The first half of this article explains what the alleged breach is about, why it may have happened. The second half looks at the potential consequences and what is now required.

Late Friday afternoon, the Premier league issued a statement as follows:

“In accordance with Premier League Rule W.82.1, the Premier League confirms that it has today referred an alleged breach of the league’s profitability and sustainability rules by Everton Football Club to a commission under Premier League Rule W.3.4.

“The assessment period for which it is alleged that the club is in breach is the period ending season 2021/22.

Article continues below video content

“Commissions are independent of the Premier League and member clubs. The members of the Commission will be appointed by the independent Chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel, in accordance with Premier League Rules W.19, W.20 and W.26.

“The proceedings before the commission will, in accordance with Premier League Rule W.82, be confidential and heard in private.

“Under Premier League Rule W.82.2, the commission’s final award will be published on the Premier League’s website. The League will be making no further comment until that time.”

The referral to an independent commission relates to an alleged breach of Premier League Profitability and Sustainability rules.

The most relevant profitability and sustainability rules are rule E.51 and rule E.51.2 as follows:

E.51. If the PSR Calculation results in losses of in excess of £105m: 

E.51.2. the Club shall be treated as being in breach of these Rules and accordingly the Board shall refer the breach to a Commission constituted pursuant to Section W of these Rules.

So what is the PSR calculation?

The PSR calculation is as follows

“PSR Calculation” means, save as indicated below, the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2. 

In respect of Season 2021/22, the PSR Calculation shall be the aggregation of:

(a) the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T; 

(b) the mean of the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T-1 and T-2; and

(c) the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T-3;

T is the financial year 2021/22, T-1 2020/21, T-2 2019/20 and T-3 2018/19

What are the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax?

“Adjusted Earnings Before Tax” means Earnings Before Tax adjusted to exclude costs (or estimated costs as the case may be) in respect of the following: 

(a) depreciation and/or impairment of tangible fixed assets, 

amortisation or impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets (but excluding amortisation of the costs of Players’ registrations);

(b) Women’s Football Expenditure; 

(c) Youth Development Expenditure; 

(d) Community Development Expenditure; and 

(e) in respect of Seasons 2019/20 and 2020/21 only, COVID-19 Costs, Each of Youth Development Expenditure, Women’s Football Expenditure and Community Development Expenditure and COVID-19 Costs shall only be excluded from the calculation of Adjusted Earnings Before Tax if separately disclosed:

 (f) by way of notes to the Annual Accounts; or 

(g) by way of supplementary information which reconciles to the Annual Accounts and which has been subject to independent audit;

Using information in the public domain, estimates of certain expenditure (youth, women’s football and community costs) plus estimated the annual losses for 2021/22 it is possible to calculate an estimate of Everton’s position and the likely compliance with the profitability and sustainability rules.

Estimated PSR position

Below is a table providing an estimate for Everton’s PSR position:

£’000s 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22
Profit & loss -111,868 -139,800 -120,900 -50,000
Depreciation Fixed assets 6,500 6,900 7,100 7,300
New stadium costs 7,200 19,900    
Women’s football 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
youth football 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Community costs 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Depreciation/impairment   26,300 15,300 5,000
Covid impact   67,300 14,800  
Estimated PSR calculation -90,668 -11,900 -76,200 -30,200
Aggregate PSR position -164,918      
Permitted losses -105,000      
Excess losses 59,918      

Note, * shows estimates, so in the above I am estimating expenditure on Women’s and Youth Football, Community costs and the 2021/22 losses. The calculations also include expenditure on the new stadium, expenditure that can be deducted.

From the above, it is evident that Everton appear to be well in excess of the permitted losses. However that is likely to have been the case for the previous year also. The club claim  (and I know that this is true) to have been in regular dialogue with the Premier League. Indeed I believe they were pro-active, highlighting the issues in advance of formal reporting deadlines.

The board, as explained at considerable length in the 2020/21 accounts, claimed that the Covid crisis had a significant impact on the business, claiming £82.1 million in losses directly related to Covid, and a much larger figure relating to “un-crystalised losses” .

So what has changed?

The aggregate position for the period 2021/22 worsened from the previous year by virtue of 2021/22 losses being greater than 2017/18 which dropped out of the equation.

The bigger question is why the Premier League are alleging a breach of profitability and sustainability rules for 2021/22 having approved previous losses likely to be greater than the permitted amount?

It is known that the board were in regular contact with the Premier League. It is known that the  measures agreed with Everton included those measures in rule E:15 which effectively required sign off of any new player recruitment or the issuing of a major new player contract.

Perhaps this alleged breach is a further signal from the Premier League of its abilities to self regulate, another attempt to push back against the independent regulator coming down the tracks.

Regardless of the changes bringing about this alleged breach the implications are serious.

The independent commission will be comprised of three people, one of whom must have a judicial or legal background. Whilst there is provision for appeal (by either party) as to the decision of the commission, the appeal is the final stage of the process. There is no possibility of referring to the The Court of Arbitration for Sport for example, so assuming the processes of the commission are correct ultimately their decision is final.

Unlike the EFL there are no prescribed penalties, the commission has unlimited powers including a financial penalty, a transfer ban, a points deduction or indeed expulsion. There is no suggestion that expulsion is an appropriate penalty in this case.

Implications for Everton

This is another huge hammer blow to the credibility of the owner and of the board. It demonstrates yet again, the validity of the claims that this is an incompetent board and at best, an extremely careless owner. Many Evertonians would like to see rid of Farhad Moshiri, and aside the amount of funding he has provided the club there is little to support his ownership. However, he is unlikely to sell the club at this time.

What he can do, is change the board. This is obviously a long term theme of mine and many others. But the need for a competent Chair, CEO and financial team is even greater today than it was yesterday.

No future investment until this is cleared

This referral has huge implications for Everton. The ability of the club to attract fresh investment to complete the building of the stadium was stalling prior to this announcement. Until this matter is resolved, then it is dead in the water. We will not attract investment until this matter is concluded.

What implications that has for Everton depends on Moshiri’s willingness or ability to continue funding. We are now wholly dependent upon him, and him alone. That places the business at great risk in the absence of his continued support – indeed this is also an issue for the Premier League. They will want to know Everton have continued “secured funding”. Any suggestion we do not have that further complicates and makes an alleged breach even more serious.

What has to happen?

The board and owner have to come out of hiding and explain in simple terms the position the club is in, the potential risks to the business and our Premier League status, and finally what the remedial actions are.

