*Shakes head* Everton again.

[Harry Squatter]

3 hours ago, Anubis said:

So the clowns tried to claim the loan was for the stadium having lodged a document with companies house that categorically stated it wasn’t.

Oops. Every bitter I've argued with over this keeps saying "it was for the stadium you tit". 

 

 

[VladimirIlyich]

3 hours ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

Have to say I find it a bit odd Carra telling them hard truths, when he was front and centre pushing the "teams tried to leave the league and got less of a punishment" lie.

He's just a Sky mouthpiece who flip flops onto whichever agenda is in the news. Sad to see from a former great.

[Barrington Womble]

7 hours ago, Denny Crane said:

 

Theis looks a lot of scope for oil rich clubs they can spend widely,  just get fined. PSG are apparently in the second time breach. The below is the new disciplinary guidelines from Uefa. I  suspect PSG would have to execeute somebody at HT to get kicked out of Europe as they can pay the fines. 

 

 

So I don't know I understand this. Is this a fine of percentage of playing costs? And if my understanding is right from previous fines, they must be a part of the next financial cycle playing budget? 

 

So for example. If city have a 450m budget, but spend 500m, they would get a fine of 25-50%. So if we say 125m (for 25%), next year instead of having a budget of 450m, they would only have 325m. And if they again spent 500m (because why wouldn't they, wages or amortisation are unlikely to change too greatly unless they sell), the 2nd year they could have a 100% fine?

 

Or maybe more accurately they'd still have the 450m budget, but if they spent 500m and added the 125m fine, it would mean they spent 625m on a 450m budget? So an almost 40% breach resulting in a maximum deduction?

[Denny Crane]

9 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

 

So I don't know I understand this. Is this a fine of percentage of playing costs? And if my understanding is right from previous fines, they must be a part of the next financial cycle playing budget? 

 

So for example. If city have a 450m budget, but spend 500m, they would get a fine of 25-50%. So if we say 125m (for 25%), next year instead of having a budget of 450m, they would only have 325m. And if they again spent 500m (because why wouldn't they, wages or amortisation are unlikely to change too greatly unless they sell), the 2nd year they could have a 100% fine?

 

Or maybe more accurately they'd still have the 450m budget, but if they spent 500m and added the 125m fine, it would mean they spent 625m on a 450m budget? So an almost 40% breach resulting in a maximum deduction?

 

 

The fine looks based on exceeding wages/agent fees to turnover. 

 

These are random numbers say Everton had 500 million revenue and spent 490 million on wages and Uefa guidance was don't exceed 90% on wages.

 

The outcome was Everton went over by 40 million and ending up having a 98% wages to turnover. The fine would be based on the excess amount the 40 million/8% excess. So a first time offender would pay 10 -25% of 40 million. It highlights how big PSG wage bill was to get such a fine but they had been fined previously. 

 

Not sure about cycles but all the clubs agreed 3 or 4 year deals with Uefa.  The way I read it is the biggest fine and maximum were given to PSG and the most they would have to pay in that 3 year period was £56million but if they met the steps they could only end up paying £10 million. 

 

[Mudface]

37 minutes ago, Denny Crane said:

 

 

The fine looks based on exceeding wages/agent fees to turnover. 

 

These are random numbers say Everton had 500 million revenue and spent 490 million on wages and Uefa guidance was don't exceed 90% on wages.

 

The outcome was Everton went over by 40 million and ending up having a 98% wages to turnover. The fine would be based on the excess amount the 40 million/8% excess. So a first time offender would pay 10 -25% of 40 million. It highlights how big PSG wage bill was to get such a fine but they had been fined previously. 

 

Not sure about cycles but all the clubs agreed 3 or 4 year deals with Uefa.  The way I read it is the biggest fine and maximum were given to PSG and the most they would have to pay in that 3 year period was £56million but if they met the steps they could only end up paying £10 million. 

 

 

That's complete rubbish. As if Everton would ever get in a position for UEFA to be interested in them.

[Jarvinja Ilnow]

If (hopefully not - bad for the city etc) they get another 10 point deduction and are relegated to the Championship, only to then subsequently go into administration whilst there, would they be relegated from the Championship or just get a 9 point deduction?

 

Asking on behalf of a worried friend.

