Everton docked 10 points

[Wile E Coyote]

It'll make a hero out of Dyche this situation.
Berated by their numbskull fans since day one, he has recently got them playing. They're too good to go down, and with the deduction it will be seen as a triumph if they make mid table, win win.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Everton’s upcoming games are (in no order) United, City, Chelsea, Newcastle, Spurs, Forest……and……us at the Turf under the lights.

In that time we have West Ham, Sheffield, Wolves, Brighton, Fulham, Liverpool and of course Everton.

After those games we could be 10 points behind again, but we could also be 10 points ahead. Then we enter the window.

So it is all to play for. And anyone throwing in the towel now I worry about.

[RVclaret]

Everton need to keep Calvert-Lewin fit. They are far worse off without him. Just like we are without Lyle.

[Ampth7]

Everton’s upcoming games are (in no order) United, City, Chelsea, Newcastle, Spurs, Forest……and……us at the Turf under the lights.

In that time we have West Ham, Sheffield, Wolves, Brighton, Fulham, Liverpool and of course Everton.

After those games we could be 10 points behind again, but we could also be 10 points ahead. Then we enter the window.

So it is all to play for. And anyone throwing in the towel now I worry about.

Well, let’s hope for the best I guess? However, would it be fair to say that it’s going to take a huge shift in how we are performing to make 10 points clear a reality based on our results so far?

[scamander]

Everton’s upcoming games are (in no order) United, City, Chelsea, Newcastle, Spurs, Forest……and……us at the Turf under the lights.

In that time we have West Ham, Sheffield, Wolves, Brighton, Fulham, Liverpool and of course Everton.

After those games we could be 10 points behind again, but we could also be 10 points ahead. Then we enter the window.

So it is all to play for. And anyone throwing in the towel now I worry about.

Some interesting games for Everton there, City and Chelsea look the tough ones largely because both Newcastle and Spurs have squads affected by injuries. I can see them pivking up points in the others though.

[boyyanno]

So any club in any division who sits above the relegation zone aren’t relegation rivals to those below them? Was it the same the season when we had Hart in the nets and were cut adrift in December? Or the Waddle season in the 90’s!?

As someone has posted above you are talking about form.

No, but any team that trebles or doubles another's points return is certainly not.

[Westleigh]

Looking at some of the Everton posts on social media their so bloody angry that it could spur them on to have their best season for years.

[NewClaret]

Looking at some of the Everton posts on social media their so bloody angry that it could spur them on to have their best season for years.

Their fans are?

Conversely the pressure/frustration may boil over if they now go on a bad run after a set of tough games.

[Swizzlestick]

Looking at some of the Everton posts on social media their so bloody angry that it could spur them on to have their best season for years.

Heard it all before. Couple of losses and they’ll be back to doing what they do best, booing their team off the field.

[dandeclaret]

Semi justice it should have been 20 points
We now need to kick on in our games 6 points in next. 2 games a minimum requirement

What’s the maximum requirement?

[TheFamilyCat]

What’s the maximum requirement?

12 points.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I’m surprised they weren’t also given a transfer ban

[NewClaret]

I’m surprised they weren’t also given a transfer ban

That’s a good point but probably because they noted that they have trended further towards compliance since, and arguably not in our favour anyway (they may have to sell to fund any compensation but being under a transfer ban might make that harder for them/more difficult to secure the best prices).

[ClaretPete001]

That’s a good point but probably because they noted that they have trended further towards compliance since, and arguably not in our favour anyway (they may have to sell to fund any compensation but being under a transfer ban might make that harder for them/more difficult to secure the best prices).

Everton have the third lowest spend on playing assets over the past 5 years in the PL. The issue is an accounting one related to the writing off of debts incurred largely as a consequence of the stadium and Covid. The amount involved is quite modest and a ten point ban is purely a political one because of the looming threat of external oversight. In essence, Everton's accountants have over egged losses as a consequence of player valuations and those incurred building the stadium.

Arguments presented are along the lines of:

During the Club's financial years 2017-2020 (inclusive), prior to the financial year when planning permission for the Stadium was obtained, the Club incurred costs of approximately £39,346,000 in respect of the Stadium (the “Stadium Costs”). Given that the Stadium Costs were incurred in the financial years prior to planning permission being granted, under applicable accounting regulations, these costs cannot be capitalised and must therefore be included in the Club’s PSR Calculation.