Their silence has never been acceptable. Today it is even less so. They, the directors, have a duty to act also. They have a duty to promote the interests of the company, to protect the interests of stakeholders including shareholders, employees and suppliers. This duty is enshrined in law, section 172 of the Companies Act 2006.

Moshiri, as heavily invested as he is, has to act – he has to get the club to a position where it can be sold to suitable committed owners. He can start that process by appointing a number of emergency, interim directors, experienced in corporate recovery and turnaround. He can demonstrate to the Premier League, the players, the manager, employees and equally importantly the fans his commitment to turning around a desperate situation. The consequences of not doing so not only threaten our Premier League survival but our existence. Moshiri has spoken of existential threats, he knows what is at stake.

In my opinion, he has to act now, to ensure the worst in sporting terms (relegation) and in business terms (potential administration) do not happen.

Reader Comments (89)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer ()

David Glynn
1 Posted 25/03/2023 at 15:22:28

This is all very concerning stuff. Why are no new stadium costs reflected in the 20-21 actuals and 21-22 estimates?

Mark Taylor
2 Posted 25/03/2023 at 15:23:54
Nope, I'm still none the wiser on this.

The 21-22 losses were £30.2M. We are over, based on these calculations, by just under £60M. So, unless we made a £30M profit, not loss, in 17-18, I can't see how that year dropping out of consideration for the aggregate can matter much.

To the best of my knowledge, we made a loss in 17-18 though not a huge one, about £13M. I think we did make a profit of around £30M in 2016-17 but, unless the dates are mixed up, that has long since stopped counting.

It seems clear why we had to sell Richarlison and then Gordon, without any new buying for the latter's incoming funds. The latter in particular, plus the forced sale of Kean to Juve, seems to me to be why we were able to persuade the Premier League to go easy on us because we were trying to fix the problem.

I suspect our position right now, if you did the exercise to current dates, we would be oky, albeit without any money to spend on players.

But, if the Premier League base it on accounting periods, then technically it looks like we're in trouble.

Jimmy I'Anson
3 Posted 25/03/2023 at 15:54:18
Why is there no figures for new stadium costs for the last two seasons?

Your figures show that we have only spent £27.1M on the stadium.

Mark Taylor
4 Posted 25/03/2023 at 16:17:00

I might be wrong but I think the stadium was put into a separate entity from 2020-21.
Paul [The Esk]
5 Posted 25/03/2023 at 16:20:43
Jimmy @3,

Once we received planning permission, the costs are capitalised and don't appear in the Profit & Loss Statement but appear in the Balance Sheet as an asset.

Kevin Molloy
6 Posted 25/03/2023 at 16:28:41
I queried the Dele Alli deal at the time, but now it's looking like an absolute masterstroke. What's he on £150,000 – a week, with the Turks picking up about what, £5 grand of that?

So we get to pay that wage for 2 years, but the only condition was we don't play him. If we play him, that could cost us another £20 or £30 million.

And then here comes the kicker.: It could have been that which made the Premier League say 'these fellas are just taking the piss now'.

Well done, everyone.

John Burns
7 Posted 25/03/2023 at 16:41:24
In your opinion, Paul, what do you think is the likely outcome?

Is our position different to the recent Chelsea and Man City situations??

Dennis Stevens
8 Posted 25/03/2023 at 16:54:38
Aye, John – we probably can't afford their lawyers!
Paul [The Esk]
9 Posted 25/03/2023 at 16:56:35
John @7,

I think we will be found guilty of breaching the £105M limit. I suspect it will be a sporting sanction, transfer embargo and point deduction in 2023-24 season. It's not going to be resolved this season.

Mal van Schaick
10 Posted 25/03/2023 at 17:01:10
Looks like a stitch-up to me. The Premier League has lead us down the garden path, by apparently signing off our dealings and then back tracked on the accounts and left us in limbo.

Everton should rebuff the allegations and wheel out accountants and prove that they were signed off and approved. Then Everton should make counter-allegations about the Premier League and its own failings in this matter.

Julie Naybour
11 Posted 25/03/2023 at 17:11:33
Anyone any idea how many points we are likely to be deducted, if found guilty?

I just don't see why this is raising its ugly head again given the club's liaison with the Premier League!

Barry Rathbone
12 Posted 25/03/2023 at 17:16:01
We have a billionaire accountant in charge yet still manage to fall foul of financial rules. The "Everton that!" hand-wringing annoys me – it smacks of a divine intervention beyond our control instead of what is – utter ineptness.

But this sort of nonsense does make you wonder…

Julie Naybour
13 Posted 25/03/2023 at 17:39:16
I'm also worried about the time frame. Your great article spells out there will be room for an appeal but that's the final appeal.

Could that final appeal be scheduled before the end of season or even the weeks after it, leaving several clubs in suspense?

Barry Hesketh
14 Posted 25/03/2023 at 18:08:55
Unsure if the 'exclusive' in the Mail, is a good or bad sign for Everton Football Club.

'The Everton charge is very surprising,' an executive at another club told Sportsmail. 'We sat in front of the Premier League around March last year and they categorically told us there was no case to answer.

'Then in the summer we were told that Everton could sign players as they were working together with the league to stay the right side of the line, and their Covid losses made them compliant. The Premier League made these points in open meetings and also held private meetings with individual clubs who had expressed concerns.'

There is a strong feeling at Everton and other clubs that the Premier League's actions have been strongly influenced by a desire to show government that they are capable of enforcing their financial rules and regulating the sport as they seek to limit the scope of the new independent regulator, whose imminent arrival was confirmed in a White Paper issued last month.

Everton are the second Premier League club to be charged with breaking financial rules in as many months after Manchester City following 30 years in which not one single club was charged.

Premier League Questioned

Jerome Shields
15 Posted 25/03/2023 at 18:21:34
Paul the Esk#9

Why has it taken till now for them to take action ?and why has the Club not come out into the open regarding the possibility off sanctions?.They didn't even hold a AGM so that stakeholders could ask questions.We have had a attempted takeover in the Summer and the the possibility of a investment stakeholder, with no mentions of any of this.Actually information has been leaked by the Club has been to the contrary.

Barry #14

Everton look like they are trying to deflect blame.

Barry Hesketh
16 Posted 25/03/2023 at 18:37:27
Jerome @15

I know where you are coming from, but I disagree, I think the club genuinely believed that they could emerge from this debacle without being sanctioned. I agree with the analysis, that factors in, the Premier League wanting to be seen to be strong and reliable when it comes to enforcing its rules with the spectre of an independent regulator on the horizon.

None of the above excuses Everton Football Club and its directors from blame, they after all are fully responsible and should have erred on the side of caution regarding possible transgression of rules and regulations.

