They didn't obliterate FFP though. The PL found that their relevant losses for the 3 year period to the end of the 21/22 season were £124.5m, with allowable losses of £105m. They were only £19.5m (or £6.5m per season) outside the PL's profit and sustainability limit. I'd say a 10 point penalty for that is actually quite harsh.
Everton and zero money - Updated 17/11/23
- Thread starter topher
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 469
I personally think it's getting off lightly..
The problem is.. if the punishment is not sever enough.. then it will make others do the same..
say everton get 3 points for only going 6.5m a season over.. what's that.. 1 point per 6.5m..
some teams would do the math.. and think it's ok to spend an extra 65mill and deal with the 10 point deduction.. do that << for a few seasons, and assuming you'd survive, you'd have amassed quite a team
The problem is.. if the punishment is not sever enough.. then it will make others do the same..
say everton get 3 points for only going 6.5m a season over.. what's that.. 1 point per 6.5m..
some teams would do the math.. and think it's ok to spend an extra 65mill and deal with the 10 point deduction.. do that << for a few seasons, and assuming you'd survive, you'd have amassed quite a team
Caporegime
The people running Everton have just been stupid about it. It's a very easy thing to nail them on, unlike the 115 charges City are facing.
City's people could have easily covered up that £19.5m.
City's people could have easily covered up that £19.5m.
Simplest method would be guaranteed relegation for a team breaching rules no matter where they finish in the league. Harsh on Everton but their punishment is basically community service in terms of the league this season.
Man City are never being charged, we should just accept it'll always be hanging over them forever and a day. Even 10 points or a transfer embargo isn't going to hurt city as they have 2 full strength squads and a very good youth setup.
Man City are never being charged, we should just accept it'll always be hanging over them forever and a day. Even 10 points or a transfer embargo isn't going to hurt city as they have 2 full strength squads and a very good youth setup.
They have already been charged.
Caporegime
The points deduction may turn out to be insignificant, but it looks like there's going to be a flurry of legal action, and even if it fails, it could potentially jeopardise a takeover of the club.
Last edited:
Fair result. Anyone going over by 20m should get 10 points. If you go over by 200m lose 100 points. If that drops you down two leagues so be it.
Or you know, just scrap FFP and come up with something fair that doesn't take a huge amount of monitoring or create an old boys club.
Or you know, just scrap FFP and come up with something fair that doesn't take a huge amount of monitoring or create an old boys club.
FFP doesn't just protect the big clubs, they are already big with loads of money and always will be.
It's supposed to mainly protect the other smaller clubs and give them all a level playing field to grow. no big club was effected by Everton cheating, but a lot of smaller clubs went down when maybe they shouldn't and lost 100s of millions.
The fact the dirty, racist, murdering, blood money at City and Chelsea was enough to at least pay off the FA for long enough so far for those sides to establish themselves doesn't change the fact that FFP is a good thing overall
Last edited:
Caporegime
It has actually broken the old firm clubs as they are all legitimate businesses and cannot fake their revenue. Clubs like City circumvent this by falsifying their sponsorship deals etc. In a couple of seasons time Newcastle's revenue will be the same as the old firm. (Arsenal, Liverpool and United).
All Newcastle need to do is play some summer friendly tournament in Saudi and get 200 million in fake money.
Associate
20m over three seasons is hardly the kind of money that will turn a club from a poor squad to a good squad, so don’t really get your point about how it’s hilarious they still play poor football…. Like 6m per season is the difference between having a good side and a bad side lol
That £20mil is on top of them one of the 20 richest clubs in the world. Total mismanagement.
Associate
How has it broken them ? They still have huge spending advantage over most of the league. Be arsed listening to their fans cryarsing because two other clubs can now match or outspend them whilst the other 14 clubs basically get told that the only way they can ever break into elite is by a miracle and even when one occurs (Leicester) it has no real long term effect on their status as they will never bring in enough income each season to compete with the big guys over multiple seasons.
