It felt like it took forever but the Appeal Board that heard Everton’s counter to the historic 10-point deduction that the Premier League’s Independent Commission handed down last November finally delivered their verdict yesterday, cutting that “wholly disproportionate” sanction, to use the Club’s words, down to six points.

It is still a significant penalty, one that would effectively inflict more than a £5m fine on the Blues if the current table was final (each place is worth £2.6m), but it lifts them clear of the relegation zone for the time being and eases some of the crushing pressure that, by Sean Dyche’s own admission, had started to weigh on the players.

The threat of the charge for a second alleged breach of Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) still looms large, with Everton set to go before a new commission in mid-March and to learn the outcome of that hearing by 8 April, but the Club and its fans at least have a modicum of clarity about their situation and some light at the end of a long tunnel where before there was just concern and confusion.

In exposing the weakness of the Premier League sanction framework and repudiating the original Commission’s failure to use precedent established in the English Football League (EFL), the Appeal Board established that, even in the case of what it agrees was a “serious breach” of PSR, no penalty can realistically exceed the nine points deducted from Portsmouth for going into administration in 2010.

Article continues below video content

In their ruling, they declared that “a six-point immediate points deduction is appropriate and proportionate in that it is a sanction both necessary and sufficient to achieve the aims of the PSR.”

With that precedent in mind, given the lengths to which Everton have gone to pare their wage bill and recoup large transfer fees with almost no outlay over the past 18 or so months, it would be safe to assume that, if the Club is found guilty for a second time, the most they would be hit with is another six points.

Based on the table as it currently stands, that would put them back in the drop zone, a point behind Luton Town having played a game more, but that would not take into account the seemingly inevitable points deduction awaiting Nottingham Forest – that sanction would be a minimum of six points but could be more if the estimates that the size of their breach is bigger than Everton’s from 2021-22 and with almost no credible mitigating circumstances.

That would put Forest on a maximum of 18 points pending their appeal and leave the relegation battle up in the air, possibly as late as 24 May – five days after the end of the Premier League season! – when the Toffees’ final appeal decision must be delivered.

That is as much clarity as can be gleaned from the situation for now because, until Everton release their final accounts for 2022-23, no one outside the Club and the Premier League knows how big the club’s calculated PSR loss was for that financial year.

With the £58m adjusted loss for 2018-19 now dropping out of the equation and the combined deficit for the next three financial years being £81m, the consensus is that losses for 2022-23 must be less than £36m for Everton to be compliant but stadium costs and those associated with both paying off Frank Lampard and his staff, honouring Dyche’s bonus for keeping the Blues up last season and paying off departing directors could tip them over.

Everton appear confident that they will avoid further censure by the second Commission, however, even though they were forced to admit in December that, based on the figures established by the Premier League and the Independent Commission last August and October – ie, that the Club breached the upper loss threshold in 2021-22 by £19.5m – they were in breach again.

Given that the subsequent appeal did not challenge the size of the original breach, merely how the Commission dealt with various mitigating and aggravating factors on the one hand and the arbitrary nature of the sanctions framework on the other, the Club will need to demonstrate compliance in their final accounts, perhaps once allowable deductions are factored in.

(For context, in July last year, Paul “The Esk” Quinn projected losses of £44.7m for 2022-23 but has since posted his confidence that “[c]apitalising interest costs for 2021-22 and 2022-23, plus allowable deductions, bring us comfortably within the £105m limit”.)

If they have exceeded the threshold, however, regardless of how small the margin, it would, in the language of the first Commission and the Appeal Board, constitute “a serious breach”, on the basis that £105m is £90m above the minimum loss threshold that was agreed by the 20 member clubs when the PSR were first instituted in 2013. That would carry the minimum six-point penalty now established as the baseline, at least until the new spending rules are expected to come into force for next season.

Such a scenario would throw the process back into the grey areas of stadium cost considerations, mitigating factors like those put forward by the Club last October, specifically Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in particular, and “double jeopardy”, the notion that Everton stand to be punished twice for 75% of the rolling assessment period.

It is believed that Laurence Rabinowitz KC will be retained for the second Commission hearing and that any further points penalty could only be applied against a breach for that remaining 25% – ie, perhaps a point or two in addition to the six already taken away – and it is hoped that common sense prevails in this regard.

