because it is his pragmatism that has seen us glean points and points is what we need.

And to those who suggest we should bin him when safe… well, that shows such loyalty to a guy who has been dealt a total shit-show and would have us safe now if not for the gobshites who have allowed this club to be so badly run.

Imagine if we had had Richarlison and Gordon or even Iwobi and Gray at our disposal. Dyche deserves to have another year to see what he can achieve.

Christy Ring
157 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:51:26
We are deducted a total of 8 points for being £35.1M over, Forest are deducted 4 pts for being £34.5M over… whether you co-operate or not, it still doesn't add up.

Forget about licking arse with the Independent Commission, the Premier League advised the "Independent Commission" to take 17 points off us, if that's not interference, what is?

Forget the appeal, the European Arbitration Court is the answer, instead of appealing with our tail between our legs.

Dave Abrahams
158 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:51:49
Paul (145),

One of those people made over £45M with more still to come for his family when they sell the rest of his shares.

Far from a clown, a deceitful, narcissistic, self-serving egotist who looked after himself first and last, Mr Moshiri was a messenger for Mr Usmanov and how they left a man with little football knowledge in charge of a multimillion business is hard to fathom out.

Mike Gaynes
159 Posted 08/04/2024 at 18:54:00
Wishing the eminent Mr Tran a happy 60th birthday.
Dave Abrahams
160 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:00:29
Paul (155),

Happy birthday, enjoy your special day and the walk, very healthy walking.

Paul, any tips for the big race on Saturday, I'm looking for a good priced horse for an each-way bet but with a decent chance of winning.

I'm not asking for much am I!!

John Pickles
161 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:01:33
How can they include the stadium in this?

If that is legit, can I buy a house, then contact the tax man and say I've made a loss this year and therefore don't need to pay any tax?

Brian Cleveland
162 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:01:52
Can someone post a link to the full report?

I can't seem to find it on the Premier League site — presumably hidden behind smiley mugshots of Man City, Chelsea and Liverpool players.

Paul Tran
163 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:02:37
Cheers, Mike!
Pete Gunby
164 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:05:22
Because, Pete, it's always been a one-sided relationship.
Kevin Molloy
165 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:07:36
Something is driving this never ending punishment beating, we're like that chap in No Country For Old Men running away, only to realise there's a tracker in the bag of money.

I think the government is trying to force us into administration so that the Ruskies get no money. I think it's as small-minded as that.

Geoff Cadman
166 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:09:49
I was expecting more, hoping for less. I am surprised how much the 22-23 breach is when you consider all the cuts in the wage bill, and players sold. Is this down to the interest on the loans?

I think we became public enemy #1 after what we wrote off to covid, as at that point the Premier League had said our accounts were above board and in order.

With the outrage this generated, the Premier League did a U-turn — especially when they needed a scapegoat.

Christine Foster
167 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:11:41
Not the news to wake up to, but fully expected another deduction. The rulings and conclusions of the independent commission continue in a contradictory way with its conclusions at odds with previous findings.

I understand that the independent commission is there for their unbiased application of relevant facts and subsequent penalties if a breach is determined. But it is not a court of law. Each breach is determined by their interpretation of rules rather than any application of law.

Which brings me to the nub: if the panel is truly independent and there to make an independent determination of any breach, why then are the Premier League acting as prosecutor in recommending and demanding the penalty and its severity? Is this not undue influence on an "independent" commission?

Should it not have determined that, in their opinion, there may be a case to answer given the facts they have been given by the club, and the commission should determine the facts, as they see it, and if necessary apply the sanction they see fit without demands for severity from the Premier League?

This fallacy of independence results in a confused, fragmented application of rules without any fixed reference points or even a stable nor consistent application of rules by a single commission. The result is confusion at best, undue influence or corruption at worst. Neither is acceptable nor fair to any club.

Incompetence at best, vindictive in selective application, transparent only to those with whom they chose or favour.

It would not stand up in a court of law but that avenue has been closed off under the said rules. A law to themselves in application and influence.

Brent Stephens
168 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:11:54
Paul Ferry
169 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:16:45
Spot on, Dave (A).

He must never be forgiven and always be remembered for what he was, a self-serving narcissistic corrupt double-dealer (is 'traitor' too extreme?) who never put a single penny into our club and the lies began on the first day with the "I mortgaged me house" shite.

What followed next were the worst 25 years in our history and today, with this new deduction, we are still deep in quicksand because of that grubby deceitful con-man.

John Wilson
170 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:20:07
Guess Who? No! Guess the number or points, Everton lottery, is the game.

The [not remotely] Independent Commission first gave 10 to Everton where the Premier League leaked it wanted 12, or 3 more than the club going into bankruptcy.

On appeal, we got 4 back and Nottm Forest got 4 points for being allowed to bring in circa 30 players, while Everton have brought none in for probably more than 2 windows.

Now we get another 2 points and, if we appeal, we'll probably be docked the 4 we got back.

Denis Richardson
171 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:25:35
On the whole, I think this is good news as I was expecting 4 points like Forest. Hopefully, the appeal is either neutral or positive only and doesn't lead to more.

Big elephant in the room though is that it doesn't look like it's over with the dispute about how to treat interest. Really not sure why this is included in PSR as it's standard to capitalise interest for a development, it's just part of the build costs and not operational expenses. How can we be penalised for building a stadium?

So we now have the farce that the season could end with us above the drop zone but get a third points deduction that still relegates us!

Just have to a) not finish Bottom 3 (obviously) and b) try to be at least 4 points above the drop zone. At least that way, even with another deduction (you'd assume it wouldn't be more than 4 max), we'd still avoid going down.

All the team can do is keep picking up points. Luton will lose next game so we go into Chelsea 2 points above them with 2 games in hand. Luton away and Forest at home are both massive. Win them and we're home and dry.

What a fucking season!

Stephen Davies
172 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:25:43
Possibly another points deduction.

This from Andy Hunter in the Guardian.

Everton face another hearing into their second breach of Premier League profitability and sustainability rules, raising the possibility of a third points deduction, despite being docked two points for a £16.6m overspend up to 2023.

The financially troubled club were hit with their second points deduction of the season on Monday to leave Sean Dyche's team 16th, two points above the relegation zone. But, owing to a dispute between Everton and the Premier League over stadium interest payments, the case is unresolved and expected to drag into next season.

That raises more questions over the integrity of this season's relegation battle and the prospect that Everton could face legal action from a demoted club if they survive and then have a decisive point deducted next season.

Danny Baily
173 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:34:40
It's a disgrace. We all still care, of course we do. But we're mugs to do so. We've been treated unfairly and the Premier League has been corrupted. And nobody outside of a few clubs in the relegation mix care anymore.

And our reward should we beat the drop? To stay in this corrupt league to make up the numbers for the few teams that do matter.

Michael Bennet
174 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:34:48
We have blatantly fucked up and we have admitted it, and we voted and agreed to these rules.

Only ourselves to blame... get on with winning fucking games.

Ian Bennett
175 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:41:39
Absolute mess.

10 point fine reduced to 6.
Another 2 point fine.
Further potential fine for capitalisation of interest that's had no sporting advantage on the pitch.
Potential of further fine for current season.

This is meant to protect clubs from going bust, not smacking them over the head for making mistakes in the transfer market, building infrastructure, or Russian companies ending sponsorship.

Brian Cleveland
176 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:43:31
Brent (168).

I saw that, but that's just a summary isn't it? I can't find the full version referred to by other people, such as Gary Rimmer (105).

Where do I find that?

Brent Stephens
177 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:49:37
Brian, scroll down to the link where it says Click Here. Click on the word "here".
Anthony Dove
178 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:53:07
Michael @174 that's right.

For the life of me I have never been able to concoct any sensible reason why on earth the Premier League would want to see the fall of Everton.

Jack Convery
179 Posted 08/04/2024 at 19:57:39
17. The Biblical number for chaos. The number that Masters wanted deducted from Everton FC this season. Well he certainly has caused chaos. God forbid he remains in his job once this season is over.

If a potential 17 points deduction doesn't convince fans of the Premier League's desire to relegate EFC, I don't know what will.

Alastair Donaldson
180 Posted 08/04/2024 at 20:05:32
My ideal end to the season would be safety before the traditional thrashing at Arsenal, and repeating what Fenerbache just did.. field the U-19s, then walk off after 5 minutes. Forfeit the game.

Fuck you and good night. Not sure what rules would need to be made up for that one!

Handing the title to Arsenal and not the RS... more importantly, shining an unmistakable spotlight on this Premier League mismanagement farce.

Ray Jacques
181 Posted 08/04/2024 at 20:07:57
Anyone think it's a coincidence that we were docked 2 of the 4 points we were above the drop zone? They make it up to suit.

If we go down, they will absolve themselves of any blame as we haven't dropped into the Bottom 3. This will cover the Premier League should we be relegated and players then sue the club for loss of earnings. The suited wonders will simply say it was still in your own hands.

Mate of mine supports Stoke. He was telling me their owner (Coates) can't put money in because they would then breach PSR, so it's basically a closed shop for the clubs currently at the top.

We build a new stadium to increase income but are punished for it. Sporting advantage going £20m over, yet teams can spend £100m on one player. I think the sporting advantage lies elsewhere.

They've killed football.

Jack Convery
182 Posted 08/04/2024 at 20:09:18
EFC getting points deducted is very low on 5 Lives Monday Night Club.

So far the Man Utd - Liverpool game. Followed by the fixtures the Top 3 have left to play. Now they are on about Fenerbache and the antics they are using to point out corruption in the Turkish top league. Such as fielding their Under-19s in the Cup Final and walking off after a minute!

I like it… but EFC – not a mention yet!!! Who's afraid of the Premier League? Not the BBC surely!!!

Bobby Mallon
183 Posted 08/04/2024 at 20:11:51
Anthony Dove @61.

2 points are not fair, 0 points is fair. This is a witch hunt and we are being singled out by the Premier League.

Take these cunts to court fucking rabble.

Peter Moore
184 Posted 08/04/2024 at 20:15:04
The powers that be in the Premier League have proved themselves, again and again, to be the ruin of the once great national game. Money and corruption goes hand in hand. What a foul stench they make.

That they can try to act as if they have any moral compass or dignity. It's like the filthy perverted MPs who send pictures of their hairy arseholes to strangers... they have no shame.

Disgusting indeed.

Will Mabon
185 Posted 08/04/2024 at 20:16:08
Peter @140:

Despite there so far being no leaks whatsoever to support this that I'm aware, I agree.

More to it than we know.

Paul Ferry
186 Posted 08/04/2024 at 20:18:48
Bobby Mallon (183):

Do you think that the people running our club have any blame on their shoulders?

Sean Kelly
187 Posted 08/04/2024 at 20:19:56
I have said on previous threads about points deductions we employed Lionel Putts from the Simpsons as our top brief. What the fuck is he waiting for? We've been murdered twice. Cretins.

At least this will stop all the so-called experts giving their opinion as to how many points we will be deducted.

Ivan Varghese
188 Posted 08/04/2024 at 20:28:13
These Premier League guys are fixing to stagger Man City's deductions to multiple seasons and avoid relegation or insolvency.
Christy Ring
189 Posted 08/04/2024 at 20:31:59
The Premier League are changing the PSR rules this summer because it's totally outdated, but they're making an example of us.

Man City and Chelsea will be dealt with differently next season, but it will be washed under the carpet.

Sean Kelly
190 Posted 08/04/2024 at 20:35:45
How can it be an independent commission when the Premier League recommends a sanction?

Christy, spot on, mate.

Duncan McDine
191 Posted 08/04/2024 at 20:36:37
The tip off from Paul Ferry's mate (who knows someone at The Guardian) was another classic TW howler!

I'm disgusted that we've been docked any points, but slightly relieved that it wasn't as many as I feared. Relegation is still very possible, but I think we will do enough to stay up. This isn't good for any of our health though.

Tommy Carter
192 Posted 08/04/2024 at 20:37:15
It is almost as if the Premier League is creating points deductions to add intrigue to what would otherwise be a very uninteresting relegation situation.

Clearly Burnley and Sheffield Utd are the worst teams in the league. Luton are slightly better. But the fact is, without points deductions, then they would all be pretty much dead and buried, save for Brentford, but they have the quality to pull away.

So it is almost like the Premier League have manufactured this situation to enhance and maximise viewership of bottom-of-the-table matches, games which without any incentive, neutrals certainly wouldn't be watching. This reducing commercial opportunity etc – it's all about money, and how much they can make.

That can be the only explanation for the arbitrary points deductions. Because there is no rule, precedent or guidance for how many points to be deducted.

Why did they just not bury Forest and Everton with 20-point deductions each? They chose not to. They deduct just enough points to keep people interested.

Put it this way, if Man City had have been 20 points clear in the title race in January, their case would've been expedited and points deducted. I'm certain of it.

