Everton in the pooh
- Thread starter dee
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
This needn't block the deal going through. The lawyers could structure it so that Moshiri has to pay the compensation, or 777 could defer what they pay him until it's all resolved. This is something they can be worked around and I expect it will have been anticipated.
As a lad from Dublin I can honestly say I've loved every minute I've ever spent in the city of Liverpool and the only time I really vent bile against the toffees is when we play them,
SO WHEN ARE THE FA GOING AFTER THE CHAVS AND SHITTY?
They've really taken the lazy option and picked off some low hanging fruit.
SO WHEN ARE THE FA GOING AFTER THE CHAVS AND SHITTY?
They've really taken the lazy option and picked off some low hanging fruit.
Last edited:
Guaranteed that City agree to take a substantial fine and significant points deduction (like 30 points) in a season they don’t win the league, but win the CL - so that they avoid relegation, clear the decks and remain in the CL (as winners).
It’ll allow the Premier League to hand out “record fines & point deductions”, claim they’ve upheld the integrity of the sport and avoid lengthy & expensive further litigation.
For City, money doesn’t matter, they’ll keep their titles and they’ll move on - after finding some wording that allows them to to “admit” they cheated, so that their wanker fans can bang on about being victims (being the cunts they always accuse us of being). All it really has the effect of doing is reducing their Premier League income by a small amount for one season.
Chelsea will be lobbied for by the countless Tory MPs that’s ”support” them and will accept “party donations” from Abromovich. They too will take a bit in a season they don’t qualify for the CL anyway - in such a way it doesn’t get them relegated.
It’ll allow the Premier League to hand out “record fines & point deductions”, claim they’ve upheld the integrity of the sport and avoid lengthy & expensive further litigation.
For City, money doesn’t matter, they’ll keep their titles and they’ll move on - after finding some wording that allows them to to “admit” they cheated, so that their wanker fans can bang on about being victims (being the cunts they always accuse us of being). All it really has the effect of doing is reducing their Premier League income by a small amount for one season.
Chelsea will be lobbied for by the countless Tory MPs that’s ”support” them and will accept “party donations” from Abromovich. They too will take a bit in a season they don’t qualify for the CL anyway - in such a way it doesn’t get them relegated.
Nah City are winning it again.
Moshiri hasn't got a pit to piss in not since Usmanov turned off the taps, can't see Moshiri will be willing to put his hand in his pocket to pay the extra compensation. Guess it also depends on how how much the three clubs agree on the value of a settlement?
It's all manageable. Provided the upper level
of the compensation is more than the price 777 have agreed to pay, they can find a way around it. If I were 777, I'd be insisting that £300m )or whatever figure is agreed) of the purchase price sits in an escrow account and is used to pay the compensation, with any balance paid to Moshiri once it's all done and dusted. The lawyers can work out the logistics and Moshiri would be given conduct of claim (ie allowed to control the litigation process) which wouldn't be controversial. It's likely the only contentious part of that discussion will be the amount withheld, but if the other clubs specify a figure in their lawsuit then even that shouldn't be an issue, provided they file early enough.
Last edited:
but this is all heresay on the the condition that 777 can afford to purchase fee, still seeing media stories they've been late on payments with their other clubs. Not exactly confidence inducing
Agreed, and it's also possible they'll fail the fit and proper persons test. If either of those things happen then Everton are totally stuffed. And you can only imagine the paranoia among their fans if it's fit and proper persons that does it, given some of the crooks who've been waived through that test in the past (Shinawatra?). They'd be quite entitled to think the football authorities had it in for them if two decisions (the commission and then the takeover) were to go against them in quick succession.
Also any compensation surely goes against the 3 year allowable loss limits.
Surely not. If that were the case they could just end up in a vicious cycle ending in bankruptcy
I don't see anything in the rules that says it doesn't, but I think the PL would be open to increasing the limit to accommodate it, and in truth I think that would be fair, otherwise clubs would just go into a downward cycle given the amounts involved. In the commission judgment, they highlight that they had allowed Everton to exclude about £40m of costs on the new stadium that had gone to their profit and loss account, and I think that was fair. There's be a similar principle at stake with the compensation costs.