On Ukraine, the Appeal Board sided with the Commission in rejecting Everton’s claim that the sanctions against Alisher Usmanov and his USM Holdings conglomerate in particular were a head of mitigation “upon which the Club could successfully rely to reduce the penalty” because there was no paperwork to show that Usmanov and Farhad Moshiri were in the process of agreeing to bring forward from 2025-26 the signing of a £10m-a-season naming rights deal for Everton Stadium designed to commence during the 2021-22 season.

However, while that was arguably a justifiable position for both the Commission and Appeal Board to take on the grounds that “the loss of a proposed [naming rights] agreement, even if the agreement had been likely, was “no more than the type of event that businesses have to contend with as part of their daily life” it’s much harder to pass off the wider issue of the impact that the sanctions against Usmanov and USM have had on the Club’s commercial income with the same logic.

Sponsorships from USM companies made up the majority of the club’s commercial revenue until they were suspended following Putin’s war of aggression on Ukraine. To suggest that losing such a huge swathe of income is something that any prudent business should have foreseen or made contingencies for would be harsh in the extreme, especially when you weigh it up against the vastly uneven landscape of the modern-day Premier League where some clubs are backed by nation states and sovereign wealth funds or simply enjoy an almost unbridgeable advantage when it comes to attracting commercial partners.

Finally, the contentious issue of loan interest payments and whether they could be capitalised on the basis of expenditure on the stadium, will surely be a bone of contention once more. In its November decision, the Commission declared that, “The cause of Everton’s difficulties was the fact that it overspent on players,” an accusation that the Club contested but for which the Premier League could point to the purchase of Vitalii Mykolenko and Nathan Patterson in January 2022, in particular, as supporting evidence.

With Everton having an outlay of, at most, £25m in down payments for the likes of Amadou Onana, Dwight McNeil, Neal Maupay and James Garner against income from the sales of Allan and Nathan Broadhead and approaching £40m up front from Newcastle for Anthony Gordon, the costs associated with Bramley-Moore Dock and the extent to which infrastructure spending (with the end aim being greater sustainability from a brand new facility with almost 13,000 extra seats) become a much bigger part of the picture. As the Appeal Board admitted, “There was uncontested evidence that the new stadium posed an inevitable strain on the finances of the Club which has to date committed over £800m to the project."

The extent to which such considerations, together with the question of “double jeopardy” and a club having been punished heavily despite a positive year-on-year trend towards compliance, play into the ruling by the second Commission remains to be seen.

In the interim, however, Everton’s Premier League survival is very much in their hands on the pitch. For Dyche, the “controllables” he always speaks of needing to control are within his sphere of influence but his team needs to start winning matches.

With West Ham and four other struggling teams in the form of Nottingham Forest, Brentford and the seemingly doomed pair of Burnley and Sheffield United still to visit Goodison Park and trips to Bournemouth and Luton, also in the bottom half, to come, the Toffees have enough favourable fixtures from which to pick up the points they will need to mitigate any further points deduction.

The restoration of four of the original 10 taken away in November will hopefully provide a shot in the arm for the players and lift some of the gloom among the supporters. Goodison Park this weekend should be a far less anxious place and a win over the Hammers would only improve the general mood around the club.

Beyond that, resolution either way of the 777 Partners takeover saga would be hugely welcome, but that’s for another article entirely… and it hopefully won't be the front of an oncoming train!

Reader Comments (59)

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 ()

Ian Burns
1 Posted 27/02/2024 at 09:52:39
This is a most welcome and as always, well written/articulated article Lyndon.

I say “most welcome” because having read every post on ToffeeWeb and numerous posts on the news and social media sites, my head has been spinning, struggling to make sense of it all. This article says a lot about my own view on the subject although I could never pen such a post!

For my own part, we need to finish 7 points above the bottom three then waiting for 24 May won't be such an anxious wait for the hangman!

Christopher Timmins
2 Posted 27/02/2024 at 10:48:08

You would have to think that a further deduction of 6 points would be an absolute maximum and given Forest's issues, I expect us to stay ahead of them and be ahead of Luton come the end of the season.

If we can start the 2024-25 season with a clean slate, having moved out a significant number of the deadwood, then we are well on our way to turning things around.

My major concern is that we still have the capacity to spend big money on sub-standard players.

