When does the 10 point deduction take place... This season the start of next season?
Everton in the pooh
- Thread starter dee
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
It already happened, they are on 4 points.
Again ... not that simple. Many are interrelated so to collect the evidence, correlate and then present as a viable and comprehensible case(s) takes a lot of preparation.
Toney ? Come on you're taking the piss if you think there is even a smidgen of similarity.
Last edited:
I agrée, but when teams obfuscate, it is hard to deal with under the current framework. Basically the rules assume clubs will play ball, which wasn’t an unreasonable expectation once upon a time. I think the rules should be updated to allow a “guilty until proven innocent” rule where clubs obstruct the process. That would level the playing field between a club that co-operates and one that doesn’t.
I heard from someone who has been part of the Guardian investigation into the Cyprus leaks that there is some pretty serious shit in there, and they think Chelsea are in serious trouble.
ABSOLUTELY this - and to be honest - as much as I don't like that club - I think we should support them in this - it's proper shit put on the city of Liverpool because they can. I want their owners to fight this in legal terms, at the end of it I want the FA to be forced to do something about the other two to show their impartiality and then hopefully the other two get seriously bad deductions and as icing on the cake - Everton get bankrupt. We can always look to them and say "you fought a good fight and you bought the mobsters to justice, now go down and fix yourselves up from the lower leagues my dear brothers..."
They should've had a bigger points deduction for pitch invading Premier league survival.
I particularly enjoyed this part of the judgment (para 130) about Everton's claim that covid had lost them money on the value of their squad:
"First, the values put on the players by Mr Brands are no more than target prices - they are aspirations, not true open market values. The fact that those prices were not achieved is more likely to have been caused by the fact there was no market appetite for those players at those prices than by the impact of covid".
Or to put it another way, if wasn't covid, your players were shit. Commission throwing some serious shade there.
"First, the values put on the players by Mr Brands are no more than target prices - they are aspirations, not true open market values. The fact that those prices were not achieved is more likely to have been caused by the fact there was no market appetite for those players at those prices than by the impact of covid".
Or to put it another way, if wasn't covid, your players were shit. Commission throwing some serious shade there.
Obviously I want to see City and Chelsea get points deducted more than Everton (though sadly I suspect that they will get out of it somehow), but I don't quite sign up to the idea that the authorities have picked on a small club.
Everton may not be as big as City and Chelsea but they are a big club, relatively. They are in the Premier League and always have been. There's a huge amount of money at Everton too, they have just spent it badly. They shouldn't get let off breaking the rules just because they are shit.
Everton may not be as big as City and Chelsea but they are a big club, relatively. They are in the Premier League and always have been. There's a huge amount of money at Everton too, they have just spent it badly. They shouldn't get let off breaking the rules just because they are shit.
One final point from me (for now at least). I'd commented a while back that I expected Everton would be under PL supervision on their finances as they were in the twilight zone between "no problem" and "clear breach" and the decision refers to this (but I don't think anything was said publicly before now).
Basically, they had to get PL approval every time they made a signing, but the PL scrutiny was no more than a box-ticking exercise - essentially they didn't block anything but warned Everton each time that they might be taking the piss (which they obviously were).
The rules in the PL handbook make this supervision sound more restrictive than it actually turned out to be in practice. I personally think the PL should have intervene more to prevent this breach from happening in the first place, but it helps explain how pissed off the PL were with Everton. Basically you could add "We fucking told you so" to the start of their charges against them, and this perhaps explains why they were keen on a firm penalty - they'd warned Everton at every turn but they just went off and did their own thing anyway.
Basically, they had to get PL approval every time they made a signing, but the PL scrutiny was no more than a box-ticking exercise - essentially they didn't block anything but warned Everton each time that they might be taking the piss (which they obviously were).
The rules in the PL handbook make this supervision sound more restrictive than it actually turned out to be in practice. I personally think the PL should have intervene more to prevent this breach from happening in the first place, but it helps explain how pissed off the PL were with Everton. Basically you could add "We fucking told you so" to the start of their charges against them, and this perhaps explains why they were keen on a firm penalty - they'd warned Everton at every turn but they just went off and did their own thing anyway.
This is were it could get really bad:
BREAKING: Burnley, Leeds and Leicester confirm intention to sue Everton for £300million in talks between the clubs this afternoon. [
@MailSport
]
BREAKING: Burnley, Leeds and Leicester confirm intention to sue Everton for £300million in talks between the clubs this afternoon. [
@MailSport
]
How do they have cause to sue if the report acknowledges it wasn't done for competitive advantage?
That won't go anywhere.
Well West Ham paid Sheff Utd the season they went down. Premier League as usual sat on their hands and bottled that decision.
The commission added: "Everton's understandable desire to improve its on-pitch performance (to replace the non-existent midfield, as Mr Moshiri put it in evidence) led it to take chances with its PSR position.
"Those chances resulted in it exceeding the £105m threshold by £19.5m.
"The position that Everton finds itself in is of its own making. The excess over the threshold is significant. The consequence is that Everton's culpability is great."
I think that gives the other clubs cause to sue.
Not at all sure about any of this but to me that sort of argument makes more sense in terms of whether clubs would be able to claim retrospective action (ie to be awarded promotion to correct the wrongful relegation) than whether they would be able to sue for lost income, which seems more reasonable.
Isn't it essentially the same as Sheff Utd and West Ham and that whole Tevez affair, really?
I'm realizing through this exchange that the Socratic method is just one cunt who doesn't fancy reading something boring making dumb claims and questions until they are corrected by someone who did the homework.
Please carry on.
Yeah, like I said at the top of my post, it was a bit "stream of consciousness", but I think it's unclear whether a lawsuit would succeed, which is why I reckon there'll be some sort of settlement, as there was over Tevez.
one hell of a settlement times 3.
WHU only had to pay up £5.5m. Even accounting for inflation that's still peanuts compared to cost of relegation. If they had known the punishment in advance then they would not have done anything differently. Anyway it will be interesting to see what Everton have to pay out. I hope the ten points penalty sticks. It gives me hope that City and Chelsea will be signing their shit songs in the conference league.
they paid Sheff Utd £20m
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
