• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Everton

K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
It's impossible to come up with a punishment which will appear to be fair to all, be a lot simpler if there was a tariff for breaking rules. One thing is for sure financial penalties do not work for many of the offenders.
Click to expand...

I don't know if true or not but allegedly it's 6 points for a breach. Then extra points for how much you are over. 1 point for every £5m. Although everton were £19m over. So unless it is £0-£5m = 1 point. It doesn't stack up.

City and Chelsea will be diffferent. As they are more purposely trying to defraud the prem by fiddling their accounts. It's sort of mentioned in the commissions decision.

“At one level, disregard of the potential PSR [profit and sustainability rules] difficulties can be said to increase Everton’s culpability. But the commission considers that there is a danger of double counting. We have already made clear that our approach is to start by considering the extent by which the PSR threshold has been exceeded: the greater the excess, the greater the culpability. We do not consider that the reasons for the PSR breach should aggravate that culpability unless they can be said to constitute exceptional conduct. For example, a deliberate cynical breach of the PSR to achieve a sporting advantage might increase culpability beyond that already arrived at by the extent of the breach.”
 
Lilbaz said:
“At one level, disregard of the potential PSR [profit and sustainability rules] difficulties can be said to increase Everton’s culpability. But the commission considers that there is a danger of double counting. We have already made clear that our approach is to start by considering the extent by which the PSR threshold has been exceeded: the greater the excess, the greater the culpability. We do not consider that the reasons for the PSR breach should aggravate that culpability unless they can be said to constitute exceptional conduct. For example, a deliberate cynical breach of the PSR to achieve a sporting advantage might increase culpability beyond that already arrived at by the extent of the breach.”
Click to expand...
That definitely sounds like shots fired. Makes me more confident something will happen with City and Chelsea, otherwise why say that in a case where it didn't happen?
 
Lemonade Money said:
That definitely sounds like shots fired. Makes me more confident something will happen with City and Chelsea, otherwise why say that in a case where it didn't happen?
Click to expand...

Thought the same thing. In the case of city they obviously have to be found guilty first. Chelsea have admitted it though.
 
I like that they are essentially saying we'll judge if you were taking the pizz. Whatever backdoor ways you find to circumvent the spirit of the rules, we can close down. But but, what it does is leave them open to legal challange. If it is a judgement call then it might allow city to take the league to court saying for example that their sponsorship is legit, and how does it differ from say Man Uniteds? Or how does it differ from our investment into revenue generating activities?

It just become extremely murky and hard to prove. Yet it is essential the league is bold and strong, even though city can tie the league up in costly legal challanges. Hopefully their spend on lawyers is included in the sustainability rules :)
 
SpurMeUp said:
I like that they are essentially saying we'll judge if you were taking the pizz. Whatever backdoor ways you find to circumvent the spirit of the rules, we can close down. But but, what it does is leave them open to legal challange. If it is a judgement call then it might allow city to take the league to court saying for example that their sponsorship is legit, and how does it differ from say Man Uniteds? Or how does it differ from our investment into revenue generating activities?

It just become extremely murky and hard to prove. Yet it is essential the league is bold and strong, even though city can tie the league up in costly legal challanges. Hopefully their spend on lawyers is included in the sustainability rules :)
Click to expand...

City is more about doctoring their accounts and lying about where money was coming from. Aswell as paying players and managers off the books. The emails are a part of the evidence. They were not allowed in cas because city claimed they were illegally obtained. The prem it doesn't matter how they were obtained. So city are now claiming they are fake. How can they be fake though if they were illegally obtained?

Also the decison by the independent panel is final (after any appeal). They cannot take the matter to cas or to court (as far as i'm aware).
 
Lilbaz said:
City is more about doctoring their accounts and lying about where money was coming from. Aswell as paying players and managers off the books. The emails are a part of the evidence. They were not allowed in cas because city claimed they were illegally obtained. The prem it doesn't matter how they were obtained. So city are now claiming they are fake. How can they be fake though if they were illegally obtained?

Also the decison by the independent panel is final (after any appeal). They cannot take the matter to cas or to court (as far as i'm aware).
Click to expand...

And how much of the subsidy is being delivered by third companies? So Saudi has a business associate, discretely they say sponsor City and we'll add 5m a year extra to our totally seperate bsuiness deal. How do you stop that? Neigh on impossible to prove, and you point to United saying our commerical revenue is less than them etc etc. Game of cat and mouse.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
And how much of the subsidy is being delivered by third companies? So Saudi or whoever has a bsiness associate they sponsor or have a business relationship with. Discretely they say sponsor City and we'll add 5m a year extra to our totally seperate bsuiness deal. How do you stop that? Neigh on impossible to prove and you point to United saying our commerical revenue is less than them etc etc. Game of cat and mouse.
Click to expand...

