Why do I see endless waves of everton fans say they haven’t broke any rules, and everything will be turned over through appeal?
Has any one seen the latest athletic article?
Everton football club are really in trouble here, and I believe all 3 teams looking for a court case will win. That is another possible 9 point deduction.
Also, all this talk of a hostile goodison on the weekend, for what gain?
Second question would be, why does everyone now relate this to Man City? Since when have Man City ever been comparable to any other team in the prem?
Fairness is something we can all agree on, but it’s not the way it works.
Does anyone else think Everton are safe, even with another 9 point deduction, because I do. But I digress, why do Everton fans feel they have done nothing wrong?
You must log in or register to comment.
Firstly, Sean Dyche isn’t inexperienced with the odd relegation scrap. He’s kept us up before and he’ll do it again.
Secondly, people relate this to Man City for the deplorable 115 FFP breaches. For 1 charge, we are deducted 10. For 115, they get off scot free.
Not all breaches are the same. If I shoplift 10 chocolate bars, that’s definitely not worse than murdering 2 people.
What?
- Because they are Everton fans.
- Because even though they have broken rules, they have seen their club decline massively, so don’t see any gain from the ‘cheating’ and feel especially hard done by. Like people’s no smoke without fire opinion for the City case, Everton have been so bad there is no smoke to see.
- Because nobody likes City and they win everything so get a lot of clicks/exposure. Even though they are both accused of cheating, nobody differentiates the type of cheating on a legal basis. Everton were accused of financial doping while City are accused of hiding financial doping. They are similar from an outside perspective but very different cases from a legal perspective, with one being very easy to prove in court and the other a lot messier.
I’m not a blue, but I live in the city where you’re pretty much either red or blue.
The reason why it’ll be “hostile” on the weekend, is because football is pretty much what we live for. We don’t start watching American sports when we play shit, we just stick with footy. The supporters feel like they’ve been harshly punished when it’s been public knowledge of 115 breaches with city. Not to mention Chelsea’s little extended contract rule that got slipped under the carpet.
Aren’t City and Chelseas cases still ongoing?
Considering their first breach was in 2009, the word ongoing is scandalous.
Yeah it probably is, but it’s still ongoing.
Everton don’t deny that they broke the P&S rule. They admit pretty much at the start of the Independent Commission document - the question is about the severity of the breach and any mitigating factors for the punishment - but they aren’t denying that they did it at any point
Everton had 1 P&S breach, City have 3. City were the first to have the charge brought against them, Everton were second, but because the Everton case is smaller (in amount of charges and the fact they didn’t deny it, unlike City) it was quick to get to a judgement
The mad bit about the City one is that the timetable is secret. Given the severity of the charges, the timing of any potential punishment will make it an absolute mess
Let’s say they get kicked out of the PL at the start of September. Are they supposed to play out a season that means nothing? Are the EFL supposed to accept them in?
Let’s say they get kicked out 31st of May. They then start playing in a lower tier. What happens if they successfully appeal? Are they supposed to get reinstated into the PL? At what point?
No matter what, if there are punishments held against City, it’s going to become a mess because they’re going to fight it tooth and nail and the timetable and severity make it almost impossible to do cleanly
You don’t kick them out the PL you hand them a crazy point deduction just throwing out a number -150 points to be carried out in the following season, if we’re at the end of the current one. Or if it’s early enough In the current season just hand it to them like they have done Everton.
The crazy deduction more or less guarantees relegation. If the appeal is in the season, that points are given, then you can just take them away and the season carries on as normal.
Just throwing an idea around.
Plus if people think the Everton lawsuits are bad, imagine what will happen with the teams City beat to win trophies over the years.
Exactly this, it would turn the sport into a game of ligation all across the pyramid. If allowed to go through, not only relegated teams would be able to sue, but also teams that: missed out on promotion, didn’t win a title/trophy, European qualifications, etc.