The Premier League have once again shown that they are too busy protecting the brand on most occasions rather than having an even-handed approach to all member clubs and not just the chosen few who generate the cash.

Moshiri cannot make changes to the board, until this issue is decided one way or the other, but if he decided to continue with the same personnel once it's reached a conclusion, he's an even bigger fool than I thought he was.

Tony Everan
17 Posted 25/03/2023 at 19:14:39
Paul, It will be useful if the club have some hard, physical, documented evidence that we have been in close contact with the Premier League to maintain compliance. Do you know if the club has this evidence?
Jerome Shields
18 Posted 25/03/2023 at 19:14:58

I give you that the Club may emerge from the debacle, but damage will be done to investment in the Club in the meantime, which is very necessary. I don't think that it will be as hard and fast as Paul's suggestions on his superb analysis indicatev.In The real world that is rarely the case The other problem is that those that are dealing with the debacle are those that created it in the first place, which is never a good recommendation.Some whose motives I would question.

Other Clubs in the Premier league are not in good shape either and will stick the boot into regulation at the first opportunity on a man the barricades on a us next down the line bases..Obvious the climate for regulation has changed , as the government gets involved, which must have been for very good reasons.

Billy Bradshaw
19 Posted 25/03/2023 at 19:28:15
Paul @ 9, point deduction, as in one point.
Jerome Shields
20 Posted 25/03/2023 at 19:38:07
If it is not one thing, it's another when you are a Evertonian. It just shows you how poorly managed the club is.

Good management is pretty invisible since problems are anticipated and therefore do not arise other than by good performance. Bad management is visible making pronouncements, wall-to-wall PR and press releases, and rushing about as if they are doing something with name badges and titles from Mars.

Hopefully we are spared Barret-Baxendale's management-speak that she makes up and Kenwright thinks his PA should do to divert blame from him. If Moshiri does another pullover interview to pullover things in us, I may stop posting because I have smashed my Amazon Fire and its awful autocorrect off the wall.

Kevin Prytherch
21 Posted 25/03/2023 at 20:16:43
Marcel Brands was appointed by Moshiri in 2018 and left in 2021. Looking at Paul's figures, we made £130M losses in this period (even after the dodgy Covid accounting), but somehow he still gets a free pass by many on here because he “wasn't allowed to do his job”.
Tony Abrahams
22 Posted 25/03/2023 at 20:24:12
Brands gets a free pass whilst poor old Kenwright is vilified.

The only thing that really matters is that Everton are compliant and escape serious punishment, and are never allowed to fall into such an incredible mess ever again.

Jerome Shields
23 Posted 25/03/2023 at 20:32:52
Kevin #21,

Brands was never his own man. He was given responsibilities as Director of Football that he allowed all and sundry to ride roughshod over.

Even when given the Director role, which should have increased his authority, this became turbocharged. He even unceremoniously resigned or was sacked taking all the blame as a scapegoat.

Tony Abrahams
24 Posted 25/03/2023 at 20:53:07
Everton has simply become a club that takes away the ambition of a lot of people. Stay quiet, stay in line, pick up enormous lottery-winning wages, run down your contract, then get out after becoming very rich.

I suppose the writing was on the wall when they gave the most divisive manager in the club's entire history £1.7 million to spend but it does seem that at least we were trying to be compliant.

Digne went, two fullbacks came in, but our net spend on transfers surely couldn't have been much more than £10 million during the 2021-22 season.

Ben King
25 Posted 25/03/2023 at 21:13:49
The entire affair is incredibly depressing.

We've known that we're badly run for a while. But if the Premier League were signing off our accounts and approving them, then this latest step feels incredibly unfair, inconsistent and senseless: either we've been in breach of their rules (in which case sanction us) or we haven't (in which case sign off the accounts and approve our actions).

The latter has been taking place so what's this latest move all about? There surely has to be some logic and consistency to how the Premier League conducts its affairs.

Unless they're not competent to administer their own Profitability and Sustainability rules, in which case they should have outsourced this administration some time ago. I don't see how they can approve our affairs and also refer us for potential breach… how does that make sense?

Tony Hill
26 Posted 25/03/2023 at 21:50:04
The only consideration is that we win this fight. I loathe the Board but we need to be very careful that we don't deliver ourselves like trussed sacrificial victims to the politically motivated, power-hungry arseholes of the Premier League.

There is a consistent trend in Everton fans' narrative which is self-lacerating. I understand why that is so but we need to identify our immediate enemy now and it is not the Board; it is the Premier League and other clubs who have their own agendas.

We are being targeted and there are those who want us to die, be in no doubt. We have to fight tooth and nail and we have to fight dirty.

Paul, world-weary articles about our failings may strike a chord but they may also, now, assist our demise. The most important expenditure is going to be on our lawyers. I don't agree with the view that this will all be postponed somehow; I think we could be in a fight to the death and we need expert bastards on our side.

We need to unite against the vested interests who would destroy us.

Nick Page
27 Posted 25/03/2023 at 22:06:04
Hahaha trying to apportion blame to Brands. The level of ignorance I see on here at times is utterly staggering. The Dunning-Kruger effect.
Michael Kenrick
28 Posted 25/03/2023 at 22:13:53
The thing that has changed in the last few weeks is the club's accounts for 2021-22 have finally been prepared and presumably it is these that the Premier League are using to determine the alleged breach of P&S rules. When the Premier League checked the figures actually in Everton's accounts, they must have had issue with the PSR calculation, or the nature of monies being included or excluded in the calculation.

Everton may have had lots of conversations all through the last two seasons while trying to stay onside of the Premier League rules, but the final figures that went into the accounts must be the problem.

It's wrong to suggest the Premier League were signing off our accounts and approving them because they only get done after the end of the financial year — in our case, many months after.

Despite the club's apparent good-faith efforts to be open and upfront about their business decisions and dealings, it would seem the Premier League's analysis of the numbers submitted for the 2021-22 season indicate there is a breach that needs to be investigated.

It does seem disingenuous given the prior cooperation but we don't know how much back and forth there was with the club, nor how glaring or subtle the breach may in fact be. So much comes down to the details that go into the accounts, which I guess we can pour over when they are sent to shareholders next week.

Eric Haworth
29 Posted 25/03/2023 at 22:17:26
We can debate this situation to death, which we normally do; however, I make no apologies for returning to the fundamental reason our club is in the mess it's in. And it's nothing to do with the Premier League, PSR, USM, war in Ukraine, etc, which are all merely a symptom of incompetent management.