It is so transparently corrupt, it is seagull. But, as like most things corrupt that are imposed upon normal people, it can be as blatant as it wants… and ultimately, what are you going to do about it?

Paul Ferry
193 Posted 08/04/2024 at 20:53:40
Not really, Duncan, but nice try lad. You need to let it go. I passed on a tip, a fine for a moderated settlement. Worth doing lad and I said where it was coming from, unlike so many.

The tone was right, wasn't it? A moderated settlement. A lot of people think this was a good outcome as punishments go. There was a lot more talk on here about being docked 6 points. Looks like my mate got the direction right.

But nice try, Duncan. You were gagging to post that, weren't you! Do try better next time.

Will Mabon
194 Posted 08/04/2024 at 20:55:45
Tommy @ 192:

I like your thinking. Anything is possible – it's all a question of likelihood and nothing should ever be dismissed.

Not sure where the seagull fits in though?

Rob Halligan
195 Posted 08/04/2024 at 20:58:51
Tommy, please tell me you're joking.

Us and Forest have been deducted points purely to keep viewers interested in the relegation battle!

Points which could potentially cost both clubs millions depending on final placings, or even worse, relegation!

All to keep healthy viewing figures for the final few games.

Bobby Mallon
196 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:00:21
Paul Ferry, why not the Rangers manager?
Andy Crooks
197 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:02:41
I would like to think that this is the perfect outcome to drive the squad on. Enough to make them mad but not enough to demoralise. Silver lining again.

You know what, the Premier League have just kicked off the great Everton return. This is the day we will look back to as the new beginning!

Duncan McDine
198 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:04:08
Wasn't having a pop, Paul (lad), I genuinely wanted to believe it, seeing as it would've made more sense than yet more points deducted.

TW would be less entertaining if everyone kept quiet about the rumours they've heard, so I genuinely thank you for posting it. Unfortunately, it was too good to be true.

Tommy Carter
199 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:06:16
@195 Rob

Of course. Yes. It's so obvious.

Viewers pay the subscriptions, viewers are constantly exposed to advertisements when viewing.

No viewers = no product.

Our next 5 games are all being broadcast on Sky Sports. Sky Sports being the current biggest bidder for EPL coverage.

Who on earth wants to watch all of Everton's next 5 games on the TV? Not even me and I've been an Evertonian for decades.

But surely money doesn't corrupt decision-making?

Brent Stephens
200 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:12:43
Paul #193,

The 2-point penalty is very much on the lenient side compared to some of the predictions on here. And that includes my own "fear" (not exactly a prediction but...) that we could be hit by 4 or even 6 points.

The penalty is definitely on the light side in the context of the pressure from the Premier League, the assumptions by most on here that the Commission members are doing what the Premier League tell them to, and that the Premier League want Everton to go bust etc etc.

John Connor
201 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:22:16
What a shit show! There is no precedent, rules in place for points deduction. They are making the 'punishment' up as they go along.

The Premier League wanted 17 points deducted from us this season, the panel said 8 is enough. No rhyme or reason for the Premier League to want such a draconian deduction other than administration and a chance to show one of the 'big' clubs that they can do whatever they like, because all teams have signed up to the rules in place (no matter how outdated they are).

But then, to hedge their bets for when we pull clea,r they introduce a notion of another potential points deduction to be applied whenever they feel like it.

Showing how tough they can be in the face of government warnings and possible regulation by making an example of Everton really is pathetic.

No sanctions for breaches in place so they can do what they like. Corrupt and inept morons ruining football for fans.

Next season, Man City will be fined £100M for their breaches, no points deduction, and carry on. I wish the European Super League would take off and the new Top 6 can all fuck off and take the Premier League chairman with them.

Michael Kenrick
202 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:22:33
All you guys who are ranting and raving.

You saw how bad the numbers were last weekend. The numbers on which all this is based — they were provided to the Premier League by Everton, who admitted their breach — and earned a point back for cooperating.

Do you really, honestly think they are now gonna take the Premier League to court?

Rob Halligan
203 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:23:41
Tommy, if that theory could be proven – not a cat in hell's chance of that, by the way – could you just imagine the lawsuits raised by us and Forest?

The Premier League would be sued for absolute millions. Nice idea Tommy, but a bit far-fetched.

Jonathan Tasker
204 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:25:05
I'm surprised Kenwright gets so few mentions.

He is the root cause of everything that has befallen us.

Brian Cleveland
205 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:35:06
Thanks Brent, I'm so blind with rage I couldn't see the damn link to the full report, stupid boy!

I couldn't believe that the Premier League had cited Crimea and Salisbury as evidence of taking too much commercial risk. I really thought that was a piss take, so I had to go and see it for myself, not wanting to peddle false rumours and all that but it actually is true. I'm flabbergasted by that. Talk about trying to screw us.

But of course, being associated with governments that drop people into vats of acid inside embassies is fine.

Danny O’Neill
206 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:35:16
Just win games Everton. We can't control anything off the pitch, just on it.

It starts next Monday.

Luton face Man City this weekend and we have a game in hand on most around us.

Backs to the wall, so come out fighting.

Paul Smith
207 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:37:23
He's dead, Jonathan. Many of us got our wish.
Les Moorcroft
208 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:40:26
Brain 205.
Didn't the FA keep selling the TV rights to the Russians till 2022?
Steve Dowdeswell
209 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:46:08
So a complete lack of consistency between our first PSR breach and this second breach (not that I am saying we should have been docked another 10 points).

Then more lack of consistency between the punishment handed down for the Nottm Forest breach and our first and again second breach.

We have now been docked twice as many points than Nottm Forest in one season for breaches that basically amounted to the single breach of PSR rules that they admitted to.

A lack of consistency between the decision-making between all three panels and no doubt there will be further inconsistency in any appeal decision-making.

To be honest, if I were the club, I think I would take the 2 points and not appeal because I could seriously see the Premier League finding an excuse to add points on appeal rather than give any back.

No doubt Nottm Forest will be given at least 2 points back following their appeal and we will be hounded by clubs baying for blue blood after the relegation battle has been won by us and we stick two fingers up to the Premier League and Masters.

Then we can look forward to more of the same next season even though the rules will probably have been changed to suit the Sky 6 and any other clubs who have state ownership and sponsorship.

They are bound to state that we broke rules in xyz seasons so must be bound by rules in place during that time – then conveniently forget that if and when it ever comes to any punishment to be handed down to Man City.

It no longer stinks of corruption, just a complete pantomime with us as the villain.

Clearly this must demonstrate that the Premier League is not capable of managing, policing (or whatever else you want to call it) itself and the government have to step in and put some sort of independent body in place to sort this shit show out.

Colin Glassar
210 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:47:53
Kenwright was the original sin, Jonathan. The root of all evil. That scheming, self-serving, egotistical balloon started the decline, oversaw the decline and, finished the decline of this once-great club.

He found his billionaire who made him a very rich man and, as a farewell gift to the club he helped ruin, he gave his cronies multimillion pound golden handshakes.

On a more positive note, what an absolute fucking shit show this points deduction has become. One step forward, ten steps back. How are we supposed to manage this?

Several key players are probably already packing their bags. How are we supposed to budget for next season? Who's going to be in charge?

We are in no-man's land being shot at by both sides without even a bomb crater to hide in. And some people seem to be content with, “It's only 2 points. It could've been worse.”

We have the Sword of Damocles hovering over us, just so you know. There's nothing positive in this.

Sean Kelly
211 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:48:33

Looking at the games left, Brentford will have a big say in who stays up, even though they are also in the mix. They play Luton and us.

We also play Luton. That's a game we need 3 points from.

Alan Smith
212 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:48:55
From the Editor:

Alan — sorry but I've made your very long post into a separate article, here's a link to it:

Time to scrap P&S Rules and reclaim our game

Let me know if there's any changes you want made.


Tommy Carter
213 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:50:21

Rob, where there is no precedent you have no grounds for a lawsuit.

What are you comparing it to? It was the first sanction of its kind imposed by the Premier League. Next season and this, there will be grounds for a lawsuit based on the punishment given to Everton but the Premier League now has grounds to impose such points deductions on teams and the point is my original one.

They will do so to make certain aspects of their product more lucrative and what are you going to do about it?

Christy Ring
214 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:55:11
Michael #20,

We admitted our breach and get a point back for cooperating, how does that make sense? Is it even legal?

Just a scenario: if we finish above Luton on goal difference, and they get relegated, and they appeal it, and they're argument is that the Independent Commission gave Everton a point back, because they admitted they were wrong, which they would know from the figures anyway?

So points are given back for being a good boy? The whole thing stinks, the "Independent Commission" were told by the Premier League to take 17 points off us, so it's not a legal independent commission if the powers that be can make suggestions.

Taking them to court is legal, Man City completely ignored the Premier League, and Masters is afraid to say when the case is being heard. That tells you everything about how corrupt they are.

Brent Stephens
215 Posted 08/04/2024 at 21:58:37

"Do you really, honestly think they are now gonna take the Premier League to court?"

There were so many calls for that last time and look what happened there. Not a lot. So, as you say, it's not going to happen. But it lets off steam to call for it, I suppose.

Danny O’Neill
216 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:03:37
We will have a big say, Sean.

Brentford, Luton, Sheffield United and Forest.

Stephen Beattie
217 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:06:03
As per #69 Ray, can anyone explain how 2 deductions in 1 season makes any sense?

I totally get that there have been 2 breaches relating to the 2 x 3 year rolling periods but surely 1 deduction should happen in 1 season and 1 in the next.

Obviously, if we stay up, it's better to take the hit this season… but that's a big IF.

Alan Smith
218 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:07:13
Micheal @202,

You're right, the rules as they stand are pretty clear. Stupid but given the rules and for a second breach, we've done okay and can still try and appeal.

Removal of the rules is paramount though.

Oliver Molloy
219 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:07:21
No matter what angle you look at from, the mess that is Everton FC has been going on for years – long before Moshiri & Usmanov took control.

There can be no doubt however that frontman Moshiri's reign has ensured the club has gone seriously backwards – even with the new ground on the horizon.

He has been careless and made wreckless appointments. He has definitely been taken for a ride by many, and worst of all (for a fucking accountant) failed to learn costly lessons – and yet continued to let a completely inept board run the club to such an extent it will be years before we recover – if that is even possible.

I really believe the plan was to keep on spending Usmanov's money until we got Top 4 — but the war happened and it all went pear-shaped. Now, it is the supporters who suffer.

We need to be safe before our last two games in my opinion.

Paul Ferry
220 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:12:31
Bobby M: you answer the question I first put to you mate and then I'll answer yours.
Paul Ferry
221 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:14:35
Sorry, Duncan, sounds like I was being too sensitive and prickly.

There were others who said that we would get a fine, by the way, and I do agree with Brent, that what we ended up with was on the light side.

Ernie Baywood
222 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:19:53
Stephen #217

I totally get that there have been 2 breaches relating to the 2 x 3-year rolling periods but surely 1 deduction should happen in 1 season and 1 in the next.

Yes you're right. It should be one deduction one seasonand another the next.

But we've been incredibly fortunate that didn't happen. We should have been deducted points for the first breach last season. And we would have been in the Championship this season.

Michael Kenrick
223 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:22:53

So points are given back for being a good boy?

That was the key lesson — perhaps the only lesson — the financial incompetents running our club learnt from their bruising dismemberment by the first commission, and the contrasting way Nottm Forest were rewarded for their excessive cooperation.

Jack Convery
224 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:23:51
It was a point deducted for 2 mitigations - The Invasion of Ukraine and the loss of the Finch Farm Sponsorship money and being helpful. That means half a point for each. How does that work?

Also, Forest got 2 points less for their wonderful and gracious behaviour. So 1 point off in total for not seeing the chance of a war occurring and doing what Forest did, ie being helpful. How on earth is that being consistent?

If we are safe when we play Arsenal put this team out.

GK Lonergan.
RB Patterson
CB Godfrey
CB Keane
LB Young
LM Dobbin
CM Harrison
CM Onyango
RM Danjuma
SS Chermitti
CF Beto

Brent Stephens
225 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:27:44
Can one of the accountants out there help me with the concept of retrospective capitalisation (paras 13 and 14 in the report)? What are the EPL claiming Everton were doing? and why was that inappropriate, as the EPL see things?

I can understand that Everton wanted the interest payments to be directly attributable to the new stadium. I'm not sure about what then follows in para 14.1 "and which were, as part of the Club's FY23 statutory accounts, capitalised retrospectively in FY21 and FY22".

I can understand that the club would want to capitalise interest payments for FY23. But what is the relevance (to this hearing about the Y23 accounts) of the reference to capitalising interest payments for FY21 and FY22?

Ernie Baywood
226 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:33:06
Michael, that comes through loud and clear in every report.

