Carra coming out defending Everton while taking a swipe at the big 6 who tried to leave.
Everton in the pooh
- Thread starter dee
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Carra still doesn't get what the Superleague was all about. The big 6 weren't leaving the premier league, the competition was to replace the UEFA champions league
If anything this deduction can only enhance the chance of massive penalties for both City and Everton. You can't go after a club with 'relatively' minor infractions and then let off a club with 115 charges with a tap on the wrist. The fallout would be immense.
Last edited:
Even though clearly it was. If Everton were discouraged by the PL from going out and buying a shit load of players - which they did and the PL did - then that is a competitive advantage and Burnley, Leeds and Leicester can then claim they were relegated ahead of Everton by virtue of their (illegal) actions. I'd think in a court of law they have a strong case. What says the SCM legal team?
Last edited:
Unfortunately though it won't make any difference, 10 points isn't enough to send them down, they'll easily stay up. The hope is though that it causes financial difficulties with their takeover and that they end up in administration and more points deductions ... which could send them down. And of course that Burnley, Leeds and Leicester are able to get another £60-100m out of them in settlements.
What a pile of rubbish, the ‘threat’ is real, so not definite punishment then, and only if charges are proven (highly unlikely that this will ever happen)
There should be a rule if you refuse to cooperate the league has grounds to toss you out immediately and strip you of all titles.
30 points isn't enough for either. It's a slap on the wrist.
Should be Juve style relegation.
I think it’s also complicated by the fact that not all the charges are for financial irregularities -
- 50 breaches of providing inaccurate financial information
- 8 breaches in relation to manager remuneration
- 12 breaches in relation to player remuneration
- 5 breaches linked to UEFA financial regulations
- 25 profitability and sustainability breaches
- 30 breaches of not assisting the Premier League investigation
Or something along those lines.
I presume some of these wouldn’t be attracting more than a fine.
I reckon one year of relegation would be enough to ruin them for a few years - no way a lot of those players. They’ll have enough to bounce back up, but it’ll take a few years before they can challenge.
I mean, I don’t expect them to be found guilty of much other than not co-operating.
The best we can hope for is likely a 20 point or so reduction which might be enough to keep them out of the CL for a season.
My money is on them being fined only - it’ll no doubt be a record amounts that corresponds to about 2 a months wages for Haaland.
I mean, I don’t expect them to be found guilty of much other than not co-operating.
The best we can hope for is likely a 20 point or so reduction which might be enough to keep them out of the CL for a season.
My money is on them being fined only - it’ll no doubt be a record amounts that corresponds to about 2 a months wages for Haaland.
City could realistically still qualify for Europa despite 30 point deduction
30 points deductions for each of the seasons they were found guilty in. Atrip them of titles, and allow other clubs to sue for lost earnings due to missing out on europe/championships/avoiding relegation etc. continued 30 points deductions until they comply with the current rules
I'd be alright with that. Sending them to the nether realm of the non-leagues doesn't really change much, apart from stopping some lower leagues get promotion.
I'd be alright with that. Sending them to the nether realm of the non-leagues doesn't really change much, apart from stopping some lower leagues get promotion.
If they got relegated it would mean no UCL for two seasons and a year of taking the piss in the Championship (first club to get 40 wins in a season?). The playing squad will be incentivised to stay and they won’t need to bring in any new players for the first season. Gate receipts will probably be higher as City fans actually turn up to show loyalty and away tickets continue to sell out.TV money will be lower for a season but they may haggle getting the parachute payment to compensate.
They’d be immediately competitive on their return so it would just be a one year window for someone else to win the EPL and I bet we’d find a way to fuck it up!
They could even do mid-week “friendlies” with Saudi teams to keep the revenue flowing
I think it's high time the other teams in the PL grew a pair over City. The PL rules (B6) allow for a club to be kicked out of the league if 15 clubs vote for it.
The other clubs need to tell City they either cooperate and get this shit done, or they'll kick them out of the League.
That this hasn't happened probably tells you that at least 5 other clubs in the League are worried they're on a sticky wicket financially as well, or else that they're all spineless.
The other clubs need to tell City they either cooperate and get this shit done, or they'll kick them out of the League.
That this hasn't happened probably tells you that at least 5 other clubs in the League are worried they're on a sticky wicket financially as well, or else that they're all spineless.
Innacurate financial info was what got Chelsea fined £10m to cover 7 years
The pay breaches will be fines too (separate to the impact on Profit/sustainability)
UEFA won’t do anything so no action from them
The last two are where the action is. If the EPL don’t come down heavily on these then they lose all authority.
I wouldn’t be surprised by an automatic relegation, ban from Europe for more than two seasons and a massive fine.
The bit that bothers me is the sheer time it takes to collate and prosecute these infringements. Chelsea are quite clearly taking the piss building a team for the next 5-8 years but no sign of any action.
Everton were charged 8 months into the following season from their breaches and weren’t punished until well into the second, and that’s before we talk appeals!
Everton were charged 8 months into the following season from their breaches and weren’t punished until well into the second, and that’s before we talk appeals!
True, but I don't think City or Chelsea will get found guilty of anything when it comes to it.
And even if they do, by that time Everton will also have partially won the appeal and have ended up with a fine themselves.
