26/02/2024 432comments  |  Jump to last

Everton's appeal against their historic 10-point deduction has been partially successful, with the initial penalty reduced to six points with immediate effect on the recommendation of an independent Appeal Board.

Everton argued that last November's decision by the Independent Commission to hand them a Premier League record sanction was "flawed, unduly harsh, disproportionate in all the circumstances and lay outside the range of reasonable sanctions” proportionate to a £19.5m breach of Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) and the new three-person panel has met them almost half-way.

In its ruling, the Appeal Board said: "In all the circumstances, including relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, the Appeal Board considers 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."

The decision means that the Blues are lifted from 17th to 15th place in the table and further away from the relegation zone but leaves them at risk of a further deduction in the coming weeks when another independent commission hears the Premier League's case against them for a second alleged breach of PSR.

Article continues below video content

The decision by the appeals panel also has implications for Nottingham Forest who were charged by the Premier League for their own breach in January. They are expected to go before their own independent commission next week, with any subsequent appeal required to be heard and ruled upon by 15 April.

A Premier League statement read:

“An independent appeal board has concluded that the sanction for Everton FC’s breach of the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSRs), for the period ending season 2021/22, will be an immediate six-point deduction.

“This follows the club’s appeal of an independent commission’s decision in November 2023 to impose a 10-point deduction for the club’s breach of the PSRs.

“The appeal was heard over three days earlier this month, by an appeal board comprising Sir Gary Hickinbottom (chair), Daniel Alexander KC and Katherine Apps KC.

“Everton FC appealed the sanction imposed against it on nine grounds, each of which related to the sanction rather than the fact of the breach, which the club admitted.

“Two of those nine grounds were upheld by the appeal board, which has substituted the original points deduction of 10 for six.

“This revised sanction has immediate effect and the Premier League table will be updated today to reflect this.”

Everton were originally referred by the Premier League to an independent commission over PSR in March last year, with the hearing finally heard in October.

They became the first club to be censured for breaching the spending rules implemented by mutual agreement in 2013 but were aggrieved by the size of the penalty they were given, one which exceeded the nine points deducted from Portsmouth in 2010 when that club went into administration.

Everton's appeal centred not around a breach itself, which they accepted had occurred even if they disagreed with the amount, but around the disproportionate nature of the sanction, while there was also strong criticism from politicians, the media and observers inside football itself of the lack of transparency around the points penalty framework used to come up with the original decision.

The Toffees issued a statement of their own that read:

Everton can confirm an appeal board has concluded that the points deduction imposed by an independent Premier League commission in November be reduced from 10 points to six points, with immediate effect.

While the club is still digesting the appeal board’s decision, we are satisfied our appeal has resulted in a reduction in the points sanction.

We understand the appeal board considered the 10-point deduction originally imposed to be inappropriate when assessed against the available benchmarks of which the club made the commission aware, including the position under the relevant EFL regulations, and the nine-point deduction that is imposed under the Premier League’s own rules in the event of insolvency.

The club is also particularly pleased with the appeal board’s decision to overturn the original commission’s finding that the club failed to act in utmost good faith. That decision, along with reducing the points deduction, was an incredibly important point of principle for the club on appeal. The club, therefore, feels vindicated in pursuing its appeal.

Notwithstanding the appeal board’s decision, and the positive outcome, the club remains fully committed to cooperating with the Premier League in respect of the ongoing proceedings brought for the accounting period ending in June 2023.

The club is still considering the wider implications of the decision and will make no further comment at this time other than to place on record its thanks to our Fan Advisory Board and other fan groups throughout this process, and to all Evertonians for their ongoing support and patience.

Appeal Board found original commission made legal errors

Everton bolstered their appeal against last November's ruling by the Independent Commission by hiring "super silk" Lawrence Rabonowitz KC and the decision appears to have paid off after the Appeal Board found issues on legal grounds with the original ruling.

In the summary of their decision that was based on a hearing conducted between 31st January and 2nd February, the Appeal Board state that they dismissed seven of Everton's nine grounds for appeal against the 10-point penalty, those related to how the Commission dealt with various mitigating factors and aggravating factors, but upheld two.

The ruling states:

"First, the Commission found that, in relation to what it told the Premier League about its new stadium debt (which affected the calculation on which the relevant losses were calculated), the Club had been 'less than frank' and breached another Premier League Rule (rule B.15) which imposes an obligation of 'utmost good faith'.

"The Appeal Board concludes that the Commission was wrong to make those findings, because those allegations had not been made against the Club. Whilst the representations made by the Club about the stadium debt were materially wrong, it was not the Premier League’s case that that was anything other than an innocent mistake.

"Second, the Commission was wrong not to take into account available benchmarks (e.g. the approach taken in English Football League ('EFL') Guidelines cases), which had been relied upon by the Club, when it addressed the proportionality of the sanction. 

"These errors were material, in that they affected approach and conclusion of the Commission in relation to sanction."

The Appeal Board set aside the original Commission's sanction and "considered the appropriate and proportionate sanction", agreeing that Everton did not manage their finances "as prudently as they should have done" and exceeded the permitted threshold of £105m by £19.5m and argued that the mitigating factor of the club's slowed spending on transfers in the 2021-22 season was limited.

They also decided that the framework established in the EFL around profitability and sustainability is "structurally similar to that of the Premier League" and that, therefore, a six-point deduction was "broadly in line" with both EFL guidelines that are the "closest available benchmark", and Premier League rules themselves.



Reader Comments (432)

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 ()

Rob Halligan
1 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:22:51
Confirmed on Sky Sports News: 4 points back.

Up to 15th in the Premier League table.

Brian Harrison
2 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:24:12
Yes 4 points back, looks like our KC has been player of the month.

Makes the Premier League table look better.

Liam Mogan
3 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:24:30
4 points. Hopefully there will be some transparency on how that's been calculated.
Brent Stephens
4 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:25:17
So do we now get another 6 = 12 in total?
Soren Moyer
5 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:26:24
That's great but there should not be any points reduction to begin with!
Jack Convery
6 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:26:26
4 points back. Still 6 given. I suppose that means the 2nd charge will also bring in a 6-point penalty. So if served at the end of this season it will mean a total of 12 points in one season.

I still think a transfer embargo would have been the way to go but what do I know?

Pat Kelly
7 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:26:36
Four points reduction in penalty. Now up to 15th. We’re still in this.
Dave Lynch
8 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:26:45
At least it's something.

I was expecting nothing tbf.

Jeff Armstrong
9 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:28:37
Wasn't the second charge for one season, not 3, so maybe 2 more points off us?
Mike Hayes
10 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:31:32
Sorry, 4 points is not good enough as far as I'm concerned. No points should have been deducted before proof.

All Premier League bullshit, not good enough to govern a toilet, corrupt to the core. An independent regulator needs bringing in to oversee football, even if all 20 teams either pay or contribute to funding.

Investigate all VAR and refs decisions; football needs bringing under control before it implodes. 😡😡

Les Callan
11 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:32:44
Tell them to shove it.
John Raftery
12 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:34:30
Five points was at the top end of my expectations.

Four points is a good outcome.

Geoff Lambert
13 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:34:51
3 points off Palace and Bournemouth with a better goal difference.

Should have been all 10. This might have an effect on the second charge.

Pat Kelly
14 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:34:56
Yes, 4 points reduction confirmed on EFC site.
Dale Self
15 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:35:31
So I guess Dyche will now say something like “our xP is good, we should have more points”. Dinosaur.
Mike Hayes
16 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:36:58
Second “charge” another joke could mean -6 points and down to 19th - bloody joke - FFP my arse - protecting the sly six 😡
Sean Kearns
17 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:38:08
Is right lads!!! Beat West Ham and we are almost home and dry.

he second charge would be a bastard though but I'm bullish as we sold Gordon and Richarlison for big dough.

Christy Ring
18 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:39:06
The independent commission said we acted in good faith, so should we not have been fined, instead of 6 point reduction?

Sadly will we get a 2nd charge now?

Ted Roberts
19 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:40:50
4 points back,better than nothing,but I was thinking 5 to be fair considering that we are still under investigation and could be smacked again,but I hope that it will act as a kind of springboard to lift the teams morale and possibly bring a bit more luck with it to bag some more points from our future matches.Just glad that this particular pain in the ares is over with now and let’s get back to football,if that’s possible.COYB.
John Raftery
20 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:44:40
Forest face a six points deduction which will keep them below us.
Pat Kelly
21 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:44:45
Christy, the Club statement says …”we are satisfied our appeal has resulted in a reduction in the points sanction”. While the Club is still digesting the decision, it sounds like the focus will now be on the possible second penalty rather than contesting the reduced penalty.
Paul Hewitt
22 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:47:14
Forest should get more than 6 then
Jamie Crowley
23 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:48:37
Pat is correct - 4 points deducted.

That will be 4 very important points.


Pat - are we still in this?

Jamie Crowley
24 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:49:40
Four points have also been "restored" on Google when you look up the Premier League standings.


Les Callan
25 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:50:33
Discussion on Sky. No mention whatsoever about City …….would you believe !
Nick Page
26 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:54:18
Fucking 4 points and they’re happy. This fucking club deserves all it gets and it doesn’t deserve these supporters. Just fuck right off
Danny Baily
27 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:54:48
Absolutely disgraceful. We've lost 6 hard earned points for an accountancy trick.