If you were talking £20-30m then I'd say it should be included in the PSR test, and that clubs would have to manage their spending to accommodate it, but there's no way they could accommodate £300m, especially when they have big losses for the previous 2 years
I was just going to say you did your own TLDR version. Proud of you bud!
If their is no provision in the rules, the PL would open themselves up to further compensation claims. Thus another endless cycle.
Just my opinion.
I'm no expert in this, at all, I know only what I pick up from conversations, but 10 points for 18 million quid seems tough. I mean it's less than a Rhian Brewster. They got the same deduction clubs get for going bust. Isn't it the kind of crime you'd expect a transfer ban for?
I think it's worth recapping the basic rules here. Firstly, clubs are expected to break-even over a three year period. No losses in aggregate over three years.
If they do in their unadjusted accounts alone then there is no issue.
If they don't, they are then allowed to make a load of adjustments, which increase their profit base, which includes some pretty big concessions for covid losses. If after these adjustments they break-even over three years then there are no consequences.
If they exceed £15m of losses, they'll be subject to to PL monitoring. They're on the naughty step.
If they then increase their losses over 3 years by a factor of 6 times the naughty step limit, they will be called before a commission.
The PL wanted a formula for punishment for breaching the upper limit which would be a fixed 6 point penalty followed by a further 1 point for every £5m over that limit. The commission rejected the idea of a formula but meted out the same punishment (assuming you round up the £5 millions).
Everton didn't just get put on the naughty step. They climbed the naughty staircase, went up into the loft, out of the skylight onto the roof, climbed up the chimney and waved their willies at all the passers-by outside.
That's why they were punished in the way they were.
They were warned, and they continued to believe the would get away with it, and they didn't allow any room for error or unexpected events.
They deserve what they've been given, and they're bloody lucky the commission rejected the PL's request to expedite matters, or they'd have been relegated last year.
If they do in their unadjusted accounts alone then there is no issue.
If they don't, they are then allowed to make a load of adjustments, which increase their profit base, which includes some pretty big concessions for covid losses. If after these adjustments they break-even over three years then there are no consequences.
If they exceed £15m of losses, they'll be subject to to PL monitoring. They're on the naughty step.
If they then increase their losses over 3 years by a factor of 6 times the naughty step limit, they will be called before a commission.
The PL wanted a formula for punishment for breaching the upper limit which would be a fixed 6 point penalty followed by a further 1 point for every £5m over that limit. The commission rejected the idea of a formula but meted out the same punishment (assuming you round up the £5 millions).
Everton didn't just get put on the naughty step. They climbed the naughty staircase, went up into the loft, out of the skylight onto the roof, climbed up the chimney and waved their willies at all the passers-by outside.
That's why they were punished in the way they were.
They were warned, and they continued to believe the would get away with it, and they didn't allow any room for error or unexpected events.
They deserve what they've been given, and they're bloody lucky the commission rejected the PL's request to expedite matters, or they'd have been relegated last year.
I’m sure Beamrider will provide the expert take on this but it isn’t as simple as a single transaction pushing them over a limit, each transfer cost is spread over the life of the contract (and includes salary), then the whole cost base is assessed over a rolling three year period. As far as I can see Everton where clearly going to fail to meet the 21/22 target for three years despite being let off with lots of adjustments for COVID and the new stadium but failed to take heed of any of the guidance given them resulting in blowing the limit by 20%. That’s not a near miss!
The scale of the penalty is a combo of the fact they went over by such a margin DESPITE all the allowances made added to the fact they ignored all advice
Last edited:
The bigger factor here is what Chelsea have done over the last 20 months. It’s the same but taken to the Max. Harsh penalties for both HAVE to happen or it will become business as usual to cheat and take the hit
I understand in the case of Everton it resulted from a combo of poor management, COVID and the strain of a new stadium build but WRT Chelsea it’s a blatant attempt to buy success
I understand in the case of Everton it resulted from a combo of poor management, COVID and the strain of a new stadium build but WRT Chelsea it’s a blatant attempt to buy success
Ah I knew you’d do the fully informed version 🙂
I read that to the end ... worth it.