It's why they've got away with it so long. The e-mails being leaked is why it was being investigated. The investigation found there was enough evidence to charge them of 115 breaches of premier league rules. Now it will go to the tribunal.
 
Lilbaz said:
City is more about doctoring their accounts and lying about where money was coming from. Aswell as paying players and managers off the books. The emails are a part of the evidence. They were not allowed in cas because city claimed they were illegally obtained. The prem it doesn't matter how they were obtained. So city are now claiming they are fake. How can they be fake though if they were illegally obtained?

Also the decison by the independent panel is final (after any appeal). They cannot take the matter to cas or to court (as far as i'm aware).
Click to expand...
I remember reading this when the 115 charges were first announced, no CAS so if the PL punish them, they can appeal to the PL but cannot take it up with CAS, which I think is how they got out of the previous UEFA charges?
 
superspurs said:
I remember reading this when the 115 charges were first announced, no CAS so if the PL punish them, they can appeal to the PL but cannot take it up with CAS, which I think is how they got out of the previous UEFA charges?
Click to expand...

That is what was reported in the media. If city did get thrown out of the league they may try and sue though. We'll see. Long way to go yet.
 
Yes.

There should be a standard system in place I feel. Of course there will be mitigating factors but it had to be clinical..

10m over ( 5 points )
20m ( 10 points )
Fines for lying etc and hindering investigation..
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
It's impossible to come up with a punishment which will appear to be fair to all, be a lot simpler if there was a tariff for breaking rules. One thing is for sure financial penalties do not work for many of the offenders.
Click to expand...

One simple tariff - Break the rules, you get disbanded as a club, losing all claim on historic titles or heritage, reform at Tier 15 of the pyramid and go again.
 
Sandman said:
Yes.

There should be a standard system in place I feel. Of course there will be mitigating factors but it had to be clinical..

10m over ( 5 points )
20m ( 10 points )
Fines for lying etc and hindering investigation..
Click to expand...

As i said it's 6 points for a breach then 1 point for each £5m over (was a mention the maximum for this seems to be 12, but not sure).

You also seem to get extra points for lying and hindering. But also purposefully trying to gain a sporting advantage.

They also seem to have the option of kicking teams out of the league or relegating them (2 different things, the efl don't have to accept a team that has been kicked out).

Think this sets the precedent that if you had a sporting gain it has to be a sporting sanction (basically points rather than fine).

Everton are apealing but not the decision. Just how much they have been deducted. They think they were £10m over. Which would be an 8 point deduction.
 
Everton fudged us because they moved money between companies and then tried to capitalise their initial costs for planning etc…
you can’t do that under any IFRS (international financial reporting standards)
its a sunk cost and written off in the year it’s spent
their owner is apparently and accountant but clearly a brick one

and citys issue is there is so much evidence of them hiding their deals and payments
they even have sponsors that don’t actually have an operable business or income…
 
Are everton now clear? Or do they still have to cut costs in order to not breach for this season? Or last?

I'm guessing they are. But their wage bill was very high. 96% of turnover in the 21/22 season.
 
Lilbaz said:
Seems a liverpool mp has taken it to parliament. Complaining the punidhment is unfair and should be held off till the independent regulator comes in. What a taco.
www.bbc.co.uk

Everton points deduction taken to Parliament by MP Ian Byrne with early day motion

Everton's 10-point deduction by the Premier League will be taken to Parliament after Liverpool MP Ian Byrne calls the punishment "grossly unfair".
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Just came here to post the same.

At least any doubt that "the rules don't apply to us" outlook is now confirmed as being city wide, not just those wearing red.
I now really hope they go down.
Can the PL increase an appeal if it's baseless? That used to be a rule. I hope so.
 
monkeybarry said:
Just came here to post the same.

At least any doubt that "the rules don't apply to us" outlook is now confirmed as being city wide, not just those wearing red.
I now really hope they go down.
Can the PL increase an appeal if it's baseless? That used to be a rule. I hope so.
Click to expand...

Liverpool fans must be livid. Why didn't he bring up the var disallowed goal? Surely there should have been a public enquiry.
 
Lilbaz said:
Are everton now clear? Or do they still have to cut costs in order to not breach for this season? Or last?

I'm guessing they are. But their wage bill was very high. 96% of turnover in the 21/22 season.
Click to expand...

They are saying that cat afford to pay us for Dele if he plays enough to trigger a payment. Wanting us to lower/drop the fee in Dele's best interest so he can play again.

So I'm guessing they are still close for a few more seasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back