John Raftery
3 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:04:31
Yesterday's announcement was a positive outcome. In regard to the 2022-23 round of charges, I draw comfort from the expectation Forest will be deducted 6 points which would plunge them into the relegation zone as things stand.

In regard to our 2022-23 position, I would hope Rabinowitz, having immersed himself in the detail, will be retained to provide continuity of representation. While much may depend on the extent of our latest breach, the double jeopardy argument must surely have considerable weight. If it does, a sanction of 2 points would seem appropriate.

Given that sort of outcome at the first hearing, the club may choose not to appeal. That would provide clarity for us and the clubs around us in the table.

Dave Abrahams
4 Posted 27/02/2024 at 12:42:32
John (3),

With genuine respect to you, I think yesterday's result will only be a partially positive result if we walk away from the second hearing with no further point reductions.

I'm hoping Mr Rumpole, our brief, has made our case thoroughly and clearly that we don't expect any further losses affecting our league placing at the second hearing which has only come about because the Premier League officials are making their rules up "Off the cuff” as and when it suits them.

This league and whoever is in charge from now and after August will be a lot more prudent with their rule-making and how it affects clubs, once, of course, they have “looked after” the clubs they really care about.

By the way, John, are you still secretary of Iwobi's fan club?

Dave Abrahams
5 Posted 27/02/2024 at 12:55:41
John (3),

In relation to my question about Iwobi, I know you have a nice quiet wit, so I'm letting you know before you ask, I'm not asking to join Iwobi's fan club!!

John Chambers
6 Posted 27/02/2024 at 12:58:44

Unfortunately, I'm not sure we will start next season with a totally clean sheet after the outstanding charge is resolved. The outstanding charge still includes 2 of the years we have accepted we overspent. Therefore next year the PSR calculation will still include one of those years.

As the clubs and Premier League do not disclose the breakdown year by year ,we may still have a challenge. I suspect to truly remove the ongoing threat, we will probably have to sell some combination of Onana, Branthwaite and Pickford before 30 June 2024.

One possible “windfall” in our accounts may be Dele Alli. I am assuming we must have put some form of depreciation into our accounts for his transfer fee. I can't see any way he will reach the appearances to trigger the £10M payment, so we can gain the depreciation back. Some of our more astute accountancy experts may have a better view on any impact?

I do agree with your assessment of the position re future deductions for ourselves and Forest so, to my eyes, we need to find a minimum of 15 points in the next 12 games to be reasonably confident of staying up.

Paul Tran
7 Posted 27/02/2024 at 13:05:53
The prudent action here is to work on the basis that we will lose another 6 points, while building our good case for no further sanction.

Logic tells us that Forest will get docked 6 points, but it's the Premier League we're talking about, so I'm not taking that for granted!

So Dyche's and the players' aim is to finish 6 points ahead of the Bottom 3. An easier task if Forest lose 6; even easier if we have no further sanction.

John Keating
8 Posted 27/02/2024 at 13:06:55
What would be the outcome if a club, Forest or us, is relegated due to a points deduction, and changes are made at season's end such that the club would not have been relegated under the new rules?

Surely once a precedence is set, in this case, 6 points for a breach of £105 million plus, how can it be manipulated next season such that either the £105 million is adjusted or the 6 point is adjusted?

What a complete shambles of ego and incompetence of the Premier League management.

John Chambers
9 Posted 27/02/2024 at 13:28:00
John #8.

Realistically, even the Premier League would have to give some advance warning so I suspect PSR will apply to the current financial year and 2024-25. The rumour about the new rule is it will be looking at salary and transfer spend based on turnover.

You can't then retrospectively apply any new rules to past periods, which may be fortunate for us as I think we would be even more screwed on that as we have had salaries over 90% of turnover! It also means Chelsea and Man City will not be able to avoid charges.

Sur Jo
10 Posted 27/02/2024 at 14:24:52
This is what ChatGPT had to say:

To understand why Everton cannot be penalised again for two of the three years they breached Premier League's Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) based on UK laws, particularly in a situation where they have already faced penalties for a previous rolling cycle overlapping with the current cycle, it's essential to grasp the legal principle of "double jeopardy" as it applies in a regulatory context, not just in criminal law.