They've acknowledged that we didn't seek a sporting advantage and that we've acted in good faith, so what's the justification for the sporting sanction?

There isn't one. This is a disgrace, and we mustn't let up in reminding anyone and everyone who will listen that we have been unfairly treated and that this league table has been corrupted.

We aren't getting those 6 points back, but we should keep shouting until this house of cards collapses.

Chris Leyland
28 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:54:49
My concern is that this sets the precedent now for a minimum 6 point deduction for a PSR breach. If we have indeed breached it again as per our 2nd charge, we will get a minimum 6 points deducted as a starting point and then we are into mitigation arguments agains to stop the 2nd deduction going further for a repeated breach.
Oliver Molloy
29 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:56:04
Good chance they will give us the four back again for the second breach - so it will be ten again by the end of the season.
Michael Lynch
30 Posted 26/02/2024 at 13:58:23
Yeah right, four back this time, then four off in May no doubt. Fuck them, it's an absolute disgrace.
Jerome Shields
31 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:00:17
By the way the rule does exist.

'The relevant Premier League Profit and Sustainability Rules regarding the provision of a letter of credit by the owner guaranteeing funds can be found in the Premier League Handbook. The specific regulations and requirements pertaining to financial guarantees from owners are detailed in the Financial Fair Play section of the handbook. It is recommended to refer directly to the latest version of the Premier League Handbook or contact the Premier League for the most up-to-date and detailed information on this topic.'

Steve Brown
32 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:01:52
Finding is the commission erred in law in stating we were less than frank about the financing structure for the stadium and by not properly taking into account existing penalty frameworks when deciding on the points deduction.

Brian Williams
33 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:02:35
Is it a full moon tonight?
Steve Brown
34 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:02:52
10-6 = 6 + 4 = 10.

That is what will happen.

Steve Brown
35 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:04:25
Sorry meant 10 - 4 = 6 + 4 = 10
John Kavanagh
36 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:04:46
Just on the BBC now. Deduction reduced to 6 points. Stating 10 points wrong on two legal grounds. BBC saying more to follow.


Les Callan
37 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:05:41
Nick. Time we took the kid gloves off, instead of just rolling over. “ We are satisfied “. Really ?
Andy Duff
38 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:08:17
4 points is a complete joke and not acceptable at all. Anybody who thinks it is has allowed themselves to be gaslighted. The plan all along was probably to give 10 then give 4 back on appeal and everyone is happy.

Especially when you read the 2 page summary.

Gerry Quinn
39 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:08:35
What a pathetic system of made up rules...maybe VAR could sort this out!!!!!
Andy Duff
40 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:08:50
Not enough and a complete disgrace.
Brian Williams
41 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:09:38
Cue the crazies! 😱
John Kavanagh
42 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:10:05
Just on the BBC now. Deduction reduced to 6 points. Stating 10 points wrong on two legal grounds. BBC saying more to follow.


Justice? Not really. We face a second charge this season so at least another 6 points?

Then there's the 777 fiasco and a potential further 9 points for administration. All we've got back is the points thrown away in the last two matches.

John Wignall
43 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:10:37
Forest next and Everton again
Michael Lynch
44 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:11:44
Nothing to celebrate here - the PL now have the precedent of points deductions confirmed. We'll get more points knocked off for the so-called "second offence" that covers the same period, and are definitely in a relegation battle.

All 10 points should have been returned.

Jerome Shields
45 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:12:15
Great. What the Everton team needed and what I hoped for.It means that the second Commission can give no more than six and because of overlapping periods may have to give less.

Everton 15th in the Table.Brentford play West Ham away.

All the pressure paid off.

Danny O’Neill
46 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:13:46
It doesn't stop here.

Shithouse decision.

But we are in the game.

Brendan McLaughlin
47 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:14:29
Good news indeed!
Dermot O'Brien
48 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:14:35
Still a disgrace. Six fucking points deducted for a 19.5m overdraft, a sanction made up after the fact. It wouldn't stand up in any normal legal system. I hope the club are going to the high court with this.
Brian Cleveland
49 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:15:09
Paltry! Just enough so it looks like they're listening, and ready to slap another 6 points on for the 2nd charge.
How can it be possible to get two charges in the same season?
When will we see city playing against the dog and duck for their 100+ transgressions?
Pat Kelly
50 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:15:26
Yes, Jamie, we’re still in this. Until the next deduction. Rabinowitz has got us more points than Calvert-Lewin and Beto.
Sam Hoare
51 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:15:55
Honestly the best I was hoping for was 4 or 5 points back. From what i've gathered from reading and speaking to a few people in the know there can be little doubt that we did break the rules and did behave naively at best or irresponsibly at worst; which comes as little surprise when you look at what else the current ownership has done.

The big question now will be what happens with the second case. The good news is that any deduction there will surely be less than that of Forest, who we are now ahead of. I'd hope that double jeapordy and a move towards fiscal responsibilty would see no or certainly a lesser punishment in the second case. Either way, things are looking better today than they were yesterday.

Looking forward to the push for top half!!

Tony Abrahams
52 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:15:57
Just fuck 777 off now Big Al, and sell the club, to people who don’t want to leave it in the hands of unadulterated idiots, who in turn, passed it on to narcissistic, self centered, nepotistic conmen, and an unqualified CEO.

#Strike whilst the iron is hot, and sell us now!

Steve Brown
53 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:16:57
Finding is the commission erred in law in stating we were less than frank about the financing structure for the stadium and by not properly taking into account existing penalty frameworks when deciding on the points deduction.
Ian Pilkington
54 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:17:58
No doubt they will hit us for another 6 points with the totally spurious 2nd charge.
This dishonest organisation has been in pockets of the original Sky 4 for years.
No coincidence that they are after City and Chelsea as well.
Paul Jamieson
55 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:21:26
I know its going over old ground but IF we had held on v Brighton on Saturday we would be 7 points clear now - a win v West Ham saturday would put Luton 10 points behind us before they played again with Forest yet to be judged. We would have definately been OK this season - as it is with the new charge still to be sorted I reckon we still 50/50
Neil Lawson
56 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:21:32
Brian 11. I suspect that many of us will agree. Awaiting the full judgement but remember that the P.L. were calling for 12 points before the original decision and it was 10. Can not help but conclude that 4 points is an arbitrary number designed to pay lip service to all the protestors, but the minimum acceptable number to save P.L. face. The club statement is conciliatory. I would have preferred that it was rather more honest and direct in its content.
Jim Lloyd
57 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:21:46
Tony, who's Big Al?
Is this for one charge; or for both?
Benjamin Dyke
58 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:21:58
You have to hope that the commission when viewing the next charge realises that being punished for the same year twice in a rolling 3 year period is complete stupidity and unjust, but I fear that they are boxed in by the PL rules as they currently are.
Pat Kelly
59 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:22:22
Is it too early to start worrying about being in the Europa League ?
Chris James
60 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:24:32
Whilst any reduction is welcome (I think a total volte farce was never on the cards), I suspect this is not the cause for celebration we'd hoped.

Short-term we're higher up sure, but assuming we are found guilty of the same breach again (which given it's the same basic accounting figures and the same committee seems pretty inevitable) that's probably going to mean another 4-6 points deducted, meaning we'll end up back in the same position or worse. Ultimately, if that's true, we'll need to be 12 points above the drop to be sure, so assuming 34-38, in the real world that's like 46-50 total.

So far we have 31 from 26, which would mean another 15 points absolute minimum, but probably 18+ in the last 12. IF we can keep playing as we are but start to actually find the net again (a big IF) then I think there are 20 points that are realistically 'gettable' out of the remaining 36 on offer. We're still in this!

Home to West Ham (opportunity): 3
Away to United (point at best): 0
Home to Liverpool (love to be otherwise, but point at best): 0
Away to Bournemouth (opportunity): 3
Away to Newcastle (an oppportunity but probably not): 0
Home to Burnley (opportunity): 3
Away to Chelsea (point?): 1
Home to Forest (opportunity): 3
Home to Brentford (opportunity): 3
Away to Luton (opportunity, but will be a challenge): 1
Home to Sheffield United (opportunity): 3
Away to Arsenal (nah): 0

Jerome Shields
61 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:25:17
Steve #14

It took the KC to get the Premier League off the hook.

Jack Convery
62 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:25:40
Will this mean another 6 point penalty come April 2024. If so will it be applied this season or next ?
Donal Armani
64 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:27:13
Betting market now has Everton 8/1 fifth favourite for relegation and Brentford 15/1 sixth, even though we’re above them now in the revised table….tells you the market sees risk of a further points deduction from the second charge as a very live one.

But, critically, the appeal verdict now accepts that Everton has acted “in good faith” in all its dealings with the PL throughout its financially challenged years. So, with the PL having now hit us for 6 in light of our rolling 3yr breach to mid-2022, and the club working closely and “in good faith” with the PL in trying to manage our PSR obligations from mid-2021 onwards, the likelihood of any further points sanction for the next rolling 3yr period to include 2yrs already sanctioned seems very low….suspended points sanction mebbe, or transfer ban, or financial hit…but the “double jeopardy” of being points sanctioned twice for (effectively) the same crime?….nah !