Seldom on ToffeeWeb can I contribute anything other than a fan's opinion. But we've entered an arena here where I have some expertise, having held board level roles for over 40 years in multi-nationals. Any business that has a payroll-to-revenue percentage of 95%, which is the level that has been reported Everton Football Club operate at, is unsustainable and destined for administration.

Directionally, you want the payroll-to-profit ratio to decrease, which means your ability to utilise your workforce to generate revenue is more efficient.

What percentage of your revenue should be assigned to payroll? In the normal world where most of us live and work, the rule of thumb is that no more than between 15% to 30% of your gross sales should be absorbed by payroll, and it only varies between these upper and lower limits subject to the industry in which you operate.

However, we all know that sport in general and football in particular has become unique and unconstrained by the normal fiscal rules that apply elsewhere. Although a percentage of 95% is insane, and anything over 50% would require significant reductions elsewhere in your operational costs to compensate.

Incompetence is written through almost everything Everton Football Club engage in, and no other business could possibly operate and survive even in the short term in similar circumstances, and it's against these normal rules of business management that we'll be measured by this Independent Commission.

However, the upside will inevitably be, irrespective of the findings and recommendations of this Commission, the incompetent management of our club will come to an end, and this so-called board will finally be put to the sword, and not a moment too soon.

Kevin Prytherch
30 Posted 25/03/2023 at 22:25:47

Brands's major signings:

Yerry Mina
Andre Gomes

Barring Digne, how many of these ridiculously expensive average Brands signings have even become first-team regulars at a relegation-threatened club?

There's nearly £200M of transfers above, with only Digne recovering anything significant, and around £800k per week in wages…

But defend the bloke - obviously he did a decent job.

Robert Williams
31 Posted 25/03/2023 at 22:40:46
I have no idea what we are all so concerned about. Hasn't our revered Chairman been telling us that Everton is the club that is held as the Premier League example of how things should/are being conducted?

So there you have it, we are the example that all others aspire to… What a shambles the others must be in if we are to believe that load of tripe!

Paul Birmingham
32 Posted 25/03/2023 at 22:51:57
Eric @29, a very good summary, dereliction of duty, and worse questions to be raised. The mind boggles in terms of the incompetence of the Everton Board. But this is the last season for this Board, hopefully?

Tony @26, spot on, I live every day for the day, Family, Everton, and the thimble half-full, but some aspect or all aspects of Everton's accounts must have come up for extra special scrutiny. The timing is interesting and adds fuel to the fire.

That's the aspect that is concerning based on what's been published previously about Everton's scrapes with the Premier League and investigations into Everton's affairs.


Jerome Shields
34 Posted 25/03/2023 at 23:06:32
Kevin #30,

How many of them was it his actual decision to sign and who drew up the contracts? Brands had the potential to do a good job and intended to do so, but allowed himself to be over-ruled, allowed interference in the transfer process, and lost control of transfer windows.

He was not only a Director of Football, he was also a Director on the Board of the Club. Many of the internal football decisions he took, conformed to the status quo, ie, Kenwright's Everton DNA.

Brands had the potential to be a good Director of Football but was a novice regarding the politics of Everton Football Club and was weak as a result. The Director of Football role at Everton is a poisoned chalice.

James Flynn
35 Posted 26/03/2023 at 02:13:11
Michael (28) - Thank you.

I'll stick with what you said until we get a look at the numbers for 2021-22 to see what's what.

Kevin Prytherch
36 Posted 26/03/2023 at 02:20:26
Jerome - most of what you write is opinion, which is fair enough as everyone has theirs. My opinion on Brands is that he was a waste of space who was the primary reason for our situation now. Even Walsh managed to recoup money on a lot of his signings.

The fact is that a lot of average players were signed for inflated fees and on extortionate wages when Brands was in charge of transfers.

Eric Myles
37 Posted 26/03/2023 at 03:02:02
They will want to know Everton have continued “secured funding”. 

Is that like having the stadium money "ringfenced"?

Dupont Koo
38 Posted 26/03/2023 at 03:12:36
Thank you as ever for your effort in turning complicated Accounting terms into plain English, Paul.

Ever since the news broke, I have been preparing myself that we could be Glasgow Rangers 2.0: while they resurrected and found their way back to the top within 7 years due to the smaller (and much less competitive) Scottish Football pyramid, we would be lucky to repeat what AFC Wimbledon had achieved (up to League One from the very bottom of the pyramid in 20 years), should this independent commission rule against us in the worst possible way.

I am continually baffled: What in the not-so-right mind of Moshiri is he thinking? How can he not act at all while seeing a significant investment of his becoming a non-performing, distressed asset?

If the Armaggedon does come, perhaps some of us should just start preparing to do what some of the Mancs did with FC United: start our own club at the bottom of the pyramid that better represents NSNO.

Tony Abrahams
39 Posted 26/03/2023 at 08:05:18
Michael K has just become the voice of reason with that logical, common-sense post!
Jim Lloyd
40 Posted 26/03/2023 at 08:34:38
I think Brands was a "Yes-man". If we look at the list of players he reputedly signed, he either signed them (and maybe, sold them) or he was compliant and didn't oppose those signings of any of the group of players bought under his watch.

The two players he didn't bring in were Andros and Demarai.
He was particularly proud of bringing in sicknote from Man City.

I think the Board are our enemies, and I couldn't support the pathetic creatures who may well have consigned our club to the wastelands.

For those who work in our club and live up to its motto, I'm in total sympathy with.

For the ones who crept out and tried to blame the supporters for hiding away, I have nothing but contempt; and the quicker they go, the quicker Everton FC can work to regain the honour of that motto.

Christine Foster
41 Posted 26/03/2023 at 08:43:10
Unless the Finance Director has misinterpreted what was or was not deductible, in itself a staggering mistake, or that they weren't across actual costs, another staggering level of incompetence, then it's hard to see exactly what went wrong.

A Financial Director would (should) know at any point in time exactly what the profit and loss situation would be. Unless there is a outliner coming in that no-one could account for, the board would know on a monthly basis exactly how they were tracking.

That assumes of course that the Premier League didn't move the goalposts, or that the board were economical with the truth to them.

Irrespective of any of the above being true, there would be no logical reason why this would come as an out-of-the-blue bolt to the club.

In the words of Sherlock Holmes, if you eliminate everything else, the impossible must be true.

Which means this is political, the Premier League needing to be seen to be taking a hard line, irrespective of whatever assurances were given to the club.

If so, then Everton have every right to be angry. For it has mortally damaged the club's investment hopes until clarified.

The accounts should tell the story. An interesting read, they should come with asterisks and explanations relating to "understandings" agreed with the Premier League... but they won't.