For those who didn't, the TLDR version is "Everton got their willies out and showed the passers by"
Last edited:
I wish the judgement explained more how the dialogue went, is the only thing. The way it reads, which is the willy waving part, is that they said, come back with math that makes sense, you can't do x y and z. They said, how about x y and z, pretty please? I just don't get how that happens. They send a rough draft that is plagiarized, the prof says , this looks dodgy, and they then do nothing. Were they in any way lead to believe anything else? Was it a matter of just pushing their luck as they couldn't find alternatives due to incompetence, or did they just think it's probably work out, which indeed it may do even with the penalty.
Also, this precedent that a judgement culminating in the same year doesn't produce a fair process is likely to produce risk taking.
Last edited:
Everton needed a preemptive transfer ban. They'd have missed out on the likes of tosun and klaasen.
I'm actually not sure that they really defied the PL. I reckon they tried to get advance agreement, the PL refused, they disagreed and decided to file anyway because they believed they were right, they just wanted advance assurance if they could get it and were always going to file the way they did. I also think that because of the way the filing works, the adjustments they made would have been clearly disclosed to the PL so I don't think they tried to hide anything.
They make a comparison in the judgment with tax filing and I kind of get that - it's often the case that HMRC has a stated view on a particular issue that tax advisers / payers disagree with, and they are entitled to self-assess differently and then argue the toss.
That's kind of what Everton did here. But I honesty think they were deluded if they thought their arguments held water, and they were out of order pleading victims when they were referred to the commission because they should have known that's where things would lead - they forced the PL's hand and the PL didn't back down.
And I agree about the lack of detail in some areas, but I imagine there's probably a more detailed version of the judgment that has been shared with the parties, and it probably contains, in particular, the justification for the 10 point sanction, which isn't really explained in the public version.
By the time of filing there was nothing else TO do. The options were to adjust within the time given, particularly during the January window and then as a last chance at the very start of the summer window. They were betting on a higher place in the league and better sale prices, but they’d have had to shift a lot of players on big money for profit and jumped 10 places to make the impact required. Maybe if they’d sold Gordon at same time as Richarlison ….. (sales go straight off the books)
Last edited:
I've been trying to work out why Leeds thought they might have a case against Everton, as they finished 19th last season, so they would have gone down even if Everton had been relegated.
I think their argument is that Everton took four points in the games between the teams, and Leeds only took one. But if Leeds had won the game they lost to Everton, the 6 point swing would have kept them up. So I assume their argument goes that the money Everton spent gave them a strong enough team to beat Leeds, and therefore they have a claim.
I think that's bullshit, and I expect their claim to fail.
Leicester and Burnley have claims since they would have stayed up had Everton been relegated last year (the year the breach should have been reported and the 10-point penalty could have been imposed) or the year before (the year the breach actually occurred) so I think they both have a case.
The other teams that were relegated in both seasons would not have been saved had they won both of their games against Everton, which is presumably why they didn't make claims.
I think their argument is that Everton took four points in the games between the teams, and Leeds only took one. But if Leeds had won the game they lost to Everton, the 6 point swing would have kept them up. So I assume their argument goes that the money Everton spent gave them a strong enough team to beat Leeds, and therefore they have a claim.
I think that's bullshit, and I expect their claim to fail.
Leicester and Burnley have claims since they would have stayed up had Everton been relegated last year (the year the breach should have been reported and the 10-point penalty could have been imposed) or the year before (the year the breach actually occurred) so I think they both have a case.
The other teams that were relegated in both seasons would not have been saved had they won both of their games against Everton, which is presumably why they didn't make claims.
Any players that Everton bought that Leeds were in talks with?
- Status
