*Shakes head* Everton again.

[Red74]

3 hours ago, Leyton388 said:

Cheating cunts have got off lightly if you ask me. They should have been relegated and had a 2 year transfer ban slapped on them aswell. 

 

I hope these new owners fall through and they go into administration the cheating twats. 

Couldn’t agree more. How the fuck they were allowed to write off those covid losses is beyond me. They were very lucky to escape the fine tha would have sent them into administration. 

[Josef Svejk]

16 minutes ago, Bourbon said:

As if there’s ever even half of that much diversity in a real Goodison crowd. 
 

Why are they apes?!

 

Weird stuff, indeed! 

[Reckoner]

46 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Davey Weir?

Song for Europe?

 

 

What fresh lunacy is this?

I was wondering that myself, but I didn’t have the heart to ask or find out.  I feel like part of my brain starts to rot every time I try to understand them.

20 minutes ago, Bourbon said:

As if there’s ever even half of that much diversity in a real Goodison crowd. 
 

Why are they apes?!

I quite like the artwork, but it’s completely inappropriate. Maybe they nicked it from a Gorillaz album or something.

[cloggypop]

Jamie Hewlett should sue them as well. 

[an tha]

18 minutes ago, Red74 said:

Couldn’t agree more. How the fuck they were allowed to write off those covid losses is beyond me. They were very lucky to escape the fine tha would have sent them into administration. 

Truly mind boggling what they claimed....supposedly miles bigger than even the biggest clubs losses who would dwarf their matchday revenue and associated revenues and just unbelievably out of whack with the clubs that they are comparable in size/revenues to.

 

 

 

 

 

Laughable.

[Lee909]

Everton Dogs of war

 

[Marko121]

1 hour ago, Colt Seavers said:

To be fair it's probably not the 10 points that hurt them cos they will stay up but all the trophies they win in that time will be tainted 

How many times did they win the transfer window 

[halewood pete]

13 minutes ago, Lee909 said:

Everton Dogs of war

 

 

[Lee909]

[Harry's Lad]

3 minutes ago, Lee909 said:

All together now, I fear for them I really do!

[an tha]

25 minutes ago, Lee909 said:

Haha - oooft.

 

Sadly i think it would take ages for court case from relegated clubs to be settled wouldn't it?

[Lee909]

2 minutes ago, an tha said:

Haha - oooft.

 

Sadly i think it would take ages for court case from relegated clubs to be settled wouldn't it?

 

Yeah

They are appealing which takes time, then the clubs will push for money. They'll appeal that and it'll all get pushed back

[Fallen Angel]

It will be interesting to see their u-turn when the Citeh findings are published, particularly if title-stripping is amongst the potential punishments - and awarding such titles to the second-placed team. 
 

The whole protest now serves two purposes; a) get the points deduction lowered as much as possible (hence secure PL status) and, b) play the victim card (again!) to prevent further action (scapegoat position I’ve heard over from their fan-base).

 

They’d be far better cutting a deal that the 10 points is it (it won’t relegate them unless DCL is injured on Feb 1st and out for the rest of the season) - and draws a line under all matters up until the sale is complete. I don’t think they want the full extent of ‘Uncle Uzzy’s’ (taps nose) involvement coming out. The only motivation I can see for him dropping millions on Moshiri is money laundering. Moshiri may have been a shill from the off - but why then did Usmanov remain in the shadows after he extricated himself from being up the Arse. 
 

What the relegated clubs do now is another matter which may hinder the sale - unless he takes another massive financial hit (pointing to the shill argument again). He can’t just be such an incompetent businessman surely? 

[Anubis]

8 hours ago, an tha said:

Damning.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/11/17/everton-premier-league-points-penalty-legal-case-playerx/

Any way past the paywall?

 

EDIT: See couple of posts below.

[Anubis]

Just need them to go into administration so we can buy BMD, name it the Beggar’s Stadium, and use the side facing the waterfront to advertise our trophy haul and stadium tours.

[Anubis]

Non-paywall version of that Telegraph article. 

 

As the perilous nature of Everton’s finances became clear in the spring of last year, and the distinct possibility emerged that it would break the financial rules that govern all 20 Premier League members, the club formulated a plan.

