Everton handed two-year academy transfer ban

Meanwhile, still waiting for the action re. van Dijk

Did Liverpool get a ban when they allegedly tapped up Sterling or Solanke?

Or are they just cleverer than our lot?

5 Apr, 2017 PA Sport.

Liverpool have been fined £100,000 and handed a two-year academy transfer ban, with the second year suspended, for the "tapping up" of a Stoke youngster.

The Premier League has announced the club will be prohibited from signing any academy players who have been registered with a Premier League or EFL club in the preceding 18 months.

Although the ban is for two years the second 12 months has been suspended for a three-year period and will only be activated in the event of any further similar breach by the club.

A brief statement from Liverpool said: "The club accepts the sanction." The case involves forbidden inducements offered to a 12-year-old at Stoke and whom Liverpool accept they spoke to before they should have and also paid for him and some of his family to attend a game at Anfield.

Liverpool also offered to pay the player's school fees, which were being paid by Stoke at this time, but this was a breach of newly introduced regulations which state a benefit can only be offered if it is applicable to all youngsters across the club's academy and this was not the case.

Niasse ban

How come football only clean up Everton, but allow others get away with it. Financial Fair Play, tapping up players etc etc etc. It stinks.

But when it comes to teams breaking the financial fair play by over exaggerated 80% sponsorship, one player getting banned for simulation, while another getting off Scot free.

Clubs tapping up a player, then signing the player later on without any repucusions, it's smacks of double standards.

We deserve our ban, we broke the rules, but at least be consistent throughout the leagues.

"Bloody hell, all these players diving everywhere, and these clubs tapping up academy players and managers, we really need to show that we mean business and make an example."
"Okay, sir well Man..."
"Woah there! – we don't want to take on any of the big boys."
"Norwich then"
"Who? No... bit bigger."
"West Ham? Everton?"
"That'll do!"

As George Orwell put it, 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'

Oh, wait:

Everton become the third Premier League team to have been found guilty of tapping up after Liverpool and Manchester City. Their punishment, though, is the most severe. Liverpool and City both had 12 months of their transfer embargo suspended, while their respective fines – £100,000 and £300,000 – were also smaller.

But that's from the Daily Mail. So I guess we can ignore it.

I believe this was pre-Moshri? Hope we don't engage in any nefarious bull-pucky again.

Link

Seems up to now, this is acceptable to stockpile young talent from across Europe.

With only a domestic ban, I would imagine we'll start seeing some exotic names over the next couple of years in the academy. With Silva's Portuguese ties, I can see a bunch of wannabe Ronaldo's strutting their stuff at Finch Farm.

The Premier League looked at Southampton's complaint and they asked Liverpool for their version of events but they did not launch a formal investigation. It was believed Southampton had the evidence to incriminate Liverpool but, in the weeks that have followed the complaint, they have not put it forward.

Just wondering then why without this being put forward, the FA have stepped in.

Someone's turned a blind eye quite a few times here for six cases to be amassed. Makes cheating feel almost commonplace during an 18-month spell or so at the Academy and you have to hope it's just the one idiot ruining our rep.

Everton handed two-year academy transfer ban for breaching recruitment rules

In this way, it is comparable to the case Watford are making regarding Silva so I remain worried about this one, too.

I am sorry that I seem to antagonise some ToffeeWeb readers who want to believe that the club is now in the hands of a dynamic CEO. I won't go into her less-than-stellar background again but I will ask these questions:

1. How long was this going on? 2. Who knew what and when?

The club statement is an exercise in blame-shifting and one person has been made the fall-guy – so one final question: was any kind of sweetener* offered to make sure that the answer to question 2 would remain obscure?

* Sweeteners are not always financial inducements.

My biggest worry is the professional chasm opening up between Brands 7 Silva and the self-styled Everton Leadership Team. The net was cast far and wide to find persons of the calibre of Brands and Silva. Can the same be said of the leadership team – no matter how many glossy descriptions about them in a glossy brochure?

Silva has a point to prove; he knows he has to achieve at Everton and that's obviously good for us all. Brands has nothing to prove but clearly he is a man of character and wants to do a job at Everton. Unfortunately, the people implicated in Q.2 have now made that job very much more difficult for him.

Will Waldron be sacked? He's been at Everton, a very, very long time, and will have built up a massive network so, either way, this decision is going to affect how Brands does his job.