Unlike Chelsea or City, Everton have not really gained any advantage in terms of playing assets from what is a technical breach. However, although the cause of the breach was related to Covid and the stadium the PL imposed obligations upon Everton, which were not a transfer ban but given what has happened as good as one, which arguably Everton ignored.

The 13 August 2021 agreement imposed certain obligations on Everton, one of which was to obtain the Premier League’s approval of purchases of new players. The Premier League approved each such request but when doing so
cautioned Everton that it (the Premier League) was not managing Everton’s finances, and that it was for Everton to ensure that it complied with the PSR. The Premier League asserts that for Everton to have persisted in player
purchases in the face of such plain warnings was recklessness that constitutes an aggravating factor.

It seems to me that Everton's issues could not be argued to have arisen largely because of an investment in playing assets to buy the league but largely as means to survive in the league because of non-footballing related matters.

I think what will determine the fairness of it is what happens to City and Chelsea. I still think the penalty will be reduced by an appeal because it seems harsh given what others are alleged to have done.

[NewClaret]

Everton have the third lowest spend on playing assets over the past 5 years in the PL. The issue is an accounting one related to the writing off of debts incurred largely as a consequence of the stadium and Covid. The amount involved is quite modest and a ten point ban is purely a political one because of the looming threat of external oversight. In essence, Everton's accountants have over egged losses as a consequence of player valuations and those incurred building the stadium.

Arguments presented are along the lines of:

During the Club's financial years 2017-2020 (inclusive), prior to the financial year when planning permission for the Stadium was obtained, the Club incurred costs of approximately £39,346,000 in respect of the Stadium (the “Stadium Costs”). Given that the Stadium Costs were incurred in the financial years prior to planning permission being granted, under applicable accounting regulations, these costs cannot be capitalised and must therefore be included in the Club’s PSR Calculation.

Unlike Chelsea or City, Everton have not really gained any advantage in terms of playing assets from what is a technical breach. However, although the cause of the breach was related to Covid and the stadium the PL imposed obligations upon Everton, which were not a transfer ban but given what has happened as good as one, which arguably Everton ignored.

The 13 August 2021 agreement imposed certain obligations on Everton, one of which was to obtain the Premier League’s approval of purchases of new players. The Premier League approved each such request but when doing so
cautioned Everton that it (the Premier League) was not managing Everton’s finances, and that it was for Everton to ensure that it complied with the PSR. The Premier League asserts that for Everton to have persisted in player
purchases in the face of such plain warnings was recklessness that constitutes an aggravating factor.

It seems to me that Everton's issues could not be argued to have arisen largely because of an investment in playing assets to buy the league but largely as means to survive in the league because of non-footballing related matters.

I think what will determine the fairness of it is what happens to City and Chelsea. I still think the penalty will be reduced by an appeal because it seems harsh given what others are alleged to have done.

That’s helpful (I haven’t read the ruling yet). One thing that surprises me though is the numbers we’re discussing now appear totally different to those originally discussed (i.e. £370m combined losses vs £105m allowed). That, I assume, is because some of the losses have been considered legitimate - which I’m a bit sceptical about if that’s the case, but that’s a different topic.

What you have said basically confirms that they continued to sign players they knew would leave them in breach of PSR . I think your point is that the underlying issue was caused by stadium costs, not transfer fees, but having encountered that issue they should’ve stopped signing players.

Then they would not have been in breach and we wouldn’t be suing. Whether they’d have stayed up and us gone down minus those signings I suppose is the crux of the arguments that will be formed.

I agree that this sets a precedent and for fairness and City/Chelsea will now expect very significant punishment for their financial doping which appears to me to way outstrip Everton. I also think it opens up a whole raft of potential legal actions against them since every team will argue they should’ve received £2m (the placement money for finishing one place higher).

I don’t agree on the likelihood of a reduction on appeal though, although need to know more about the process and remit of an appeal panel. Typically, in legal situations, an appeal is only allowed on grounds that an error in law has been made (the judge has wrongly applied the law) or demonstrated gross unfairness in the hearing of the case/application of the punishment; the written reasons are therefore really key in determining whether either have taken place and the judge therefore explains how they arrived at their decision very clearly. Appeals don’t usually hear the facts of a case again. But that’s in legal situations and this process is a commission so not sure what the appeal process/remit looks like.

[FCBurnley]

Just loan Tarks and Dwight back to us for 2 years starting in Jan window. Everton of course to pay their wages !!!