If the accounts show nothing more than we already know or has been made public, then it would indicate the Premier League want a fall guy (as at every opportunity before) in the frame, all too familiar.

We know the board has been incompetent, which has led us to the situation, but they surely have been across this in any conversations and agreements with the Premier League?

Michael Pennington
42 Posted 26/03/2023 at 08:49:38
Since when has football been run as a normal business by anyone?
Jim Lloyd
43 Posted 26/03/2023 at 09:09:56
I hope that Everton have the Premier League's assurances at every stage, in writing!!!
Colin Glassar
44 Posted 26/03/2023 at 10:03:02
Moshiri must be up there with the Icelandic fella and Lerner as the worst owners in the history of English football.

What a disaster this man has been for us.

Brian Hennessy
45 Posted 26/03/2023 at 10:36:42
New information this morning suggests the list of sanctions in ascending order are as follows:

- Fine
- Transfer embargo
- Points deduction
- Compelled to play Maupay for 90 minutes in every game

Christopher Timmins
46 Posted 26/03/2023 at 10:44:34
Michael's point about the finalization of the club's Financial Statements is probably the trigger for what is now occurring.

In Ireland, Private Limited Companies have to file an Annual Return made up to a period no later than nine months after the accounting year end, a 56-day period is given to file the Annual Return. The accounts for the year-end form part of the Annual Return. I assume that a similar time lag exists in the UK between the accounts year end and the filing date with Companies House.

If there were ongoing communications between the club and the Premier League, then the club would have been put on notice as to what was needed trading results wise in 2021-22 to stay within the rules. Of course there is the possibility that the League were provided with the 2020-21 financial results very close to the end of the 2021-22 financial year.

Jerome Shields
47 Posted 26/03/2023 at 10:51:25
Christine #41,

An insightful analysis of what the Board were informed of and how their action or inaction may have contributed to the present situation.

It seems that the Premier League's allowance for Covid was conditional, on that an improvement was needed within the Profit and Sustainability rules requirements in the 2021-22 season. While there was a substantial improvement, it was not enough to offset the 2018-19 season which came into play on an aggregate basis. The Board would have been well aware of the situation well before this, but negotiations with the Premier League seem to have broken down and they have pulled rank.

About 2 weeks ago, it was released by a journalist in the know, that all was sorted out with the Premier League. I must look back and see who that was…

Brian Harrison
48 Posted 26/03/2023 at 11:01:21
Seemingly all reports are that the decision on this matter may take many months and we may not hear of the findings till next season is well under way. Paul the Esk has suggested that, until this matter is cleared one way or another, there is little or no prospect of Moshiri getting the investment he needs to help complete the new Everton Stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock.

I would also imagine that Everton will be making no moves in the transfer window in the summer for fear of even greater sanctions. I would also imagine, even if Dyche keeps us in the Premier League, there will be a couple of players looking at their long-term futures, who decide they need to move on. Maybe, with no funds available, Dyche might walk away.

Whatever the decision is over this, I can't see how we come out of this in a stronger position. Paul suggests changing the board, and while going forward that needs to happen, it won't have any impact on our position till this matter is resolved. I would also suggest a new owner is required but, with this ongoing enquiry, that won't happen till this is resolved one way or another.

Derek Thomas
49 Posted 26/03/2023 at 11:01:44
Big enough to make an example of…

Small enough not to de-rail the gravy train.

Colin Glassar
50 Posted 26/03/2023 at 11:07:26
Brian 45, I’d take the first three options and hope for the best.
Jerome Shields
51 Posted 26/03/2023 at 12:04:24
Reference #48

Hadn't read Michael post 28, which seems the most reasonable explanation.

I won't go as far as Tony #39 and call him the voice of reason. He can be unreasonable at times.

Jimmy I'Anson
53 Posted 26/03/2023 at 12:32:11
As a trading UK business, surely Everton have the right to refer the Premier League's referral to the Competition and Markets Authority. If the Premier League isn't the finest example of unfair competition, I don't know what is.

The Premier League isn't above the law and I'm sure, if nothing else, we can create a whole world of shit.

Me, bitter? Never!!

Tony Abrahams
54 Posted 26/03/2023 at 12:52:19
Stop being so literal, Jerome!
Gary Brown
55 Posted 26/03/2023 at 13:04:29
Jimmy @53 - I like that suggestion. Fight fire with fire.

No other business in the world is subjected to restricted investments by owners. It's a false market that protects the monopoly of 4-6 clubs in our league, and 15-20 across Europe.

However, it's important we don't play a victim narrative too. That shits for the horrible lot across the park… our board deserve everything coming to them. Unfortunately the fans will suffer too, but then how many of us staying in our seat on “27”? How many could be arsed with the pre-game marching?

We deserve what we get, but so do the Premier League monopoly too.

Danny O’Neill
56 Posted 26/03/2023 at 13:18:07
I was away for a long weekend when news of this broke. I had promised not to discuss or mention Everton, which I somehow managed to stand by, despite the worry and uncertainty after feeling upbeat after the Chelsea fixture.

I read through the corresponding thread and Paul's article.

I was initially confused as I too thought this had been addressed following the statement at the end of last season.

I also confess to not knowing how Profit and Sustainability really works. But I understand it a bit better from what Paul has written and Michael's comment.

Am I correct in assuming it is some sort of sliding scale? I'll keep it in my simplistic thinking. As the most recently completed season's accounts come into play, the one at the back drops off? So it is always calculated over the previous 4 seasons? If so, then surely we get credit for significantly reducing those losses in 2 of those 4 seasons, including 2021-22 in comparison to 2020-21?

I would wager there will be, or should be, a number of nervous clubs out there right now. I don't know, but I would guess, most of them are at it.

As Eric @29 mentions, any organisation disposing over 90% of its revenue is going to fail at some point. I always remember a reporter's comment when we signed Slaven Bilic years ago. I think it was for £4M. Not a massive fee, even for the time, but not insignificant. However, he was on big wages. "It's the wages that kill you" was his observation.

It might not be possible to revive the current years of mediocrity followed by a throw of the dice that has spectacularly rolled a double one.

The word incompetence has been used very often.

I looked up a few definitions that might apply here:

Gross incompetence: This is behaviour in the workplace that is not deliberate or willful (ie, not misconduct), but nevertheless that has had serious consequences. Dismissal is usually with notice.

Is there such a thing as deliberate Gross incompetence?

