Everton in the pooh
- Thread starter dee
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Won’t affect them. They got their shit together.
This is for offences in earlier years when they would have been relegated had the points been deducted then. They're bloody lucky that they probably won't go down this year because the 3 promoted clubs are unbelievably shite.
But the prospect of Leeds and Burnley suing them is a big issue, and increases the risk that the takeover won't happen. Then they're probably even more in the shit than if if did go ahead.
Gonna be a rollercoaster couple of months ahead.
But the prospect of Leeds and Burnley suing them is a big issue, and increases the risk that the takeover won't happen. Then they're probably even more in the shit than if if did go ahead.
Gonna be a rollercoaster couple of months ahead.
Thinking aloud here so sorry if there are holes in this analysis - not sure there's a right or wrong but putting this here for discussion / disagreement.
The timing issue is a problem here. Leeds will argue, fairly, that Everton broke the rules last season and had they been deducted points last season, Everton would have gone down, Leeds would have stayed up.
But that timing issue is basically baked into the rules, and practically it is impossible to circumvent. By participating in the Premier League, Leeds essentially have to accept that discrepancy, it's how the rules (have to) work. So the legal analysis, following the EPL rule book, is likely to be that the punishment can only be meted out on the offending club, and there can't be any compensation for any other affected clubs - it's harsh and if feels unfair, but that's just how it is. Leeds knew the rules when they accepted promotion into the League and they basically signed up to it then. In short, if they didn't read the small print that's their problem.
Leeds will say, probably fairly, that Everton didn't get here by accident, they knew what they were doing so they should be able to sue - essentially arguing that Everton had committed a form of fraud. I think they will settle out of court. They might have a better argument if they can argue Everton would have breached previously had they not put bullshit covid numbers in their returns - in that case the sanction would have been last year and Everton would have gone down.
But the other side of the coin here is that if the EPL can only punish the offending club, not compensate others who are affected, then there can't be any softening of the punishment handed down by the commission, otherwise the rules will be totally worthless.
The timing issue is a problem here. Leeds will argue, fairly, that Everton broke the rules last season and had they been deducted points last season, Everton would have gone down, Leeds would have stayed up.
But that timing issue is basically baked into the rules, and practically it is impossible to circumvent. By participating in the Premier League, Leeds essentially have to accept that discrepancy, it's how the rules (have to) work. So the legal analysis, following the EPL rule book, is likely to be that the punishment can only be meted out on the offending club, and there can't be any compensation for any other affected clubs - it's harsh and if feels unfair, but that's just how it is. Leeds knew the rules when they accepted promotion into the League and they basically signed up to it then. In short, if they didn't read the small print that's their problem.
Leeds will say, probably fairly, that Everton didn't get here by accident, they knew what they were doing so they should be able to sue - essentially arguing that Everton had committed a form of fraud. I think they will settle out of court. They might have a better argument if they can argue Everton would have breached previously had they not put bullshit covid numbers in their returns - in that case the sanction would have been last year and Everton would have gone down.
But the other side of the coin here is that if the EPL can only punish the offending club, not compensate others who are affected, then there can't be any softening of the punishment handed down by the commission, otherwise the rules will be totally worthless.
Portsmouth but that due to them going into administration. i winder if the other clubs sue Everton now, win and then the takeover fails thus putting them into administration and another 9 point penalty
If I read it correctly the ruling suggests compensation may be paid:
W.51.5 is a clause allowing the PL to award compensation to be paid by a sanctioned club to another eg Everton to compensate Leeds
Last edited:
Dont think thats true in all honesty. I'm guessing Chelsea will be punished pretty hard as well when that investigation is finished.
Regarding City I'm not really sure what to think yet. Given that City are actively working against the negotiation unlike Everton and Chelsea, and the fact that they seem to find these loopholes to escape everything thrown at them. Thats what happens when you have the right people in a place of power and enough money to buy the best defense and get out of jail card.
Lets just hope that there is enough evidence so that it can just be swept under the carpet.
Regarding City I'm not really sure what to think yet. Given that City are actively working against the negotiation unlike Everton and Chelsea, and the fact that they seem to find these loopholes to escape everything thrown at them. Thats what happens when you have the right people in a place of power and enough money to buy the best defense and get out of jail card.
Lets just hope that there is enough evidence so that it can just be swept under the carpet.
It's not that simple. It's one charge against Everton and 115 against City. Imagine that's a court case - easy to prepare one case but to prepare 115 that are inter-related?
Everton's charge seems to me easily the most weak of all of them, especially given all the unusual circumstances that lead to them being in breach (loss of sponsor due to war and the pandemic). It also doesn't appear to be alleged that it was done to confer a sporting advantage, which is a relief because nothing Everton does confers a sporting advantage over this time.
Surely it will be reduced, but who knows, because Everton are a horribly run club, who have already been punished in the most vicious possible way; they are made to be Everton, and the punishment lasts forever.
If this was the baseline, then I think it would be proportional to flay the entire city team and administration.
Surely it will be reduced, but who knows, because Everton are a horribly run club, who have already been punished in the most vicious possible way; they are made to be Everton, and the punishment lasts forever.
If this was the baseline, then I think it would be proportional to flay the entire city team and administration.
Is it 115 seperate cases when it's against the same club? They're not gonna clear them of 1 and then carry on with the other 114 until they get to a resolution are they....that would take 50 years.
Took the authorities a few months from the time of investigation to ban Toney on 232 betting charges.
Last edited:
I've been skimming through the judgment and worth flagging a key point here - Everton had been in regular contact with the Premier League and the league knew they were in a spot of bother. They'd tried to get advance agreement on all sorts of accounting changes which the League had mostly rejected. They then produced a return that said they complied with the rules, but had included the adjustments the PL had previously rejected.
The PL, knowing Everton were in trouble, jumped on their return which they knew contained a few dodgy items and then filed a complaint to the commission.
So the reason this has happened so quickly is that Everton were up front that there were issues, and were unable to get around them. Whereas City and Chelsea just flat-out lied.
If the financial breaches hadn't been so outlandish, I would almost have sympathy for Everton. But they took the piss. The PL agreed to one set of adjustments re their stadium which I think was fair, but on a quick read of the other items the PL was right to say no. So I don't think they've been treated unfairly, but they've been dealt with more quickly because they were more transparent. But I think it's arguable that if they hadn't been so up-front that they might have got a harsher punishment.
On what I've read so far, this doesn't feel unfair to me.
The PL, knowing Everton were in trouble, jumped on their return which they knew contained a few dodgy items and then filed a complaint to the commission.
So the reason this has happened so quickly is that Everton were up front that there were issues, and were unable to get around them. Whereas City and Chelsea just flat-out lied.
If the financial breaches hadn't been so outlandish, I would almost have sympathy for Everton. But they took the piss. The PL agreed to one set of adjustments re their stadium which I think was fair, but on a quick read of the other items the PL was right to say no. So I don't think they've been treated unfairly, but they've been dealt with more quickly because they were more transparent. But I think it's arguable that if they hadn't been so up-front that they might have got a harsher punishment.
On what I've read so far, this doesn't feel unfair to me.
Interesting, but it seems beaurocratic to me. In the one case, the big picture is that a team is doing a shit job lying to afford a stadium due to fairly exceptional circumstances (a war and a pandemic).
In the other teams are doing a slick job lying to win and win faster.
- Status