The authorities want the money more than they want to see point deductions etc.
But their illegal actions had no intent to produce advantage. You'd have to establish that somehow their decisions in the transfer market with 20 mil advantages them, when their decisions with about 170 mil made them a worse team. It sounds like I'm insulting them by making this argument, and I am, but I think it's supportable.
Their intent was to be compliant with regulation, but it was based on poor assumptions. They were run poorly and counted their chickens before they were hatched, and then miscounted their chickens while their parole officer watched them.
That's the part I don't get. I did my homework now, read that boring document. The only crystal clear takeaway was that everton are rank amateurs, who either thought they'd let things slide, could get away with it due to the circumstances, or we're so utterly atrocious in the market that they couldn't generate a fairly modest amount of money due to being obvious marks for every other team out there.
I don't really get the process though. I don't know whether I'm confounded by it because I'm getting their biased account of it, or because everton are incompetent, but I can't tell how thorough the advisory part of it is. It reads more like you get advice on proposed drafts then they resubmitted things with the same unacceptable exceptions to the cap, but does advice occur in detail during this process on line item bases?
Could everton just find no legitimate or clever accounting way to find that money so they just resubmitted things that had already been identified as unacceptable accounting? The judgement even identifies 9 million as something they could have accounted for differently but unfortunately didn't at the time. That's half the overage right there! Instead they seem to have fudged something they were already told not to? What did they think would happen? Genuinely, not this.
Their intent was to be compliant with regulation, but it was based on poor assumptions. They were run poorly and counted their chickens before they were hatched, and then miscounted their chickens while their parole officer watched them.
That's the part I don't get. I did my homework now, read that boring document. The only crystal clear takeaway was that everton are rank amateurs, who either thought they'd let things slide, could get away with it due to the circumstances, or we're so utterly atrocious in the market that they couldn't generate a fairly modest amount of money due to being obvious marks for every other team out there.
I don't really get the process though. I don't know whether I'm confounded by it because I'm getting their biased account of it, or because everton are incompetent, but I can't tell how thorough the advisory part of it is. It reads more like you get advice on proposed drafts then they resubmitted things with the same unacceptable exceptions to the cap, but does advice occur in detail during this process on line item bases?
Could everton just find no legitimate or clever accounting way to find that money so they just resubmitted things that had already been identified as unacceptable accounting? The judgement even identifies 9 million as something they could have accounted for differently but unfortunately didn't at the time. That's half the overage right there! Instead they seem to have fudged something they were already told not to? What did they think would happen? Genuinely, not this.
No way 20 points would do that. Top 5 get CL
I think what happened here is that they embarked on a big spending spree which, by their own admission. was intended to make them more competitive (they were banking on improving to the point where they would qualify for Europe each year and become self-sustaining through their player trading model). That's all pretty bog standard and sounds a bit like what we have done.
That was clearly intended to confer competitive advantage. That it didn't, is due to them messing it all up.
But the problem was they didn't allow themselves any wriggle room. It apparently never occurred to them that there was massive downside risk in their player purchase strategy, or that some unexpected one-off issues might tip them over the edge (e.g. if they'd had to sack Carlo they'd have been well and truly stuffed). So whilst I get the point that the decision, which focuses on some dodgy adjustments they tried to put through to tip the balance, might make it look that they just had a shit run of luck, they really didn't. They pushed themselves right to the edge, banking on strong football performance, and then didn't deliver. That they seem to have been tipped over the edge.by some technical points isn't the issue for me - they were too near the edge to begin with, and they did that for competitive advantage.
They admit they breached PSR. There was an argument over by how much, and I think the commission / PL got it right. So any appeal can only be that the extent of the punishment is harsh. The breach is uncontested. I think the ruling will stand, the only question will be over how many points they lose.
But step back from it all, they lost 100s of millions of pounds. Not 10s, 100s. They would have been laughed out of Europe by UEFA where the limit is €5m. They took the piss on a grand scale. They deserve to be punished, unless you believe the rules are fundamentally unfair. But the rules are there to prevent clubs going bust, and regardless of this sanction, Everton are at genuine risk of doing just that, especially if 777 falls through.
The only legitimate complaint they have is that they have been dealt with relatively swiftly while City and Chelsea are still under investigation. I have sympathy with that. But if Everton can be sued by other relegated teams, the longer this drags out for City and Chelsea, the greater risk they'll be under form other teams suing them. And if Everton didn't get much mitigation in their punishment for (generally) co-operating, then City in particular should expect much harsher sanctions.
And one final techy point about those £9m interest costs - I think the ruling is a little confused about this. I don't think they could have been capitalised (see para 81). I'm pretty sure they would have tried this (even without PSR concerns) and I reckon their auditors probably knocked it back.
They could also either want to sell their best players to city, or hope they can get city's cast offs reasonably. Going on the offensive will alienate city being "helpful" in the future
Not necessarily. Utd and Newcastle being shite means it could be top 4.
They all sound like financial irregularities (or related to) to me !
I think the main one that isn't is the non-cooperation. Reading the Everton judgment, I'd expect the PL to argue that is an "aggravating factor" which would lead to a harsher punishment if they are found guilty on other charges. If they were acquitted, they might still get a fine on the non-cooperation charges.
- Status