65 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:27:34
So 4 back and six to be taken due to next penalty, so the League get their 12 point deduction they wanted hmmm!!
Paul Jamieson
66 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:28:26
Big Al I assume Usmanov
Pat Kelly
67 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:28:47
Forest now looking to sign Rabinowitz
Dave Lynch
68 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:30:57
I'd rather take another deduction than a transfer embargo, this team needs strengthening and new owners should provide some funds.

Saying that I'd rather they just fuck off and leave us alone.

Kevin Prytherch
69 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:31:07
Assuming us and Forest get a further 6 points, it puts Forest 18th on 18 points, us 17th on 19 points and Luton 16th on 20 points. Then a big gap to Brentford on 25 and Bournemouth on 28.

Pretty much puts 3 teams in a battle to avoid 18th place.

Dale Self
70 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:31:30
Stop with the fucking uninformed speculaion please. Most of you have been on the”don’t expect any points back” line so how you now are manufacturing more fear is absurd. Give it a rest, you were wrong and that renders these latest forecasts flaccid.
Les Callan
71 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:31:31
That Robin guy certainly earned his money.
Paul Hewitt
72 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:32:19
Still got second charge to go through, more points deduction. Then an appeal. The stress never ends. Football used to be fun.

73 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:34:50
How is it uninformed?
We have had a 6 point penalty for breaking their rules and we are being pulled up again for the same thing, so the starting point would dictate 6 points again.
Lynn Maher
74 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:35:44
The points are important, but so is the fact the Appeal board overturned the Commission’s original finding, that the Club failed to act in the utmost good faith.
The PL are still a corrupt bunch of incompetents.
Pat Kelly
75 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:35:49
Dale, uninformed speculation is the lifeblood of ToffeeWeb. Or so I’m told by uninformed sources.
John Kavanagh
76 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:37:13
So 'the club remains fully committed to cooperating with the Premier League in respect of the ongoing proceedings brought for the accounting period ending in June 2023.'

Will we ever learn? Co-operation with this gang of shysters gets you nowhere.

Far better to follow City's example, where there's now been massive progress on their 100+ charges. A date has been set according to Masters. Rumour has it that it's April 1st 2525.

Danny O’Neill
77 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:38:01
We've won the first battle.

Battles don't win wars.

Now we go onto the war.

Hold your nerve Everton and take these people on. Fight them.

More importantly, West Ham at the weekend.

Dale Self
78 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:38:11
Pat, you know I enjoy a good show. However, this kind of desperate reach to preserve a narrative deserves the big hook. Get off stage if you don’t have any good lines. Tomatoes thrown.
Rick Tarleton
79 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:43:02
Pragmatically delighted to receive four points back. Morally still feel that unless City and Chelsea are faced with the same standards it's a disgrace.
Nick Page
80 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:43:40
If you simply take inflation (ten years worth) into these proceedings there wouldn’t be a breach. It’s really that fecking simple unless you’re a retard OR you’re trying it on. So why have the stupid bloody club said they’re happy? I’d be happy with the ten points back and I’d be asking for three more for the inconvenience. As for the second charge, do people not learn? You can’t be charged twice for the same thing otherwise it’s a complete farce (which we already know). Get a fucking grip Everton and fight this to the end instead of rolling over like some piss stained drunk.
David Vaughan
81 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:47:49
Really peased the club made this additional non-pecunary point in their statement "The Club is also particularly pleased with the Appeal Board’s decision to overturn the original Commission’s finding that the Club failed to act in utmost good faith. That decision, along with reducing the points deduction, was an incredibly important point of principle for the Club on appeal. The Club, therefore, feels vindicated in pursuing its appeal." Damn right we were. Now let's have Masters' resignation pah! as if!
Phil (Kelsall) Roberts
82 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:48:41
Chris James puts it into perspective. It is all about surviving 2023-24

The good news is
Luton are 1 point worse than Southampton so far
Sheff Utd are 6 points worse than Leeds so far
Burnley are 6 points worse than Leicester so far.

It could well be that 30 points is enough to be safe this year. Bookmark this post and come back to me in May.

Dave Lynch
83 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:50:22
Just had a call from a kopite mate laughing at me, not in a nasty way.
He said, you lot are too soft, we'd of screamed from the roof tops and threatened to burn the FA head quarters down if that was us.
Sad thing is...he's right.
Pat Kelly
84 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:51:03
Just think what we’d have gotten back if we weren’t a small Club !
Dave Abrahams
85 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:52:05
I wanted the ten points back, this four points is nowhere enough especially with another charge to face.

This is not a victory or even a partial victory unless we are not punished further with the second charge.

I heard last week that we were being given five points back with a further three points being suspended.I asked how long the three points would be suspended for, but the person who told me didn’t have an answer for that.

The lad who gave me this news showed it on an email he had received from his friend who worked in Finch Farm, supposedly.

I told the lad I would believe it when I saw it but it was nowhere enough anyway although he seemed more than happy with it.

Joe McMahon
86 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:52:18
I was hoping, we'd get at least 6 back. Awell. Time for the manager to start using all (ahem) strikers at the club. Brentford have Toney back now, looking at the youth playing at Wembley yesterday Dobbin has to be given gametime.

The striking options/personal used by Dyche are not working.

Jim Lloyd
87 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:52:47
Dale, You might not like the narrative (or some sections of it) but I thought Toffweeweb was the to let off steam, give your view of the match, or anything else. Even if it winds you up.
Nicholas Ryan
88 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:54:09
If the rumours were correct, that means that Mr. Rabinowitz KC cost £25,000 per point. Money well spent, if you ask me!
Frank Crewe
89 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:56:08
Considering the amount of time from the original decision to today I doubt there will be any further points deducted this season. It would give us no time to appeal any further deductions. Which would be plainly unfair. On top of this the various other cases have yet to be announced, let alone heard. They can't just keep coming back to Everton as it would look like we are being used as guinea-pigs for this whole system.
Steve Brown
90 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:56:18
The uncertainty was killing us and now we know.

We simply need to finish above Forest to survive the second charge and stay in the premier league.

Their next 2 league games are Liverpool at home and Brighton away. Let’s stick another 6 points on them by actually winning matches.

Colin Glassar
91 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:56:36
It was what I expected but it still feels like a kick in the teeth. Now we have the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads for another few months.

What with no owner, board, direction etc… I feel we are right back to where we started, or even worse.

Those 4 points dropped against palace and Brighton could be crucial.

Steve Brown
92 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:57:41
I also think we should now take legal action or go to arbitration to secure the return of the other 6 points.
Christy Ring
93 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:57:47
For Everton to release a statement saying they’re “Satisfied “ with the appeal outcome, shows how they’ve run the club into the ground. Thanks Bill and Moshiri.
David Nicholls
94 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:58:55
So, if it’s 6 points for approx’ £20m breach over 3 years ending 21/22, how does that work for the second breach?

We have therefore, already received punishment for 2 of the 3 years ending 22/23. Would that mean 2 points.

The only issue might be if the punishment is determined by the severity of the breach. Does anybody know how much the second breach is meant to be?

Pat Kelly
95 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:59:32
A good points deduction against Forest would see us out of the woods.
Brian Williams
96 Posted 26/02/2024 at 14:59:55
Well sack your contact at FF coz he knows sweet FA. 😁
John Flood
97 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:02:12
Reading the summary of the decision of the PL website it looks like they have dismissed 7 of our mitigations including losses around stadium interest payments, loss of sponsorship due to the war in the Ukraine and the Gylfi Sigurosson case which is still outrageous.
They have though accepted that the club acted in good faith, were not attempting to mislead the PL, and that they had reduced the PSR losses in year 3 of the 3 year rolling period. However they said that in years 1 and 2 the losses were both over £50M so a sanction was appropriate. They have ruled that the initial hearing were wrong not to use the EFL sanctions as the benchmark, so have ruled that the points deduction is reduced to 6 using that EFL benchmark.
The only positive I can see regarding our 2nd charge is that we have continued to reduce our losses going forward, and we have already been punished for the first 2 years of the new rolling 3 year period. If they are now using the EFL punishments as a benchmark then ‘double jeopardy’ is not permitted in the EFL, which hopefully will mean we do not face a further points deduction for that charge.
Ray Jacques
98 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:03:02
I appear to be in the minority, but I am happy (!!) with the 4 points. I actually have a sense of relief. We were never getting all of the points back as we were guilty. The Sky secret service and corruption as to why it was 10 is another issue.
Hopefully, this will give a boost to morale and we can take WHU at the weekend and look upwards for once.

Dave Abrahams
99 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:08:42
Brian ( 96), he wasn’t my contact but the fella who sits next to me in the Upper Bullens and like I said I told him I would believe it when I saw it, that’s why I never said anything on here.

I hoped for the best and we still don’t know what the final result will be until later in season, and neither do we know what the nine points our Barrister was putting before the commission at the appeal, two of which were accepted and seven rejected.

We will learn that soon enough meanwhile I’m asking, on behalf of a friend, how good was our KC?