All FFP has done is kill the one and only bit of hope (getting rich owners) smaller clubs ever had of competing at the top.
It’s the worst thing to happen to top flight football, if you’ve got money then let them spend it. Yea it’s still unfair on clubs that don’t have money but we are never going to have a system like US sports where parity is encouraged so getting rid of FFP at least gives some hope that the pecking order could be disrupted if your club is lucky enough to land rich and ambitious owners.
Of course it’s mismanagement but that’s not my point. My point is that 6m a season over three years is hardly going to make any difference to whether they play good or bad football.
Last edited:
Soldato
You can find the panels written reasons for the points deduction here.
A brief summary of the rules and some details of this case: Under the PL's profit and sustainability rules clubs can lose a maximum of £105m over a rolling 3 year period however crucially not all expenses are included in this calculation - expenses relating to infrastructure work, women's and youth football can all be excluded. Furthermore as a result of covid there further allowable adjustments - lost revenue and costs related to covid would also be factored into the £105 calculation.
When Everton filed their accounts for the 21/22 season the PL determined that Everton's total losses for the 3 year period, taking into account all deductions related to their stadium, women's & youth teams and covid, totaled £124.5m. Everton initially argued that their losses were only £87m but later accepted that it was circa £113m.
There were 4 main points of argument between the PL & Everton over how they calculated Everton's total loss:
A brief summary of the rules and some details of this case: Under the PL's profit and sustainability rules clubs can lose a maximum of £105m over a rolling 3 year period however crucially not all expenses are included in this calculation - expenses relating to infrastructure work, women's and youth football can all be excluded. Furthermore as a result of covid there further allowable adjustments - lost revenue and costs related to covid would also be factored into the £105 calculation.
When Everton filed their accounts for the 21/22 season the PL determined that Everton's total losses for the 3 year period, taking into account all deductions related to their stadium, women's & youth teams and covid, totaled £124.5m. Everton initially argued that their losses were only £87m but later accepted that it was circa £113m.
There were 4 main points of argument between the PL & Everton over how they calculated Everton's total loss:
- Interest charges on bank loans. Everton argued that these loans were a result of the stadium project and therefore should be excluded from the profit and sustainability calculation. The PL determined that the loans were not used for the stadium with Moshiri personally funding the stadium work and therefore the interest charged was an expense that applied to the profit and sustainability calculation.
- Transfer levy. Clubs pay the PL 4% of transfer fees that is put towards a players pension scheme however any surplus is then put into a youth football fund. Everton argued that as some of that money was going into youth football it is therefore excluded from P&S calculations. This was rejected as the purpose of the levy was to fund a pension scheme and only if there was any surplus would it go into youth football. The PL also pointed out that Everton (nor any other club) have ever tried to deduct this levy from their calculations in previous years.
- Player x. Firstly nobody is to name him (he's even called player x in the report). Everton signed a very expensive player who was subsequently suspended for legal reasons and later released by the club. At the time he was released he had a 'value' (from an accounting pov) of £10m and as such that £10m was recorded as a loss. Everton stated that they could have taken legal action against the player to recoup that £10m however chose not to citing the players welfare however argued that the £10m should not be included in their P&S calculations. The PL disagreed.
- Player impairment charges related to covid. PL clubs agreed that reduced values of players linked to covid were acceptable covid losses and could be adjusted for in their P&S calculations. Everton argued £xm worth of losses by not being able to sell or selling players at reduced values. The PL ultimately disagreed on the amount Everton were claiming.
And what of all the small clubs that have no choice BUT to overspend without having some dodgy money to cover it ? what do you suggest they do ? just give up.
It's something like 40 clubs in the last 20 years that have gone into receivership, largely chasing other clubs that get bankrolled by dodgy money or because the dodgy money dries up.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Imagine if we're 'x' points away from safety at the end of the season and then the appeal reduces the point deduction by 'x' points and we stay up and someone else goes down.
More threats of being sued.
More threats of being sued.