[Carlos the Great]

Looks like Everton could have a further 9 point deduction .: reported on talk sport

[dougcollins]

Looks like Everton could have a further 9 point deduction .: reported on talk sport

I assume that relies on a successful claim from us/Leicester/Leeds which causes Everton to go into administration?

[NewClaret]

I assume that relies on a successful claim from us/Leicester/Leeds which causes Everton to go into administration?

Yes.

As I understand, 777 are paying Everton £20m per month to keep afloat while the takeover goes through. If we sue and are successful they may pull out and then it’s admin.

Or they may not get the go ahead in which case it’s admin anyway.

The very fact 777 are paying them £20m a month to keep afloat suggests there’s some real problems there.

[DAVETHEVICAR]

I think ( but May be wrong) that the £20 m a month is to pay the interest on the Loans taken out to buy the new stadium .
Leicester May have a case to claim on a civil case for being prevented from being promoted but believe Burnley case is less likely as at that stage Everton we’re not being perused as they had not put in accounts at that time - in other words late with accounts as we seem to be every year

[NewClaret]

I think ( but May be wrong) that the £20 m a month is to pay the interest on the Loans taken out to buy the new stadium .
Leicester May have a case to claim on a civil case for being prevented from being promoted but believe Burnley case is less likely as at that stage Everton we’re not being perused as they had not put in accounts at that time - in other words late with accounts as we seem to be every year

Interesting. CP, can you help here? Is this £20m even correct and any idea what it’s for? If they’re saddled with £20m interest payments each month then god help them.

As I understand though Dave, the offences ruled on by the committee were in the year we went down. I think we therefore have the strongest claim. As far as I can see:

We have a claim because we were relegated in the season the offences were committed. We could claim lost Prem placement money, Prem money less parachute and lost commercial revenue + we’ll probably argue a whole series of other costs associated with relegation/restructuring the club.

Leeds have the claim of £2m placement money in the same year, had the punishment been applied then.

Leicester will argue the same as us on the basis the sanction for the offence in the year we were relegated should have been applied in the year we were relegated.

Forest and Southampton I have no idea what their game is. Especially Forest.

As I can see it, it’s us that has the strongest case. Anyone got any different views?

[bfcjg]

money-weighing-justice-scale-business-man-hand-payment-balance-tax-holding-management-time-value-saving-concept-230736798.jpg (38.17 KiB) Viewed 4067 times

This season Everton could go down if they get more points deducted due to administration, if they fast track Vhelsea and City's cheating they could also get relegated, we stay up, win win. The scales of justice must be balanced

[NewClaret]

money-weighing-justice-scale-business-man-hand-payment-balance-tax-holding-management-time-value-saving-concept-230736798.jpgThis season Everton could go down if they get more points deducted due to administration, if they fast track Vhelsea and City's cheating they could also get relegated, we stay up, win win. The scales of justice must be balanced

Yes, imagine if the PL decide to get all this **** shovelled in one season & Everton, City & Chelsea go down. This saving the three ****est teams in PL history from relegation.

Sadly it won’t happen.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Looks like Everton could have a further 9 point deduction .: reported on talk sport

Still win the league by 30 points. This will really galvanise them.

[NewClaret]

Still win the league by 30 points. This will really galvanise them.

[bfcjg]

Yes, imagine if the PL decide to get all this **** shovelled in one season & Everton, City & Chelsea go down. This saving the three ****est teams in PL history from relegation.

Sadly it won’t happen.

If Carlsberg did football justice......

[Spijed]

List of other punishments:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67455906

[Nonayforever]

Yes, imagine if the PL decide to get all this **** shovelled in one season & Everton, City & Chelsea go down. This saving the three ****est teams in PL history from relegation.

Sadly it won’t happen.

Just imagine Luton staying up in place of City Chelsea & Everton.
If Carlsberg were in charge of the PL .

[Chester Perry]

Interesting. CP, can you help here? Is this £20m even correct and any idea what it’s for? If they’re saddled with £20m interest payments each month then god help them.

As I understand though Dave, the offences ruled on by the committee were in the year we went down. I think we therefore have the strongest claim. As far as I can see:

We have a claim because we were relegated in the season the offences were committed. We could claim lost Prem placement money, Prem money less parachute and lost commercial revenue + we’ll probably argue a whole series of other costs associated with relegation/restructuring the club.