 

The idea was to demonstrate to the Premier League’s governance department that sufficient costs were deductible from Everton’s huge losses. If the club could do so, Everton’s finances could come in under the threshold of £105 million permitted losses for the monitoring period in question. It would not be easy, so Everton’s compliance department had to be creative.

 

Just how creative was demonstrated in the full judgment published on Friday that detailed the case – prosecuted by the Premier League – which led to Everton’s 10-point deduction by an independent commission.

 

Everton sought to remove no less than £94.2 million of losses from their financial fair play calculation – now known as profit and sustainability rules (PSR) – in a few clicks on the spreadsheet. What they proposed stretched the credulity of the Premier League’s lawyers beyond breaking point, and one item will be hard to forget.

 

Everton claimed that they could have made £10 million from suing a player whom they had been forced to dismiss for breach of contract the previous year, 2021. The individual, known only as Player X, was an asset and Everton believed it should be rewarded for not taking legal action against him.

Everton had announced in 2021 that they had initially suspended a player after he was arrested by Greater Manchester Police on suspicion of child sex offences. After a two-year investigation the player was not charged and faced no further action.

 

On August 26 last year, Everton’s legal department sent that point regarding not taking legal action, and three others, arguing for a total £94.2 million reduction to the losses in its PSR calculation, and waited for a response.

 

On Dec 9 last year, it came from Jamie Herbert, the Premier League governance director. He called to say the Premier League board was emphatic in its view: the £10 million rebate for Everton not suing Player X would not be accepted.

 

Neither would the other £82.2 million in the loss reduction for which Everton applied. That included £61 million claimed in Covid player trading losses; £17.4 million Everton believed it had recouped by charging interest on an inter-company loan; and £5.8 million that the club thought it could set aside on a universal transfer levy all 20 clubs pay.

 

On March 1 of this year, and despite the view conveyed from the Premier League board, Everton submitted a revised PSR calculation including some of the items it had been told were not admissible. This time the club said it had made losses of £87.1 million for the period in question – £17.9 million below the permitted threshold of £105 million. The Premier League felt it had no option but to charge the club with a serious PSR breach.

 

Much of what was revealed in the judgment suggested Everton’s finances were a slow-motion catastrophe. Despite the excuses and the explanations that were thrown in the way, impact was finally reached with Friday’s judgment. Whether a 10-point deduction sends Everton down in May after 70 years in English football’s top flight remains to be seen. What is not in doubt is that the club and its owner, Farhad Moshiri, were given plenty of chances to get their house in order.

Everton owner Farhad Moshiri spent millions to make the club competitive - Alex Livesey/Getty Images© Provided by The Telegraph

Indeed, the club were given meetings and asked to formulate plans. Allowances were made for the anomalies in their situation, especially around the Bramley-Moore stadium project. In Aug 2021, they signed a bespoke agreement with the Premier League. But the club just kept spending on players.

 

It is telling that in March of this year, when Everton’s lawyers hit send to submit their PSR calculation, they claimed to be compliant. By the time it reached the pre-trial hearing on Oct 4, they accepted they no longer were. Their argument had changed dramatically. They accepted that in fact they were £7.9 million over the £105 million threshold. But, Everton said, there were mitigating factors.

 

Come the end of the hearing, with the case proven in the Premier League’s favour, Everton were pleading that they should have a financial and not a sporting sanction. The club even suggested they should get a transfer ban of some sort. By then the three-strong commission led by David Phillips KC had seen enough – a points deduction was, in their view, the only credible sanction.

 

While many will say that Everton have been dealt with much more swiftly than Manchester City’s alleged PSR breaches, and attendant refusal to disclose, which date back to 2009-2010, one could hardly argue that the Merseyside club’s case has been fast-tracked. The first concerns, relating to the investment in the new stadium, came in early 2019. These were addressed by the Premier League.

 

They would be the first of a number of allowances that the league made for Everton, its precarious financial position and Moshiri whose investment in Everton – the commission heard – now totals around £750 million.