I suspect the Premier League are fed up of us submitting things late, telling porkies and then having the nerve to claim credit for cooperation!

Even in this example, we submitted our accounts late and changed our position with regard to the size of the breach... all at the 11th hour and knowing what the timetable was for charges.

Fortunately these matters go to commissions and it's not just the Premier League deciding our fate otherwise we'd be gone. Credit for simply submitting a PSR calculation (which we are bound to do) seems pretty generous to me!

Michael Kenrick
227 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:34:38
Ernie @222. Spot on.

If, as claimed by many, the Premier League really wanted us relegated, all they had to do was insist that the first commission held its hearing last season.

In fact, looking back, it's remarkable that the commission had sufficient independence to say in March of last year, No, they couldn't possibly get it done before 25 October.

That saved Everton from what turned out would have been certain relegation, and could so easily have been forced through if the Premier League and Richard Masters had wanted it.

This decision, which saved us from relegation, led directly to the other clubs demanding a faster timeline, which was implemented last summer in the so-called Special Directions appended to the Premeir League Handbook.

Yes, I know, rules made up as they go along... but that's exactly what the club signed up to, so stop bitching about it!

Tony Abrahams
228 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:38:05
Listening to TalkSport today on a very long drive to London, one of the producers said that the league actually turned around and said after the Russians invaded Crimea in 2014, then clubs had more than enough time to get away from Russian money, even though they only finished one contract with a Russian company in 2022.

Someone is after Everton but we won't find who until it eventually comes out in the wash.

Hopefully it's because they are trying to rid us of Usmanov but the cynic in me is not so sure.

Michael Kenrick
229 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:39:57
Brent @225,

I think what that's saying is that Everton went back and capitalized interest for the two previous periods, as well as 22-23, when it had previously not been capitalized?

Thus it reduced the overall breach even further when all 3 periods were accounted for in the PSR calculation.

Bill Fairfield
230 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:40:11
Survival is still in our own hands. But is the squad good enough? They don't fill you with confidence do they? Got to stay lucky.
George Stuart
231 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:40:28
A 2-point deduction was the banker. The Premier League recommended 6-point deduction was never going to happen.

It would both drop us into the bottom three and probably keep us there. That would very much look like the Premier League unilaterally relegating us. A bad look they very much would want to avoid. 4 points too would be bad. 2 is a compromise.

This punishment does not go quite far enough in my opinion.
The points deducted should be redistributed to the Sky 6 teams. They exemplify high standards of the game and deserve to be rewarded for such.

This would have the added benefit of preventing upstart small clubs with very little Premier League kudos like Aston Villa and West Ham from crashing the party based merely on performance and points.

At least we now have an end to this very shit Punch and Judy show.

Go Man City!

Ernie Baywood
232 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:43:44
Brent, retrospective capitalisation would impact our accounts in the financial period it was done.

So it has the impact of reducing our losses in the third year by a significant sum.

The Premier League are arguing that we can't do that. And they'll get another hearing on it. That section in the report is just about reserving that portion of the breach to a later date.

Derek Thomas
233 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:46:41
Steve D. @ 209;

I think the whole 'appeal deal' has been done prior to the announcement... you're getting done –4 points; yes, you can appeal and let it drag on and on.

Or take the net –2 points now.

Time will tell.

It's in our own hands, a couple of well-placed wins and it all goes away — easy when you say it quickly.

Brent Stephens
234 Posted 08/04/2024 at 22:52:24
Ernie, as a non-accountant I'm still unclear on this. Which loans are we talking about? If it's Metro, and Rights & Media Funding, they were not allowed last time as they weren't used for the new stadium?

I'm clearly missing something.

Pete Clarke
235 Posted 08/04/2024 at 23:01:20
I know it's a shit show all around with Premier League running their business as bad as we have been running ours but I think we have been lucky lately with the draw at Newcastle and the win over Burnley.

We need to hope our luck rolls on and we survive and then wait for the next dark cloud.

Ian Black
236 Posted 08/04/2024 at 23:11:16
Well I expected worse to be honest. I feel dirty thinking I am glad it is not more points.

It is like Stockholm Syndrome, we have been beaten by a big stick for so long some of us are happy that they hit us with a smaller stick. The whole thing is a charade. No consistency, no precedents, no reason why PSR has not been looked at before now in the many seasons since they decided that PSR was a thing.

A panic-driven attempt to look like the Premier League are actually ‘getting stuff done' prior to a decision whether an independent regulator is necessary (spoiler: it is). I can't believe the Premier League had the audacity today, TODAY, to be advertising against this:

Premier League advert warns regulation could threaten English football's success

The actual fucking cheek.

I note that one of the charges levelled on us was that we were uncooperative with the Premier League and this was seen as a reason to dock points. I have not read everything to see if this was rescinded.

I suspect this was because Man City with their 115 charges have been very uncooperative. Maybe the Premier League should dock them for 2 or 3 points for each season they have been uncooperative as this is clearly the case and worry about their other charges later. If we have had point charges rescinded, I suspect this is why.

After all, before looking at these charges they decided to charge us once, then twice, then get their knife and fork out to let us know they were looking to tuck into a third course of Everton before taking a look at the Man City banquet. Corrupt?

Ernie Baywood
237 Posted 08/04/2024 at 23:25:18
Brent, in the first hearing we argued an exclusion on the basis that there was an International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) treatment where we might be able to capitalise that interest even though the loan stated it was for operational costs, but that we didn't want to do it. The Commission went against us saying that the loan was stated as being for operational costs, we hadn't capitalised the interest, and we'd said that we wouldn't even if we could.

I remember reading that we had reconsidered that decision not to capitalise and I thought it would feature heavily in the appeal - where it could have made a significant difference. For whatever reason that didn't come up at all!

Now we're saying that we have since capitalised it. The Premier League are saying that we shouldn't have been able to – which I would have thought is a case for the auditors and HMRC rather than the Premier League.

It's probably right that they defer judgement on that. Particularly as our late filing of accounts didn't give anyone a chance to prepare – I do wonder whether that was the issue that was delaying the auditors?

By the way, I'm not clear exactly how much they are deferring judgement on. Initially I read £6.5M, but it sounds like the Premier League were targeting £19M. That's the difference between 1 point and 3 points using their nearly-mathematical model.

Paul Ferry
238 Posted 08/04/2024 at 23:26:18
George (231):

Sorry if I have this wrong or seem pedantic, but I think the North Wharf Road brigade were chasing a 5-point deduction, not 6 points.

Brian Wilkinson
239 Posted 08/04/2024 at 23:29:33
The way I see it, whether fair or unfair, everything is out in the open now so we can start to focus on what we need to do on the pitch.

We can finally put this to one side and focus on our remaining games and start talking about football at last; some will say better than they expected, others we have been done over… for now, I am focusing on the football and finally not worried what punishment we will get.

We can talk about that in the summer, I am just glad apart from the ownership dragging on, that we now know our own fate and what we have to do.

Pointless worrying about it for now, let's get these points in the bag, win the derby, and everything will look rosier.

Up the Toffees.

Brent Stephens
240 Posted 08/04/2024 at 23:30:08
Ernie, thanks. I hadn't realised we'd capitalised the interest on those two loans!

So we're arguing they are now being used for the new stadium and therefore now "allowable".

Brian Cleveland
241 Posted 08/04/2024 at 23:32:36
Another question. Why would there be redactions in a report that is for public consumption?
Ernie Baywood
242 Posted 08/04/2024 at 23:34:22
The appeals will be interesting. The Forest case relied heavily on our appeal but made some pretty lenient assumptions regarding banding breaches and whether our additional 3 points included aggravating factors.

This Commission has ridden roughshod over those judgements.

Could the Premier League appeal the Forest punishment? Could we make a case for parity with Forest's deduction instead of our own first appeal?

Then there's the fact that we've got an amount for interest capitalisation still in the wind, plus another likely breach in the future considering the scale of our losses in the latest assessment year.

Don Alexander
243 Posted 08/04/2024 at 23:55:01
Anyone with more brains than an amoeba knows that the Everton hierarchy in these last 8 years in particular under Kenwright as mega-minted CEO by Moshiri, and his ownership for the preceding 20 years, has plundered our club to his own mega-minted benefit, to the cost of all of us supporters whose welfare he never invested a penny in.

And guess what; the Premier League hierarchy, desperately seeking a club to take to task in a bid to display their own amoeba-brain-like capacity for imaginary credentials, hit upon Moshiri and Kenwright, because they project Moshiri (probably rightly) as a lapdog to Putin's good mate Usmanov and they, like everyone else in the "business" of football (obviously not including Moshiri though), have long since realised Kenwright is the 100% bullshitter he'd always been. The unarguable evidence has been spelt out for decades by more than a few of us on TW, who've never been even challenged by Everton's self-proclaimed greatest ever fan.

He knew he could always rely on the support of the crustaceans in our midst, and rendered himself fabulously well off as a result – unlike the club he purported to "lead" and "love".

Still, time having dealt him the reddest card of all, we are now left with the second-most pathetic body in football management to try to contend with, the Premier League.

Their own punishment schedule amounts to an analogy with medieval times. First they suspend a minor offender with a ten-foot abyss beneath his feet, then they contend mercy by reducing the height to a "mere" six feet, then they suspend another "little" club (according to them – both of their chosen ones having won European trophies in the lifetime of the Premier League judges though) to a mere four feet before increasing their sentence on their first target from six to eight feet.

Laughable, stupid, and bizarre given the Premier League's publicised intention to next season bin the entirety of the rules they used to punish us and Forest.

And for the avoidance of doubt I feel not a glimmer of empathy towards Kenwright and Moshiri. It took a self-confessed football genius like Kenwright to sell out to Moshiri expecting anyone else to buy into their new "Everton Project".

Kenwright and his loved ones are minted for life without doing a stroke. Moshiri is counting his costs (Christ, might he even end up less than a billionaire as a result of Kenwright? Oh no! Disaster!!)

Maybe that well-known philanthropist Usmanov can extricate us from the Kenwright-disastrous-legacy still to come – and coming it is folks.

Yeah right!!!!!

Johan Elmgren
244 Posted 08/04/2024 at 00:06:07
This smells bad... really bad... this actually stinks. I can't really get my head around what's happening here...

This is a sport we're talking about: football. We've all been playing it, in one way or another through our lives... This is the highest tier of football in England. A tier in which a team plays by merit. Everton deserve to be in this tier by merit, because they are one of the 20 best teams in the country.

Now a "sponsor" or whatever the hell "Premier" is, applies made-up rules that are not deemed good enough to remain beyond this season, rules that seem so unclear and haphazard, that no-one seems to be able to tell if they were applied correctly. Everything seems to go on a whim, or whatever are the commission's daily feelings emotionally. Did they spill the morning-coffee on their pants, hell that's 20 points deduction...

I'm angry and disappointed. Not only at the "Premier League", but also at our owner and board members through those years. But most at how this is handled now by the Premier League, because they have now applied these 'not good-enough' rules on us twice (and on Nottm Forest), before they scrap them in the summer. That really stinks and it's frankly appalling.

This commission has now made untransparent whimsical decisions which impacts our club massively, a club which has numerous fans around the world. I've been a fan of Everton and English football since I was a kid in the '70s, almost 50 years... Now I'm up in the middle of the night thinking and writing about it.

This impacts so many people. And all because this sponsor can make whimsical decisions like this? Who gave them right to decide the table? Do they have the right to decide the table? It's a sport for God's sake, it has it roots in the 19th century... It's a game that should be decided by merit, not by fantasy-rules made up by a sponsor.

If anyone who's running a league are going to implement rules, they should be easy to understand and follow, and the process should be transparent when a club breaks them.

These decisions have such huge impact on the team's position in the table and on all the fans across the globe, and they should be implemented with those clear guidelines around what the club can or cannot do, for teams to follow so they are known when the clubs start their dealings.

It all seems so out of order. We are building a stadium. Should that really impact the club's finances in a fair-play sense? The Premier League should be glad the clubs build new stadiums, because it puts even more shine on their league... but now it's been put on the club like a weight. It all fells so strange...

If I have understood it all correctly, we are getting punished for breaches in two different PSR-periods now this season. This is crazy.

In my opinion, logically, PSR-period for seasons 1, 2, 3 should lead to a punishment in season 4 (or 5 if they can't finish all economical details in those 3 months over the summer.), PSR-period for seasons 2, 3, 4 should lead to punishment in season 5 and so on. Anything else is illogical to me...

How the Premier League do it is like you would assemble all the crimes a career-criminal has made during his life, and send him to court when he's 70, and have him take his punishment then...

And then there's the timing. It's totally bang-out-of-order... With around seven games to go, in the midst of a relegation-battle, they slap a points deduction on us! And on Forest! It's so crazy I can't get my head around it.

The terms should be known when the season starts. A points-deduction should be applied before the season starts, so the team knows all the conditions. That they do it now a few weeks before the season ends, is totally mind-baffling.