In the case of Everton, if they were penalised for breaches of the PSR during a specific period that overlaps with two of the three years under consideration in a new cycle, applying additional penalties for the same financial conduct during the overlapping years could be seen as punitive and unfair. This is because the club would be facing multiple sanctions for the same set of actions, which goes against the principles of fairness and proportionality in regulatory enforcement.

Regulatory bodies, including those governing sports leagues, are expected to act fairly and proportionately. Penalising a club multiple times for the same breach could be seen as disproportionate and unjust.

Past decisions and penalties can set precedents. If a club has been penalised once for a specific breach, regulatory bodies may consider those penalties sufficient for the actions in question.

John Raftery
11 Posted 27/02/2024 at 14:35:42
Thanks, Dave (4 and 5). I would be happy to take an honorary position on the basis I wouldn't actually have to do anything!

I do remain an admirer of the sort of skills someone like Iwobi can add to a team. While watching games like Saturday's at Brighton, I often think we miss a player, like an Iwobi or a Barkley, who can carry the ball a distance, find a pass and pull opponents back into their own half.

Dyche has said ideally he would have kept Iwobi but the financials dictated otherwise. Whether or not we will be able to find a player of his kind in the foreseeable future at a price we can afford remains to be seen.

Regarding the 2022-23 charge, I will be pleasantly surprised if they let us off completely. Obviously Rabinowitz can argue the case there was nothing the club could have done to alter the 2022-23 accounts because the mistakes made in the previous year only came to light after 30 June 2023.

I think yesterday's result was positive in the context of many supporters fearing we would get nothing back.

Christopher Timmins
12 Posted 27/02/2024 at 14:47:03

Will there not be a sufficient offset from the other 2 years making up the 3-year average to ensure we don't face additional sanctions?

Danny O’Neill
13 Posted 27/02/2024 at 14:51:08
I'll keep saying it.

Just win our games.

They can can do what they want, but win enough points and it will make them look even more farcical than they already do.

There is an old phrase, Lions led by Donkeys.

Dave Abrahams
14 Posted 27/02/2024 at 14:55:10
Thanks for your reply, John.

I have to concede that Iwobi might add something to the right side of this present Everton team but then, looking at his overall game, what he would add, to me, would be more than taken away with his deficits, so it's a ‘no thanks', John, from me.

I honestly never feared we wouldn't get anything back and I think it is still too little, definitely so if we lose more points, even one, from the second appearance before a Premier League appointed commission.

It's just not cricket, as you might say, John.

Joe McMahon
15 Posted 27/02/2024 at 14:56:23
Danny, I agree, but it does mean scoring some goals. Unless we do that and become even slightly entertaining, then the whole world and his wife (using my old dad's phrase) will want us absolutely relegated.
Ben King
16 Posted 27/02/2024 at 15:00:56
Danny #13,

You're a genius. Why don't all clubs think of this?

Mal van Schaick
17 Posted 27/02/2024 at 15:06:41
Thanks Lyndon for your appraisal of the situation.

The sooner that a line is drawn under Everton's situation, the better, and all off-pitch matters are resolved, and we can move on looking forward to retaining our Premier League status, and with the prospect of a great new stadium on the horizon, we can plan for the future.

Having said that, there are other clubs embroiled in the financial minefield of rules, complicated by covid allowances. The fact that there are going to be topsy-turvy outcomes at different timescales adds to the confusion, leaving us all wondering how the Premier League table will look at the end of the season or beyond. What a farce!

Jay Harris
18 Posted 27/02/2024 at 15:28:11
I am still bemused that Chelsea, who admit, as a club, made illegal under-the-table payments to management and staff, are not being charged or investigated – and the Man City fiasco is just a joke.

It's still hard to believe that the likes of Spurs have not been investigated too. I'm guessing that all other clubs' accounts have just been accepted as bona fide and not looked into like they did with Everton.

Paul Hewitt
19 Posted 27/02/2024 at 15:29:02
12 games – that's all that's left. I'd say we need 6 wins to be sure of staying up, even with another points deduction.

Apart from Liverpool and Arsenal, I'd say in all the other fixtures we're capable of getting points. So I'd tell the players "stand tall, play with your hearts", we are Everton and we won't be put down by some corrupt organisations.

Steve Byles
20 Posted 27/02/2024 at 15:29:54
I wish people here would stop talking about the Forest charge and how it helps us.