[VladimirIlyich]

4 minutes ago, Jarvinja Ilnow said:

If (hopefully not - bad for the city etc) they get another 10 point deduction and are relegated to the Championship, only to then subsequently go into administration whilst there, would they be relegated from the Championship or just get a 9 point deduction?

 

Asking on behalf of a worried friend.

Tell your worried friend 'I fear for you,I really do.'

[Bobby Hundreds]

Their appeal will probably half their points they then get another point deduction but still end up better off than they were with the first initial charge. Pays to cheat in Britain.

[Mudface]

14 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

Their appeal will probably half their points they then get another point deduction but still end up better off than they were with the first initial charge. Pays to cheat in Britain.

 

There seems to be a general feeling that their appeal will succeed, is this based on anything? As far as I can tell, they've admitted their cheating, been punished accordingly and all the blustering from their fans is pointless and been whipped up by the club to deflect attention from their lack of competence.

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

Appeal will succeed so they can go lightly on City. Again!.

[Creator Supreme]

1 hour ago, VERBAL DIARRHEA said:

Appeal will succeed so they can go lightly on City. Again!.

They'll probably give City a points rebate.

[Barrington Womble]

3 hours ago, Denny Crane said:

 

 

The fine looks based on exceeding wages/agent fees to turnover. 

 

These are random numbers say Everton had 500 million revenue and spent 490 million on wages and Uefa guidance was don't exceed 90% on wages.

 

The outcome was Everton went over by 40 million and ending up having a 98% wages to turnover. The fine would be based on the excess amount the 40 million/8% excess. So a first time offender would pay 10 -25% of 40 million. It highlights how big PSG wage bill was to get such a fine but they had been fined previously. 

 

Not sure about cycles but all the clubs agreed 3 or 4 year deals with Uefa.  The way I read it is the biggest fine and maximum were given to PSG and the most they would have to pay in that 3 year period was £56million but if they met the steps they could only end up paying £10 million. 

 

I'm not sure I still quite understand that to be honest. And also, I didn't believe any testing of finances to be over anything other than a one year period under the new rules? 

 

Maybe one day I'll take the trouble to read up on it properly, it's feeling all a bit like work at the moment! 

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

14 minutes ago, Creator Supreme said:

They'll probably give City a points rebate.

Not beyond the bounds of possibility.

[TheHowieLama]

2 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

I'm not sure I still quite understand that to be honest. And also, I didn't believe any testing of finances to be over anything other than a one year period under the new rules? 

 

Maybe one day I'll take the trouble to read up on it properly, it's feeling all a bit like work at the moment! 

 

 

The details don't matter a jot -- you can pay the "fine" and continue competing - that's it.

 

US Sport calls it a "luxury tax". Exactly the same.

[Barrington Womble]

24 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

 

The details don't matter a jot -- you can pay the "fine" and continue competing - that's it.

 

US Sport calls it a "luxury tax". Exactly the same.

There's no ban once you've exceeded the limits? 

[TheHowieLama]

6 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

There's no ban once you've exceeded the limits? 

No idea tbh.

[TD_LFC]

2 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

There's no ban once you've exceeded the limits? 

 

Depending how far over the threshold you are means you pay a penalty on the amount over the tax you are which increases further if you're over the tax in multiple years (The Mets paid out 100million in penalties for the 2023 season for example).

 

Quote

If a team crosses the threshold for a year for the first time, it is subject to a 20% tax on all overages. If the team does it for the second time in consecutive seasons, it is subject to a 30% tax on the overages. If the team disregards the tax and decides to continue spending above the threshold for three years or more in a row, it is subject to a 50% tax on the overages. These penalties restart if a team goes below the Competitive Balance marks for a year. 

 

In wanting to ensure compliance with these rules, there are additional disincentives to exceeding the luxury tax by given amounts. A ballclub that spends $20-40 million above the threshold is subject to an additional 12% surcharge on overages, $40-60 million is faced with a 42.5% and 45% surcharge (42.5% for the first season and 45% for any consecutive following seasons), and $60 million or above is bestowed a 60% surcharge.

 

Teams can also have their draft picks moved back 10 spots (unless in the Top 6, then back 10 spots for the next highest draft pick they own) for exceeding the tax by more than $40 million, which can be crucial in long-term decision-making.

 

The penalties for UEFA's FFP will be a combination of sporting and financial penalties based on the 'three pillars' (Solvency, Stability and Cost Control).