There's so much in this that stinks...

Yes, we can still stay up, we have favourable fixtures left, but I feel the players are petrified out there on the pitch. This whole deduction-saga has gotten to them mentally. Confidence is blown out of the water.

We can't score from open play. We can only score from set pieces, penalties or by howlers by the opponent goalkeeper. Partly because of Dyche's tactics, but also because the players are petrified and out of confidence. These last fixtures won't be an easy ride...

Sorry for the rant, but there's so much in this that does my head in...

Neil Tyrrell
245 Posted 09/04/2024 at 00:16:44
All sleep well tonight, comfortable in the knowledge that THE Premier League clubs are squeaky clean except for us and Forest, and that, as the Bard famously sneered, "the ladder of the law has no top and no bottom".

Seriously though, our owner and previous chairman and CEO have obviously made the club guilty as charged. Frankly, I was expecting a 4-point deduction to get us back to the original 10 (before appeal).

Hopefully this is the end of it as far as deductions go, and we can put it in the rear-view mirror on the long road back to relevance. Beating Chelsea next Monday would be a great start, would feel a bit like poetic justice too given their spending versus ours over the period we're getting punished for.

Speaking ill of the dead, I hope Kenwright is rotting in hell and I wouldn't shed tear one if the Muppet and professor joined him soon. They have collectively brought our club to its knees.

Johan Elmgren
246 Posted 09/04/2024 at 00:28:18
If the Premier League and their commission had any sense, they would come out and say "Okay, the current rules are crap, and since we are going to implement new rules next season, it would be over the top to punish teams by the soon-to-be-extinct rules. Therefore, the previous punishments on Everton and Forest, and the new one on Everton are withdrawn. They will get all of their points back."

If they would come out with such statement, I would actually regain a little respect for those who run the Premier League and the commission. As of now, I have none!

Kieran Kinsella
247 Posted 09/04/2024 at 01:30:32
Good news: I am pleased to announce I have dislocated my shoulder.

What has this to do with Everton?

Well, one of my earliest football memories is Bryan Robson dislocating his shoulder at the 1986 World Cup, after which an England team headed for disaster drafted in the Everton crowd and turned it around, and then maintained momentum to win the league title the next year.

So I believe this injury of mine will similarly spark an Everton revival. You're welcome.

Derek Knox
248 Posted 09/04/2024 at 02:27:46
Aw Kieran, how magnanimous of you, and in times of desperation!

I didn't go to the match on Saturday for several reasons, but still managed to watch it via IPTV stream. I wanted to meet Jonathan Oppenheimer considering he had come all this way, but half-heartedly expected him to witness not only a shit show but possibly worse. Thankfully ,fortune smiled in the other direction.

Stephen Vincent texted me saying Jonathan wanted to see the Old Roman City of Chester and was also meeting up with Neil Copeland, and would I like to join them.

What a good day we had, despite all the weather's efforts to spoil it. Luckily there were several interesting hostelries that served equally interesting beers to compensate during those downpours.

Chelsea away next in front of the cameras, what could possibly go wrong there? Another 3 points, gained in any manner would certainly go down well, as well as those hallucinatory tablets the Doctor has put me on. Oh well… nice to have positive pipedreams!

Si Cooper
249 Posted 09/04/2024 at 02:33:29
Some people are still confused as to why we are being punished twice in one season. I thought that had been explained as we were allowed to defer a case being heard against us last season.

The second charge couldn't be deferred as the intention is to punish rule breakers as quickly as possible to avoid any relegated clubs wanting to sue the Premier League? That gave us two charges to be heard during this season.

Leaving aside Man City and Chelsea for now, were we really a whole season ahead of anyone else when we ran into trouble balancing our books once the PSR rules were in place?

I know there are financial cycles over multiple years and all the clubs will not be synced, but it is only our executives' fault that we poked our head over the parapet well before anyone else, if that is what happened.

Ernie Baywood
250 Posted 09/04/2024 at 03:00:38
Si, it's guesswork from me... but I suspect everyone's PSR submissions were within the £105M upper threshold, including ours.

But clubs about to be relegated went a bit wild when our accounts were published and forced the Premier League to go and ask real questions about our PSR submission. They then found some of the interpretations we had made were very generous. From then on, things got pretty real pretty quickly.

That's my theory. But we'll never know.

I'm not sure anyone really thought this PSR business would be taken seriously... I think they would have been happy to keep the lid on this can of worms.

Then government oversight reared its head and relegation threatened clubs arced up. The Premier League had to act. I doubt they really wanted this current situation — the sporting integrity of the league is now completely compromised.

Phil Lewis
251 Posted 09/04/2024 at 04:28:06
How is it that everyone seems to overlook 'Little Miss Dynamite'? Our former CEO, who presided over the shit show, which resulted in our current predicament, then proceeded to walk away with a £3 million payoff!!

It's sickening to think that the person at the centre of the club's dealings, which has placed us in such a precarious position, could be rewarded for her abject failure, in such an obscenely dubious fashion.

In government, or indeed in any high office in the business world, such a person that failed so dismally and recklessly, would be publicly hauled over the coals to explain their actions before a tribunal.

She should have resigned in shame years ago. Instead, she has slipped silently into ignominy without a word on the shambles she has left us with. To spend her ill-gotten millions at our expense.

Steve Oshaugh
252 Posted 09/04/2024 at 04:36:02
I for one am relieved it is only two points. That means it can now be decided on the field of play and we are in the box seat for a change. 36 points ought to be more than enough and we have the team that can get that.

Luton have a tough run-in and the games vs us and Brentford will be crucial. Forest have a decent chance of staying up with their run-in but, as long as we don't lose to them, that works in our favour. Brentford are right in the mix as well. Their next two games are crucial for them.

Players will be relieved I reckon and might have a spring in their step. End of season might actually be fun... staying up with games to spare, scoring a few goals, Goodison a bear pit, stopping Klopp smiling at Goodison. Wahoo!

Steve Oshaugh
253 Posted 09/04/2024 at 04:51:11
But we will end up with another deduction next season.

Wages are over 90% of revenue and that is not sustainable. By my rough calculations, we will need to drop over £34M in wages to get below 70% of revenue (if that is the new target) which would also sort out the PSR.

We don't have enough homegrown players to bank profit, like Chelsea are rumoured to be able to do, so I guess it is a case of letting players go that are coming up for renewal this year.

Harrison and Danjuma won't be renewed surely, Dele will be gone, Gomes will go or be on much reduced terms. Calvert-Lewin, Doucoure, Godfrey and Keane are getting down to a year to go and would attract some level of interest.

We probably need to shed 5 to 7 players to get the club back on track financially.

Christine Foster
254 Posted 08/04/2024 at 05:16:40
Assuming there will be a new set of rules going forward, at what point is a line drawn under the current PSR policy (no more charges) and what happens to clubs currently charged or likely to be?

This could go on for up to another 3 years!

Derek Knox
255 Posted 09/04/2024 at 05:37:29
Christine, good questions, to which I doubt anyone has the answers, as they seem to be constantly moving the goalposts. Bad analogy I know, but nevertheless an appropriate one, as they are making the rules up as they go along, to benefit the wealthier clubs to the detriment of the poorer ones.

Which, unfortunately, we are in the latter category due to years of mismanagement, nefarious loans and investments (?) in grossly overpaid players and equally poor managerial appointments and subsequent compensations on dismissal.

Mike Gaynes
256 Posted 09/04/2024 at 06:52:49
Phil #251,

You haven't the slightest idea what Barrett-Baxendale was responsible for in terms of the club's "dealings", except you can be pretty damn sure she's not the one who hired Rafa and Koeman or signed Tosun, Klaassen, Bolasie and Gbamin.

And the £3 million you cite was contractually required severance sum for not just Barrett-Baxendale but Ingles and Sharp.

Yet somehow you're a lot more outraged about that £3 million than you are by the £10 million payoff for Rafa, who was hired by Moshiri over the objections of Kenwright, the DoF, most of the Board and just about every Everton fan alive. Or the £100 million spent to purchase the previously mentioned turds on turf. Also by Moshiri.

Since you asked, yeah, that's why nobody pays any mind to Denise's role. Wonder why you do.

Colin Glassar
257 Posted 09/04/2024 at 06:54:22
They are coming after us again with new charges so I don't understand this sense of relief some are feeling.

Masters and Co are determined to make an example out of Everton before they graciously pardon the rest.

Brendan McLaughlin
258 Posted 09/04/2024 at 07:40:47
Colin #257,

I suspect that the other clubs currently involved in the relegation battle will view the decision to defer the stadium interest issue to a later date as letting Everton off the hook.

It is a rather surprising decision in terms of the Premier League "out to get us" mantra.

Colin Glassar
259 Posted 09/04/2024 at 07:44:37
Brendan, they have tried to deduct us 17 points (seventeen!!) and you still don't think “they are out to get us”?

They'll try again in the summer so maybe that will convince you.

Barry Williams
260 Posted 09/04/2024 at 07:50:21
I could wax lyrical – and already have in private – but what I would say is only a repeat of what has been said already.

But just to add to the comments on the absurdity of the situation, an 8-point deduction (would have been much more if the Premier League had had its way) for a team in the midst of building a new stadium to regenerate a rundown part of the city and improve the very brand that are punishing them. A team that has been in the top flight longer than anybody and a team that helped found the very league that it is getting punished by!!??

Anyone read Kafka?

Christy Ring
261 Posted 09/04/2024 at 07:58:31
Paul Gregg wrote a piece last weekend, when we wanted to build a state-of-the-art stadium in Kings Dock. Liverpool City Council chief came back with an offer to fund the stadium, and have it in time for City of Culture (2008).

We'd have a 125-year lease for 10% rent, but Kenwright rejected it out of hand because we wouldn't own it. This is where he led us to…

Steve Brown
262 Posted 09/04/2024 at 07:58:50
Brendan @ 258, did you read the Commission report published yesterday?

I would strongly recommend that you do. You will see that the Premier League is most definitely out to get Everton and treating Forest differently.

The Commission itself was moved to comment that:

§256. In this case, we have read and considered with care the parties' submissions in this respect, set out above at paragraph 159 above and not repeated here. In our view, many if not most of the criticisms levelled against the Club in this respect by the PL are unwarranted, overstated, or both.

Charles Ward
263 Posted 09/04/2024 at 09:01:08
At least a 2-point deduction gives us a fighting chance.

A couple of pragmatic points previously stated;

Kenwright and Moshiri played fast and loose buying a number of ineffective journeymen and, despite spinning the wheel what, 6 or 7 times, were unable to come up with a manager who could coach the players to any level of success.

The Premier League can suggest a points deduction, as prosecutors in a large number of jurisdictions suggest a sentence. It is up to the independent commission to agree or disagree with this suggestion. In both of our cases, I would argue the independent commission showed its independence by not agreeing with the Premier League.

Equally, the independent commission also rubbished the Premier League's bizarre claim we should have cut ties with Usmanov after Salisbury or Crimea.

Also, the independent commission wouldn't be rushed into the hearing last season which would definitely have seen us relegated. Another sign of independence.

And as to evidence of cooperation – we seem to continually try to push the envelope when it comes to financial claims, some of which appear to match the generally financially incompetent way the club has been run.

Why couldn't the point about interest in the current hearing have been resolved prior to the hearing and not left us in limbo? The onus is on the club to prove this as ‘they who assert must prove'.

Anyway Chelsea, they score but also concede. If we can stop Sterling flinging himself to ground once he's in the penalty area, we should get at least a point.

Steve Byles
264 Posted 09/04/2024 at 09:52:48
So we get 8 points for 2 breaches and Forest 4 points for 1. Perhaps there is some logic after all? I just hope this is the end to it, and get back to the football.

The cynic in me thinks the Premier League are holding back on the stadium funding issue, to see if they can relegate us at the end of the season. Hopefully we put this issue out of their hands by gaining enough points, then we'll probably escape with a fine.

A possible silver lining to this is Leicester could start on negative points next season.

Man City and Chelsea? Not bothered, not interested. They compete above our level.

Ernie Baywood
266 Posted 09/04/2024 at 10:00:20
Steve 262 - I did read the report. And therefore I know that comment is specifically in regards to our level of cooperation with the Premier League.

We claimed exceptional cooperation and the Premier League claimed that we had been quite uncooperative. Ultimately, the Commission found that we had cooperated to the standard required but that our level of cooperation was not exceptional and therefore the mitigation was not accepted.

That paragraph on its own is very misleading. People will rely on that kind of statement without its context.

Dave Abrahams
268 Posted 09/04/2024 at 10:51:35
Ernie (266),

I always take note of your posts about football and how we are doing regards to these charges and penalties given.

With your last post, would you agree that different commissions could have come to a different conclusion about how we had cooperated with the Premier League, better or worse?