Leeds have the claim of £2m placement money in the same year, had the punishment been applied then.

Leicester will argue the same as us on the basis the sanction for the offence in the year we were relegated should have been applied in the year we were relegated.

Forest and Southampton I have no idea what their game is. Especially Forest.

As I can see it, it’s us that has the strongest case. Anyone got any different views?

Re the £20m a month - I believe the sum is correct - it now totals £60m and the intention is that once they takeover gets the all clear then the sum will be taken as equity in the club

What is the money being used for? a report in the Telegraph las month suggested it was wages - but Everton have never run £240m+ a year wage bills, and as we know, they have been actively cutting their wage bill in the last few season

My understanding is that this money is largely being used to cover the monthly costs of the stadium build, In late summer the club borrowed £100m for the stadium build from MSP Partners following a failed takeover bid (blocked by Everton's senior lender, Rights and Media), that sum however was just to allow Everton to meet its stadium funding liabilities to that juncture (though MSP are now the senior lender to the stadium company, to keep the build going these monthly payments must be met, It is why some observers believe that if the 777 Partners bid fails then Everton will either go into administration or have to sell the stadium to someone who will complete it with a significant leaseback agreement, 777 Partners would be a junior lender, somewhat surprisingly they would be one without any declared security from the club - it is possible that Moshri has given them some personal security

[ClaretPete001]

That’s helpful (I haven’t read the ruling yet). One thing that surprises me though is the numbers we’re discussing now appear totally different to those originally discussed (i.e. £370m combined losses vs £105m allowed). That, I assume, is because some of the losses have been considered legitimate - which I’m a bit sceptical about if that’s the case, but that’s a different topic.

What you have said basically confirms that they continued to sign players they knew would leave them in breach of PSR . I think your point is that the underlying issue was caused by stadium costs, not transfer fees, but having encountered that issue they should’ve stopped signing players.

Then they would not have been in breach and we wouldn’t be suing. Whether they’d have stayed up and us gone down minus those signings I suppose is the crux of the arguments that will be formed.

I agree that this sets a precedent and for fairness and City/Chelsea will now expect very significant punishment for their financial doping which appears to me to way outstrip Everton. I also think it opens up a whole raft of potential legal actions against them since every team will argue they should’ve received £2m (the placement money for finishing one place higher).

I don’t agree on the likelihood of a reduction on appeal though, although need to know more about the process and remit of an appeal panel. Typically, in legal situations, an appeal is only allowed on grounds that an error in law has been made (the judge has wrongly applied the law) or demonstrated gross unfairness in the hearing of the case/application of the punishment; the written reasons are therefore really key in determining whether either have taken place and the judge therefore explains how they arrived at their decision very clearly. Appeals don’t usually hear the facts of a case again. But that’s in legal situations and this process is a commission so not sure what the appeal process/remit looks like.

All fair points, but would add some caveats. It's easy in hindsight to say Everton ignored the ruling and remember this is a document justifying the punishment but given the amounts involved it could be argued that Everton made a technical error and the sum involved was not that huge: around £20 million.

The PLs ruling was an advisory one and Everton would argue they acted in good faith but made errors.

It's very harsh to make a judgement in hindsight to what was likely an unprecedented set of circumstances.

To leave football clubs open to being sued because of technical accounting errors is a huge mistake on behalf of the PL. And I think, it is ill advised for the committee to make comments such as they have..

And without wishing to sound like an old fart this rash rush to judge others is a feature of modern Britain we could all live without.

I don't know how football benefits from any of this....!

[NewClaret]

All fair points, but would add some caveats. It's easy in hindsight to say Everton ignored the ruling and remember this is a document justifying the punishment but given the amounts involved it could be argued that Everton made a technical error and the sum involved was not that huge: around £20 million.

The PLs ruling was an advisory one and Everton would argue they acted in good faith but made errors.

It's very harsh to make a judgement in hindsight to what was likely an unprecedented set of circumstances.

To leave football clubs open to being sued because of technical accounting errors is a huge mistake on behalf of the PL. And I think, it is ill advised for the committee to make comments such as they have..

And without wishing to sound like an old fart this rash rush to judge others is a feature of modern Britain we could all live without.

I don't know how football benefits from any of this....!

So, the PL’s a regiment here, and therefore presumably ours, is that all clubs are given very “generous” limits on losses (£105m) and therefore clubs should manage their affairs within them. They also permitted very large allowances to deal with Covid, which I assume are the unprecedented circumstances you refer to.