I personally find it laughable that the teams allegedly suing us think Everton losing $20 million and having one of the worst runs of form in our history with a shoestring transfer budget somehow gave us an unfair advantage. I’m sorry, but if you managed to play worse football than Everton under Rafa/Lampard, that one is on your club. We’ve been absolutely horrid.
I can also think of an interesting hypothetical where if Everton were to get relegated as a result of a further nine point deduction from administration caused by a $300m liability hit, ironically we would have standing to countersue. It is completely stupid, leave the lawyers out of football.
Everton fans have done nothing wrong. Everton players have done nothing wrong. Everton management have done nothing wrong.
The insane ownership, now they have done something wrong.
The fans and the players and management are suffering from decisions made that were beyond their control.
Pretty universal amongst pundits this is seen as harsh.
The reason everyone is bringing up City is apparently they are facing 115 similar breaches. If the ruling is applied evenly that’s 1150 point deduction, which of course will never happen. They won’t lose a point or be stripped of any trophies mostly because they are owned by an Oil state and terrify the FA.
But it’s not the fans club or the players club or the managers club unfortunately, it’s the owners club. I feel bad for the fans yes but this can’t be the argument against otherwise this could just be the argument everytime, the days of fans players or managers really having anything to do with their club at the top level are long gone unfortunately.
I agree but they have specifically mentioned not punishing the fans when making similar decisions in the past. Why is that not the case this time?
The fans are just collateral unfortunately, you can’t just keep making this argument as every club has fans and can just make the same argument, like I said before long gone are the days of it being their club, its just a business nowadays.
I agree, but those decisions were made not that long ago, which means they aren’t being consistent regardless of whether or not the club, all clubs, are being run like a business
Well they are always gonna say when asked they don’t want to punish the fans I’m sure if you asked them now they would say the same thing.
Wasn’t “this will hurt the fans” the same argument used to avoid harshly punishing the break away super league clubs?
Which they totally got away with.
I don’t really see it as an argument against the ruling though. More of a statement of fact. Factually the rules were broken and some sanction is justified. Everton were transparent.
None of the fans, players or managers did this but absolutely they will be the ones suffering for it.
Moshri is probably still smiling his vacant smile and thinking back to the day he “saved” Everton. When in fact he ruined it.
This is true. It’s unfair, but it’s true.
Life’s not fair is it?
But that would require every breach to be equivalent which from what I’ve read definitely isn’t the case. Some of the things that make up the breaches are more minor compared to the more serious stuff
I haven’t seen any of our fans claim we’ve not broken the rules, we just dispute the massively over the top punishment for doing so. Our overspending was entirely related to the new stadium being built and the independent commission’s ruling even states we gained ‘no competitive advantage’ from it, as well as stating that it was ‘a business decision’ not to sell or sue Gylfi Sigurdsson, and that the sanctioning of Usmanov (who was funding the stadium) following the invasion of Ukraine was not a mitigating circumstance. We are rightly outraged by the 10 point deduction for these reasons, however we don’t think our appeal will remove it, just lessen it hopefully.
I agree with you
Our overspending was entirely related to the new stadium being built and the independent commission’s ruling even states we gained ‘no competitive advantage’ from it
According to the Financial Times
“However, the commission concluded that Everton’s losses were largely due to overspending on players, which it described as “unwise” given the clear risk of exceeding permitted losses and repeated warnings from the Premier League.”
Which seems to dispute your claim above.
https://www.ft.com/content/7a527cb2-02fd-411a-a196-f8ae67a4d080
Everton allegedly got confirmation that the interest payments on their loan (many 10s of millions of pound per year) are deductible as per infrastructure spending rules, and as such planned accordingly. The PL changed their mind on this decsion part way through the 21/22 season (after the loan was secured) and the said they would no longer allow this to be deductible.
I’m just reporting that the claim it was solely or mainly due to stadium funding doesn’t appear to be the case based on the independent panel.