And then:

Gross negligence: This is a legal concept which means serious carelessness. This terminology often causes confusion when deciding whether the negligence is an act of misconduct or poor performance, ie, which procedure are you following when dismissing? The procedure for Gross Misconduct where dismissal can be made without notice pay or the procedure for Gross Incompetence where dismissal usually has to be made with notice pay?

I feel our board could fit either or both. Take your pick. I know mine.

Anyway, enough my inexperienced dabble with legal and financial talk.

I think it's covered in the article and in the subsequent posts. I too believe there are a number of possible outcomes. In no particular order of probability as we just don't know:

1. Deducted points this season. I too think (hope & pray) this is unlikely due to how long the process would take.

2. Deducted points from the start of next season. Possible, but harsh in my opinion. It may be relative to finances, but just shy of £60M wouldn't get you a Manchester City player.

3. A hefty fine and rap on the knuckles. Severe warning of future financial conduct.

4. Moshiri lawyers somehow pull the proverbial rabbit out of the hat and we walk away. Probability uncertain, but not beyond the realms of possibility.

As has been said, let's wait and see what actually comes out before jumping to conclusions.

Either way, this board cannot stay any longer and with this hanging over, Moshiri is unlikely to attract a buyer, so is going to have to fund it himself or practically give the club away for peanuts.

In meantime, we have a match on Monday. The manager is there to protect them from Billy Smart's self-induced Circus and get them focussed on that.

Sorry for War and Peace.

Jerome Shields
57 Posted 26/03/2023 at 13:41:29
Everton have been involved in quasi-real-time monitoring in recent months, liaising with the Premier League to ensure that they remain within the division's defined financial parameters.

But as reported elsewhere, the now-concluded discussions were held on a voluntary basis and not mandated by the top flight.

The Toffees have recorded losses of over £370million in the last three seasons alone and have only avoided penalties because of pandemic-related exemptions.

Footballer Insider, 4 January 2023

As such, Fooball Insider has been told that news of charges and the threat of potential penalties came as a “surprise” to many at Goodison Park, with the club now preparing “to robustly defend its position to the commission”.

Footballer Insider, 25 March 2023

David Hallwood
58 Posted 26/03/2023 at 13:51:52
Surely, if points deduction is an option, then Chelsea and Man City should also have points deducted. I think the Premier League will be reluctant to go down that path because, in the words of Corporal Jones, they don't like it up 'em.
Jerome Shields
59 Posted 26/03/2023 at 13:53:33
Kevin #36,

I think your opinion is 100% correct. I was just trying to work out had it happened.

Anthony Hawkins
60 Posted 26/03/2023 at 13:55:13
Whilst not aware of the details behind the Premier League's review of transfer dealings, I'd expect them to come out and say "We don't manage finances on behalf of the clubs and only approve transfers based on contracts, not P&S impacts". Leaving the club high and dry.

To be fair, the clubs employ accountants and individuals who are meant to be financially savy. The Premier League are there as overall wards to monitor and review, which will always be after the fact.

Never thought I'd say it but, if found guilty, this is a clear show of ineptitude which should never have been allowed. I can only imagine the signing of expensive players was a hope the club would push into Europe and we'd not be where we are.

Bringing in Lampard was a hope and a prayer based on being cheap and his enthusiasm rubbing off on players to bring them up, which clearly failed.

I really hope there's an escape route from this or we're on borrowed time. Applying a points deduction this season will be the end of our Premier League presence. Applied next season means we'll be exactly where we are unless Dyche can perform miracles.

Jerome Shields
61 Posted 26/03/2023 at 14:03:36
Actually, if the Premier League have not accepted certain figures, this would not show up on the published accounts. Since the independent commission conducts its business in private, we might never know the actual correct reason for the referral.
Paul Smith
62 Posted 26/03/2023 at 14:06:52
I don't see why this will impact on summer transfers if we stay up; as long as we stay within P&S rules for this season and next, we can still wheel and deal. In terms of investment, that's a bigger concern as the investigation creates uncertainty and investment jitters.
James Marshall
63 Posted 26/03/2023 at 14:11:45
Analysis = confusion.

Hence why I guess it's going to an independent commission.

The Man City enquiry has been ongoing for 4 years so far, so I wouldn't imagine there'll be anything happening about this anytime this season.

Plus there's the right of appeal from either party, so this is likely to drag on over a period of months, even years, before we get a final outcome.

It does put us in a limbo situation though, which means we're screwed for investment, I'd suggest.

Christine Foster
64 Posted 26/03/2023 at 14:18:42
Danny, I always remember being told the difference between gross incompetence and gross negligence by an Australian lawyer who worked for my millionaire boss.

"Gross incompetence is when the person responsible for doing the job does not have the skills to do it and stuffs it up."

"Gross negligence is when the person responsible has the skills but cannot be bothered to apply them."

Christine Foster
65 Posted 26/03/2023 at 14:23:07
The Man City charges relate to a substantial amount of breaches, I suspect Everton's may be few and, this being the case, the Premier League may be thinking this is a quick and easy win to set an example.

In which case, I fear they will want it done and dusted very quickly.

James Flynn
66 Posted 26/03/2023 at 14:37:02
Contracts Expiring in June 2023 - Mina; Coleman; Davies; Townsend; Begovic; Coady

Mina, Davies, Coady, Kean, Vinagre, and Townsend all gone. Seamus extended, and Begovic a maybe.

£14.5 million off the wage bill.

Contracts Expiring in June 2024 - Gomes; Gbamin; Alli; Iwobi; Doucoure; Virginia

Gomes, Gbamin and Alli - £15 million cumulative-wage dead weight. All 3 have to consider where a pay-check will come from on 1 July 2024. Fingers crossed, using the Schneiderlin & Mirallas "free", the Club can see them all gone this Summer.

Iwobi – What little offense we produce, Alex is the best of the lot. A 50% pay rise would see him at £75K per week, which isn't bad. No more than 3 years, though. Otherwise, let him play out his contract and take his chances Summer 2024.

Doucoure – Pick up his option if Dyche wants to keep him. Otherwise, thanks and best of luck.

Virginia – Awful, but on baby wages. So whatever happens, happens.

Getting the "Gomes, Gbamin & Alli - £15 million cumulative-wage dead weight" gone is the main thing and would be excellent business if we do nothing else.

Contracts Expiring in June 2025 - Only interested this Summer in the centre-back wage logjam for the next 2 seasons either holding up Branthwaite's development or worse, prompting him to look elsewhere. Likely many clubs wishing Jarrad would "look elsewhere" at them.

Tarkowski, Keane, Holgate, and Godfrey are on a cumulative £15.6 million per season for the next 2 years. For me, an "odd man out" would be Holgate. Would he leave? Would any club take on his £70k per week wages?