When we were first charged, we enjoyed the support of all fans, but now this is descending into self-interest.

We should support Forest who also face unjust charges, as they have a much lower PSR limit.

Sur Jo
21 Posted 27/02/2024 at 15:36:05
Agree with Steve @20.
Dennis Stevens
22 Posted 27/02/2024 at 15:37:28
Arguably, Steve #20, the club has already helped Forest through the process we've gone through and the parameters that are now likely to be applied to the next round of charges.
Mike Gaynes
23 Posted 27/02/2024 at 15:41:55
John #11,

Alex Iwobi scored an injury-time game-winner at Old Trafford this past weekend, which only increases my regard for him.

Nick Page
24 Posted 27/02/2024 at 15:49:15
Spot on, Steve #20. Hypocrisy has many forms.
Andy Crooks
25 Posted 27/02/2024 at 16:01:32
Agree, Steve Byles and Nick Page. It will have become truly desperate if our form drops enough to wish Forest ill.
Brian Williams
26 Posted 27/02/2024 at 16:07:05
We enjoyed the support of all fans?

Did we?

Not from what I saw because, on some of the sites I went on, fans of numerous clubs were revelling in our situation and not passing up the chance to enjoy it.

Ridiculous statement IMHO.

Virtue signalling even.

Forest or us?

I know which one I'd choose.

John Raftery
27 Posted 27/02/2024 at 16:08:23
Steve (20)

We didn't enjoy the support of all fans. At our away matches, the fans of Forest, Burnley, Wolves and others have all sang or chanted insults about our supposed guilt.

The charges and penalties may be unjust but Forest face the same injustice that we do. Whether they, or we, like it or not, a deduction of 6 points is the fact of the matter.

Rick Tarleton
28 Posted 27/02/2024 at 16:10:18
Surely our next huge issue is the whole morass around the 777 ownership? Just having finished your book, Lyndon, I felt you were more positive about 777 Partners than most of the Evertonians I've read or spoken to.

I think we'll lose another 4 or 6 points for the second breach and I fear we'll lose most of our talented players.

We need a positive resolution to the ownership issue as soon as possible. Otherwise, the saga continues ad infinitum.

Mark Murphy
29 Posted 27/02/2024 at 16:10:51
I seem to remember Forest fans singing that “same old scousers, always cheating” shite at us?

Fuck them!

Ray Robinson
30 Posted 27/02/2024 at 16:13:38
Nobody specifically wants to harm Forest. They just need to be treated in exactly the same way as Everton.

Yes, they have a smaller allowable 3-year loss owing to the fact that they'd been in the Championship for 2 seasons but, just like us, they knew the score and yet still signed 40-odd players in three transfer windows.

I don't want them to be victimised to help us, I just want equal treatment. If we stay up at their expense, so be it.

Andy Crooks
31 Posted 27/02/2024 at 16:19:21
Paul Hewitt @19,

You gave me hope. I read your post and thought you said 6 points, not 6 wins. For that fleeting micro second, I thought, "Fucking hell!!!" Then re-read.

I will always have a soft spot for Forest. Back in the day, late sixties I think, I wrote to Everton asking for some autographs. Never got a reply.

But also wrote to Forest because my sister's pal knew Ian Storey-Moore. I got a lovely letter from Johnny Carey with autographs of all the players. Grummit, Hennessy, Barry Lyons etc.

With hindsight, I don't know why I stayed a Blue!! There's no escape!!

Bill Gall
32 Posted 27/02/2024 at 16:33:18

There was very little actual support from other clubs or fans, apart from sympathy. The initial punishment of a 10-point reduction shook fear in other clubs that must have been close to the point of being investigated, and this can be seen in the lack of transfers in the January window.

Everton should be, and I believe they are, grateful of the fantastic support they receive from their own supporters, especially those who are able to go to the away games and suffer the most abuse verbally, from the home fans.

Congratulations to all Everton fans who have supported this proud club while suffering under the inept Board and Owner who put us in this mess.

We may not have won any silverware, but we have exposed how corrupt the Premier League regime is.

Jerome Shields
33 Posted 27/02/2024 at 16:43:09
The main thing is that Everton were left with a manageable situation as far as the team is concerned or, as Lyndon has said, light at the end of the tunnel.