If so, then we are relying on opinions not any fixed rules because none have been set. I think the whole set up is a jigsaw and the result of these charges depends on who is putting the jigsaw together.

Steve Brown
269 Posted 09/04/2024 at 10:53:14
Ernie @ 266, good that you have read the report. I would recommend it.

With respect, it is your post that is misleading (and frankly absurd).

You will note (or maybe you didn't) that I cited the section of the commission report that I quoted from (262), so that posters could check the relevant segment and understand its context.

The example does relate to the level of co-operation that Everton furnished to the Premier League. The Commission rejects as unwarranted or over-stated, or both the assertion by the Premier League that Everton did not co-operate with the Premier League when compared to Forest.

The report also sets out in great detail how the Premier League aggressively challenged all aspects of the mitigation that we put forward. Here are just a couple of examples (again with Section reference), but the Commission report is comprehensive in reporting this aggression.

In this example, the Premier League demands that Everton attend a fact-finding mission and bring their electronic devices (outrageous).

159.15. On 7 February 2024, the PL exercised its powers under Rule B.18, E.1, and W.1, then requesting that four club officials attend a fact-finding meeting on 14 February 2024: the PL (a) increased the number of individuals who should attend and (b) moved forward the date of that meeting by six days. In the same letter, the PL requested that those individuals “bring with them to the Meeting their work laptops and other electronic devices to enable them to access documents electronically and provide documents during the Meeting that are relevant to the questions posed”.

Here, the Commission rejects the Premier League's absurd assertion that Everton should have anticipated that Russian invasion of Ukraine based on the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea and the Salisbury poisoning to diversify away from Usmanov (outrageous and laughable):

212. Further, we reject the PL's submission that Everton should not have placed “all its eggs in one basket”, and that Everton should have been aware that Mr Usmanov had a heightened risk profile. That is a nice point to be made in hindsight, as was the PL's invocation of the Russian invasion of the Crimea and the Russian poisoning episodes on UK soil. It is, in the Commission's view, too much to ask that Everton should have taken these matters into account with respect to the prudent management of the sponsorship risk.

Here, the Commission rejects the Premier League's claim that Everton should not be given credit for its prompt admission of liability (outrageous, laughable, illogical).

As to the second issue, we reject the PL's suggestion that credit should not be given to Everton for its admission of the breach. The PL attempted to distinguish the credit (rightly, the PL said) given to Nottingham Forest on the basis that Nottingham Forest had originally maintained its position but eventually acceded to the PL's arguments that its position was flawed: see Nottingham Forest at [5.5]-[5.10], [5.19]-[5.22]. Here, by contrast, Everton merely pleaded guilty based upon its PSR Calculation.

247. We see no merit in that distinction. As the Commission put to Mr Lewis during the hearing, it would lead to a very odd situation: a club could obtain credit by maintaining an unreasonable position, submitting to the PL a PSR Calculation based upon that unreasonable position, and later reversing that position. If that were right, it would make a mockery of the aims underpinning credit for a guilty plea, being the avoidance of “time, energy and indeed money”. In contrast, by pleading guilty in its Answer, Everton avoided all time, energy, and money in relation to the Admitted Breach, which is deserving of credit.

I could quote many more examples.

You can see the problem here, Ernie? I am already in danger of writing the longest post ever by quoting multiple examples to satisfy your claim that I am being misleading by quoting one paragraph of the report (even though I quoted the section number in my OP).

As regards your post @ 222 that we are "lucky" that they didn't charge us last season. As the Commission would say, a nice point to be made in hindsight.

The Premier League charged us when it suited them, ie, closer to the decision by the government on whether to legislate for an independent football regulator. By making an example of us close to when the government was due to make their decision, they hoped to achieve maximum influence for their case that they could self-regulate.

William Cartwright
270 Posted 09/04/2024 at 11:19:46
It is not over until it is over.

The final match of the season, Liverpool v Everton, could theoretically, decide simultaneously who wins the Premier League, and who gets relegated. What a global footballing bonanza that will be.

VAR will be monitoring the situation very closely both in the run-up to and during the 90 (+10 if necessary) extra minutes, to make sure it comes to pass...

Paul Cherrington
271 Posted 09/04/2024 at 11:22:06
I think this makes it pretty clear that there is a witch hunt against the club now, led by people who simply want us out of the Premier League. They will not be happy until they get us relegated and will keep looking for any way they can to make it happen. Disgraceful and something the club should be making a lot of noise about.

We get docked more points and yet the Man City decision remains sometime never. Will Forest be looked into again before season end and docked more points like us if needs be? I doubt it. Will other clubs be reviewed to the extent we have been in the next few weeks and hammered multiple times before season end if they are over the limits? Don't hold your breath.

How come they can do things in lightning quick time when it comes to Everton but it takes soooooooo long to look into and reach a decision over other clubs?

When you also read that this entire system might be changed or scrapped as from next year (just after they use it to hammer us but it can't affect any of the favoured few), it's clear what's happening.

What I don't get is how we can be handed multiple points deductions in the same season. Surely clubs should only get deducted points for being over in one season and then deducted points the following season(s) if they are still believed to be in breach?

Interesting timing of this decision as well, when we have just picked up 4 points in one week to climb away from relegation and finally get a win and some confidence back into the camp. All of this is corrupt as hell and stinks to high heaven.

Steve Dowdeswell
272 Posted 09/04/2024 at 11:42:12
Derek Thomas @233,

I quite agree that the appeal announcement could be made prior to fully knowing the final outcome. As you say, the club advised that it is getting done and will be a point deduction in the region of x; Club states it will appeal any points deduction.

Final panel decision is made and club can then go on to make the decision to formally appeal or not.

I can't help feel that our 'board' – do we even have one these days? – will make the stupid decision to spend time, effort and money to appeal and then be handed a greater deduction for being dicks about it.

The manager and team now need to decide whether we stay up or not and perform accordingly on the pitch. Dyche needs to learn some alternative tactics and get this team performing like the elite athletes they get paid for being.

A couple of wins and draws from Nottm Forest, Brentford, Luton, Sheffield Utd and we should be safe. But the team need to go out all guns blazing as per the last PSR ruling.

Danny O’Neill
273 Posted 09/04/2024 at 11:44:19
All we can do is win games. Starting next Monday at Stamford Bridge. Let's go there loud and proud.

I will do. Against everything they throw at us, we can come out of this mess that is not ours or the team's doing.

Stick together blues.

Tony Abrahams
274 Posted 09/04/2024 at 12:16:06
Steve @269, thank you for writing the longest post ever!

Whatever Everton, have done, and deserve punishing for, there definitely appears to be a witch hunt against the club.

Is it because of The Russian? Let's hope so because otherwise someone definitely wants to see us gone.

Ernie Baywood
275 Posted 09/04/2024 at 12:28:03
Steve 269 - I stand by my comment that that paragraph in isolation is misleading given as it was posted to demonstrate that this has been a witch hunt. That's not what the section showed – it just showed that an independent commission disagreed with the Premier League's case in one specific element... and I note that they also disagree with our case on the exact same element and ultimately refused our mitigation.

Both parties held 'aggressive' positions, that wasn't specific to the Premier League. For example section 159.15 that you quoted was not the Commission's view - it was Everton's. The Premier League, as noted by the Commission, had a very different recollection of those events.

The report is a document collating the cases put forward and the deliberations of legal professionals. It's not a reality TV show where we decide who is good and bad. There's no highlight snippet that turns one party into the villain and the other into a hero.

I've no doubt there's a case to be made in an appeal. There are some obvious things to go after. But the search for the silver bullet is just a bit silly in my opinion.

I struggle to believe that you don't acknowledge that we were fortunate to be deducted points for the first charge in this season and not last season when it really should have happened. It's the greatest escape we've had since Bolton's 'did it cross the line?' moment.

Ernie Baywood
276 Posted 09/04/2024 at 12:33:55
Dave 168 - absolutely; different Commissions could come to different decisions. They have done.

The sanctioning process is pretty unclear... but that's seemingly what everyone involved wanted.

Now we get to go after some of those inconsistencies. And some of the things that were being decided on for the first time (such as the double jeopardy calculation they opted to go with).

Brian Harrison
277 Posted 09/04/2024 at 12:42:31
Well at least we know the worst-case scenario, unless Forest get any points back from their appeal, which looks very doubtful. We are 2 points clear of Forest and Luton with a game in hand. So we know exactly what we have to do irrespective of our appeal, get more points than Forest or Luton to be safe.

I know the 1878 lads have done a great job in organising events for the fans to show their support for the team, Whether that be meeting the coach prior to the game or as they did on Saturday by leaving flags on the seats.

I think they were disappointed that they asked the fans to leave the flags under the seat after the game so the 1878 lads could collect them and reuse them, but apparently many fans took the flags home.

Hopefully they will bring them back for the Forest game and this time leave them under the seats after the game.

Laurie Hartley
278 Posted 09/04/2024 at 12:51:18
If the players were our sons and grandsons and being treated like this, we would fight like hell for them. So let's treat them like they are – they need all the support they can get. I have never written a song before but I told our George McK I would so here it is:-

Sons of Everton
Marching on
Down to the river Mersey
Together with you
We will fight like hell*
For the honour of our Royal Blue Jersey

Sod* the Premier League
And Sod* them all
Arms together we are answering the call
We will fight and we'll stand tall
For the honour of our Royal Blue Jersey!

Sons of Everton
Marching on
Down to the river Mersey
Together with you
We will fight like hell
For the honour of our Royal Blue Jersey

*This song is not copyrighted – feel to change these words if you can think of something more suitable. Also verses can be added after each chorus.

Jerome Shields
279 Posted 09/04/2024 at 13:10:50
'A sanction must reflect the aims of the PSR in the wider context of the Premier League, being a joint venture of all the clubs. A sanction must uphold the integrity of the PSR. It must also ensure public confidence in the Premier League. The Commission concludes that a sanction of two points is proportionate to those aims.'

For me, this part of the Commission findings says it all. So the 2-point deduction should be looked at in this context.

In the first Commission, there was a dispute between Everton and the Premier League about the actual losses after adjustments for Covid and other accounting adjustments using Everton's figures. This seems to have been over the treatment of stadium loans. It seems to have continued into the second Commission and is still unresolved.

Everton are likely to be referred to a third Commission on the ground that they have breached the £105m threshold over three years, were adjustments are not taken into account in being referred to the Commission. After the first two relevant years 2021-22 and 2022-23, Everton have a £133.8 million loss. It is unlikely that there will be a profit sufficient to address these losses bringing them under the threshold in the third year, 2023-24.

Phil Lewis
280 Posted 09/04/2024 at 13:29:29
Mike Gaynes #256,

Mr Gaynes, actually I have a lot more idea than you do of what this woman did, or more accurately did not do. As CEO, she had full responsibility for the oversight of all the club's "dealings". The fact that she has no qualifications whatsoever in financial management, football business, or indeed any commercial experience, does not acquit her in the court of competence, to do the job that she was handsomely paid to do.

As usual, you present your bluster as facts; you have no idea what her "contractually required severance sum" was, but if you scrutinise the accounts, you'll see that my figure is accurate.

You wonder why I'm interested in her?? I wonder why you are interested in defending her!

I don't suppose it's anything to do with you ingratiating yourself into a meeting with her a few years ago? Did you get a goody bag? Small price to pay to get a useful idiot on board to defend this indefensible woman.

ps: Mr G. Next time you're talking to her, could you ask her why she refused Everton's request to add any useful comment or information to their team preparing to defend the catastrophic mistakes made on her watch? And if it's not too much to ask, tell us how in a ground full of 40,000 fans and stewards and with CCTV everywhere, no-one saw her being attacked in a headlock?

John Flood
281 Posted 09/04/2024 at 13:31:17
4 different ‘independent' commissions, and 4 different outcomes. And the Premier League claim they are open and transparent!

Our initial hearing really was a make-it-up-as-they-go-along job, and they came to a 10-point deduction with no formula or justification behind that figure, other than it just happened to be same figure the Premier League asked for, even though the commission stated they had ignored the Premier League recommendation.

Our appeal at least tried to apply some logic to the punishments in setting a benchmark 3-point deductions for a breach, plus a further point deduction for each complete £6.5M over the £105M limit. This could be then mitigated downwards or aggravated upwards depending on the evidence.

In our case, this formula produced a 6-point deduction, and they concluded that the modest mitigation and the modest aggravation cancelled each other out.

Then in Nottingham Forest's hearing, they chose to ignore this benchmark formula used in our appeal and come up with their own which broke the breaches down into 3 categories – minor, significant, and major.

Using this formula, it was deemed that Nottingham Forest's £34.5M breach was significant and therefore worthy of the same 6-point deduction than Everton received for their significant breach of £19.5M. The commission then reduced these 6 points by 2 for Nottingham Forest's ‘exceptional cooperation'.