 

Solvency - a club must have no overdue payables to other football clubs, to social/tax authorities, in respect of employees and UEFA, as a result of obligations arising from transfers due to be paid by 30 June, 30 September and 31 December respectively.

 

Stability - Football earnings are the difference between relevant income and relevant expenses. A licensee is not in compliance with the football earnings rule if the licensee has an aggregate football earnings deficit that exceeds the acceptable deviation.

 

Cost Control - limits spending on player and coach wages, transfers, and agent fees to 70% of club revenue – the gradual implementation will see the percentage at 90% in 2023/2024, 80% in 2024/2025, and 70% as from 2025/2026. This requirement provides a direct measure between squad costs and income to encourage more performance-related costs. Assessments will be performed on a timely basis and breaches will result in pre-defined financial penalties as well as sporting measures.

 

The proposed penalties for cost control are

 

 

There was talk that any 'luxury tax' applied by UEFA would be included in the following years calculation to try and prevent bigger clubs from just carrying that extra cost and could be expanded into sporting breaches as well as financial breaches for consistent rule breaking.

 

[TD_LFC]

The above would be an interesting discussion at PSG who, last season, were at 110% wages to turnover.

 

If the rules were fully implemented (which the won't be until 2025/2026) they'd be looking at a penalty between 170M a 227m (very roughly and it depends on the threshold and the above only includes wages).

 

Based on our turnover of 594.3m it would gives us 416m a year to play with (at 70%) from which wages (players and head coach), amortisation (transfers), exceptional costs (sacking of manager etc) and agent fees would be paid.

[Barrington Womble]

What I don't like about these new rules, is what the fuck happens to the other 30%? Running an academy doesn't cost the earth and I'm not sure it costs 100m  or something a year to run a stadium. It feels very much the new limits are designed to allow clubs to pay large dividends. 

[TD_LFC]

Dividends still count towards the calculation of the stability pillar (which is the equivalent of the old FFP can't have more than X losses in a 2 year period etc).

 

 

[Lee909]

All these new laws will do is make the state run clubs pay off the books more. Fully expect big players at Newcastle to get Saudi ambassador jobs for the world cup. Or money in Saudi banks that will stay hidden till they retire, or access to a new wonderful private pension schemes etc

[Barrington Womble]

49 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

Dividends still count towards the calculation of the stability pillar (which is the equivalent of the old FFP can't have more than X losses in a 2 year period etc).

 

 

But if you're turning over 600m and can only spend £420 on the team, agents and whatnot, then that leaves 180m for what exactly? Seems there's plenty of scope to take some divis from there. In fact it would seem it's been set to make level to ensure dividends can be take. 

[Denny Crane]

1 hour ago, Barrington Womble said:

What I don't like about these new rules, is what the fuck happens to the other 30%? Running an academy doesn't cost the earth and I'm not sure it costs 100m  or something a year to run a stadium. It feels very much the new limits are designed to allow clubs to pay large dividends. 

 

The new rules work for the oil rich clubs who can do a splurge. English clubs who are business's first and rolling in sponsorships and TV money. The big losers are the prestigious Spanish and Italian clubs out of this I reckon. 

[Barrington Womble]

5 minutes ago, Denny Crane said:

 

The new rules work for the oil rich clubs who can do a splurge. English clubs who are business's first and rolling in sponsorships and TV money. The big losers are the prestigious Spanish and Italian clubs out of this I reckon. 

Barca are fucked anyway, as are the Italian teams. Madrid it seems like it can work well. They have a massive turnover and I assume massive debts to pay from this stadium, so being restricted and importantly having their rivals restricted to spending 70% of turnover is ideal. In fact I'm not 100% how this Barca debt is structured but if their entire media rights class at turnover before going to the partners they sold them to, a 70% limit is probably good for them too. 

[Denny Crane]

1 minute ago, Barrington Womble said:

Barca are fucked anyway, as are the Italian teams. Madrid it seems like it can work well. They have a massive turnover and I assume massive debts to pay from this stadium, so being restricted and importantly having their rivals restricted to spending 70% of turnover is ideal. In fact I'm not 100% how this Barca debt is structured but if their entire media rights class at turnover before going to the partners they sold them to, a 70% limit is probably good for them too. 

 

There's a reason Real Madrid want the Super League, they think they can't compete long-term with English clubs. Barca it seems did really ask what would Everton do at times.