They state the reasons for the breach were overspending on players and generally hoping for the best which is not acceptable.

I suppose it’s a bit like offside. You’re either in breach or not. On field they don’t say, oh but only by 20 inches so let them off.

I agree we shouldn’t have legal wrangling & that football should be decided on the field. Equally, I think it boils down to whether you’re going to have any financial rules or just let every club fend for itself?

If you are, you have to enforce them properly. I actually think that the issue here is that PL don’t enforce its own rules properly. Every club should have a PL officer inspecting monthly management accounts, full, unrestricted access to bank statements, etc. The FCA ensure bank execs can’t sneeze without having it signed-off, no reason the PL couldn’t do the same, with a green amber red status - go red you’re in special measures and the orated inspectors come & climb up your backside with a torch. Find something? Immediate sporting sanction, no messing.

That way sporting sanctions would take effect on the season the breach (unfairness) occurred and no need for any legal action. As it happens it’s two seasons after, with an appeal process still to run.

[ClaretPete001]

So, the PL’s a regiment here, and therefore presumably ours, is that all clubs are given very “generous” limits on losses (£105m) and therefore clubs should manage their affairs within them. They also permitted very large allowances to deal with Covid, which I assume are the unprecedented circumstances you refer to.

They state the reasons for the breach were overspending on players and generally hoping for the best which is not acceptable.

I suppose it’s a bit like offside. You’re either in breach or not. On field they don’t say, oh but only by 20 inches so let them off.

I agree we shouldn’t have legal wrangling & that football should be decided on the field. Equally, I think it boils down to whether you’re going to have any financial rules or just let every club fend for itself?

If you are, you have to enforce them properly. I actually think that the issue here is that PL don’t enforce its own rules properly. Every club should have a PL officer inspecting monthly management accounts, full, unrestricted access to bank statements, etc. The FCA ensure bank execs can’t sneeze without having it signed-off, no reason the PL couldn’t do the same, with a green amber red status - go red you’re in special measures and the orated inspectors come & climb up your backside with a torch. Find something? Immediate sporting sanction, no messing.

That way sporting sanctions would take effect on the season the breach (unfairness) occurred and no need for any legal action. As it happens it’s two seasons after, with an appeal process still to run.

I think you are being a bit harsh.

The PL advised Everton to have a conservative approach to buying playing assets but insisted that Everton had to take a view on their own financial position. This point was made quite explicitly in the committees judgement.

The judgement itself does not rely upon the amount spent on playing assets but presents a number of points both to justify and mitigate the judgement reached.

In other words, if you read the judgement the PL did exactly the opposite of what you are advocating and washed their hands of the responsibility of helping Everton reach a sound financial position.

Everton in the midst of building a new ground and an unprecedented once a century pandemic made poor errors in judgement.

It's important to say though that they did not get in this position because they sought to spend too much money on players but because of non-football related matters.

In the end, they have the third lowest spend on players over 5 years in the PL and had to endure several relegation battles.

It is true that they over shot PL rules by £20 million and as such did get an advantage over clubs like ourselves but I think the problem of creating an open season on a clubs like Everton is a big mistake.

Although I do agree with you the PL should have done far more to avoid this situation. Presumably, the impending issues with City and Chelsea who have taken steps to deliberately get around fair play rules (allegedly) is far bigger and does warrant a certain amount of contempt both towards those clubs and the PL.

[NewClaret]

I think you are being a bit harsh.

The PL advised Everton to have a conservative approach to buying playing assets but insisted that Everton had to take a view on their own financial position. This point was made quite explicitly in the committees judgement.

The judgement itself does not rely upon the amount spent on playing assets but presents a number of points both to justify and mitigate the judgement reached.

In other words, if you read the judgement the PL did exactly the opposite of what you are advocating and washed their hands of the responsibility of helping Everton reach a sound financial position.

Everton in the midst of building a new ground and an unprecedented once a century pandemic made poor errors in judgement.

It's important to say though that they did not get in this position because they sought to spend too much money on players but because of non-football related matters.

In the end, they have the third lowest spend on players over 5 years in the PL and had to endure several relegation battles.

It is true that they over shot PL rules by £20 million and as such did get an advantage over clubs like ourselves but I think the problem of creating an open season on a clubs like Everton is a big mistake.