 

The problem with the new stadium was unusual. The former Unesco World Heritage status of the Merseyside seafront threw up an anomalous accounting problem. Because the Unesco status – since revoked in light of the stadium build – meant planning was not assured, Everton’s investment could not be capitalised on the balance sheet. Instead, it was booked as a loss. In August 2021, the Premier League came to an agreement that those costs incurred before planning was granted – £39.3 million – should not count as PSR losses.

The Bramley-Moore stadium project has impacted the Merseyside seafront's Unesco status - Mark Seddon/Everton FC© Provided by The Telegraph

It did so conditionally that Everton would not breach PSR with other costs. The club had a strategy, devised by the now departed sporting director Marcel Brands, which included selling eight players for a net profit of around £50 million. None of this happened as planned.

 

By early last year it was clear that the club were, in spite of the agreement struck the previous August, heading for a PSR breach.

 

Accordingly, other clubs would, the commission heard, “drive a hard bargain” on player fees. Everton believed the sale of Richarlison would earn them £80 million in the summer of last year. That they received just £60 million from Tottenham Hotspur was, the club said, “directly attributable to [Everton’s] PSR calculation difficulties”.

 

Even so, the decision by Everton in March this year to ignore the Premier League advice, and submit a PSR calculation the club had been warned would not be accepted, did not help the cause. The Premier League said the claim was an aggravating factor and raised the breach to £124.5 million.

 

Also in March, Premier League lawyers said that they wanted the case concluded by the end of the 2022-23 season. Had it done so Everton would have been relegated in 19th position and Leicester City – who finished two points behind them – would have been saved.

 

The commission decided such a timeframe was “unrealistic” but it would be one of the few arguments the Premier League’s lawyers would lose.

Everton docked 10 points for breaking Premier League’s financial rules© Provided by The Telegraph

By the time Everton reached October, their optimistic appeal to write off £94.2 million of losses had been comprehensively revised. Now it sought to have just £11.7 million of losses disregarded.

 

The club admitted

breaching PSR. Instead, they pleaded for mitigation. Players could not be sold, Everton said, because of Covid. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had meant that the training ground sponsorship deal with sanctioned oligarch Alisher Usmanov, £200 million over 20 years, had to be ripped up.

 

“Recklessness” was the Premier League’s lawyers’ view of Everton’s continued spending on players. As for the selling of them, it was not the case that Covid was hampering Everton in the transfer market, the Premier League said, rather it was the fact there was “no ready purchaser for those players at the prices Everton was seeking”.

 

“Unwise” said the commission of Everton’s decision to continue buying players in the hope that sales would enable them to comply with PSR. “Events,” the commission concluded, “have proved that to be a poor judgement”. This position that Everton found themselves was, the commission added, “of its own making”. The excess over the permitted £105 million threshold was “significant” and, as a result, “Everton’s culpability is great”.

 

As for Player X, whose sacking Everton argued cost them £10 million on their PSR calculation, the club said that they did not pursue a legal case in deference to his “psychological wellbeing”. The commission politely disagreed. Even in the event of a successful £10 million legal case against Player X, the commission pointed out, he may never even have been able to pay his old club the damages. That argument, like a great deal else Everton advanced, was a fanciful last defence of a club with nowhere left to go.

 

[Lee909]

Absolute pisstake what they've tried. As is the sympathy and crying from Carragher,Osman etc. 

 

They extended and extended and cost Leicester and Burnley a season of top flight football

[Bobby Hundreds]

Its outrageous what they have got away with. Their losses and over spending are much higher and the Premier league have allowed all kinds of book cooking to give them the most lenient punishment possible even more so moving the time frame back so they weren't relegated last season at Leicesters expense. They have the balls to call it harsh and a witch hunt. 10 points nowhere near enough.

[DalyanPete]

10 hours ago, Reckoner said:

second stadium

Third stadium, got evicted from the first one and the rest is history.

[DalyanPete]

1 hour ago, Anubis said:

Non-paywall version of that Telegraph article. 

 

As the perilous nature of Everton’s finances became clear in the spring of last year, and the distinct possibility emerged that it would break the financial rules that govern all 20 Premier League members, the club formulated a plan.

 

The idea was to demonstrate to the Premier League’s governance department that sufficient costs were deductible from Everton’s huge losses. If the club could do so, Everton’s finances could come in under the threshold of £105 million permitted losses for the monitoring period in question. It would not be easy, so Everton’s compliance department had to be creative.