I think that the Premier League found themselves under a lot of pressure over the initial sanctions and Everton's KC allowed them the opportunity to get off the hook.

It is also ironic that Everton's position in the Premier League table could have also had a bearing on the result.

If Everton had been above 10th place, they probably would have not received points back.

Now, we have another Commission which has to parallel the findings of the first, with the added conundrum of having two teams to consider.

The Premier League has managed to maintain some semblance of its Profitability and Sustainability Rules regime. It also brought itself more in line with the EFL sanctions policy and come August, the Uefa FFP sanctions policy.

The second Commission is in mid-March, so an appeal will have to be heard in May. The compensation question seems to have been put on the long finger for now.

Rob Halligan
34 Posted 27/02/2024 at 16:53:05
John #27…

Add Man City fans to that list. However, the silence had been deafening from the RS!

Also, you only need to look at the BBC HYS to see how much hatred there is towards Everton over this. So as regards to Forest… Fuck them!

Dale Self
35 Posted 27/02/2024 at 18:29:08
Thank you, Lyndon, for a well-presented summary of a most complex matter. I suppose my take is the matter of time. The Premier League took its time dealing with the appeal and now have a 2-3 month window to resolve their new PSR charges. Announcing the charges against Forest and us does not do anything for expediting what will surely be another round of Premier League exposure to criticism and legal challenges. A ruling that determines the outcomes for a season is exactly what good process is intended to avoid and that is documented as lacking.

I'm still thinking they find a clever way to postpone action until summer. Well, with Masters and Co, maybe not so clever. This time around, several MPs will be much more motivated and much better informed to review the integrity of the process.

Regarding Forest's deduction, I find it odd for some to be offended or claim hypocrisy over a stated fact: A Forest deduction would benefit us. Any problem with that? Please contact Richard Masters and the millieu that created this fiasco. And just to show the PL the full respect they deserve I will quote Billy Joel, “We didn't start the fire..,” Apologies to any Billy Joel fans.

Steve Byles
36 Posted 27/02/2024 at 18:39:53
I wish people here will stop talking about the Forest charge and how it helps us. When we were first charged we enjoyed the support of all fans, but now this is descending into self-interest.

We should support Forest who also face unjust charges, as they have a much lower PSR limit.

Mark Murphy
37 Posted 27/02/2024 at 18:45:13
Rob @34,

I just read some of those comments - wish I hadn't!
What a bunch of cunts! Fuck them al!

Rob Jones
38 Posted 27/02/2024 at 18:56:35
The Premier League have been incredibly effective in their propaganda campaign against us. That is borne out in the abuse we get on every BBC match report, and every Everton related article with a Have Your Say section.

Honestly, it bears out the belief that my wife has, that the average football fan is dumb as fuck, and gullible to the point of being willing to buy magic beans.

Andy Crooks
39 Posted 27/02/2024 at 19:00:29
True, Rob, I daren't open my roof space for fear of being drowned in magic beans.
Rob Jones
40 Posted 27/02/2024 at 19:05:06
Andy, have you spoken to fans of other clubs about Everton lately?

The weird thing is the only fans I know who haven't been absolutely gruesome about Everton of late have been Liverpool fans. Everyone else has been absolutely shitty about and towards us.

David Cooper
41 Posted 27/02/2024 at 19:08:52
Just to follow up Rob's 38 comment, even knowing that Match of the Day regularly give Everton no praise, they out did themselves on Saturday in the highlights.

Plenty of coverage of Brighton attacking etc but no mention of Doucoure's volley that was headed off the line by Lamptey.

In the lead up to the Wolves v Sheffield Utd on MotD which was to be played on Sunday, they focused on what Wolves had done in a community school. Again no coverage of what Everton had done in EitC over numerous years.

There is so much negative coverage by the media etc. that you keep asking yourself “Why?” Surely this not paranoia by our fans but something far more suspicious...

Paul Tran
42 Posted 27/02/2024 at 19:36:25
Most real life people I speak with are sympathetic to us regarding harshness of the original sanction.

Most of the people on edgy clickbait websites are idiots. A microcosm of modern British Life on lots of levels.

Brian Williams
43 Posted 27/02/2024 at 19:36:36
Honestly, it bears out the belief that my wife has, that the average football fan is dumb as fuck, and gullible to the point of being willing to buy magic beans.