Although I do agree with you the PL should have done far more to avoid this situation. Presumably, the impending issues with City and Chelsea who have taken steps to deliberately get around fair play rules (allegedly) is far bigger and does warrant a certain amount of contempt both towards those clubs and the PL.

Disagree with the emboldened bit. The PL report quite clearly states that:

- The stadium costs were not the cause of the breach.
- That they received generous Covid exemptions.
- That the breach was due to overspending on players to replace “their non-existent midfield”.

But I agree that the PL have been completely **** in this situation. That whole bit that they “approved” transfers with the caveat that it remains their responsibility for not breaching the rules is a disgrace.

What I think should’ve happened, per my example, is that there are gradual steps where restrictions are increased to enforce the rules. It seems a transfer embargo - as the EFL rightly imposed on us - could’ve avoided this whole sorry mess. If the EFL can take tough action (at the time) then the PL should be able to. But I’m actually advocating a whole regime that monitors clubs finances month-by-month and continually stress testing them. That’s the only way a) the competition is fair, and b) fans aren’t adversely effected by mismanagement (which has undoubtedly happened in this case).

In the absence of proper governance I do believe we should be compensated but actually think it should be the PL we’re suing/compensated by for failing to properly enforce, speedily investigate and punish clubs breaking their own rules.

I can’t actually see any other outcome than no compensation granted though because if they do, the precedent it’d set for the City/Chelsea debacle would kill the league.

[Quicknick]

If Carlsberg did football justice......

Best post so far.

[Chester Perry]

I posted this on the MMT earlier, (that thread has been following the issues at Everton, Chelsea and Manchester City from the off) though it works just as well here

One of the things yet to be talked about re the Everton PSR charge and the Independent Commission's verdict is that in the prior summer the Premier League had let Everton off with an unofficial warning, a warning that wasn't even shared with the other members - in essence this whole case was brought about because Burnley and Leeds not only questioned the situation re Everton but also threatened to sue the Premier League themselves for not applying their own rules - it is clear that a case could be constructed against the Premier League from the information now in the public domain, but less clear that it could be one. However, we can be relatively certain that threat played it's part (along with a number of other issues like the prospective Independent Regulator, Everton's continuing overstretching together with a wider public pressure to clean up the game resulting from an endless line of sordid investigative reports) in The Premier League finally taking action.

In the end Everton only have themselves to blame for the situation they created

From the Times

‘Reckless’ Everton pay price of trying to live the dream
Club ignored multiple warnings and splurged money under Lampard in bid to gatecrash Premier League elite
https://archive.li/zhIXF

From The Telegraph

Premier League left with no option but to get tough with clubs accused of breaching rules
Never has it been clearer that the Premier League must act quickly with its power of governance
https://archive.li/jIsAu

[bfcjg]

The only people who think it is unjust are Everton fans, end of the day the money wasn't used for a good cause such as food banks etc it was used to ensure they would beat other teams and upset other fans.
Sod them.

[Claretforever]

These are the discussion points on tomorrow’s Price of Football podcast with Kieran Maguire. Might be an interesting listen.

[Jamesy]

Last season, or the season before (our relegation season) this would have been a massive story. However, even without an appeal they should stay up comfortably.
I just hope City get their punishment and get relegated. They got away with it a few years ago with their expensive lawyers. Sadly I think they will get away with it again. As our fans sing….. Premier League, Corrupt as f@ck.

[ClaretPete001]

Disagree with the emboldened bit. The PL report quite clearly states that:

- The stadium costs were not the cause of the breach.
- That they received generous Covid exemptions.
- That the breach was due to overspending on players to replace “their non-existent midfield”.

But I agree that the PL have been completely **** in this situation. That whole bit that they “approved” transfers with the caveat that it remains their responsibility for not breaching the rules is a disgrace.

What I think should’ve happened, per my example, is that there are gradual steps where restrictions are increased to enforce the rules. It seems a transfer embargo - as the EFL rightly imposed on us - could’ve avoided this whole sorry mess. If the EFL can take tough action (at the time) then the PL should be able to. But I’m actually advocating a whole regime that monitors clubs finances month-by-month and continually stress testing them. That’s the only way a) the competition is fair, and b) fans aren’t adversely effected by mismanagement (which has undoubtedly happened in this case).

In the absence of proper governance I do believe we should be compensated but actually think it should be the PL we’re suing/compensated by for failing to properly enforce, speedily investigate and punish clubs breaking their own rules.