I’m not sure it does. Our losses came from spending on players, yes. But we are permitted losses. What we can’t do is overspend - and that overspending was caused by an issue related to the stadium.
The overspending is just that your losses were higher than the agreed amount. So the stadium may have had an some impact but the majority of the impact was from players.
Our overspending was entirely related to the new stadium being built and the independent commission’s ruling even states we gained ‘no competitive advantage’ from it.
Are infrastructure improvements like new stadiums not exempt from the FFP calculations? Pretty sure they were last I checked.
‘a business decision’ not to sell or sue Gylfi Sigurdsson
Surely Everton wouldn’t have been able to sue him unless he was found guilty. I can’t see how it would hold up otherwise. He was acquitted in the end.
Are infrastructure improvements like new stadiums not exempt from the FFP calculations? Pretty sure they were last I checked.
They are but the biggest debate in this case is whether interest of a loan they took out should be deductible or not. It was originally deducted last year but the PL changed their position as they assumed it was used for the stadium when it had not been.
Everton argue that they would never have taken out this loan if it weren’t for the stadium and that Moshiri would have paid of it anyway. The PL argue that the interest of the loans shouldn’t be deducted because the the stadium had been funded by interest free loans by Moshiri - it also noted that when taking out the loan the club had said it would not be used on the stadium or players but working capital and the independent panel sided with them.
It was a loose loose situation for all unfortunately, due to the nature of the arrest of player x, Everton had no choice but to suspended. (Fans would be furious if he played). But they could not sue as he was ultimately not charged. It took 2 years before he got work again and we may never know the truth
Stadiums weren’t exempt from FFP, but then they were made to be exempt a little while ago (not sure how long, I’ll look for a source.) This is why Everton’s £300m loss was reduced to £20m, that accounts for a lot of the stadium costs.
You’re right, Everton couldn’t sue him until he was found guilty, which he wasn’t. The Premier League, in their infinite wisdom, decided that we should have used him anyway to make up the lost wages. Not a lot we can do about that one.
Iirc the stadium / infrastructure was excempt. The problem was that they took the loan out before they got planning permission, which then meant it couldn’t be put into this category, however stupid that is.
I mean I can’t speak for all Everton fans but I will say this:
We have clearly broken the rules, that’s undeniable.
There were mitigating circumstances but the independent commission chose not to factor these in - some of the mitigations we put forward were laughable but some I think had genuine merit.
Regarding the 10 point deduction…it does seem harsh when you consider that the punishment for going into administration is 9 and it seems the punishment for breaking the rules to prevent administration is more severe.
Will we be sued? Time will tell - but if we are then it could set a very dangerous precedent and I honestly can’t see it happening. We’ve broken EPL and have been punished accordingly.
And for those crying about City and corruption, etc etc. Let’s see what happens with them before we make judgements. If City are found guilty and receive a harsh punishment (whatever that might be) then fair game. If the EPL are severe across the board and all rule breakers are treated severely then that’s actually OK. Everyone knows where they stand.
Regarding the 10 point deduction…it does seem harsh when you consider that the punishment for going into administration is 9 and it seems the punishment for breaking the rules to prevent administration is more severe.
Well in your case one of the conclusions the independent commission reached was that they felt that you had knowingly misled the Premier League about the nature and source of the funding for your new stadium (along with some other aggravating factors) whereas with Portsmouth yes they entered administration but they didn’t try and get away with cheating the rules. So it makes sense that your punishment is more harsh than theirs was
my Evertonian neighbour told me that it had a lot to do with a sanction placed on a Russian who had pledged money to the club. the club went out and spent it before actually receiving it, the funds got pulled leaving Everton in a hole.
if that’s true, it sounds more like misfortune than anything else.
It does seem like there needs to be a clear set of punishments. How did they come up with 10 points?
The Prem suggested that 6 points would be appropriate for breaching the rules, with an extra 1 point deduction for every £5m outside of Profit and Sustainability guidelines (Everton breached by nearly £20m).