Never a truer word!

Brendan McLaughlin
44 Posted 27/02/2024 at 19:47:27
In terms of the attitude of other fans I'm reminded of the old adage:

"Learn to laugh at your problems... everybody else does!"

Paul Kossoff
45 Posted 27/02/2024 at 21:39:17
Light at the end of the tunnel? Sorry, Lyndon, I've seen some incorrect banners but that is, regarding Everton's situation, so far out of the ballpark, for where we are now and where we will possibly be come season's end.

We face another 6 points deducted, almost certain, because a precedent has been set and Everton are quite happy with that. So, sometime in April, we will have another 6 points taken away, with no appeal, because of the first deduction.

We literally have no idea at the moment what will happen at season's end. The Premier League have it in for us, and the last thing they want is us in the Premier League next season.

The only thing waiting for us at the end of a long dark tunnel is a big black hole. Light at the end of the tunnel? If there is a light, it's the Premier League with a hand on the switch waiting to turn it off.

John Raftery
46 Posted 27/02/2024 at 21:54:52
Paul (45)

Why do you say ‘with no appeal'? As far as I have read we will have a right of appeal.

I doubt we will be hit with a second deduction of 6 points but, if we are, we would surely have grounds for appealing on the double jeopardy issue.

Geoff Cadman
47 Posted 27/02/2024 at 23:37:59
Steve, when we where first charged, every team in the relegation zone, including Forest, was queuing up to claim compensation.

The interest on the loans is over £30 million per annum, if we are not allowed to claim it against the Stadium costs, we will never get out of this mess.

Paul Kossoff
48 Posted 28/02/2024 at 00:37:35
John 46. A bank robber gets 10 years for robbing a bank, the judge on appeal reduces his sentence to 6 years. Again the same bank robber comes before the same judge, the judge gives him 6years, the robber's council appeals for a reduction in the sentence.

"On what grounds?" says the judge, "I gave him 10 years for the last robbery, you appealed it, I reduced it to 6, this is the same crime, you expect me to reduce it to 2?"

Dupont Koo
49 Posted 28/02/2024 at 02:58:08
The collective contract expiriy of Gomes, Dele, Lonergan, Gana & Young, amounting to a reportedly total of £450k per week, on 30 June will be substantial and crucial to improving the financial health of the club, heading to the last season at Goodison.

(Coleman's, Harrison's and Danjuma's contracts will expire on 30 June too, but the aforementioned are bigger deadwoods than this trio, IMHO.)

Now, if only we can dodge a potential transfer embargo and dump the contracts of Holgate and Keane (each collecting a fat £70k+ per week until June 2025) to willing buyers in the market...

Steve Oshaugh
50 Posted 28/02/2024 at 07:19:18
I've decided to see it as light at the end of the tunnel too. I can't see any scenario beyond us getting a further 6 points deducted.

I saw some dude on TalkSport (on YouTube) speculating that we would get 2-3 points based on not getting punished again for the 2 years that have already happened. I am much less optimistic on that front.

I don't agree with all the conspiracy stuff at all... as far as I can see, we transgressed and the fact it was only by £19.5M is the surprising part.

I don't have any confidence in the club reducing the losses and expect the new amount will be above the last losses. We've sold some people but the underlying salary costs are way too high and don't seem to be getting any better. We keep buying players and I would say wages are more of an issue than transfer fees and they aren't seen in any silly net spend comparisons.

Getting the 4 points back gives us a chance that I don't think existed before yesterday. With Forest in the mix too, we have a fighter's chance. Get a few wins in the next 5 games and those odds become in our favour. At least it can be seen to be slightly in our hands again.

Phil (Kelsall) Roberts
51 Posted 28/02/2024 at 16:51:46
With regard to the second charge. Assume both us and Forest get 6 point penalty.

We both appeal. Appeal heard after end of season.

1. Everton and Forest still finish 16th and 17th. Appeals dropped.

2. We finish 18th or lower and more than 6 points below 17th. Appeal dropped. Same scenario if it was Forest. What is the point of the appeal.

3. One or both finish 18th or lower and less than 6 points below 17th. Commission then hears the appeals to decide on which clubs get relegated. Assume we are 1 point from 17th and probably a better Goal Difference. Giving any points back relegates the team in 17th in favour of us (or Forest if they are 18th). Imagine the uproar.