 

Just how creative was demonstrated in the full judgment published on Friday that detailed the case – prosecuted by the Premier League – which led to Everton’s 10-point deduction by an independent commission.

 

Everton sought to remove no less than £94.2 million of losses from their financial fair play calculation – now known as profit and sustainability rules (PSR) – in a few clicks on the spreadsheet. What they proposed stretched the credulity of the Premier League’s lawyers beyond breaking point, and one item will be hard to forget.

 

Everton claimed that they could have made £10 million from suing a player whom they had been forced to dismiss for breach of contract the previous year, 2021. The individual, known only as Player X, was an asset and Everton believed it should be rewarded for not taking legal action against him.

Everton had announced in 2021 that they had initially suspended a player after he was arrested by Greater Manchester Police on suspicion of child sex offences. After a two-year investigation the player was not charged and faced no further action.

 

On August 26 last year, Everton’s legal department sent that point regarding not taking legal action, and three others, arguing for a total £94.2 million reduction to the losses in its PSR calculation, and waited for a response.

 

On Dec 9 last year, it came from Jamie Herbert, the Premier League governance director. He called to say the Premier League board was emphatic in its view: the £10 million rebate for Everton not suing Player X would not be accepted.

 

Neither would the other £82.2 million in the loss reduction for which Everton applied. That included £61 million claimed in Covid player trading losses; £17.4 million Everton believed it had recouped by charging interest on an inter-company loan; and £5.8 million that the club thought it could set aside on a universal transfer levy all 20 clubs pay.

 

On March 1 of this year, and despite the view conveyed from the Premier League board, Everton submitted a revised PSR calculation including some of the items it had been told were not admissible. This time the club said it had made losses of £87.1 million for the period in question – £17.9 million below the permitted threshold of £105 million. The Premier League felt it had no option but to charge the club with a serious PSR breach.

 

Much of what was revealed in the judgment suggested Everton’s finances were a slow-motion catastrophe. Despite the excuses and the explanations that were thrown in the way, impact was finally reached with Friday’s judgment. Whether a 10-point deduction sends Everton down in May after 70 years in English football’s top flight remains to be seen. What is not in doubt is that the club and its owner, Farhad Moshiri, were given plenty of chances to get their house in order.

Everton owner Farhad Moshiri spent millions to make the club competitive - Alex Livesey/Getty Images© Provided by The Telegraph

Indeed, the club were given meetings and asked to formulate plans. Allowances were made for the anomalies in their situation, especially around the Bramley-Moore stadium project. In Aug 2021, they signed a bespoke agreement with the Premier League. But the club just kept spending on players.

 

It is telling that in March of this year, when Everton’s lawyers hit send to submit their PSR calculation, they claimed to be compliant. By the time it reached the pre-trial hearing on Oct 4, they accepted they no longer were. Their argument had changed dramatically. They accepted that in fact they were £7.9 million over the £105 million threshold. But, Everton said, there were mitigating factors.

 

Come the end of the hearing, with the case proven in the Premier League’s favour, Everton were pleading that they should have a financial and not a sporting sanction. The club even suggested they should get a transfer ban of some sort. By then the three-strong commission led by David Phillips KC had seen enough – a points deduction was, in their view, the only credible sanction.

 

While many will say that Everton have been dealt with much more swiftly than Manchester City’s alleged PSR breaches, and attendant refusal to disclose, which date back to 2009-2010, one could hardly argue that the Merseyside club’s case has been fast-tracked. The first concerns, relating to the investment in the new stadium, came in early 2019. These were addressed by the Premier League.

 

They would be the first of a number of allowances that the league made for Everton, its precarious financial position and Moshiri whose investment in Everton – the commission heard – now totals around £750 million.

 

The problem with the new stadium was unusual. The former Unesco World Heritage status of the Merseyside seafront threw up an anomalous accounting problem. Because the Unesco status – since revoked in light of the stadium build – meant planning was not assured, Everton’s investment could not be capitalised on the balance sheet. Instead, it was booked as a loss. In August 2021, the Premier League came to an agreement that those costs incurred before planning was granted – £39.3 million – should not count as PSR losses.