The independent committee apparently discarded this reasoning, but then came up with 10 points themselves anyway. Source: David Ornstein on the Athletic pod
Two things, it’s clear City can’t be cleared without endless whining about corruption, even if they didn’t actually do anything wrong - which just goes to show, IMO, the objections from fans are about giving their team a better chance, not about “fairness”. If they cared about the rules and the fairness of them they would wait and then respect the decision. Not gonna happen.
Secondly, the rules are dogshit and in place to protect the elite clubs, not football, so I’m fully behind Everton appealing this. A 10pt deduction is utterly ridiculous. Everton are the fall guys propping up the hope of fans of other clubs that City will be taken down.
Other clubs suing them? Be careful what you wish for, you opportunistic soulless clown shows.
If Everton can afford good lawyers this won’t stand IMO.
Your last point is possibly the most important. Its known Everton can not afford good lawyers (owner has financial issues so is trying to sell) , so they are easy pickings for the PL and other clubs.
Maybe, but while good lawyers are expensive, probably not in terms of a premier league club’s budget.
As City’s chairman said to UEFA, he’d ‘rather spend 30m hiring the 50 best lawyers in the world to sue them for ten years rather than pay their fine’. Sure Everton could find 5-10m to throw at Lord Pannick and his team, he’s already up to speed because of the City case 😂
Wasn’t one of the seasons finances HEAVILY impacted by covid (empty stadiums)?
This all seems like a smokescreen considering the ridiculous shit thats been going on at chelsea (since 2003) and city (since 2009?). Crazy agents fees, hidden kickbacks, crazy wages, crazy transfer fees, dodgy sponsorships, dodgy money origins, dodgy and at times refusing financial documents
For most of the abromavic era there was no ffp though, so so need to do the fake income inflating City are clearly doing
Sheffield United settled out of court with West Ham for lost monies in a relegation related matter. So the precedent has already been set for that. I’m certain Everton will pay out to those relegated clubs, either forcibly by court or settled outside.
The issue there is that it was a clear case of breaking the rules to get an on field advantage. The commission has admitted that that isn’t the case here.
If you didn’t break the rules you wouldn’t have been punished. There’s punishment therefore guilt therefore easy for a court of law to rule in favour of the suing teams.
The good news is the team is playing well if you had gone into administration you would have gone down as it stands I will be surprised if you get relegated.
An excellent, well thought out and well-put response. Thankyou.
The suing part, shouldnt that only be for the teams ending 18th those seasons this regards? Southampton were 11 pts behind Everton at 17th last season. 9 behind Leicester at 18th. They have no case at all.
Simply put the case should be shot down for lack of standing. If you somehow managed to perform worse than an Everton side that has been pissing money away on signings, firing managers annually, and consistently playing some of the worst football in the Premier League, you have nobody to blame but yourself.
As an Everton fan, I’m sorry your team got relegated but trying to sue us as the cause of said relegation is grasping at straws for an excuse that deflects blame away from your club. It also sets a very annoying and stupid precedent that could applied not just to cases of relegation, but any other instance where there is a perceived financial loss as a result of another club. Does Arsenal have standing to sue City (if that investigation ever yields results) for losing out on title revenue last season as a result of City’s advantaged financial position? It becomes a can of worms.
The fact of the matter is that the actions of Everton Football Club’s first team are in no way connected these financial breaches, that fault rests at the board/executive level. All this did to the first team is put us at an even greater disadvantage from a footballing perspective. We were in the midst of a horrid string of form last season and could do zero business in January because that’d mean overspending. Did not signing a striker leaving us with Neal Maupay, Ellis Simms, and an injured DCL give us a competitive advantage? Did constantly having protests against our own board to the point where they didn’t even bother showing up to the matches give us an advantage? No!
Footballing punishments should not be handed out for something that didn’t even give a footballing advantage. And as such, any attempt to sue over a purely footballing matter that is disconnected from the financial matters is pure hogwash.