Trevor Bailey
100 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:09:00
Better than a kick in the teeth.Just read a small piece from James Garner in the Guardian.He admits that all this nonsense has been playing on his mind. No doubt on everyones mind.Understandable really.
Anyway it's done lets hope they can all relax a bit starting by beating West Ham
John Flood
101 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:10:35
Paul Hewitt
102 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:11:24
I hope this silk guy told the premier League if they even try to dock us points again, we will see them in court. You can be done for the same thing twice.
Eddie Dunn
103 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:11:38
I half expected a "decent" return and I think Dyche knew this before the Palace game.
However, it seems that a system has been decided upon, and despite our argument that we will be pinged again for one third of what we have already been punished for, I fear that another 6 points will be removed on the next charge.
I hope they don't go down that route but whatever they do to us, Forest will be judged by the same system.
We better get some points on the board.
It could be worse -they could have dismissed us out of hand.
Nick Page
104 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:11:40
Good spot John 97 regarding the EFL double jeopardy rule. Thanks
Mike Owen
105 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:12:07
Have just changed my Shoot league ladder.

A lot may now rest on our home game against Forest. The first points deduction derby.

But joking aside, I am disappointed that we have still been deducted six points.

I would have reluctantly accepted three for the technical breach, even though the rules are structured in favour of the richest clubs.

Dale Self
106 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:12:56
For what it’s worth, I think the club language was part of the deal. The PL needed some cover, Everton needed the fucking points, so they worked out some acceptable language while Masters hides out.

We don’t know what may have been discussed and agreed regarding the second charge. I think it is fair assessment to believe the PL will be gunshy on enforcing anything else this season. Usual disclaimer, I know fuck all.

Trevor Powell
107 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:13:09
Just a couple of thoughts, this second charge overlaps the financial years that the ten, now six points covered. That means only one year to be considered maximum as the other two years have been dealt with! In fact, as we have been hauled over the coals don't we start a new cycle?

Secondly in mitigation, I noticed that in season 21/22, the RS had an average gate of approx 53,000 generating receipts of approx £3 millions per game!

EFC had an average gate of approx. 40,000 and only generated £600,000 per game.

Are we selling our games to cheaply. over 3 seasons perhaps we could have not lost that £20 millions!

Eddie Dunn
108 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:14:34
Trevor@100- Indeed, now the team can get on with their job without so much uncertainty.
Christy Ring
109 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:15:37
I still think it stinks that the interest on the loan for our new stadium is not included. We should be fighting this in court. Man city and West Ham grounds are funded by the taxpayers and were the loans for Spurs and Arsenal’s new grounds not included in their FFP?
Kevin Prytherch
110 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:20:29
Trevor 107 - I saw a report today…
79.5% of Everton’s capacity is sold to season ticket holders. Just 44% of Liverpools is sold to season tickets.

That leaves us with a small amount to be sold to hospitality, match day tickets etc compared to them.

Probably goes some way to explaining it

Michael Kenrick
111 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:21:57
While a small part of me is slightly relieved that the punitive sanction has been reduced, I remain deeply concerned that Rabinowitz was unable to make any impression on the ludicrous rejection of our mitigations, the interest costs of the new stadium, and the issue of a sporting sanction.

I have not had a chance to read the 61-page Appeal decision document but I am very fearful that the reinforcement of the independent commission's position on all these grounds that were rejected at appeal will come back to bite us again in PSR Breach 2.0

Michael Bennet
112 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:22:33
I'm still pist off about 3 points just thrown away the weekend...that's were we need to get our point on the fucking field anyone with an ounce of comon sense must know that a club run as poor as us it's just a matter of time before we fall through the trap door...its fuckall to do with sky or Aliens landing or everyone's got it in for us...its about mismanagement from top to bottom...and the worse recruitment in the league for fucking years

Paul Kossoff
113 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:24:58
We should not be celebrating until the next hearing where we may get another points deduction. It could be we will be just as worse off after that.

They are changing the rules at seasons end so the big boys can't be charged and punished as we were. Hold back on the champagne, the corrupt Premier League will still do us up like a kipper before season’s end.

We must rely on the team and Dyche to get enough points on the board, so any further punishment won't matter.

Soren Moyer
114 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:28:15
John #76,

Totally agreed.

And that date for Citeh has been set by THEIR lawyers! Not by Premier League!!!


Also, does getting back 4 points mean DCL will start scoring again 😉?

Pat Kelly
115 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:29:08
Dale#106, surely that’s not uninformed speculation on your part.
Mark Murphy
116 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:29:40
The Shoot league ladder!!!!
Now that takes me back!

4 points is better than a kick up the arse and if we don't get docked for the second charge, as I believe will be the case, we can breathe a little easier. We won't go down. UTFT

Pat Kelly
117 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:32:03
I’m already on my second roll of sellotape on my Shoot League ladder.
P Ron Wells
118 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:33:11
Why 10 points in the first place? There is no logic to it so how can it be legally sustainable?
The reduction is tantamount to saying "we exaggerated doing this, but we are going to punish you unjustly whatever."
This would not be tolerated in the gates of Mordor by their followers. Nor should we.
Paul Birmingham
119 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:34:01
Great news, but I'd like to see the breakdown, of how this was agreed and what happens next.

In view of the next investigation will it be a mirror image of this case and the legal challenge, by the Everton KC, ?

But thank God for some positive news, and well done the Everton K C.


Paul Kossoff
120 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:38:31
Mark, why would we not get a points deduction for the second charge which apparently is the same as the first, over spending?

If we get another 10 points taken off and then 4 points back, we are in a worse situation than before.

Also, why were we not charged for a total over spend all at once, instead of making two seperate cases of over spend?

Barry Cowling
121 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:43:26
So it looks like we really are a 'skint little club'. some people get off a murder charge with mitigating circumstances, but ours are all dismissed, even though the £20M every year from Usmanov for Finch Farm would have covered the breach on its own.

I think our biggest mistake was admitting it in the first place. Nothing will happen to Man City as rules will change in August. If only we had a decent accountant…

Ted Roberts
122 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:44:29
Frank #89,

I like the sound of that possibility. What we need now is breathing space and coming close to Chris's #60 predictions fills me with a better feeling of survival success and moving forward.

Concentrate on the football, fighting corruption is a tougher job and more energy sapping.

James Potter
123 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:47:40
The judgement summary is available on the PL website, all 61 pages of it.

A couple of key takeaways:

The panel seem to acknowledge that a sanction greater than 9 points for administration is out of kilter - I speculate that we got 2 points back for that.

Paragraph 221 states that Everton also got 2 points back for "trend" – we showed a reduction in losses each year over the period and as a result we got a 2 point reduction. It's there in black and white in the summary, so let's hope that is the case for the 2nd charge and we have continued to trend in the right direction!

The panel also stated, they do not believe any sanction can be applied to a period we have already been punished for, this is important for the 2nd charge, it may imply we would only get a 3rd of the punishment given 2 years are covered in this judgement.

It seems like it is 6 points for a breach, now a precedent has been set, given their comment that any sanction greater than 9 points is out of kilter. So the range is 6-9 points from here on in, could be less depending on any previous charges etc.

Assuming we continue the positive trend in the 2nd charge and there is no double jeopardy at play, I reckon we'll get 1-2 points deducted – obviously I hope it is zero!

Jay Harris
124 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:48:34
I always felt we would get 4 points back or suspended and then they add them back on for the second breach although a good lawyer (almost typed liar) should be able to argue double jeopardy but hopefully this 4 points back and Forest’s deduction will be enough to see us kick on and get some decent results which will see us safe.
Mal van Schaick
125 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:49:44
Not good enough. We should have points reinstated because of the dreadful initial inquiry and their decision. I would appeal the appeal, and ask for at least another two points back or even four points.

The Premier League have made a rad for their own back. In football chant. “You don't know what you’re doing!”

Ray Robinson
126 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:51:23
I'm relieved but not about to uncork any champagne. Our fate still depends on the Premier League. They could: a) dock us a further 6 points minimum for a second “offence”; b) dock us 2 points (because we've already been punished for two of the years in question); c) 0 points because there's no case to answer; d) apply any further sanction from the start of next season.

Plus, depending on their own level of overspend, Forest can expect at least 4 to 6 points deduction. So, depending on how you juggle the maths, the League still have a massive influence on who goes down – and it may not be settled until after the appeals are heard at the end of the season!

Brent Stephens
127 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:51:51
When was the last weekend we gained five points?
Mike Gaynes
128 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:55:53
I called it. From the minute we filed the appeal, I have predicted here that the four penalty points would be restored.

Rabinowitz just got us a win and a draw. Now let's turn things around on the pitch and stick it up the PL's piguyar.

Si Cooper
129 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:56:21
An awful lot of bullish comments.

There has to be some regulation in place to protect clubs from reckless owners and there has to be some penalty if you don’t stick to the rules (and that must apply to all clubs).

We didn’t just have an ‘overdraft of £19.5 million’; we were still £15.5 million more than a permitted minus £105 million after 3 years to correct the problem.

Of course the club spent ‘loads of money’ in an obvious attempt ‘to gain a sporting advantage’, with the plan hingeing on improved performance leading to improved revenue.

Equally obviously, we didn’t actually gain any sporting advantage (the reason no other club should be able to sue us).

It now looks like 2 points deducted per year over the limit because we didn’t correct enough, quickly enough. I’d translate that into 2 more points for the next year over (our next charge) so eight points deducted in total. So Forest would get 6 this time as well.