As far as I have read, it is a 2-year ban on 10-18 year olds registered to other British professional football clubs within the last 18 months.

The academy can bring in scholars from other countries, and can also work hard to scout unregistered scholars – as well as focus on the ones already here.

It can be tempting to look around and point at all of the other instances that look suspicious – I'm not entirely sure the story David Moyes told about being invited round to Alex Ferguson's house to be unceremoniously anointed as the next Man Utd manager when he was still Everton manager is exactly above board – but in this case it sounds like Waldron went outside the lines of what is permitted. The club have recognised that too, and therefore some form of punishment needs to be served.

Like you, when the new CEO was announced in the summer in the 24-hour span of the long knives which oversaw a major overhaul of several key positions in the club, I also raised an eyebrow at Denise Barrett-Baxendale's appointment, questioning her suitability for the role.

Subsequently, I haven't been as sceptical as you evidently are as many aspects of the roles normally associated with a Premier League club CEO were farmed out to others, thus diluting DB-BDenise Barrett-Baxendale's remit.

It is very hard to judge from afar, or merely outside the inner circle, if the new arrangement is benefiting the club or not.

That said, you do seem to colour your comments about DB-BDenise Barrett-Baxendale with a tinge of personal dislike - resentment, even - of the person and that she has a role at Everton, at all.

Your latest post, as a result, is highly speculative and founded on conclusions that don't add up.

Why presume as you do that Marcel Brands 'is furious' at this news? Why presume that a man who will know and have worked inside the murky world of dealing with players, their agents and their clubs, may walk away because 'the club's standards of integrity and competence did not meet [Brands's]?

You preface your two questions with yet another derogatory reference to Denise Barrett-Baxendale, thus making her guilty by association. That's unfair.

In answer to your first question, 'How long was this going on?' Well quite clearly, it has been going on well before Denise Barrett-Baxendale came on watch as CEO – at least back to 2016 – so in any finger-pointing you wish to make there are plenty of candidates in front of Denise Barrett-Baxendale in the queue, but you offer none other than her.

The same could be said in answer to you second question, 'Who knew what and when?'

Unlike you, I don't consider the club statement 'an exercise in blame-shifting... making one person the fall-guy'. Yes, when the charges first came to light back in September, the head of academy recruitment Martin Waldron was suspended, which was a reasonable step to take. He was the boss man. Yes, there would be other superiors and chains of command, and yes, the investigation may have unveiled that effective checks and balances were not in place. For that, the management can be questioned

However, it doesn't naturally follow, as you wish to imply, that everyone in that chain of command was in the know and endorsed or turned a blind eye to any malpractice, or that someone has been offered (and taken) a 'sweetener' to take the 'fall' for the club (or persons unknown).

This week, following their own internal investigation, together with the Premier League, the club has come clean, accepted the charges without quibble, acknowledged their failings and saying "We have already commenced a full review of our academy operations and are committed to ensuring that issues like this do not happen again at Everton."

Is it not reasonable to assume that Mr Brands will very much be involved in that review?

Your final paragraph is a clutter of clauses which you attempt to weave into a single thread, reaching a conclusion very much of your own invention, primarily, I sense, to have a thinly disguised pop at a person you clearly hold in utter contempt.

So overall, Gerard, whilst like you I retain lingering doubts about the suitability of Denise Barrett-Baxendale for the CEO role, unlike you, there really isn't much, or anything, I can agree with in your post.

Whadd'ya say, Bill?

I think we may be good as we normally just sign local lads (or relatively local due to our current ban). Fingers crossed that the RS are on that list as that will be hilarious if they can't buy for the foreseeable future.

You cross the line, though, in making personal accusations. You don't know me so have no right to label me a misogynist. It's a cheap shot; I have repeatedly stated my sole interest is in seeing only the very best and brightest people working for Everton FC and I have absolutely no prejudice other than demanding NSNO.

You are also incorrect in accusing me of having no foundation to my observations when in fact I am exceedingly careful never to write anything about this CEO that I cannot fully substantiate.

I do not know her. It is apparent to me, and to Jay in his earlier much better written response, that you have had some personal interaction with her and the conclusion that Jay and I both share, based upon all your comments, is that you have a personal reason to dislike Ms Barrett-Baxendale and this shows through in every comment that you continually make to promote your own vendetta and agenda towards her.

You read it right: 㿙k fine.