Everton and zero money - Updated 17/11/23

[dannyjo22]

I don't see how they could be compensated when the ruling was they gained no sporting benefit/advantage. But it would be hilarious if the rules to stop a club going into administration sent a club into it over £20m that they could have afforded to pay.

 

[BaZ87]

I don't see how they could be compensated when the ruling was they gained no sporting benefit/advantage. But it would be hilarious if the rules to stop a club going into administration sent a club into it over £20m that they could have afforded to pay.

This isn't true. The panel clearly stated that they did gain an advantage:

We also recognise that the inference of a sporting advantage is one that should properly be drawn from the fact of a PSR breach, and that sporting advantage will have been enjoyed for each of the seasons on which the PSR calculation was based – in this case, because of Covid, four seasons.

The challenge re compensation will be the relegated clubs having to prove that Everton's overspend of £19.5m was the cause of their relegation. That will be incredibly difficult to do by one club let alone three.

 

[woppy101]

This isn't true. The panel clearly stated that they did gain an advantage:

The challenge re compensation will be the relegated clubs having to prove that Everton's overspend of £19.5m was the cause of their relegation. That will be incredibly difficult to do by one club let alone three.

Would it not be Leicester that had the best chance of compensation, arguing that had Everton been deducted the points last season when they were charge, they would have gone down instead of Leicester?

 

[BaZ87]

Would it not be Leicester that had the best chance of compensation, arguing that had Everton been deducted the points last season when they were charge, they would have gone down instead of Leicester?

I don't think they can make that argument. Everton have been given a points deduction this season, you surely cannot then give them a theoretical points deduction for last season too? That would be a double punishment for the same charge. From what I understand the relegated clubs are going to have to prove that the advantage Everton received as a result of breaching the rules was the cause of their lost earnings.

The one example we have of this before was West Ham & Sheffield Utd re Tevez. Sheffield Utd claimed losses of £45m from lost tv revenue (circa £100m today) and ended up reaching an out of court settlement with West Ham for £15m (paid in £5m installments) + a further £5m if West Ham were sold (as a PL club?) within x years. Imo it was far easier for Sheffield Utd to prove that West Ham's rule break caused their relegation as Tevez directly scored the goals that kept West Ham up. Despite that, they ultimately settled for around a third of what they claimed. Imo it'll be far harder to prove that Everton paying £125k per week in wages across 3 years (that's all Everton's breach boils down to) caused x to be relegated.

 

[dannyjo22]

Did they argue about the lost money with player x?

 

[BaZ87]

Did they argue about the lost money with player x?

Yes. They claimed that they should be able to deduct their loss on him but this was dismissed by the PL and that decision was supported by the panel.

 

[dannyjo22]

Yes. They claimed that they should be able to deduct their loss on him but this was dismissed by the PL and that decision was supported by the panel.

Fair enough, you would think they would have given them that one. Although no one ever really elaborated what went on with him so I guess theres more to it.

City and Chelsea have to be absolutely ****ing it now. Although knowing football they are probably waiting for City to not win the league and then deduct them 11 points. If any compensation claims are won against Everton then it will be a good job City are backed up by a country because the compensation there would be astronomically large.

 

[BaZ87]

Fair enough, you would think they would have given them that one. Although no one ever really elaborated what went on with him so I guess theres more to it.

City and Chelsea have to be absolutely ****ing it now. Although knowing football they are probably waiting for City to not win the league and then deduct them 11 points. If any compensation claims are won against Everton then it will be a good job City are backed up by a country because the compensation there would be astronomically large.

I'm not sure why they'd have been allowed that. Everton's argument was that they were advised that they had grounds to sue the player for their loss (the £10m write off on his value) but chose not to because of his psychological wellbeing and because of that, they should be able to deduct that expense.

The panel dismissed the argument in principle putting it down as simply a bad business deal, comparing it to any number of other reasons why a club loses money on a player such as injuries and loss of form. They also pointed out that there was no certainty that Everton would have won their claim against player x or that player x would have the means to pay them even if they did.

People should read the report if they have time. While I think the final punishment is on the harsh side, it's a fairly clear cut case. Everton overspent and their attempts to pretend they hadn't or explain why they had were more than a bit weak. I did write a bit about them already:

1. Interest on loans being a stadium expense - They weren't stadium expenses. Everton's own loan application, where they explicitly state that the money was not to be used for the stadium, prove that. Edit: An aggravating factor in the panel's decision was that Everton didn't act in good faith by attempting to mislead the PL on this point btw.
2. Transfer levy - These were not youth expenses and therefore exempt from P&S calculations. This is money for a players pension scheme and no club, including Everton, have ever tried to argue that they're youth expenses.
3. Player x - explained above.
4. Lost money on player sales due to covid & pressure due to their tricky finances - The PL accepted some of Everton's claimed losses here but Everton were clearly pushing their luck. As an example they claim that they would have sold Richarlison for £80m instead of £60m. Yeah, good luck with that.