I see many Everton fans saying the club is guilty. There were two things that stuck out to me that make me not so sure. Everton are building a new stadium, to finance this they took out a loan. Everton allegedly got confirmation that the interest payments on their loan (many millions of pound sterling year) are deductible as per infrastructure spending rules as as such planned accordingly. The PL changed their mind on this decion part way through the 21/22 season and the said they would no longer allow this to be deductible. Obviously this added a big figure on to evertons spending, hence the 19.5 m overspend and player sales. Secondly an Everton player got arrested and suspended forcing Everton to end their contract with the layer and loosing out on his market worth. Now unforeseeable losses are allowed as mitigation, the PL however decided this could be a mitigating factor as it was a “business decision”.
Everton are a crap club who’ve been stinking up the Premier League for too long. Good riddance.
Ah yes. One of the football league founders, but sure.
I do feel for Everton, it’s a harsh punishment and I don’t think there should be punishment for investing what you like into a club to make it run better, that’s a good thing in business and that’s what football is now, which hurts as much as it’s true. The rules are stupid but if you’ve broken them and there is proof of that, you can’t complain.
On the City subject, I don’t understand how every fan thinks they’re guilty when the charges are accusations? It still has to go to a panel and case and most of the 115 charges are little things that have been duplicated from one charge like ‘failure to report financials on time’. It’s really petty to claim to be forthright and claim that your club has done no wrong when most clubs have. United got charged for FFP for a similar charge in the summer and got a small fine.
I do think if City get charged with the 115 charges, it will be the end of the premier league as we know it. They will get lawyers on the appeal and charges will be handed out to all other clubs i.e United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea. Because if City have done any wrong for trying to build a club, then the others have certainly done so. In the 90’s/early 00’s United paid record fee’s for many players and on that basis became as well supported as they are now to get that revenue stream they have from fans all over the world. It’s quite a conundrum the premier league have on their hands if there is no statue of limitations in their rules which has been stated many times.
I genuinely think the EPL have shot themselves in the foot here. One could say this was to demonstrate they can keep order in their own house, yet what it’s going to do it open so many negatives the EPL will (imo) be government regulated before long. The politicians are calling for this, and the EPL don’t want it, so you’ve got to ask yourself why don’t they want it? By trying to self regulate they’ve gone too far immediately and created a storm that won’t be contained - it’s going to be fascinating to watch.
Can we ask the government to investigate PGMOL while we are at it?
Everton broke the rules and have been punished simple as that.
All our sympathy should be with there fans as its the club owners that got them into this mess.
The major difference between this and City is Everton were open and admitted to breaking the rules, just like Chelsea are now doing.
Chelsea will face similar punishment (possibly more severe)
As for city they are fighting against all 115 charges, but as soon as the case is done they’ll be punished to (I hope)
I do not agree with any difference of any of this cheating regardless of club, at the end of the day rules were broken and its time to pay the price.
I hope Everton stay up, and even Chelsea to, but if they go down the clubs are in prime position to come back to the prem after a year or to.
The issue with the court case and why it probably won’t succeed is the precedent it will set. Would that mean if Chelsea and City are found to have broken rules, every team that finished below them could sue them for lost revenue/lost european football? Could Everton sue them as they missed out on CL in 13/14? It really takes you down a path that means the next decade will be spent in court deciding the results of the last decade.
Three teams went down. If Everton had gone down only one would have stayed up. Why would all three be entitled to compensation?
Because all three have a case for being disadvantaged from Everton cheating.
Yeah they were really disadvantaged when we signed all of zero players in January knowing full well we were in the a serious relegation scrap and could not score goals to save our life. How is losing money to the point of being unable to invest in the first team cheating?
Cheating would be us not only breaching the loss rules, but also using the suspect money to bring in players.
But that case is a complete non starter for two reasons they didn’t overspend that season and the season they did overspend for they gained no competitive advantage for. Both these factors should shut down any potential case in my opinion pretty quickly