What is interesting to note is that this ‘Forest' formula treats a £19.5M breach exactly the same as a £34.5M breach, with both being classified as being ‘significant'. If the Everton appeal formula had been applied to Nottingham Forest, they would have received an 8-point deduction, which would have been reduced to 6 with their accepted mitigation.

Now we have Everton's second charge. Here, instead of using the ‘Forest' formula, they have decided to go back to the ‘Everton appeal' formula in determining the appropriate points deduction. This produced a 5 points deduction before mitigation.

How they then handle the mitigation is interesting. With regard to the double counting or double jeopardy argument, they rely heavily on the EFL benchmark, but then chose to ignore the capping of already sanctioned seasons that applies in the EFL and instead come up with their own formula in page 45 of the report.

This formula concludes that we have already been sanctioned for just under 50% of the total amount (the actual figure is 48.49% although that is not specified) so then reduce our points deduction by that percentage for that mitigation. That would produce a reduction of the punishment of 2.9 points, but the commission has chosen to round that down to 2 points rather than up 3 points.

Then as for mitigation regarding the loss of USM sponsorship in 2022-23 and the early guilty plea, despite the report strongly accepting this mitigation against the vindictive Premier League stance, they have only given us a further 1-point reduction in punishment for this combined mitigation, which doesn't appear to match their strong acceptance in the report.

Next, we will have Nottingham Forest's appeal followed by our appeal. What formulas are they going to use in those, or will it be 2 entirely new ones (and of course different from each other)?

Geoff Cadman
282 Posted 09/04/2024 at 13:46:00

I alway's thought the Goodison battle song needed updating to cover this fiasco. I put this together when this fisrt started and you have prompted me to submit it:

Oh we hate the Premier League and Sky Sports Six.
With their token fine when they tried to up sticks
Now they have moved the goalposts and worked a fix.
On the the Boys from the Royal Blue Mersey.

You picked your scapegoat and messed up big time
When you chose the Blues from the Mersey
For we'll Fight Fight Fight with all our might
For the Boys in the Royal Blue Jersey.

Ernie Baywood
283 Posted 09/04/2024 at 14:08:16
John, 50% of 5 isn't 2.9. But the point that they rounded down is valid - though they stated they would only work in complete whole numbers rather than rounded numbers. I actually think that calculation will be surely be challenged.

They've deducted based on relative percentages of the scale of the breach, but the initial 3 points in both punishments were not due to scale of breach, only the additional 2 points were.

It makes more sense that if the 3 points is just for breaching, and double jeopardy can be applied to it as they have done, that you should deduct two thirds of that penalty and 50% of the penalty for scale. So instead of (3+2)*0.5=2 as the whole number to deduct, you get (3*2/3)+(2*0.5)=3 to deduct.

Then you can have a crack at the fact that it's unfair to punish the scale of our breach as two thirds of Forest's. The Commission benchmarked it by viewing our overall breach across two charges versus Forest's overall breach across one charge. That wasn't their job - they weren't there to make judgements on our first breach and 'top us up'. Their job was to rule in the second breach only - when benchmarking they should have compared our breach to Forest's. They're for the same period after all.

Finally you can debate whether the early plea and Finch Farm sponsorship loss should have been worth 2 points. Early plea and exceptional cooperation were worth 2 - why shouldn't early plea and loss of sponsorship? It's at least worth more than one and could be combined with whatever decimal place ruling they come to regarding double jeopardy. They're dealing with small numbers of points - it's unreasonable round down every element instead of overall. Though that brings into question whether our breach was closer to an additional 2.5 points rather than 2!

It's a minefield. But there's plenty left to question.

Ken Kneale
284 Posted 09/04/2024 at 14:09:54
Mike G - I think your post overlooks the fact she should have known.

Was she not also a director of the club with the legal responsibilities of including but not exclusive to the exercise of reasonable care, independent judgement, avoid conflicts of interest or third party benefits, good faith, and to act at all times honestly and responsibly?

It is difficult to see how Professor Denise Barrett-Baxendale, and others including Messrs Sharp and Ingles acheived any of those let alone all during their tenure. They should all have done what Trevor Birch did when he saw Kenwiright's meddlesome running of the club and walked.

Sharp particularly shredded his reputation with the fans at the end by allowing himself to go along with the spurious allegations made — and none deserve any sympathy in my view.

Not one of those named chose to assist the club in its hour, nor as now seems to be the case, hours of need.

John Flood
285 Posted 09/04/2024 at 14:21:58
Ernie the 2.9 points I came up with is 48.49% of the 6 as the that was the actual percentage that was already sanctioned, even though it is not specifically given in the report, only as just referred to as under 50% instead.

You raise a good point that the 2 seperate elements (the breach, and the scale) having both already being dealt with in our previous case, so logic should say they are subject to separate percentage deductions?

Anthony Hawkins
286 Posted 09/04/2024 at 14:45:52
We can only surmise the reasoning behind the board's decision not to go the game but.... I wonder if they already knew the club would be penalised for PSR and that was one of many reasons they thought the fans might turn on them?

'Headlock' gate and threatening mail are convenient covers.

Brent Stephens
287 Posted 09/04/2024 at 14:49:49
John #281. "What is interesting to note is that this ‘Forest’ formula treats a £19.5M [Everton] breach exactly the same as a £34.5M [Forest] breach, with both being classified as being ‘significant’".

John, my reading of the two cases was as follows:

Everton and Forest -3 points as a starting point.

Everton a further -3 for "circumstances" ("incorrect information"). Everton running total -6.

Forest a further -3 for "scale" ("scale of breach"). Forest running total -6.

So both clubs got to an interim -6 but only Forest got there for "scale of breach".

As usual - I stand to be corrected!

George Cumiskey
288 Posted 09/04/2024 at 14:53:17
Will the City inquiry into their 115 charges be based on this and last season when points were deducted, or will they have changed the rules to a fine so as to not upset the rich Arab owners???
John Flood
289 Posted 09/04/2024 at 15:58:42
Brent (287) reading the appeal report again, you are correct that our 6-point (appeal hearing) deduction was indeed broken down to 3 points for the breach and 3 points for ‘other'.

The Premier League attempted to introduce a scale of 1 point for each £5M of beach but this was rejected. The Forest hearing then introduced a scale punishment of 3 points for their £34.5M breach which didn't appear to reference Everton's £19.5M breach at all.

Now, Everton's second charge has repeated the scale punishment, not as I first read of 1 point for each complete £6.5M of breach (this was ultimately rejected) but instead that the admitted breach at £16.5M was not as high as our previous £19.5M breach and therefore was worthy of 2 additional points rather than the 3 additional points we received for the first breach, even though the first breach was supposedly not increased by the scale!

So, rather than using the established scale punishment (Forest), they have used Everton's supposed non-scale punishment as the benchmark. This really does come across as making it up as they go along.

Jamie Crowley
290 Posted 09/04/2024 at 16:25:20
Peter Mills way back @140 -

Firstly Peter hope you and yours are well.

Who is the force behind this vindictive attack on Everton FC? Who wields the power within the English Premier League? Masters is merely the puppet.

No one knows obviously, but it does appear at least to my eyes to be crystal clear [conjecture alert!]. Everyone in a position of power and influence at the Premier League decided the league, as a whole (and probably with the best of intentions honestly), needed to crack down on reckless spending and also the act of "cornering the market" by big clubs signing 5000 kids to a contract and then loaning them out.

So I'd think they got together and said, "This has to stop, we need to send a message, for the overall health and welfare of not only the league but the individual teams as well."

It was a group consensus and effort.

The problem is, they knew their remit, but didn't think it through at all. They lit their hair on fire, decided what needed to be done, and just did it without thinking it through.

As a result, Everton are getting royally screwed right now. The Premier League realizes it's a mess, and that's why they are coming in with much, much lower penalties with Forest and our second judgement.

The real problem with this is that people in power, and I'd say particularly men in power, don't like to admit when they are wrong. They've committed, they think themselves smarter than everyone else, and they can't admit their system is flawed. So they concoct a bunch of ridiculous reasons behind their judgements and defend and justify them in the face of evidence and common sense.

You've seen this in the world on grand scale, on any side of the political divide by leaders. Use your imagination and it will take all of 5 seconds to come up with multiple examples.

Again... I could be wrong. But that's my take on it.

Brent Stephens
291 Posted 09/04/2024 at 16:57:10
John #289 - yes, unless I'm missing something, this does seem to be an inconsistent application of additional points penalties for quantum / scale of breach (over the £105m threshold).

Our £9.5m breach attracted no extra points penalty for "scale of breach", but the latest our £16.6m breach attracts a further 2 points for "quantum of breach"! Is the margin between 16.6 and 9.5 that big? Is one point worth approx £3.5m of breach?

Kieran Kinsella
292 Posted 09/04/2024 at 16:58:34
Andros Townsend is a bit of a wanker.

“I guess we were celebrating when Everton were docked 10 points.” Now it “makes a mockery” that we can appeal.

Same Andros who lay in the sick bay for a year picking up £100k a week which contributed to the losses for that time period that we are being punished for.

Steve Brown
293 Posted 09/04/2024 at 17:17:14
Ernie, 275, I respectfully disagree with you again.

It also appears that Lyndon also disagrees, as he has quoted the same paragraph 262 of the Commission report in his article today to support his assertion that the process the PL are running is a witch hunt against Everton.

In any legal case, the defendant will shape its arguments in response to the charges and approach of the prosecution. Therefore, Everton are not taking “aggressive positions” in their defence. They are simply responding as is their right to the aggressive approach of the PL, who are intent on making an example of the club.

Equally, you also make the following comment that “the report is a document collating the cases put forward and the deliberations of legal professionals. It's not a reality TV show where we decide who is good and bad. There's no highlight snippet that turns one party into the villain and the other into a hero.”

Every media outlet is quoting extensively from the report and you yourself are citing sections of the report to support your arguments, although not using direct extracts from the report. Is it your assertion therefore that no section of the 60 page report is to be reported or used independently to support any argument?

A quite ludicrous argument.

Anyone who has read the 2 commissions reports and appeal report is painfully aware of the mistakes that the club made. Equally, it is evident that the PL has taken a different approach to the charges it has levied against Everton compared to Forest (and Man City). I agree that the PL made a fundamental error in not charging us last season and by not levying all charges against us at the same time - it is a simple principle of law that this should be the case.

However, the PL decided to delay the original charges until this season for political reasons. They wanted to demonstrate to the government that they can self-regulate by taking drastic action against a club for breeching PSR at a time that would have maximium impact on the decision about whether to introduce legislation on a football regulator.

Everton was targeted by the PL as they were very confident of their case against us and judged us as being in too weak a state to mount a strong defence (both financially and in terms of ownership). They made a fundamental error, following which they have attempted to double-down through increasingly aggressive (and ludicrous) assertions. I cited several in my post @ 269, which I note you have made no attempt to contradict. That would be hard as the Commission has already challenged and rejected the PL’s assertions across a range of arguments.

Overall, I find it quite baffling that you are determined to argue that the evidence against the club is damning, all mitigation should be discounted and we are fortunate to be charged twice in one season due to the timing. Two Commissions and an appeals commision have found merit in the defences the club has put forward and weaknesses in the arguments made by the PL. That is the reason why we have not been penalised the SEVENTEEN points demanded by the PL but rather eight points.

Eight points penalty remains excessive given our sanction for administration would have been nine points. So, this saga will go on beyond the end of the season as the club retains the option to go to arbitration and ultimately to take legal action.

I hope the club does so.

John Pendleton
294 Posted 09/04/2024 at 17:19:09
Kieran #292

Leave Andros alone.

One of my favourite memories is of his injury-defying one-legged sprint after the Calvert-Lewin flying header against Palace.

It set his recovery back and we never saw him kick a ball again.

John Flood
295 Posted 09/04/2024 at 17:23:20
Kieran (292) in fairness to Townsend his full quote puts this into perspective:

"We don't know what's going to happen with appeals," the former Everton player told BBC Radio 5 Live's Monday Night Club.

"We were probably celebrating when Everton got 10 points taken off them and then they got four given back and we're back in the relegation zone. So we take out the deductions to take away the confusion and we'll see at the end of the season."

Townsend said that he does not advocate for teams receiving points deductions and that the way in which they are handed out "doesn't make sense".

Rob Jones
296 Posted 09/04/2024 at 17:25:11
Is it Andros' fault he was paid that money? No. The club committed to paying him that. Attacking him on the basis of his wage is ridiculous.

As for complaining about him celebrating the deduction: you do realise he plays for our most immediate rival when it comes to staying up, don't you?

Donal Armani
297 Posted 09/04/2024 at 18:14:52
John @285,

For completeness, the 48.4% of our second PSR over-reach that had already been sanctioned by our first points reduction was detailed in the Commission report (para 203).