 

[Mekrel]

1. As an example they claim that they would have sold Richarlison for £80m instead of £60m. Yeah, good luck with that.

I don't know about that, we (Manchester United) love an overpriced Brazilian!

 

[BaZ87]

I don't know about that, we (Manchester United) love an overpriced Brazilian!

Haha you don't know how close I came to writing, "you were selling to Spurs, not Utd"

 

[Reuben klang]

I'm not sure why they'd have been allowed that. Everton's argument was that they were advised that they had grounds to sue the player for their loss (the £10m write off on his value) but chose not to because of his psychological wellbeing and because of that, they should be able to deduct that expense.

The panel dismissed the argument in principle putting it down as simply a bad business deal, comparing it to any number of other reasons why a club loses money on a player such as injuries and loss of form. They also pointed out that there was no certainty that Everton would have won their claim against player x or that player x would have the means to pay them even if they did.

People should read the report if they have time. While I think the final punishment is on the harsh side, it's a fairly clear cut case. Everton overspent and their attempts to pretend they hadn't or explain why they had were more than a bit weak. I did write a bit about them already:

1. Interest on loans being a stadium expense - They weren't stadium expenses. Everton's own loan application, where they explicitly state that the money was not to be used for the stadium, prove that. Edit: An aggravating factor in the panel's decision was that Everton didn't act in good faith by attempting to mislead the PL on this point btw.
2. Transfer levy - These were not youth expenses and therefore exempt from P&S calculations. This is money for a players pension scheme and no club, including Everton, have ever tried to argue that they're youth expenses.
3. Player x - explained above.
4. Lost money on player sales due to covid & pressure due to their tricky finances - The PL accepted some of Everton's claimed losses here but Everton were clearly pushing their luck. As an example they claim that they would have sold Richarlison for £80m instead of £60m. Yeah, good luck with that.

Nice summary, I‘ve not had a chance to read the full report yet but will get around to it eventually. I believe from bits and bobs i have read that they effectively lost £200m over night because they couldn’t get the naming rights through for the stadia because of the war.

Pretty crazy if that’s the case.

 

[BaZ87]

Nice summary, I‘ve not had a chance to read the full report yet but will get around to it eventually. I believe from bits and bobs i have read that they effectively lost £200m over night because they couldn’t get the naming rights through for the stadia because of the war.

Pretty crazy if that’s the case.

Not quite. Everton had an agreement with USM Services Limited (an Usmanov company) that gave them the option of naming rights for £10m per year and if the option was taken up, it would commence from the 25/26 season. In the hearing Everton claimed, as a mitigating factor, that they were in negotiations with USM to trigger the option and bring the agreement forwards with the first payment being made in the 21/22 season but negotiations ended when Russia invaded Ukraine and Usmanov was sanctioned. The PL, rightly imo, dismissed this (who sponsors a stadium years before it's completed?) and the commision agreed with the PL, citing that there was no evidence that such an agreement was likely to happen.

 

[Reuben klang]

Not quite. Everton had an agreement with USM Services Limited (an Usmanov company) that gave them the option of naming rights for £10m per year and if the option was taken up, it would commence from the 25/26 season. In the hearing Everton claimed, as a mitigating factor, that they were in negotiations with USM to trigger the option and bring the agreement forwards with the first payment being made in the 21/22 season but negotiations ended when Russia invaded Ukraine and Usmanov was sanctioned. The PL, rightly imo, dismissed this (who sponsors a stadium years before it's completed?) and the commision agreed with the PL, citing that there was no evidence that such an agreement was likely to happen.

Man, it’s a lot worse than first thought then.

I reckon they’ll still stay up even with the 10 points docked off.

 

[BaZ87]

I have mentioned this a few times, most recently when some people were calling for the PL's FFP rules to be relaxed but with all the talk about Everton's 10 point penalty and wild claims of corruption, it's either being ignored or people just aren't aware at what a precarious situation Everton are in. The article below from an Everton fan breaks down just how much **** Everton find themselves in thanks to Moshiri 'giving it a go' and 'showing ambition'.