Nothing will be fully right until Citeh get their rightful punishment but, to me, it looks like our punishment is a marked improvement on the initial 10 point deduction (and may spark some more fight from the players / playing staff) and even minus 8 we have a decent chance of staying up.

Pat Kelly
130 Posted 26/02/2024 at 15:57:23
Interesting to note in the Appeal decision that the Appeal Board does not consider a fine nor a transfer embargo appropriate in the case of a breach of Rule E51, which is what was alleged. So we can rule out any such penalty in the second case to be heard? It'll be more points deducted or nothing.

Also, looks like Masters was putting the boot in but was pulled up on some points by the Appeal Board.

Barry Hall
131 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:02:00
I have to believe the “satisfied” reaction from the club is a result of our weakened position w the ownership situation. Current and prospective owners are limited in how hard they voice their displeasure, as they are anxiously awaiting approval for the transaction by the league. 777 or not, I wish the off pitch nonsense was behind us. And just the fixtures remain.
John Flood
132 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:05:59
The application of the EFL punishment as a benchmark is significant and replaces the ‘back of fag packet' 10-point deduction we previously received.

As double jeopardy is not allowed in EFL punishments, it means we are really looking at the 22/23 PSR figures for our 2nd charge. This was a period we sold homegrown Anthony Gordon which will significantly help the return, although that has to be off set against paying off Lampard and his coaching staff.

From the outside it looks like the PSR losses should have reduced again continuing the positive trend mentioned in the decision. As such I would hope for no more than a suspended punishment for the 2nd charge.

Dale Self
133 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:07:53
Pat 115, I hope you can appreciate that I both provided some decent context for the statement and also discounted the writer’s ability to know such. You will find no such humility in those other crap posts. The fear has to go. It’s time. Way past time.
Brian Williams
134 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:10:01
Dave #99,

I've had worse, mate. ;-)

Mike Gaynes
135 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:14:11
On the Luton fan forum the overriding feeling is resignation:

Hattersussex: We are DOOMED ! Maybe we can appeal and get 10 points back! All seems a total mockery, but if we had won our last 2 home games we would still have been above them !!! Can't rely on the misfortunes of other clubs.

But some are still holding out hope, attaching their hopes to our second case pending. Not one Hatters fan believes they can do it on the pitch.

Alan Corken
136 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:15:57
4 points back is better than a kick up the arse, which is all that we have been getting for the last few months. I personally had hoped for a return of 6 points, but it was not to be and it is pointless waste of breath (and intellectual endeavour), continuing to rage that it should have been more. The decision has been made,

Its done!

On the positive side, as long as we don't lose any more points, we should be safe. Even if we are punished again, as some others have pointed out, Forest would likely also be similarly punished. Our aim in that case would simply be to stay above them.

In saying that, I'm pretty hopeful that this second charge will come to nothing. The charge was brought because under the Premier League 3-year overspend rule, it had to be brought. However, the overspend in the period is clearly the same one for which we have already been penalised.

I think John Flood @97 has hit the nail on the head in pointing out that EFL rules do not allow for double jeopardy. This is made more pertinent for us by todays verdict, which specifically mentions the relevance of EFL rules as a yardstick.

Pat Kelly
137 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:16:02
Dale, I am happy to apply a zeitgeist approach and partially accept your argument. Although I still fear we are not completely out of the woods in relation to a possible second points deduction. Double jeopardy may be our only defence left.

The Premier League have been given clarity on what they can (should?) now apply. They may want to save face by putting the other boot in.

Colin Glassar
138 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:16:09
Dale 106, I was thinking the same. Take your medicine lads and put a sock in it. Any whingeing and we’ll do you for another 6 points next time around.

I’ll take the 4 points but I still feel gutted.

Gerry Quinn
139 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:17:05
Mike - not even Victor Yu?
Pete Neilson
140 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:17:10
10 points was random, as is 6.

The Premier League under Masters and Co has shown itself completely unfit to govern the sport. No celebration yet they might have just cut us some slack before their absurd double jeopardy trial.

What a mess Moshiri and his board of fools have made of our club.

Ian Burns
141 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:17:16
Owners or Directors in charge of the club's finances should be charged with removal or a heavy financial punishment. Points deduction should never impact on supporters who are the lifeblood of the game and the clubs in question.

That said, the equation is simple. 6 points is now the precedent, so hopefully, worst case is 6 points for the second charge. So the aim is to finish 6 points ahead of Luton (or Forest) and the anxiety during the close season for the second charge is taken away, always assuming the Goal Difference remains as is.

Rob Dolby
142 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:20:06
The 6 points may as well be magic beans. How did they come to that conclusion? Where is the matrix for this breach, we are still none the wiser.

Our 2nd breach could mean a 30-point deduction as nobody knows how the powers that be come up with the punishments.

The whole thing is a mess and isn't great for the Premier League’s reputation.

The German and Spanish leagues will be loving it as our league becomes paralised with accountancy red tape.

This is a minor victory, poke the bear and find out what happens next. The Premier League will go out of their way to make things difficult for us until they manage us into relegation.

Regulation isn't the answer either as there isn't a decent regulatory body in the country that has any real power.

As Tony says above, we need to be sold asap and bring strong leaders and professionals in to run us properly.

We are lambs to the slaughter.

Christy Ring
143 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:20:20
The appeal result is a total embarrassment for Masters and the Premier League, because it plays into the hands of the government, who are pushing for an independent regulator.

Pat Kelly
144 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:23:30

Given that the Appeal Board considered 6 points deduction appropriate and proportionate, anything higher for the second case is out of the question.

Hopefully, the double jeopardy argument is sufficient.

Brent Stephens
145 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:25:07
John #97,
a post that stands out for me...

"They have ruled that the initial hearing were wrong not to use the EFL sanctions as the benchmark, so have ruled that the points deduction is reduced to 6 using that EFL benchmark.

The only positive I can see regarding our 2nd charge is that we have continued to reduce our losses going forward, and we have already been punished for the first 2 years of the new rolling 3-year period. If they are now using the EFL punishments as a benchmark then ‘double jeopardy' is not permitted in the EFL, which hopefully will mean we do not face a further points deduction for that charge."

James Potter
147 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:25:54
Agree Pat, they also stated that any punishment above the 9 points for administration is out of proportion. The default punishment looks like 6 points going forward.
Steve Dowdeswell
148 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:29:12
Seriously, I don't think 4 points is enough back, when it was found the original commission made legal errors.

Still sounds like they have justified taking the 6 points from us with various excuses and examples being made.

Assuming this also means that the Premier League could look at 'not telling' the next independent panel to take 6 points for the next breach.

Still I suppose the precedent is set for Nottm Forest to be docked 6 points (or more) for a breach that may or may not be similar or worse.

Then, according to Masters, Man City to be done the same amount for thier 115 breaches, taking a hefty 690 points away from them!

Or do we take it the Premier League will allow that investigation to drag on until the rules are changed to suit the big 6?

Still, all said, good to see the revised table looking a bit healthy for us and hope the team can now get their bloody heads together and kick on.

Alan J Thompson
149 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:29:46
Once they start the hearings into Man City and Chelsea, they won't have time for us and Forest, which I'm sure must be raised at the Premier League's February AGM which was scheduled for 25th & 26th?

But then Everton have issued a statement saying they are satisfied with the outcome despite not having fully digested it but will fully co-operate with the League – so have learnt nothing from Man City's actions.

Tim Locke
150 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:31:01
6 points always looked like the most likely outcome.

This was put in place post Portsmouth, whose liquidation suffered 9pts. So there was no chance 10 was the right answer.

My view is they are going to slap the other fine on us this season and that will be 3 points, giving us the max of 9 for two minor offences.

Where does this leave us? 33 points should be enough for safety, so we need 12 points from the remaining games to stay up. Clearly that means beating Luton etc when we play. That would but us on 37, the expected additional 3 point loss and we finish on 34.

Given the last few seasons, survival and building a solid foundation should be sufficient. Most fans will want more but it's that wanting more too quickly which got us into this mess, let's build slowly and for longer.

Ted Roberts
151 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:32:29
Frank #89,

I like the sound of that possibility, what we need now is breathing space and coming close to Chris's #60 predictions fills me with a better feeling of survival success and moving forward.

Concentrate on the football – fighting corruption is a tougher job and more energy sapping

John Keating
152 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:33:02
Sorry to disagree with many posters but the reduction to 6 points is a travesty of justice.

As for the Club? Jesus, their response is as if we've done really well getting 4 points knocked off!!! It's like the Appeals panel have done us a favour and we should be quiet and be grateful!
It should have been the whole 10 points returned!!!

This charade has been a crock from day one and there must be some sort of final or next stage in the appeals procedure. This reduction is just not good enough.

Paul Ferry
153 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:36:22
Nice piece of news to wake up to. I got something right for once! I've been saying it will be four points all along, so I'm not disappointed. It was naive to think that we would get all ten back. The North Wharf Road lads and lasses were never going to do that. They would have lost too much face and standing and this appeal was clearly handled in the light of potential independent regulation.

I got a cut of four right, and I will also add that there will not be a second points reduction. I'm pretty confident about that. A second reduction on this second charge will have the appearance of vindictiveness. More importantly, someone wrote that double jeopardy is the only defence we have. It's not, but it's a powerful argument in the hands of top-drawer silks. Equally important for us, Forest will lose points but we will not.