This fraction was used to mitigate our new 5-point deduction (not the old 6 points), reducing it by 2.42 points, which was then rounded down to 2 points.

Barry Lightfoot
298 Posted 09/04/2024 at 18:18:37
The real problem with this is that people in power, and I'd say particularly men in power, don't like to admit when they are wrong.

Someone here hasn't had a female boss, I see.

Mark Taylor
299 Posted 09/04/2024 at 18:23:43
I've commented on the other thread on this about the ludicrous process by which punishment is (ahem) calculated by the commission- it is basically an accumulation of precedents, shape shifting as we progress through the various hearings and appeals.

People talk about City and then the conspiracy theorist in me wonders whether this pretty clear muting of the extent of penalties is not, somehow, intended to prepare the ground for a much lighter punishment for them.

On the topic of Barrett-Baxendale, she is clearly not the main protagonist here. In fact I doubt she had any real power. But she certainly deserves some approbation for the reasons others have cited. She was still collecting CEO money even though it's pretty clear she was little more than a PR spokesperson and minder of the charity side of the business (we could do with some charity right now).

And I can never really find much to recommend about someone who uses an honorary title from a so so uni. That is not the done thing.

Christy Ring
300 Posted 09/04/2024 at 18:30:29
Isn't it totally hypocritical that one of the Premier League arguments towards our points reduction, was that Everton should have cut their links earlier with sponsor Usmanov, before they lost out on £20m after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, considering the Premier League only suspended it's own deal with Russian match TV the following month. If that's not a hidden agenda against Everton, I don't know what is?

As for the 3rd points reduction they want next season over the disputed £6.5m, which is the interest on our stadium loan, they don't want it included in costs, even though Spurs' interest costs were allowed, how is that not discrimination?

Mark Murphy
301 Posted 09/04/2024 at 18:47:09
William, Liverpool v Everton will not be the final game of the season.

The Everton v Liverpool game will take place on 24th April.
Thank God! UTFT

Mike Doyle
302 Posted 09/04/2024 at 19:04:38
Mark @299,

Like you, I always have doubts about people using Honorary titles. However, we do have a few academics posting on TW who I suspect have real titles.

I wouldn't want to upset, say, Paul Ferry if he's planning to start referring to himself as Dr Paul Ferry (which I suspect he's entitled to) or possibly Professor (which he might be).

Les Moorcroft
303 Posted 09/04/2024 at 19:19:22
Christy @300,

They said after Crimea in 2014 and Salisbury 2018 that all clubs should cut ties with Russians.

But they carried on selling TV rights to the Russians till 2022. Now work that out.

Mark Taylor
304 Posted 09/04/2024 at 19:22:54
Mike @302,

Real titles are a different thing, though the Dr title can be open to misinterpretation. Even now, I'm not sure whether Paul could be trusted to diagnose or operate on me. Or read me a political thesis.

Christy @300,

I think the deal with Match TV was for the following season, 2022-23. The deal running was with someone else (whose name escapes me) and was suspended in March 2022. It took till summer for them to can the Match TV deal. Maybe they were hedging their bets…

Raymond Fox
305 Posted 09/04/2024 at 19:27:46
The Premier League wanting us relegated, as is often suggested doesn't make much sense to me.

Each club, when Everton play there, knows that we will fill their ticket allocation to us, bringing in £100,000 to £200,000 each game depending on which club we are playing.

Larry O'Hara
306 Posted 09/04/2024 at 19:33:09
Strange to say I do have a PhD: and of course a Professor does not need to have a PhD at all. And to be frank, academic standards are so low, most PhDs I have met have the intellect of a desiccated prune….

I have met prisoners and drug addicts with more about them. And don't get me started on academic integrity: in my experience, there isn't any.

Bill Gall
307 Posted 09/04/2024 at 19:34:17
With all the comments on who to blame and who was and who wasn't doing there job, I suggest that they go to Stephen Vincent's article on our ex-CFO entitled:

Grant Ingles Everton's Invisible Money Man from 16 July 2022.

Mike Doyle
308 Posted 09/04/2024 at 20:10:08
So Larry. Dr O’Hara it is from this day onwards!
Christine Foster
309 Posted 09/04/2024 at 20:26:18
Steve Brown, some excellent posts and perspectives. Sometimes the written word in lengthy reports fails to clearly identify intent or the key notes. In short, it's lost in the padding.

Dave A, 268# good analogy re a jigsaw. If I can add to that, in this particular jigsaw, we have had a number of different commissions trying to put together the picture on their box with pieces from a different jigsaw.

Waddington (actually the Premier League) never supplied a picture on the box, just gave a description entitled "All at Sea" and just for good measure supplied pieces for a different jigsaw, "Away with the fairies".

It would be laughable if it were a comedy of errors, not the tragedy it has become. Not fit for purpose. The byline to the Premier League Executive.

Christine Foster
310 Posted 09/04/2024 at 20:55:59
I think a few are missing the point, the Premier League set out to make an example of a suitable club who gave them an opportunity to show to the world and specifically the government, that there was no need for an independent regulator.

Instead of handling our PSR transgressions in a fair or reasonable way, it doubled down to make a point, or 12 to be precise. At which juncture it went out of control, praising its own appointed judge and jury and executioner, the independent commission(s).

The rest is vindictive farce. I doubt the original intent was to relegate the club, merely to deflect criticism for its inability to control its members. For instance, if the Man City or Chelsea debacle had been handled quickly and decisively: none of this would have happened, no regulator, no need to make Everton an example of.

But, once into the mire of detail, the Premier League sunk into the bog, trying to justify hurting some but not others. It's objective lost, an appointment imminent, regulation is on its way.

No cutting of losses though, it has resorted to type: vindictiveness. Everton merely the anchor that has dragged them down.

Make no mistake, Everton were guilty of breaking a PSR rule which itself is not fit for purpose, set in place more as a sop to intent rather than a clear sanction. But, in the midst of the Sly Six debacle, the Big Project deception, and the utter failure to penalise their brand leader, Man City, they needed a Patsy.

As ever, who do they turn to in their hour of need...

Ernie Baywood
311 Posted 09/04/2024 at 21:03:55
Steve @293,

Firstly, apologies if my statement came across as an attack on you personally – that wasn't my intention. I'm just stating that paragraph in isolation can be misleading – not that you are deliberately misleading people.

It matters a bit on here where people are generally measured but many will not read the report. It matters greatly outside of here. Go and have a look on Facebook and see how people consume that kind of information.

We've still got people saying "see, even the Forest Commission couldn't understand why we got deducted points" based on one sentence in the Forest report taken out of context. The media both feeds and feeds off that kind of ignorance.

I chose not to go tit for tat on every point when responding for a similar reason. I did mention that the para on cooperation was Everton's view, not a finding.

We have been aggressive in presenting our mitigations. We paint a picture of complete cooperation, of holding our hands up, of being victims of circumstance. The Premier League paint a picture of non-cooperation, debating the scale of the breach, and being in bed with dubious characters.

We can see enough of the facts to know that neither extreme is entirely true. You're right that the Commissions have seen merits in our arguments and weaknesses in the Premier League's position.

It's also true that successive commissions have seen merits in the Premier League's case and weaknesses in ours – in fact, that's been the far more dominant outcome given how many mitigations have been knocked back. We have had the grand total of 1 point returned due to mitigating factors, of which we have put forward plenty.

Our greater success has been in demonstrating that the scale and formulation of the punishment has been unjust. And I believe that's where we'll go again.

Ged Simpson
312 Posted 09/04/2024 at 21:04:42

Best analysis I have seen.

Brendan McLaughlin
313 Posted 09/04/2024 at 21:41:06
Two questions, Christine #310:

"I doubt the original intent was to relegate the club."

Even though the Premier League allegedly pushed for a 12-point deduction at the first hearing?

And are you suggesting that relegation is the intent now?

Danny O’Neill
314 Posted 09/04/2024 at 21:49:53
I won't even attempt to write on that analysis, Christine.

You've nailed it. Great summary.

Si Cooper
315 Posted 09/04/2024 at 22:05:46
I work in a sector of manufacturing that has attracted, for many, many years, large numbers of educated and ambitious women. In my 30 years, I've had more female bosses than male, although the people at the very top tend to be men (speculation: because most women will have taken time out of their careers to have children or retire earlier?).

My experience is that the best colleagues you will have ever have will be women, as will the very worst colleagues you ever have.

Men tend to be uncomplicated so you know where they stand, what their expectations are, how or why they will respond to you or your work, but some women are truly unfathomable, judging things due to some personal criteria only they know about. Women are certainly very wiling and able to manipulate to ensure they climb the greasy pole to a level.

I think the hypothesis that stupid people overestimate their ability, whilst intelligent people can be crippled with self-doubt applies equally to both sexes.

For Denise Barrett-Baxendale to get where she did, she was either very capable or overly egotistical and manipulative. A truly capable person would surely have identified the mis-management and changed it or walked away if they couldn't change it.

Exaggerating a ‘threatening' situation fits in well with a particular type of flawed character that doesn't appear to hinder climbing the corporate ladder as much as it should.

Phil Lewis
316 Posted 09/04/2024 at 22:46:06
Si #315,

I think it's wrong to make assumptions on people's abilities or capabilities and dangerous to make judgements based on a person's gender. Generalisations lead to odious comparisons.

My earlier assessment of Ms Barrett-Baxendale's tenure as CEO of Everton was based on the fact that not only was she clearly unqualified to be offered such a high-profile position, but that she failed miserably in that role. I would most certainly have criticised her to the same extent had she been male.

As to your conclusion regarding her journey to the top, I have serious misgivings with regard to her capability, which leaves me with no alternative than to assume that her rise to fame was a combination of (in your words) the overly egotistical and manipulative nature of the lady in question.

Her readiness to use the title 'Doctor' even though this was only an honorary title bestowed on her, is a typical example of someone only too keen to glorify their position in order to promote themselves.

Quite embarrassing actually.

Eddie Dunn
317 Posted 09/04/2024 at 22:55:19
Phil & Si,

Surely the main aspect of DBB's role and her staying in it during the debacle that was erupting around her was simply that it was the biggest job that she had ever had (I presume) and much better paid than her job at EitC.

The money and kudos is often why people put up with all sorts of shit. Those directors were all paid of rather handsomely, so she was sensible to sit tight, was she not?

Phil Lewis
318 Posted 09/04/2024 at 22:58:15
Eddie #317

In my opinion, she sat tight for the eventual pay off which she duly received. She was going nowhere until that money was in her bank account.

The more honorable alternative would have been for her to resign her clearly untenable position long ago and possibly save us much of the debacle as you rightly point out, that is our current standing.

Danny O’Neill
319 Posted 09/04/2024 at 23:03:27
Without wanting to get complicated, I have never and don't care whether it's a man or woman.

What is important is whether they are best for the job. That's always been my principle. Best person for the job and judge them on that. It's a simple principle, but one I've always worked along.

Laurie Hartley
320 Posted 09/04/2024 at 23:27:31
Geoff # 282 - given the response to our musical masterpieces - perhaps we are on the wrong thread😉

Jamie # 290 and Peter # 140 - I have become increasingly wary of governments. My view is that they no longer seek to serve the people but seek to control them.

The Premier League recommended that Everton be penalised 17 points – almost half of what is required to avoid relegation. Let the scale of that handicap sink in.

Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that the Premier League was told which club to go after and how hard to go after them?

Phil Lewis
321 Posted 09/04/2024 at 23:29:59

In fact, it was DBB's Professorship that was an honorary title. Her Doctorate was gained from an obscure study with absolutely no relevance to either football, business matters or commerce in general.

Her OBE was granted for services to the community. Ironic, to say the least.

Svein-Roger Jensen
322 Posted 09/04/2024 at 23:37:11
Looking at the English top flight:

1890-91: 2 points (Sunderland)
1990-91: 3 points (2 points Arsenal, 1 points Man Utd)
1996-97: 3 points (Middlesbrough)
2009-10: 9 points (Portsmouth)
2023-24: 12 points (8 points Everton, 4 points Forest)

Everton also the first team to be deducted points twice (ever, let alone in one season)

David Currie
323 Posted 09/04/2024 at 23:37:25
Regarding who is better man or woman, I will try and get my mate and Everton fan Joey to come on here and give us his views!!
Ian Pilkington
324 Posted 09/04/2024 at 23:40:19
Phil @316,

I always assumed that Denise Barrett-Baxendale got the job of CEO purely because she was the perfect lackey for Kenwright.

John Pendleton
325 Posted 09/04/2024 at 23:49:51
I don’t the thrust of this whole thread.

We’ve been complaining for ages that we don’t get penalties. Now we get two and we’re still not happy.