The Premier League have got themselves in a right mess over this and they must be praying that even with any sanction it is option 1. They may even have a quiet word with a few people. Stand by for us getting a dodgy penalty on Star Wars Day. Maybe the force will be with us.

Jay Harris
52 Posted 28/02/2024 at 18:12:53

2 of the three years in question have already been penalized so expect 1/3 of 6 points = 2 points plus we unloaded Richarlison, Gordon and Iwobi so there has to be some mitigation.

Forest have to be hit with 6 points as I believe they are significantly over. So as long as we outdo Forest by 4 or more points, we should be okay… but with Masters in charge, who knows???

Pete Neilson
53 Posted 28/02/2024 at 18:19:37
The great John Fogerty comes to my mind. The light at the end of the tunnel is the burglar's torch. In this case, 777 Partners rather than Nixon.
John Chambers
54 Posted 28/02/2024 at 19:03:56

They were all in different financial years: Richarlison was sold in year 2021-22, Gordon in 2022-23 and Iwobi in the current financial year 2023-24. We did also sell Moise Keane in 2022-23, which is the last year of the current charge.

Danny Baily
55 Posted 28/02/2024 at 19:40:32
Jay 52,

I don't think any details of the charge against forest have been made public. And the precedent from the EFL would be 3 points for exceeding allowable losses, with a further 3 points for significant excess losses.

Our argument would be that we've been punished this season according to the old timeline, where sanctions were not necessarily applied in the same season as the charge, and that it would be unfair to be punished according to the new timescale in the same season.

I suspect this argument won't gain much traction. Our only hope is we're close to the £105M threshold. Quite how we've posted losses in the order of £40M after player sales and bringing down the wage bill is beyond me.

Peter Quinn
57 Posted 29/02/2024 at 21:36:23

Could you help me please. Our PSR losses which the appeal panel dealt with were £124.5 million. As I read para 221 this breaks down as
£59 million 2018-19
£55 million for the 2 covid
years treated as
£10.5 million 2021-22

For the second charge we now face to include 2022-23, the £59 million figure drops out so £105 million being the limit less £65.5M being the double jeopardy figures means £39.5M before we hit the limit.

Despite everything Paul the Esk says, Everton have told the Premier League we are in breach again. So in trend terms, we have gone from £55M to £10.5M to a figure above £39.5M.

That is not a trend which we will be able to use in mitigation, it seems to me. Therefore ,unless your argument about the collapse of our commercial income due to the loss of the Usmanov/USM works, we have no mitigation and a negative trend. So six points at least unless we are just over £105M.

The fact it appears we have seen our PSR loss go up by £29M million makes me think our commercial income has collapsed. It appears to me the double jeopardy argument, which could see our point loss drop to 2, is crucial to us not dropping close to the Bottom 3 again.

So Lyndon do you agree with my thoughts on the figures? We will not know the actual answer to all of this until the commission decision is published which could be late April or early May and then the appeal decision, if there is one, may not be published until late May.

What a mess but not all of the making of EFC, the Premier League also has quite a lot of culpability.

Brent Stephens
58 Posted 01/03/2024 at 18:58:52
Peter, I might be missing the point but is the significant point that the calculation is the total overspend for the 3-year period?

If the new total is less than £124.5M (the total for the previous period), then that's a downward trend ??

Peter Quinn
60 Posted 02/03/2024 at 10:31:40
Brent, if you get the chance read paragraph 221 of the appeal decision, it would appear by 'trend' the appeal panel were talking about the trend of the PSR figures over the 3-year period by looking at the PSR figure for each individual year.

If the PSR figure is falling for each of the individual years in the EFL model then the points deduction can be reduced. For us, Year 1 is £55M, Year 2 is £10.5M; we do not have the Year 3 figure but, as we have admitted we are over the limit, it is a figure in excess of £39.5M.

The total will be in excess of £105M, the crucial bit is how much we have gone over and why. Despite knowing the trouble we would be in if we went over £39.5M, it seems typical Everton that we have done so.

Derek Thomas
61 Posted 02/03/2024 at 10:56:39
Peter and Brent, forget all the 'what if' permutations - you know deep down all this is decided via a wheel of fortune style wheel, with a panel of ex rs guest spinners

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

© ToffeeWeb