We did wrong, we admitted it, and we got caught with our hands in the till. The table looks better now. We move on. We cross our fingers and hope that Moyes does us a favour in a few hours and keeps Brentford below us.

Tim Locke
154 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:37:16
For all those saying we shouldn't have had any points deducted or got more back, take that up with the club.

This mess is the clubs fault. We were in a mess. We told the Premier League we were in a mess. Agreed a way out and then decided to ignore that and do our own thing and spend money.

I have no sympathy and I am so angry at the club for the way they dealt with this. It is such poor management. It's not the leagues fault and while we can point at Man City and say it's unfair. Everton said there was a problem, agreed to the problem, while Man City have denied there is one.

For those looking at Chelsea. As it stands, they don't have a problem. They have been super clever in their dealings.

I expect Forest to get hit with 3 points too. A lot relates to the Championship and they are going to allow that to reduce impact. I don't think that's wrong either and should ensure we also only get 3 points on our next telling off.

Paul Hewitt
155 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:39:26
Is it possible that Everton have done some sort of deal with the Premier League over the second charge, and get no points deducted. That's why they’re happy with the outcome?
Paul Ferry
156 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:40:51
No Mr. Hewitt that is absolutely not possible.
Brent Stephens
157 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:43:01
Paul #155. No!
Ralph Basnett
158 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:43:17
Can't see how some are still upset about the 6 points.

We are guilty as we admitted it!

Now we need to get back to winning games and pushing up ready for the next sanction, hopefully 2 points as it was for the last year.

I do not want a transfer sanction as, although we have no money, we will be generating some in the summer with two player sales that will hopefully keep the wolves from the door whilst adding a few numbers into the squad.

Mike Doyle
159 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:46:32
Kevin 110] the Sky 6 group of clubs are cautious about having too high a % of their seats sold to season ticket holders. They are looking to increase the revenue per visitor thus like to have plenty of occasional visitors on
each match day. These people tend to spend more on their visit - buying merchandise etc...
As an example - if you ever get to visit Stamford Bridge, get into the ground early and watch the groups of tourists taking their group shots and selfies.
Mike Owen
161 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:47:23
Just breezed/glanced through the appeal committee's 60-page verdict. Not read it properly, but I got the distinct impression the Premier League fought its corner at the appeal as hard as it could. Could well be miffed at the outcome.

Interesting to note that the solicitors of both parties were informed of the verdict a week ago, "on a confidential basis to enable them to identify
any typographical errors before publication".

Steve Higgins
162 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:50:21
Interesting to see the reduced points deduction was reported this afternoon in the New York Times on line.

No mention of it in the dear old Guardian, which consistently treats our club as though it doesn't exist.

Mark Burslem
163 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:51:57
Just a thought… our points deduction total was assessed on us not gaining any sporting advantage.

Wasn't the forest issue regarding a player. Therefore not the same and they did gain an advantage. More points deducted surely!!

Kieran Kinsella
164 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:52:02
Mike Owen,

Where did you find the full report?

Mike Owen
165 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:53:58
Ralph, 158, yeah, we're guilty, but it is the scale of the punishment.

It's like being transported to Australia for stealing a sheep.

Okay, I exaggerate. Just a bit.

Christopher Timmins
166 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:54:11
When you start off the day with 21 points and finish the day with 25 points, that's a good days work.

James Potter
167 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:54:14
Kieran, John Flood posted this earlier.


Mike Owen
168 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:55:56
Make yourself a coffee and some sandwiches to help you through it, Kieran.
From PL website:
Colin Glassar
169 Posted 26/02/2024 at 16:58:19
Paul #155, possibly. Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.

Our response has been feeble to say the least.

Paul Ferry
170 Posted 26/02/2024 at 17:01:06
Mike Owen, being transported to Australia for nicking sheep would have been seen by many as getting off lightly.

Stealing any form of livestock was high up on the ladder of serious crimes back then and sailing half-way across the world was probably a better option than the gallows for most of the lads and lasses who helped themselves to sheep.

Andy Duff
171 Posted 26/02/2024 at 17:01:15
I'm sorry but saying we are guilty and we should accept this etc is frankly ridiculous. What are we actually guilty of?

This essentially boils down to accounting differences and then refusing to accept very valid mitigations, the same mitigations that Masters used himself.

I will never accept this and I hope there's more to this in that, independent regulation comes in on the back of it and even the original charges heard again by a real independent panel not handpicked stooges.

Rob Dolby
172 Posted 26/02/2024 at 17:11:40
I am also of the opinion that Man City, Chelsea, Nottm Forest – in fact, all clubs should reject the P&S rules and go back to the drawing board to devise some rigourous governance that protects and grows the game – not restricts.

Success has always been bought in football, why should things change now because Man City and Newcastle Utd have more than the rest?

Is it to protect Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal or is it for the good of the game?

Why haven't Chelsea or Man Utd been pulled up over the previous 25 years?

The game is killing itself with accountancy governance that isn't fit for purpose. Hence the quietest transfer window in 20 years.

All the clubs have the power to motion and vote on abolishing the rules as they stand.

As a fan, we just want to watch decent footy, since Covid, we are watching the off pitch activities more than on field. With the new stadium, we should be optimistic about our future, not worrying if they have incorrectly capitalised an asset!

The whole thing is a mess for all of football – not just us.

Paul Ferry
173 Posted 26/02/2024 at 17:11:43
With respect, Andy Duff, I think you're wrong. It's not "ridiculous", it's realistic.

As I said, we got caught with our hands in the till. We admitted it (how on earth, after that, can you expect us to get away with a little light rap on the knuckles?). We lost 10 points.

It is the scale and appropriateness of the cut that ought to be the nub of the matter. But for now that ship has sailed and for all our justified fluster and anger, nothing will change that.

Now I will be fuming if we get a second points cut but I don't believe that we will. My overwhelming feeling right now, this minute, is relief tempered by a sense of original injustice.

Bill Gall
174 Posted 26/02/2024 at 17:12:11
Well it is just a tremendous relief that this farce created solely by the Premier League committee not understanding their own rules of PSR, is over for now.

It should have been more points returned, but what is that saying? Beggars cant be Choosers.

There still should be an independent investigation into the corrupt manner of the Premier League’s president and committees.

Mark Boullé
175 Posted 26/02/2024 at 17:12:44
I've skim read the decision - wanted to focus on the reasons the appeal board rejected the Russian sanctions and Sigurdsson mitigations, both of which seemed like very good points in our favour.

I'm not so sure now, however much I want to believe those arguments hold water for us.

Russia sanctions – we never managed to produce any documentary evidence that the funding involved in the stadium naming rights deal with USM was definitely to be brought forward. If there had been a clear agreement that we would get £10M of this money in 2022, this argument might have held...

Sigurdsson – the appeal board equated this situation to a club losing the services of a player due to long-term injury, the player having other domestic, emotional or whatever problems or just not wanting to play for a club anymore and performance levels dropping / going on strike etc as they do nowadays.

Reluctantly, I think they're probably right on that if you try to look at it dispassionately… aren't they?

Thus our only hope for the second charge is to show the continued trend of reducing losses and going with the double jeopardy argument.

Brent Stephens
176 Posted 26/02/2024 at 17:14:29
Andy #171,

The appeal report states in the fourth paragraph that "the club accepts that it breached the PSR for season 2021-22 by having losses, as calculated by a formula set out in the PSR and as found by the Commission, of £124.5m which exceeded the upper loss threshold of £105m. It appeals only on the sanction imposed."

Dale Self
177 Posted 26/02/2024 at 17:19:30
Pat 137, if I'm interpreting your response as a claim of double standard, okay I omitted the adjective ‘fear-mongering' when it should have preceded uninformed speculation or whatever I wrote. You know English is my second language damnit.
Alec Gaston
178 Posted 26/02/2024 at 17:20:17
Can anyone explain the how we have breached again?

If it is a rolling 3-year period with the penalty of 6 points being for £124.5M against an allowable loss of £105M, and the first year was £58 (stated in the appeal), then by my calculations we could still make a loss of about £39M for last year and still be inside the £105M.

Does that mean we have losses of over £39M for last year?

Barry Williams
179 Posted 26/02/2024 at 17:27:23
The rules are being changed in August if I have read correctly - happy to be corrected if I am wrong. Thus, the rules are not fit for purpose - thus we should not be charged on rules that are not fit for purpose!!?? Too simplistic?

Do we think that the rule changes will exonerate Chelsea and Man City - or am I being a little cynical?

Who knows, we might even be given a penalty (an on field one) this season too. One that might make a positive difference to a game!

P & S - what a farce!

6 points is still way too much - a fine, yes. In fact, a fine that was in line with the 'breakaway 6' would actually be too much if we are talking about dealing out a fair hand. They tried to ruin the premier league, Everton have transgressed financially (and not by much seemingly) by a small margin with many mitigating circumstances.

Will there still be protests against the perceived corruption?

The forest case - when will that be heard - how unfair is it on both Forest and the other relegation candidates. A ridiculous state of affairs from a ridiculous opaque profit making organisation!