The Bramley-Moore stadium project has impacted the Merseyside seafront's Unesco status - Mark Seddon/Everton FC© Provided by The Telegraph

It did so conditionally that Everton would not breach PSR with other costs. The club had a strategy, devised by the now departed sporting director Marcel Brands, which included selling eight players for a net profit of around £50 million. None of this happened as planned.

 

By early last year it was clear that the club were, in spite of the agreement struck the previous August, heading for a PSR breach.

 

Accordingly, other clubs would, the commission heard, “drive a hard bargain” on player fees. Everton believed the sale of Richarlison would earn them £80 million in the summer of last year. That they received just £60 million from Tottenham Hotspur was, the club said, “directly attributable to [Everton’s] PSR calculation difficulties”.

 

Even so, the decision by Everton in March this year to ignore the Premier League advice, and submit a PSR calculation the club had been warned would not be accepted, did not help the cause. The Premier League said the claim was an aggravating factor and raised the breach to £124.5 million.

 

Also in March, Premier League lawyers said that they wanted the case concluded by the end of the 2022-23 season. Had it done so Everton would have been relegated in 19th position and Leicester City – who finished two points behind them – would have been saved.

 

The commission decided such a timeframe was “unrealistic” but it would be one of the few arguments the Premier League’s lawyers would lose.

Everton docked 10 points for breaking Premier League’s financial rules© Provided by The Telegraph

By the time Everton reached October, their optimistic appeal to write off £94.2 million of losses had been comprehensively revised. Now it sought to have just £11.7 million of losses disregarded.

 

The club admitted

breaching PSR. Instead, they pleaded for mitigation. Players could not be sold, Everton said, because of Covid. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had meant that the training ground sponsorship deal with sanctioned oligarch Alisher Usmanov, £200 million over 20 years, had to be ripped up.

 

“Recklessness” was the Premier League’s lawyers’ view of Everton’s continued spending on players. As for the selling of them, it was not the case that Covid was hampering Everton in the transfer market, the Premier League said, rather it was the fact there was “no ready purchaser for those players at the prices Everton was seeking”.

 

“Unwise” said the commission of Everton’s decision to continue buying players in the hope that sales would enable them to comply with PSR. “Events,” the commission concluded, “have proved that to be a poor judgement”. This position that Everton found themselves was, the commission added, “of its own making”. The excess over the permitted £105 million threshold was “significant” and, as a result, “Everton’s culpability is great”.

 

As for Player X, whose sacking Everton argued cost them £10 million on their PSR calculation, the club said that they did not pursue a legal case in deference to his “psychological wellbeing”. The commission politely disagreed. Even in the event of a successful £10 million legal case against Player X, the commission pointed out, he may never even have been able to pay his old club the damages. That argument, like a great deal else Everton advanced, was a fanciful last defence of a club with nowhere left to go.

 

What an excellent read.

[Reckoner]

10 minutes ago, DalyanPete said:

Third stadium, got evicted from the first one and the rest is history.

Oh fuck, yeah thats right. Around the time they last won a trophy?

[Paulie Dangerously]

The powers that be bent over backward to help them it seems. 

[JohnnyH]

It’s been very odd to watch people claim this is unfair on Everton and they should fight it, based mainly on the idea that Man City are bigger cheats and haven’t been done yet? Daft whataboutery at its internet finest. 

[Lurtz]

10 hours ago, an tha said:

Damning.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/11/17/everton-premier-league-points-penalty-legal-case-playerx/

 

I'd forgotten about this. The vain, shitcunt bastards. 

 

"The former Unesco World Heritage status of the Merseyside seafront threw up an anomalous accounting problem. Because the Unesco status – since revoked in light of the stadium build – meant planning was not assured,"

 

 

I absolutely hate them, the self entitled rats. I can't wait to see where they end up after legal action from the other clubs, their fabled takeover evaporating, another 9 point deduction and administration. I hope they have to demolish their waterfront fruitbowl of a stadium. Fucking scum. 

[Reckoner]

14 minutes ago, DalyanPete said:

What an excellent read.

They were worried about the psychological well-being of a certified nonce more than playing by the rules. Heart warming. And he didn’t have the money either.

That was an actual argument. From a lawyer.