I can’t actually see any other outcome than no compensation granted though because if they do, the precedent it’d set for the City/Chelsea debacle would kill the league.

I don't disagree with you but I still think it's harsh. This is the relevant paragraph...

It helps to stand back from all the detail that has been put before us and to see the overall picture. Everton’s PSR difficulties are not attributable to the costs of the stadium development. Those costs were excluded from the PSR
calculation in respect of the period before planning permission was granted by reason of the 13 August 2021 agreement, and thereafter by the ability to capitalise relevant costs by the application of FRS 102. The cause of
Everton’s PSR difficulties was the fact that it overspent (largely on its purchase of new players and its inability to sell other players), and because it finished lower in the league than it had projected in FY 2022 (16th against the
projected 6th – causing a loss of expected income of c.£21 million). Everton’s understandable desire to improve its on-pitch performance (to replace the non-existent mid field, as Mr Moshiri put it in evidence) led it to take chances
with its PSR position: those chances resulted in it exceeding the £105 million threshold by £19.5 million.

From 21/22 onwards the club sold more players than it bought...

It is not the case that Everton recklessly pursued success, rather, the club was buying players to survive and the reason for that was largely related to poor decisions made about the ground, Covid and later the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

They breached a technical rule to the tune of £20 million. They've admitted to that and should be punished but 10 points seems harsh as does the view they recklessly spent on players to pursue success.

The fact is they are the 3rd lowest spender in the PL over 5 years, which put this into some kind of context.

In reality the PL put Everton in the situation of; either, (1) risk breaching PSR rules and a 10 point penalty or (2) having to sell so many players they would have been relegated anyway.

I agree with you about the PL and I think the concept of clubs suing each other will just lead to an American style no-jeopardy highly regulated approach the Americans adopt with no relegation etc....

[Westleigh]

If City and Chelski get docked 30 point they’ll still finish above us ,our only hope is that we get £100 mill compo and go again next season .

[Stayingup]

Everton’s upcoming games are (in no order) United, City, Chelsea, Newcastle, Spurs, Forest……and……us at the Turf under the lights.

In that time we have West Ham, Sheffield, Wolves, Brighton, Fulham, Liverpool and of course Everton.

After those games we could be 10 points behind again, but we could also be 10 points ahead. Then we enter the window.

So it is all to play for. And anyone throwing in the towel now I worry about.

I'll have a double of whatever your on.

[NewClaret]

I don't disagree with you but I still think it's harsh. This is the relevant paragraph...

It helps to stand back from all the detail that has been put before us and to see the overall picture. Everton’s PSR difficulties are not attributable to the costs of the stadium development. Those costs were excluded from the PSR
calculation in respect of the period before planning permission was granted by reason of the 13 August 2021 agreement, and thereafter by the ability to capitalise relevant costs by the application of FRS 102. The cause of
Everton’s PSR difficulties was the fact that it overspent (largely on its purchase of new players and its inability to sell other players), and because it finished lower in the league than it had projected in FY 2022 (16th against the
projected 6th – causing a loss of expected income of c.£21 million). Everton’s understandable desire to improve its on-pitch performance (to replace the non-existent mid field, as Mr Moshiri put it in evidence) led it to take chances
with its PSR position: those chances resulted in it exceeding the £105 million threshold by £19.5 million.

From 21/22 onwards the club sold more players than it bought...

It is not the case that Everton recklessly pursued success, rather, the club was buying players to survive and the reason for that was largely related to poor decisions made about the ground, Covid and later the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

They breached a technical rule to the tune of £20 million. They've admitted to that and should be punished but 10 points seems harsh as does the view they recklessly spent on players to pursue success.

The fact is they are the 3rd lowest spender in the PL over 5 years, which put this into some kind of context.

In reality the PL put Everton in the situation of; either, (1) risk breaching PSR rules and a 10 point penalty or (2) having to sell so many players they would have been relegated anyway.

I agree with you about the PL and I think the concept of clubs suing each other will just lead to an American style no-jeopardy highly regulated approach the Americans adopt with no relegation etc....

Yep, that’s the paragraph.

Firstly, I don’t buy your argument that they just breached a technicality. They broke the whole rule, by nearly a fifth. I’d call that a flagrant breach. Bare in mind here, the PSR guidance is actually to make no losses. They allow £105m as a margin for error. They smashed that and then some.