Phil Smith
180 Posted 26/02/2024 at 17:32:35
I was hoping for 6 but just glad a decision has been made and we move up the table.

I believe this will be a relief to the boys and staff now and we'll kick on with this one sorted. Guys know they just have to keep ahead of Forrest and we'll be safe.

I expect a different animal this weekend and think we'll batter West Ham this Saturday. Sooner we put this season to bed, the better.

Brent Stephens
181 Posted 26/02/2024 at 17:45:00
Apologies if this has already been mentioned. Paras 209 and 210 set out the rationale for arriving at the six-point sanction (3 plus 3).
Tony Waring
182 Posted 26/02/2024 at 17:46:43
If the PL were on dodgy "legal" ground in reaching their original decision, then surely there should have been NIL points reduction ? These ijits make up the rules as they feel like it - to their own advantage !
Pat Kelly
183 Posted 26/02/2024 at 17:52:21
Even if there’s a rule change in August, that couldn’t justifiably be backdated to exonerate City, Chelsea or others. It’s the rules applicable at the time the breach is committed that should apply. You can’t have your cake and eat it.
Barry Rathbone
184 Posted 26/02/2024 at 17:53:47
With 9 points for administration I reckoned getting down to 8 points was a strong possibility. A further 2 point reduction is a doozey given we effectively held our hands up to being run as fuckwit rovers.

Kudos to those arguing the case in such circumstances

Mark Taylor
185 Posted 26/02/2024 at 17:54:04
Maybe we should try another appeal. A different board might see things differently again (up or down).

Actually this goes back to the original findings. I thought they were very comprehensive in filleting us. But the bit about defining the level of sanction? Next to nothing, it was obvious they had no framework or precedent to work with, might as well just have rolled the dice (preferably one, not two).

Which also means the current findings on punishment have no real substance to rely upon. Now it's about using the EFL as a reference point. Where do the rules say that, did they just make that up? Strikes me as all finger in the air stuff, a matter of opinion, not clearly set out rules.

Anyway, if they are going to rely on EFL precedents for this breach, then to the extent logic even implies here, presumably it needs to do so for the second breach. And what is the EFL reference point for a second breach? I think I know.

And while we're on the topic of reference points, how about applying it to Masters himself, and he can take a pay cut to the 'precedent' set by the EFL bloke.

Andy Crooks
186 Posted 26/02/2024 at 17:54:53
I agree with Rob Dolby, this is "magic beans". Your sentence in a court of law depends on the judge and has often been arbitrary. Pick a number between 0 and 20. Knock off between 0 and 10 for the appeal. That, in my view is the science that has been applied to us. None.
There is no logic in any of it and I feel deflated by the outcome and utterly disappointed in the custodians of our club. They are jaw droppingly inept and have been negligent to an extent that is criminal or way beyond stupid.
Chris Leyland
187 Posted 26/02/2024 at 18:00:38
I’m torn on this outcome as I think it’s good to get some of the points back but does it at the same time increase the chances of getting direct points deducted for the 2nd charge?

It makes trying to work out what you need to do for the rest of the season impossible. On that theme and the bold prediction of some that we sees us winning against West Ham, Brentford, Forest Burnley and Sheff Utd at home, I think we’ve managed to win 9 of our last 34 home games in the league and the idea that we might win 5 of the next 6 does seem a little fanciful.

Brent Stephens
188 Posted 26/02/2024 at 18:02:04
Further to my #181, that para 210 includes the following, which seems to show that our lawyer actually argued for a reduction of sanction to 6 points (apart from further mitigations, which the appeal rejected - para 214):

"Mr Rabinowitz calculated that, excluding trend, extrapolating the EFL Guidelines across to the PL on the basis of percentage above the upper loss threshold, the Club would have a starting point deduction of six points (paragraph 96.2 of his Written Submissions)."

Do I read that correctly?

Geoff Williams
189 Posted 26/02/2024 at 18:02:39
So the penalty for the new charge shouldn't exceed 6 points so we'd be 1 point worse off than yesterday but Forest would also face a similar points deduction to us. We do need a few wins to remove any doubts about the future
Stephen Davies
190 Posted 26/02/2024 at 18:06:35
Alan Myers recently tweeted this?
Basically EFL & EUFA DONT have Double jeopardy and second losses are capped at basic rate but PL doesn't have that rule,so it depends if they adopt that position or not
Jerome Shields
191 Posted 26/02/2024 at 18:09:48

Your analysis of the findings is spot on.I still think that pressure played a big part on the appeal result.I think a small points deduction result for the second Commission is more likely.I can't see a suspended points decision.There is still pressure on the Premier League with Nottingham Forest and other Clubs in the mix the Premier League will have to do something.It is interesting that they have aligned themselves with the EFL sanctions. I have always thought there was a connection between the EPL and the EFL sanctions regime from the start regarding sanctions.Now it has been formalised.A formal sanctions regime is here to stay. Role on Man City.But more importantly the August Changes which hopefully reduce compensation demands.

John Pendleton
192 Posted 26/02/2024 at 18:12:09
For those looking at survival.

Current League Position and unadulterated average points per game (long term form).

EFC 1.2
Brentford 1.0
Forest 0.9
Luton 0.8
Burnley 0.5
Sheffield Utd 0.5

Continue the average for the remaining games (assume no Forest deduction) and we get the following.

EFC 39
Brentford 38
Forest 34
Luton 30
Burnley 19
Sheffield Utd 19

In this scenario, for us to go down, Burnley and Sheffield United would need to find 21 more points or Luton 10 more points than us in the 12/13 game run in. Any Forest deduction only improves this scenario. A second Everton 6 pt reduction still sees us safe - just.

The run in should be fun too. We play all 5 teams mentioned above - 4 at home and Luton away.

All bollocks of course, but considered bollocks nevertheless.

Ray Said
193 Posted 26/02/2024 at 18:13:04
The appeal outcome highlights the stupidity of the club's board in not getting top legal representation prior to making any statement and not getting the KC in until after they held their hands up to the charge.

Man City are not making that error.

Brent Stephens
194 Posted 26/02/2024 at 18:18:28
Masters really does take a kicking from the Appeal Panel. Can we expect a red card for him from the Premier League?


James Marshall
195 Posted 26/02/2024 at 18:23:13
3 points deducted for the breach, and 3 points deducted for admitting the breach, so..

For the upcoming charge, simply refuse to admit the breach and take a 3 point deduction.

There, all better.

Brian Wilkinson
196 Posted 26/02/2024 at 18:27:06
Stinks to high heavens, should have got all 10 points for none sporting advantage.

Everton build a new stadium out of their own pockets, turn down Liverpool City council, that would have hit the tax payers pockets.

Commence work on the new stadium, with the first year loans not included in p and s, then heading into the second year change the rules so loans now have to be included, how can a rule change come in when the stadium is already half built.

To add salt to the wound, you then get Jim Ratcliffe asking for Government to help fund the Wembley of the north.

Let's see if they come down as tough on Man Utd, when they build a new stadium, more than likely will have changed the rules so that a new stadium build is not included in P&S.

Ridiculous to be hammered with a 6-point deduction, with trying to build a better stadium, that will benefit all supporters, and improve the economy both job wise and restore a rundown area.

Yet some are happy to have 4 points back, should have hit the owners, not the team or the supporters.

Ian Wilkins
197 Posted 26/02/2024 at 18:30:38
James @195,

As is our custom I believe we have already admitted the 2nd breach, so in the absence of double jeopardy (Alan Myers), then we are at the new benchmark of 6 points again. Probably the same for Forest.

Still all to do.

James Marshall
198 Posted 26/02/2024 at 18:32:58
Let's say Forest now get a 6-point deduction and we get another 6-point deduction, based on today's table we still wouldn't be in the relegation zone.

I'm looking at this as a "glass half-full" scenario. I fail to see how we can be done again for an overlapping period so, if anyone can fill me in on how that would work, I'm all ears.

Ed Prytherch
199 Posted 26/02/2024 at 18:36:39
The loss calculation includes loan interest payments and we are not out of the woods yet in future years.
Derek Taylor
200 Posted 26/02/2024 at 18:37:20
Not even a whisper yet from the incompetents who got us into this mess although I suppose that having been paid to keep their silence they are enjoying an exotic cruise to wind down.

Football must be the only 'industry' where you get fabulous 'fuck off' money for making a balls-up of your job – be it player, manager or administrator!

Terry Aylward
201 Posted 26/02/2024 at 18:38:42
So can we take it that by Everton's reaction to the points return they would have been happy if the original deduction would have been 6 points.

Once again we just roll over and take our medicine. Get a ban from Europe through no fault of our own, just accept it. Victims of diabolical decisions in major finals and semi finals, that's okay, no problem. Watch on as certain other clubs cause deaths, burn coaches, and attack people in their own country, once again no problem.

And let's not mention being part of a group attempting to wreck the Premier League, let's just give them a slap on the wrist. When are we going to grow a pair and shout scream and take our grievances to the highest courts in the land?

John Keating
202 Posted 26/02/2024 at 18:40:47
Just a quick scan through the ruling.

It is obvious that there will be no mitigating circumstances in any future cases. The fact a Club breaches the £105 million overspend will cause a 6-point deduction regardless.