Stan Grace
326 Posted 09/04/2024 at 23:53:58
Everton that, John.
Phil Lewis
327 Posted 09/04/2024 at 23:54:14
Ian #324,

Well, I would think it's fairly safe to assume that she was certainly one of the many 'Yes' people, that Kenwright deliberately made a policy of surrounding himself within the club. If she was capable of anything, it was the guile to consolidate her position.

Kenwright championed her validity, with his nauseating 'Little Miss Dynamite' claims, fending off all queries to the wisdom of her appointment at every opportunity. When in actual fact it lacked substance at every level.

Neil Tyrrell
328 Posted 09/04/2024 at 00:05:00
Christine @310,

As you say, the Premier League motive was probably to do something – anything – to show that they didn't need an independent regulator. I'm not sure they could have made a better case for the prosecution if they tried.

Svein-Roger Jensen
329 Posted 10/04/2024 at 00:18:48
Ah, yes, point deductions galore till Man City are ready to be charged. Then luxury tax. Pathetic cheating corrupt league.

If Man City don't get the same treatment as Everton and Forest, I don't know what the future of football holds. Just rich clubs buying success will become the norm. Such a rotten league.

Mark Taylor
330 Posted 10/04/2024 at 01:31:03
John @325,

That is classic and a bit of humour in what is such a (rightly) serious thread is like the ray of sunshine we (or some of us) had today, after the dismal winter...

Christine Foster
331 Posted 10/04/2024 at 01:41:14
Over the past 20 years, I can honestly say there have been a handful of posters who probably did have the necessary skillset to run our club, with many others certainly qualified as a director, as opposed to a few more who probably thought they could — but that's a different story!

Looking at Denise Barrett-Baxendale's career prior to becoming our CEO, you would be puzzled to see how she could be considered for such a significant role. Her work experience or academic qualifications do not come up to the mark.

Having interviewed many such applicants for various roles, my guess would say she was more suited to a small to medium-sized enterprise such as she did in EitC. Stepping up to lead a club without the skills, knowledge or experience meant she was appointed more likely because of her relationship than accomplishments.

The appointment probably has more to say about Kenwright than her actual ability. She was a second lieutenant to a dictator general. Appointed to cover his back as eyes and ears.

With respect, the fact she is female in the role should make no difference as long as she is the best candidate to do the job. I have interviewed some brilliant candidates (and awful ones too) for senior executive roles, some male, female, trans, gay, coloured. All highly qualified and experienced but key to the perfect candidate is also fit. How well they fit into a team, personal attributes. The style and character of a person required to make it work.

It's hard to determine exactly why she was appointed, but I doubt it was because of her ability to excel in the role.

Christine Foster
332 Posted 10/04/2024 at 01:56:00
Brendan @313,

I think the 12 points was intended to shock. I doubt they cared if we were relegated or not, that was never the original intent.

In doing so, look what happened afterwards in the January transfer window, it almost collapsed, so it had the desired effect. Clubs suddenly saw what happened to Everton and the handbrake went on.

But in doing so, the Premier League set a precedent, more breaches needed similar punishment, but the scale of sanction did not need to be of the same level as the point was made. Forest get less, Everton get less, Leicester pending...

The Premier League executive are, in my opinion, on a death spiral, the inability to sanction the Sly Six, the deception over the TV monies (Big Project), the lack of sanctions for debt levels, transfer spends, the wealth gap they create and protect in the Top 6 clubs.

Even now, taking adverts out to condemn the appointment of a regulator when they should be asking why and addressing those concerns.

We are inconsequential to the Premier League, as are every club outside the Top 6. Just fodder.

Phil Lewis
333 Posted 10/04/2024 at 03:17:28
Christine #331,

An astute assessment. You have perfectly echoed my thoughts regarding our former CEO.

It's not my intention to patronise, but I'm grateful for your post, from a female perspective in agreeing that the wrong person was in the job, regardless of their gender.

Kenwright was the main culprit for making the appointment in the first place. But then as the old saying goes, "Talent recognises genius immediately, but mediocrity sees no further than itself".

Eddie Dunn
334 Posted 10/04/2024 at 10:25:38
It was common knowledge that Kenwright was ill for a long period and it is no coincidence that the Premier League decided to go for a points deduction at a time when we were up for sale and lacking our figurehead.

The unrest amongst the fan base was surely noted by Masters and Co and someone in the Premier League saw the perfect oppotunity to kick us while we were down.

Kenwright, for all of his flaws, probably had friends in high places but, once they saw him weakened, they went for us.

Didn't one of the announcements from the PL coincide with his death?

The subsequent panto regarding suitability of 777 Partners has conveniently rendered the good ship Everton without engines or anchors as we approach a storm.

The Premier League have been outrageously vindictive towards us and the only reason is surely because we issued a strong condemnation of the breakaway Super League.

Dave Abrahams
335 Posted 10/04/2024 at 10:36:39
Christine and Phil, (always putting Lady's name first).

There was a poster on here, he doesn't post anymore, who actually worked with Denise Barrett-Baxendale at Everton and he described how she performed at Everton as she climbed her way to a Directorship at the club, it wasn't very complimentary — more or less the way she has been depicted on here by you both.

This poster got a load of stick by various posters for his efforts although it has turned out that he was correct in his assumptions of the way she performed, in my opinion.

I hope you are doing well, Gerard, and still following the Blues, very best wishes.

Danny O’Neill
336 Posted 10/04/2024 at 11:05:17
Well, it's happened. We know where we stand. The club can go ahead and appeal.

All we can do is focus on the matches ahead. We have our fate in our own hands and a game in hand of those around us as well as playing most of them.

Ours for the taking to throw it in the face of those authoritarians trying to beat us down.

Fight Everton. The manager doesn't need me to tell him, but the team just needs to focus on the pitch. That's all they can control and all that matters right now for me.

Tony Abrahams
337 Posted 10/04/2024 at 11:57:09
United we will stand, Danny, but once we get safe then we should get together as a fan base and decide on a protest that will showcase our disgust at the EPL all over the world.

Gerard MC, was derided by many Dave, but so was Colin Fitzpatrick, for highlighting enough things that have already come out in the wash.

Divided by one of our own, because people argue about small little details, even though there was more than enough proof, about the ulterior motives of the self chosen very nepotistic few

Ian Wilkins
338 Posted 10/04/2024 at 12:05:35
As many have called out, our Executive Board was not fit for purpose. Merely puppets dancing to the tunes of the Kenwright - Moshiri band, and the battle of egos that relationship must have entailed.

As I've said previously, the Executive members did witness the playing out of the pantomime and had to be duly silenced via NDAs with handsome reward for doing so. A very sad state of affairs.

I don't think the Premier League's vindictiveness towards Everton is Government backed. The Select Committee did attempt, albeit weakly, to hold Masters and the Premier League to account on Everton's behalf; Government Regulation is on its way. The Government does not care for Premier League self-regulation.

As has been said by others, I think we are wrong place, wrong time (that is, we put ourselves in this place), with the Premier League needing a quick win target to defend its self-regulation status. We supplied the cross and the nails, the Premier League have taken the opportunity to hoist us up.

Their pettiness, and sheer vindictiveness is absolutely galling. Clearly our approach has riled them, and we are dealing with small-minded people with Masters as ringleader.

I agree with Christine earlier, it should not have come to this. A well-run Premier League would have dealt with Man City and Chelsea sooner, set a transparent PSR regulatory framework, and demonstrated the ability to self-govern.

The current situation is a collision of hopelessly run organisations — Everton FC and the Premier League.

Brian Wilkinson
339 Posted 10/04/2024 at 13:00:59
Let's take the elephant out of the room that is Man City, they are not holding their hands up, quite the opposite: a "You prove it" approach. With so many charges to face, we can put that to one side for the moment.

What I am not getting is Chelsea admitted and told the Premier League that they have gone over, clearly held their hands up, yet for whatever reason, the Premier have still not done anything about it; no fast tracking, nothing. While at the same time we have been dealt with on two occasions, in the same season.

If they know Chelsea through their own admission are guilty, why are we still waiting for them to face a charge?

Like I say, time will tell on Man City, but when Chelsea openly admit it, then surely the Premier League should be setting out charges and a hearing for them, and that is why more and more are calling the Premier League out for corruption.

Jamie Crowley
342 Posted 11/04/2024 at 13:24:57
Laurie Hartley @ 320 -

I realize this thread is dying slowly but had to respond.

I couldn't agree more with you, and think the same. I was always suspect (or 'wary' using your term) of governments, and being decidedly more "conservative" (what a stupid classification honestly), I've always been in favor of "small government".

Now? After the last 4-5 years? Dude I've gone from suspect to downright mistrust on just about every single level.

John Flood
343 Posted 11/04/2024 at 18:27:48
I read that the current PSR rules are now going to stay in place next season:

Profit and Sustainability Rules to remain next season ahead of vote change

This means that, provided the Premier League don't get their way and further increase our 22-23 figures by the stadium capitalisation costs signed off in the audited accounts, we need to make sure that our 23-24 PSR figure is below £38,386,782 or we will be hit by a 3rd consecutive charge.

The only thing that is really going to significantly reduce the figure is player sales at big profits. That means, as much as we may not like it, Jarred Branthwaite will need to be sold to the highest bidder before 30 June as he is the one player we have who will generate a huge profit on his purchase price, even allowing for Carlisle United's percentage of the sell on fee.

This is of course if we are still in the Premier League!

Rob Halligan
344 Posted 11/04/2024 at 19:22:30
Sheffield United will begin next season in the Championship on –2 points after defaulting on payments to other clubs in the season 22-23, with a further 2 points suspended until the end of the season.

Not sure what payments have been missed, probably transfer fees perhaps?

Peter Mills
345 Posted 13/04/2024 at 19:05:36
Jamie, way back @290. All well here, thank you, after a difficult 6 months. Best wishes to you and your family.

Cutting through everything, I simply believe that Everton are being treated harshly by its member organisation pushing for us to be deducted 17 points over the course of this season.

Terry Farrell
346 Posted 14/04/2024 at 07:47:19
Wrexham FC have just been promoted twice on the bounce and they were skint 4 years ago – it's all down to two Hollywood stars.

The Premier League would kill this wonderful story and ambition stone dead. The premise the rules are based on are either wrong or rotten.

Man City and Chelsea had to spend big to get up there. Forest had to spend big to try to stay up. Liverpool spend big but like to crack on they are paupers. Man Ud are £1B in debt.

We are building a £760M stadium and they are taking points away. It's utter madness and disgusting. I want all points back and if I bumped into Masters, he would need his quickest training shoes on!

David K Shaw
348 Posted 14/04/2024 at 08:10:59
To be fair Terry, the Hollywood stars have increased Wrexham's turnover 10 fold….

That's a fairytale we could wish for. So they are comfortably within the EFL PSR equivalent and their commercial revenue outside of TV rights is higher than some Premier League clubs.

Terry Farrell
349 Posted 14/04/2024 at 09:14:44

That is a good point but you don't get the turnover without the big spend. Let's use Jack Walker at Blackburn Rovers then instead as an example they would kill stone dead.

Chris Jenkins
350 Posted 14/04/2024 at 19:13:09
Phil Lewis #251, 280, 316, 321.

I must congratulate you on your comments re Denise Barrett-Baxendale and her time as an employee and later director of Everton. Equally your views on her compensation for loss of office and her reticence to support the club's preparation of its defence to the charges brought by the Premier League are very commendable.

Arguably, it will likely be patently clear to the vast majority of Everton supporters that she was hopelessly out of her depth in all the positions she held at the club and that, inter alia, she was making hay whilst the sun shone. As for the reasons she was given such crucial powers and handsome remuneration, we can only surmise.

Equally creditable is your response to # 256 Mike Gaynes's typically bombastic criticism of your comments. I have become increasingly of the view, over several years, that he regards himself as the fount of all knowledge on all things Everton, eg, playing staff, recruitment, tactics, football management, coaching, finance, legal matters - the list could go on.

Arguably the reality may be that he has no more than a thin veneer of knowledge on each of these aspects relating to the club but nonetheless enjoys pontificating on such matters. I was not aware of him ingratiating himself into a meeting with Barrett-Baxendale but, if that happened, it certainly would not surprise me.

Larry O'Hara #306 I believe you are absolutely correct regarding the woeful decline in academic standards. PhDs appear to be increasingly handed out like confetti, particularly at non-Russell Group universities, not for research of high quality and usefulness to society but simply as a fund-raising mechanism – eg Barrett-Baxendale's thesis on "21st Century Head Teacher: Guardian of Pedagogy or Visionary Leader?" being a case in point.

Mark Taylor #299, I am in total agreement with your comment that it is difficult to commend someone who uses an honorary title from a "so-so" university.

Brendan McLaughlin
370 Posted 14/04/2024 at 22:11:49
Chris #350,

Can't say many posters would agree with your characterisation of Mike G. He posts his opinion on all things Everton. I thought that's what ToffeeWeb was about?

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