Add our current financial situation and it wouldn't surprise we take the highest bidder's offer and wave bye-bye to Jarrad.

Robert Tressell
67 Posted 26/03/2023 at 14:42:47
All very sad. There may genuinely be some truth in the conspiracy end of this argument.

We did upset some vested interest when voting against the Super League (which is happening without us anyway). And there may be some inherent unfairness baked into the system now too. But ultimately this club really has been run into the ground financially.

If we stay up and avoid any sanction, then we're still likely to be working with frees, loans and bargain basement signings just to make ends meet. It looks like there's a reasonable chance of sanction now though.

The writing has been on the wall since Benitez could only spend £1.7M the summer he arrived. A points deduction and / or transfer embargo would really hurt next season. Very sad indeed.

Jay Harris
68 Posted 26/03/2023 at 15:21:18
I read that the Premier League held many meetings with other clubs and assured them that Everton's books were in order and there was no breach, so either the latest accounts have shown a discrepancy, or the Government's attempts to assign a football regulator have pushed the Premier League into action.

Whatever is behind it, the outcome cannot be good for the club.

Best case scenario – nothing untoward is found but damage has already been done to Everton's image and investment possibilities.

Second best-case scenario – the club is censured and warned as to its future conduct.

Thirdly – a fine ranging from £2M to £20M.

Fourthly – a points deduction from 3 to 12 points, probably affecting next season.

I'm sick to death of the Premier League and its overpaid Fancy Dans who act like prima donnas.

Neil Copeland
69 Posted 26/03/2023 at 15:56:01
There is a difference between the case against Man City and this one with Everton. City have actually been charged by the Premier Leaague whereas our case had been referred to an Independent Commission with no charge made thus far.

So, isn't it quite feasible that the other clubs involved (Burnley and Leeds?) have told the Premier League they are not satisfied with their findings? The result of this may be that the Premier League, confident of their own review, have referred it to appease those clubs and bring matters to a close.

I appreciate the above is an optimistic view but very plausible, imo.

Danny James
70 Posted 26/03/2023 at 16:14:14
If The Esk's figures are correct or even close for the 2021-22 accounts, why are we in trouble this year and not last year as the accounts for 2018-19 post a worse loss than is expected for 2021-22?

So we should have been in more trouble last season for the 3-year rolling period 2018-21 than we are this year for period 2019-22.

Tony Everan
71 Posted 26/03/2023 at 16:52:36
Where do we stand legally, if we are found to be in breach of the rules, with regards to compensation claims being brought against us by teams relegated?

Anthony Murphy
72 Posted 26/03/2023 at 17:09:01
According to the Daily Mail (okay, I know), Premier League clubs were told at a meeting this month that Everton have done nothing wrong – if so, maybe the Premier League have referred Everton to show the government that their procedures are thorough and transparent.

It could therefore be just a way of shutting down the likes of Burnley and Leeds as the Premier League are confident the independent commission will find the same – showing the Premier League are competent at a critical time.

The last thing the Premier League would want at this point is evidence that they couldn't run a bath. Just a thought. God knows what's going on or where this'll end up…

danny james
73 Posted 26/03/2023 at 17:15:09
Tony Everan @71,

We would argue that spending money has made us worse and that, had we not gone over the P&S limits, and wasted so much money and wages on average players, we wouldn't have been close to relegation during the last couple of years.

Those clubs that argue we would have been relegated had we not breached the P&S Rules is an argument based on assumption. The fact that we have been a regular Top 8 team prior to spending wads of cash, and deteriorated when we did start spending cash, is an argument based on fact... you just have to look at Premier League finishes.

Kieran Kinsella
74 Posted 26/03/2023 at 17:49:51

I think you misread it. The meeting referenced was last March, not this month.

Len Hawkins
75 Posted 26/03/2023 at 19:19:26
A couple of weeks ago, Moshiri gave the powers that be an open invitation to look into our financial dealings when he said "I don't want to sell as it could open up delving into our dealings."

A £billionaire financial wizard with the brains of a rocking horse is about to drag us kicking and screaming to the depths of non-league football.

We're all doomed, I tell yer doomed.

David West
76 Posted 26/03/2023 at 19:53:52
Excellent description from The Esk. Puts a lot of the speculation and conjecture to bed in my eyes.

If I get it right, the club have either cocked up the figures, misled or even blatantly lied to the Premier League. Now that they have the figures things don't add up to how the club have been saying.

Now it's been explained to me, it's as if the Premier League have given us plenty of breathing space and we have wasted that good will.

It's bordering on criminal!

John Daley
77 Posted 26/03/2023 at 20:43:26
“…the club's apparent good-faith efforts to be open and upfront about their business decisions and dealings"

Something the board and Moshiri are well known for, of course. Openness. Transparency. Honest as the day is long… if your days are spent in that little Alaskan town from 30 Days Of Night that was plunged into solid darkness for an entire month and became manna for vampires. Unfortunately, the Blues have been besieged by bloodsuckers for a lot longer than that though.

There's big question marks about whether they've even been ‘open and upfront' about who actually owns the club. Is it the maladroit accountant with mad Zig and Zag eyes and a raging salmon for mumbling shite on 5 Live? Or is it the sanctioned oligarch on the other end of the Zoom call asking managerial interviewees probing questions such as “Can you give us an example of a time when you faced an ethical dilemma?” and “Street Hawk or Air Wolf?”

Were they truly ‘open and honest' about the effect of Covid-19 on club finances? How can such a huge disparity between Everton's supposed losses due to the pandemic and those suffered by other Premier League clubs be explained with a straight face and without some sort of padding?

Newcastle, for example, claimed to have lost £40M over two seasons as a direct result; Aston Villa £56M; Arsenal £85M. Yet Everton attribute losses to the magnitude of £170M over the same period as being a direct result of the crisis?

We all know Kenwright can spin a good yarn but, fuck me, he must have put on the show of his life to pull that one off (‘Gladys on Corona Nation Street: A Bill Kenwright Production… Starring: Michael Crawford as ‘SARS-CoV-2', Nic Cage as ‘Farhad Moshiri', Bill Kenwright as ‘Bill Kenwright', and that bloke who played the corpse in Weekend At Bernie's as ‘Everton Football Club').

Were they open and honest about staying away from Goodison because of Barret-Baxendale having her head popped off and Liam Neeson phoning them up and saying he has a very particular set of skills and he will find them and he will kill them?

