Rubbing our noses in it!

[Terrier]

No doubt everton will get clean away with bending the rules regarding ffp but for them to be strongly linked to tarks and cornet on places such as sky and the bbc with both saying their wages will increase smacks a bit of smartarses that can do what they want!

[mybloodisclaret]

Of course they will, and they will get away with it. Should be hit with a transfer embargo already with some of the numbers they have posted!!

[Claretitus]

And their rivals for the signature of Tarky, - Villa, have just announced the signing of a Brazilian centre back,Diego Carlos from Sevilla.

[KRBFC]

Hopefully we receive some sort of settlement from Everton.

[bf2k]

Hopefully we receive some sort of settlement from Everton.

£65m will do

[KRBFC]

£65m will do

They've clearly broke the rules, I seem to recall West Ham paid Sheff United a £20m settlement when Sheff United were relegated, something around the signings of Mascherano and Tevez. Were they in direct competition in a relegation scrap and those 2 signings got West Ham over the line? Can't remember the exact story but it was something along those lines.

[ClaretTony]

According to the Premier League they have operated within the rules

[Neil]

Nothing major will happen to Everton. Maybe a fine or points reduction for next season but no way will they get relegated. Never minded them as a club until the last few months. Was reading their forum on Sunday morning and they had a poll running on who you'd prefer to be relegated between us and Leeds. Was shocked that the majority wanted us to go down. Can't bear to look at Richarlison or Pickford now. Really hope they suffer next season.

[claretburns]

They've clearly broke the rules, I seem to recall West Ham paid Sheff United a £20m settlement when Sheff United were relegated, something around the signings of Mascherano and Tevez. Were they in direct competition in a relegation scrap and those 2 signings got West Ham over the line? Can't remember the exact story but it was something along those lines.

I stand to be corrected but from memory when West Ham signed Tevez and Mascherano it was later revealed they were owned by a third party agent, against the rules in the Premier League but at the time normal in South America. A club when buying the player should sign the player from the club and agent but West Ham only bought from the club meaning the signings were made illegally. On the last day of the season Sheff Utd drew at home to Wigan in a winner survives, loser goes down situation but the draw saved Wigan.

In the other game West Ham were winning at Man Utd to survive with Tevez scoring, perhaps the winner, to save them. Sheff Utd sued the Premier League and I believe got £30 million compensation. Paddy Kenny states in his book that he thinks the reason for his drugs ban a few years later was because the footballing powers wanted to get one back at Sheff Utd.

[yTib]

life isn't fair.

far too much whinging about everton and i doubt there'd be any if we'd showed up against newcastle.

[ClaretPete001]

I stand to be corrected but from memory when West Ham signed Tevez and Mascherano it was later revealed they were owned by a third party agent, against the rules in the Premier League but at the time normal in South America. A club when buying the player should sign the player from the club and agent but West Ham only bought from the club meaning the signings were made illegally. On the last day of the season Sheff Utd drew at home to Wigan in a winner survives, loser goes down situation but the draw saved Wigan.

In the other game West Ham were winning at Man Utd to survive with Tevez scoring, perhaps the winner, to save them. Sheff Utd sued the Premier League and I believe got £30 million compensation. Paddy Kenny states in his book that he thinks the reason for his drugs ban a few years later was because the footballing powers wanted to get one back at Sheff Utd.

This is a good point, however, the PL made allowances for Covid etc. and as far as I understand it the PL are suggesting they acted within the rules.

General punditry suggests it has no legs unless the PL is prepared to release all the documents as to how they came to the decision. And given Leeds will not get any compensation either way because they have suffered no loss I'm unsure as to how far this will travel.

[Spijed]

Are Everton trying to one day hope they can compete with Liverpool, spending half a billion on players?

[Roosterbooster]

According to the Premier League they have operated within the rules

It is suspicious though...

●£372m losses over 3 years
●£170m wiped due to Covid (although this number is inconsistent with other clubs)
●£172m therefore over 3 years, £67m over the permitted £105m

They say this £67m can all be attributed to "miscellaneous" projects such as the stadium (not been built), academy, womens' team and community projects - which are also allowed to be wiped off

Of note, the losses over the 3 years vary by less than £30m, so to suddenly suggest that your average losses without Covid would drop from between £111m and £140m per year, to less than £35m per year is hard to believe

At first glance it seems so far-fetched that I can't help but suspect that there are numerous grey areas here, and the PL has helped Everton push them all to within what it sees as legitimate. An independent body would possibly see the outcome to be very different, hence it seems very sensible to ask for a review.

I'm all for pushing it

[Leisure]

According to the Premier League they have operated within the rules

Of course they have!

[bfcjg]

The rules are very very very flexible for certain clubs.

[Terrier]

If reports are correct they are to nearly triple tarks wages( 120 grand a week) i know they are getting him for free but nowhere in the reports does it mention evertons over spending!

[Devils_Advocate]

Don't hate the player, hate the game

[RMutt]

life isn't fair.

far too much whinging about everton and i doubt there'd be any if we'd showed up against newcastle.

Indeed, which is why we have rules in every walk of life to try to make it fairer.
If there rule breaking gives them an unfair advantage and clubs like ours stick to the rules then why shouldn’t we make a fuss.

[RMutt]

Yes, I know, *their.

[Raconteur]

The contentious issue is that they were somehow allowed to put £80m of losses down to not being able to sell players due to covid.

When in reality, the reason they couldn't offload those players was in fact due to the astronomical wages the players were on.

[NewClaret]

I'm all for pushing it

Me too. On face value they have a case to answer.

I think if any independent assessment is made of their accounts, Everton will be in a sticky situation and since they’ve implicated the PL, there’s a possible claim against them too.

I’m pretty confident we could prove their accounts are a breach of the PL laws. What I’m less sure about is how we prove that would have led to a) a points deduction that would’ve sent them down - because there’s no precedent and the PL could just have said they’d issue a warning for a first offence - or b) they would’ve been relegated in our place had they stuck to the rules.

I’m assuming you have to do one or the other to prove losses.

Could get messy and I imagine will end in a settlement.

[timshorts]

Yes, I know, *their.

I missed that. Too busy gagging at the split infinitive competition between terrier and Spijed. I think Spijed won with a double entry.

[Terrier]

Tim, i went to hargher clough school give me a break, split what?

[CombatClaret]

Nothing will happen as they can effectively write up anything they like as 'Covid Losses' to ensure the books are balanced.
One-off events by definition have no precedent so it's very hard to disprove or call their bluff despite it just being creative accounting.

Everton's own "Work Event".

[Spijed]

Even if Everton were adversely affected by Covid it's their problem and theirs alone.

No one should have any sympathy for any club who has used covid as an excuse as it affected everyone in equal measure.

[Carport]

Yes, I know, *their.

You were right first time with ‘there’d’ as in short for ‘there would’ unless I misunderstood your meaning?

[aggi]

This is a good point, however, the PL made allowances for Covid etc. and as far as I understand it the PL are suggesting they acted within the rules.

General punditry suggests it has no legs unless the PL is prepared to release all the documents as to how they came to the decision. And given Leeds will not get any compensation either way because they have suffered no loss I'm unsure as to how far this will travel.

If it did come to court this kind of stuff would be provided as part of the disclosure process (as well as detail of Everton's position). A lot of hoops and cost to go through before we'd be in that position though.