Nor do I buy the “but they were caught out by terrible, unforeseen circumstances” argument. It was their choice to invest in a stadium, covid hit us all (and they got very generous allowances considered as part of that) and the Russian wanting to sponsor the stadium for 20 years is dodgy AF.

Nor do I buy that poor old Everton, top division club for 70 years, we’re just investing to survive. The Telegraph article contains this:

“The reason Everton were sailing close to the wind in the first place lay in the extraordinary investment that Moshiri made in chasing success at the start of his ownership. He has spent £750 million since taking control in February 2016, with by far the biggest chunk going on transfers, wages, coaching changes, and associated fees.

By the end of his first five years, Everton’s net transfer spend was £230 million (the sixth-highest in the Premier League during the period) and they had one of the world’s best-paid managers, Carlo Ancelotti, on £14 million per year, having already spent £37 million hiring and paying off coaches under Moshiri. “What we’re ultimately guilty of is that we dared to dream and rolled the dice,” said a source at Goodison. “The football club took itself to the line.”

They signed James Rodriguez on £250k per week. They recklessly pursued success and came unstuck. Where your sympathy comes from I can’t understand.

What I will concede is that they then tried to get their ship in order a bit and reign things in. Just not enough. In my mind “trying to survive” by breaking the rules is just not fair because someone who does the same but stays within the rules is unfairly disadvantaged. In this particular year, it was us. And it cost us a fortune as you know.

Had that had the worst consequences, and sent us out of business, I wonder if you’d have so much sympathy for Everton?

[Vegas Claret]

Everton fan base are truly dreadful. Up there with the worst of the lot, some of the stuff they are coming out with smacks of people on smack

[Shaggy]

Hammer them. And all clubs which try and cheat by financially doping.

Hope City and The Chelsea Plastics are hammered aswell.

[bumba]

Everton’s upcoming games are (in no order) United, City, Chelsea, Newcastle, Spurs, Forest……and……us at the Turf under the lights.

In that time we have West Ham, Sheffield, Wolves, Brighton, Fulham, Liverpool and of course Everton.

After those games we could be 10 points behind again, but we could also be 10 points ahead. Then we enter the window.

So it is all to play for. And anyone throwing in the towel now I worry about.

Do the lights turn us in to a better team?

[Clive 1960]

If City and Chelski get docked 30 point they’ll still finish above us ,our only hope is that we get £100 mill compo and go again next season .

Not a chance in he'll that happening because they will go straight into administration.

[bfcjg]

If we are successful in getting the 100 million compensation but don't get the cash as it puts them into administration however they get docked another 9 points that relegates them and that keeps us up then that will do. Obviously hard bit is getting enough points to keep us at the top of the shite pack at the bottom.

[gandhisflipflop]

It’s messy is this but had the correct punishment had been dished out in 21/22 then we would have stayed up and that not even taking into consideration the richarlison farce who then ended up making Everton a lot of money when they stayed up.

We then had to sell players like pope, McNeil, cornet, and our two best centre backs left for PL football. That’s on top of the 100m we lost out on. That’s a lot of damage.

You could argue that in the case of McNeil and tarks that Everton are still benefiting from this to our detriment despite the 10 point deduction.

[NewClaret]

It’s messy is this but had the correct punishment had been dished out in 21/22 then we would have stayed up and that not even taking into consideration the richarlison farce who then ended up making Everton a lot of money when they stayed up.

We then had to sell players like pope, McNeil, cornet, and our two best centre backs left for PL football. That’s on top of the 100m we lost out on. That’s a lot of damage.

You could argue that in the case of McNeil and tarks that Everton are still benefiting from this to our detriment despite the 10 point deduction.

Definitely in the case of Tarks, although I think you could argue that we lost Mee as a direct result of relegation.

The key will be proving Everton’s cheating cause our relegation, but as I posted somewhere, that mightn’t be as hard as some say given Mykolenko scored a goal to give them 3 points and Demarai Gray was involved in 9 goals that year, 6 of which secured them points (I think).

[CrosspoolClarets]

Do the lights turn us in to a better team?

The stats over 10 years suggest they do, yes.

The doom-mongers do not like it, but the run up to and including Everton at home is a chance to really create a gap to them. If we don’t take it that is another matter but it is there to have a go at. As form shifts, sides can look very different to what they did before, for better or for worse, including us and Everton, though I’ll admit it does feel easy now for Dyche to instil a siege mentality.

Given the uncertainty over compensation we have to try to make that points penalty worth something to us.