As you say, Michael, the fact that the club have, more recently, been in continuing ‘dialogue' and ‘co-operating openly' with the Premier League does not mean every financial move made since has been ratified, or that every minute detail has previously been passed on. The full picture would only have become clear once the accounts covering the period in question were finalised and in their possession.

Given past form, would it really be such a surprise if the club had failed to mention, been a bit vague about, or deviated from something?

The most alarming thing for me is, having sailed so perilously close to the wind previously, how could they possibly be unprepared for the eventuality… however slim they may have considered it… of being brought to book this time?

It is claimed they have ‘been taken by surprise' that the Premier League has referred the club to an independent commission, but surely they must have realised they were delicately tip-toeing about on frazil thinner than Donald Trump's fucking skin?

Andy Crooks
78 Posted 26/03/2023 at 20:55:32
Good stuff, John, you really need to post more.

What did you think of Rafa, Frank?

Tony Abrahams
79 Posted 26/03/2023 at 21:37:45
If Everton are found guilty of serious charges, I don't know how the club could face a points deduction once it's been proven that Bill Kenwright has not only been kidding the bollocks out of everyone for years but he was also a boyhood Liverpudlian.

Paul [The Esk]
80 Posted 26/03/2023 at 23:13:11
Excellent John #77
Jerome Shields
81 Posted 26/03/2023 at 23:45:20
#FAO Paul the Esk#

Daily Star are reporting : “But Everton officials believe they cleared all dealings during that period when working closely with the Premier League, including a P&S deadline-busting deal to sell Richarlison to Tottenham on the June 30, 2022, cut off for the financial year in question.

“That £50m sale – and subsequent reduction in losses – was flagged up with the league’s watch-dogs at the time.”

Is this possibility true or is the Star just speculating.

Paul the Esk : How does this fit in with your figures and is it possible this is the reason that resulted in the breach of the Profit and Sustainability rules? The amount involved is similar to the unacceptable aggregate loss.Was this mismanaged by the Club? Could this explain the Club's surprise regarding the referral, not expecting the Premier League not to accept the Financial statements they presented.

Paul [The Esk]
82 Posted 27/03/2023 at 06:02:42
Jerome, my estimated loss for 2021/22 includes the sale of Richarlison for £50m
Ralph Basnett
83 Posted 27/03/2023 at 07:27:01
Any club that spunked:

£45 mill on the one we don’t mention.
£10 mill on sick note from Shitty.
£34 mil. On Iwobi.
£25 mill on Gbamin.
£22 mill on Doucoure.

Deserves to be called to task. We have thrown away money for years and when it goes wrong spend more and wonder why?

The club and unfortunately the club deserves what it gets, we as supporters revelled in the spending and all too late have decided to protest.

We say only at Everton for a reason, we have not been strong enough in our protests about how the club has been run, I’m guilty of this myself!

Now we must pay the piper and maybe hope the gulf states decide their is something in buying us and a half built stadium or we do not have a long term future.

Even if to stabilise the team Mosh wants to spend in the summer if we stay up he won’t be allowed too.

Fucked from all angles really.

Tony Abrahams
84 Posted 27/03/2023 at 08:25:44
We simply need new owners, who will appoint a new board, and then hopefully the club can take a new direction which implements “REAL PROFESSIONALISM”
Jerome Shields
85 Posted 27/03/2023 at 09:05:30
Paul the Esk#82

Thanks for clearing that up.It is now down to the Board overestimating their voluntary relationship with the Premier League, thinking they could get away with a loss or the Board being well aware of the situation and playing dum/surprised.Other than that we can only speculate on any motives.

I had a Chelsea supporter say to me that he would bet any money that nothing would happen as a result of being refferal to the Comission.He of course is excluding third party investment in the Club.

Everton are still in the same position of having to avoid regelation, since the Football League are absolutely sure to throw the book at them.Obviously the Premier League are tightening up on regulation, with Government involvement eminent.

It is all down to a incompetent Everton Board and a Owner who accepted incompetence, for reasons he can only explain.Kenwright's reputation as someone who can jolly things along has run it's inevitable course, but I can't see him not having some angle he is working on amongst Everton's and Moshiri's woes.

It now looks that the unseemly rush to sell Gordon during the Summer was a desperate attempt to round the circle,inevitably they notched that..Even working with closely working with the Premier League they haven't been able to get things right this past two years.

Kunal Desai
86 Posted 27/03/2023 at 11:44:54
Apparently its being brought to light that there is an issue with a player acquisition which wasn't made clear to the PL under 2021/2022 season? Who is this player Deli Alli?

When does the farce with these idiots ever end?

Phil Wood
87 Posted 28/03/2023 at 00:35:29
Any idea how many points involved?
I saw 3-12 mentioned. If it's 12 with this squad then we may as well be relegated instead.
What is the point in starting a Prem Season -12.
Who wants to buy their season tickets knowing we are down already?
Bloody stupid scenario.
Andy Mack
88 Posted 28/03/2023 at 23:24:29
Didn't we basically throw away a dozen points at the start of the season waiting on Dom's 'imminent' fitness boost rather than bringing a striker in? 'Seemed we were happy to almost default games with an 'oh well, once we have a striker...' attitude under Frank. So maybe a 12 point deduction won't be total despondency, I'm glad we have Dyche onboard already though, of our recent managers, I think he could ramp up the 'them and us' attitude and give us purpose, and also not likely to walk away.

I wonder how a possible transfer ban would effect us? We've a crap team only just starting to gel, but God knows we have been atrocious at judging value for money transfers recently, and would it be an no outgoings ban also? In which case, we've a fair few old faces coming back into the ranks that we thought we'd never see again.

Bob Parrington
89 Posted 29/03/2023 at 08:28:27
Mal @ #10 - certainly seems that way. Point is how do we unearth the reason for the turn around and hence the guilty party, who is either trying to cover his/her own back or is a shit stirrer who doesn't like what Everton stands for! (Leeds/Burnley/Liverpool FC ?????).

Regardless, as a professionally managed business, we should not have let ourselves open to the possibility of the charge! It is a litigious world we live in these days with lots of self righteous dick heads looking to stir the pot! (Unfortunately).

Peter Carpenter
90 Posted 30/03/2023 at 09:06:42
According to BBC, HMRC is investigating a number of premier league clubs who allegedly avoided tax payments by manipulating agent's fees.
I wonder if we're on that list too?
No, perhaps that is too clever for the dimwits running our club.
Paul Hewitt
91 Posted 30/03/2023 at 09:14:24
Peter I would say thats a more reasonable reason.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.

How to get rid of these ads and support TW

, placement: 'Below Article Thumbnails', target_type: 'mix' });