Even before potential relegation or compensation to Leeds, Leicester etc, there's a very real danger of Everton going into administration. Their debts are spiraling, paying ridiculous interest rates on these debts and they're continuing to lose money. Their credit line is soon going to dry up, especially as that credit line is currently their potential new buyers who many think won't be given approval to buy the club. Then what happens? Moshiri has seemingly already cut his losses on the club, accepting that he'll practically have to give the club away, so there's little prospect of him putting further cash into the club to keep the lights on. And there doesn't appear to be a list of potential buyers valuing Everton at the £700m+ required to clear the debt, finish the stadium and fund continuous losses. That leaves a game of chicken between the club and it's creditors as to whether they can cut a deal or Everton going into administration and with Moshiri already having nothing to lose, administration is very much on the table.

Everton’s debt position, the ownership alternatives

There’s been some discussion as to Everton’s current debt position in recent times, particularly if as seems increasingly probable, the proposed acquisition of Moshiri’s 94.1% sta…

theesk.org

 

[BaZ87]

More details on Everton's finances and the madness of their potential buyers, 777 Partners in the link below:

Everton or bust? - josimarfootball.com

A new document reveals who exactly is behind attempts by 777 Partners to acquire Everton, and just how badly the Miami investment firm needs Premier League approval for the deal.

josimarfootball.com

The money that 777 have lent Everton has itself been borrowed by a sketchy insurance firm and at least part (if not all) of the near £200m Everton owe, they're paying 12.75% interest on. Despite 777 not having a pot to **** in, 777 need to purchase Everton. Several of 777's clubs and other businesses are running out of cash and they need to find new investors and they believe that by purchasing Everton it will make raising capital a lot easier and once the stadium is complete, they'll be able to take out a big loan secured against that. 777 intend to use Everton as nothing more than collateral to finance their other businesses.

Moshiri's been a terrible owner for Everton and has left the club in a dire situation but selling to 777 would by far be the worst thing he's ever done to Everton. For all the shouts of corruption and attacks on Richard Masters & the PL, Everton supporters desperately need the PL to block this takeover.

 

[ArcticHeron]

Absolutely absurd proposal. Football clubs should not be used as leverage to prop up dodgey investments in the short term.

 

[Azza]

More details on Everton's finances and the madness of their potential buyers, 777 Partners in the link below:

Everton or bust? - josimarfootball.com

A new document reveals who exactly is behind attempts by 777 Partners to acquire Everton, and just how badly the Miami investment firm needs Premier League approval for the deal.

josimarfootball.com

The money that 777 have lent Everton has itself been borrowed by a sketchy insurance firm and at least part (if not all) of the near £200m Everton owe, they're paying 12.75% interest on. Despite 777 not having a pot to **** in, 777 need to purchase Everton. Several of 777's clubs and other businesses are running out of cash and they need to find new investors and they believe that by purchasing Everton it will make raising capital a lot easier and once the stadium is complete, they'll be able to take out a big loan secured against that. 777 intend to use Everton as nothing more than collateral to finance their other businesses.

Moshiri's been a terrible owner for Everton and has left the club in a dire situation but selling to 777 would by far be the worst thing he's ever done to Everton. For all the shouts of corruption and attacks on Richard Masters & the PL, Everton supporters desperately need the PL to block this takeover.

What I don't understand is how the Premier League can look at how 777 are running the other clubs and businesses and think, "okay we'll give them extra time to answer a few more questions" or what ever the reason is. It's really bizarre.

 

[Maundie]

If this is even slightly true then Everton fans must be worried, I do like to see them suffer but even this is something I don't want to see happening, sadly football sold it's soul many years ago

 

[BaZ87]

What I don't understand is how the Premier League can look at how 777 are running the other clubs and businesses and think, "okay we'll give them extra time to answer a few more questions" or what ever the reason is. It's really bizarre.

I guess it's a legal matter with the PL needing to be seen as providing 777 with the opportunity to pass the ODT. By that I don't mean they're trying to help 777 complete the deal but simply covering their backsides in case of any legal challenge should they have failed them.

Although there's been all sorts of stories about illegality at 777, other than a 20+ year old drugs conviction there doesn't appear to be an obvious disqualifying factor for the PL to simply fail them. It appears to all boil down to funding (or lack of it) and until 777 can satisfy the PL that they have the funds in place to buy and run the club then they won't get approval and as the article states, every time there's a story about financial issues at other 777 clubs/businesses, it only makes 777's task of convincing the PL that they have the money harder. Things are going to come to a head sooner rather than later though. With the delays and huge uncertainty that the deal will get approval, surely 777 (A-CAP) can't risk loaning the club more money and the club is going to need more money meaning 777 and or Moshiri pulling the plug on the deal before the PL is very possible.

 

[LunaDreams]

United fan here. I am looking to get Onana on a cheeky little £50 million this summer. What are the chances?