Although the panel had representations from FAB – well done, by the way - and it was accepted and commended by the panel, to all intents and purposes, it was totally ignored.

At one point, I thought our second case maybe knocked back because of a double jeopardy situation; however, I am not sure.

The panel really tried to admit some EFL decisions into their thought process but did note a significant difference in the Premier League and EFL rules.

Masters was far more involved than I thought and the appeal panel supported the initial decision in that an overspend of any amount has to have a sporting penalty, a points deduction. Suspended points deduction, fine, transfer cap not appropriate it has to be a sporting penalty.

If KCs involved in the appeal saw 2 points of legal errors, why did the initial arseholes not see them???????

10 points was always out of order and put unnecessary pressure on the team, the club and, more importantly, us!

Mike Dolan
203 Posted 26/02/2024 at 18:51:45
The Richard Masters Premier League still manages to steal two wins from us with this decision.

This sanction is still unprecedented, it is still completely unjust and the 6 points stolen from us should have this club screaming for an explanation of how such an unprecedented outcome was reached.

The four points reluctantly returned to us will of course help us immediately but the club should be howling publicly as to why any points why any hard won points are taken when other bigger cases are allowed to go under punished. I think this reeks of bias and corruption by the league office who we as EQUAL members of the league pay equally their wages to be only treated like a small club. Who they can use as a whipping boy.

Todays announcement is not a triumph it’s a defeat.

Brian Harrison
204 Posted 26/02/2024 at 18:57:45
The appeal panel have said that any breach of P&S rules must carry a points deduction, but still no clear proposal as to how that will be calculated. It was reported that the original panel used a system of so much for transgressing the rule then a point deduction for every million over that set figure. Also the Premier league does not have a plan for clubs who have already been punished for breaking the 3 year rule. I believe UEFA have a rule were the years you originally breached are capped. I am sure that at the end of the season the Premier league clubs will get together and completely overhaul the P&S rules. I see its being reported that Forest will go before the commission on the 7th and 8th of March, haven't seen a date for Everton to appear over the 2nd breach.

I hope that with us getting 4 points back it will give the players a big enough lift to go out on Saturday and play with more of a freedom than they have over the past few weeks.

Brian Williams
205 Posted 26/02/2024 at 19:00:32
Whatever happens Paul Quinn said recently in an article that we have nothing to fear from the second breach and that we'll be ok!
Jim Wilson
206 Posted 26/02/2024 at 19:02:47
Nearest guidline was Leicester which was a 3 million pound fine.

This is corrupt people getting their way. It is the biggest scandal in English football by far and if Everton leave it at this they just show yet again what mugs they are.

Absolutely horrendous.

Pat Kelly
207 Posted 26/02/2024 at 19:04:52
If the losses overlap different periods, say the two cases in question against us, then the points deducted must also overlap those same periods. Would that reduce the likely deduction for the second period to 3 points ? Anyone got an abacus and mental strength ?
Danny Baily
208 Posted 26/02/2024 at 19:05:02
Reading the summary from the appeal board, we will almost definitely be hit with another 6 point penalty. They've rejected our mitigating factors, and the offending seasons fall into the second three year period.
John Keating
209 Posted 26/02/2024 at 19:13:19
I think we will be hit with a second 6 points deduction.

Our only hope is that Forest get a similar 6 points and we finish above them

Robert Jones
210 Posted 26/02/2024 at 19:14:38
Still 6 points stolen, the concept of sporting advantage a stitch up. The fans and the team are the ones paying the price for others incompetence,
and it was the fans who have been saying this for many years was but blind eyes turned all round

Maybe the Premier League isn't corrupt as such, but it is bent.

Mark Ryan
211 Posted 26/02/2024 at 19:15:45
Does this mean that we'll start playing attractive " on the front foot football" under Dyche or will it continue to be turgid boring shite. I expect more of the same dross but hope springs eternal.
Sean, you have your wish, the line is now drawn in the sand, can we have some better results please
Ian Wilkins
212 Posted 26/02/2024 at 19:18:38
I agree Danny, a further 6 points is the conclusion you reach. So we will be in a scrap with Luton and Forest for 3rd bottom. Too far behind rest.
Masters will probably seek a softer ride for Forest, 1st year in PremIer League etc.
Unless we can find some wins, and realise that wins are what we need ( not draws at home) then there is a fair chance we will learn our Premier League fate after the season close from an Appeals panel…
We must find wins…take the misery that would entail away.
Paul Ferry
213 Posted 26/02/2024 at 19:22:33
Mike Dolan (203): "Todays announcement is not a triumph it’s a defeat".

No it's not. That is ridiculous. Do we have to say it again: we got caught with our grubby fingers in the till? The appeal board started with a clean slate and decided that six points was appropriate. We now have more of an explantation for the points cut (they used the FL model). Also, the appeals board ruled that we did not act in bad faith. It was, as the club, said, a "point of principle". I'm not celebrating. I'm relieved and like the club "satisfied".

Danny Baily (208): "Reading the summary from the appeal board, we will almost definitely be hit with another 6 point penalty. They've rejected our mitigating factors, and the offending seasons fall into the second three year period".

You've all the way through it, carefully Danny? There is zilch in their report that makes me believe that "we will almost definitely be hit with another 6 point penalty". Quite the reverse. The board used the FL model as a guide which, among other things, states that a club cannot be punished twice for the same year. Mitigation factors were not completely ignored and the board recognised two legal mistakes in the original ruling. The commission, the appeals board states cleanly, was "wrong not to take into account available benchmarks".

We will not get a second point reduction for reasons I stated above.

Andy Crooks
214 Posted 26/02/2024 at 19:31:44
I don't see how we will " definitely", be hit with another six point deduction. I really don't know, but there are some on here who do. What are your qualifications other than a desire to voice unqualified legal opinions? Spell it out and back it up or go away.
Brent Stephens
215 Posted 26/02/2024 at 19:32:07
Can anybody help me by pointing to the specific section of the EPL rules that refer to (exclude) double jeopardy, being punished twice for the same year's overexpenditure? I'm lazy!
Paul Ferry
216 Posted 26/02/2024 at 19:37:47
Well said Andy Crooks. More than a few on here love a little bit of scaremongering. It always makes me smile when they sound so jubilantly emphatic making headlines.
Bill Gall
217 Posted 26/02/2024 at 19:37:57
I think the biggest farce about the whole procedure is the Premier league have stated that the clubs agreed on this type of punishment when they brought in the ruling of PSR yet they have nothing in the rules of what the punishment should be, either X amount of a fine or X amount of points deduction.

The statement from the appeals committee have stated, that they decided that the framework around the EFL is structurally similar to the Premier League, in giving their decision

Similar in the dictionary/ bearing resemblance to something else, but not " completely identical.

I think this demonstrates how inept the Premier League Committee really are, when they bring in rules that they had nothing in place if the rules were broken. R.Masters hold your head in shame you are the President who underhandedly tried to ruin Everton FC.

Rob Dolby
219 Posted 26/02/2024 at 19:50:27
Paul @213,

Are you advocating that the P&S rules are fair and that we deserve the points deduction?

The grubby fingers comment is poor. 40,000 fans have nothing to do with Moshiri's creative accountancy.

No doubt the rules have been put in place for the good of the game but, when tested in this scenario, they are not fit for purpose.

Sporting advantage my arse, so why punish the fans, if anything ,we should be getting our money back on season tickets as the football has become secondary to the accountancy circus surrounding the league.

Fine our billionaire owner — not the thousands who work hard all week to support their team only to get hit with shit like this is pathetic.

We have weakened the team to the point of relegation. Next season and the season after are going to be the same, penalising the fans for a billionaire's accountancy mess.

The longer this goes on, it will only enforce the Premier League elite.

Graham Mockford
220 Posted 26/02/2024 at 19:57:59
Andy #214,

It's likely we will receive some sort of punishment. We didn't appeal the breach, just the sanction.

We have been charged again so we can only assume we have breached the rolling loss calculation again.

We could of course try to argue the breach but, given we were unsuccessful this time, I'm not sure what rabbits we can pull out of the hat.

So then it comes back to sanction.

The size of the breach will be important in any mitigation we can plead. For instance, if we miss by say £5M, you would expect a points reduction but a lesser one. If it's £20M expect 6 points.

I appreciate there's a few ifs and buts in this analysis but it's my best shot.

Chris Leyland
221 Posted 26/02/2024 at 20:00:14
Andy Crooks — what are your qualifications to say that we won't be docked any further points? Spell it out and back it up or go away.😉

To summarise the argument as to why we could get a further deduction: the first charge and the appeal have now concluded. It sets a baseline of 6 points for breaching PSR as a precedent for the Premier League to use going forward.

It was what they Prneorr League wanted in their madeup sanctions framework and it seems they've got it now. It's the starting point for a breach and it seems that they aren't prepared to listen to much mitigation as to why you breach their £105M ceiling.

There is also a suggestion that points deductions have to be the punishment over any other sanctions. The Premier League argue that you have to come down on these breaches to stop clubs ignoring the rules and they will be pushing for a further punishment for the second alleged breach for exactly this reason – to stop a club repeatedly breaching their rules without punishment other than the first one.

They did however seem to set a ceiling at less than administration of 9 points.

The argument against: the appeals panel relied heavily on the Football League rules to arrive at their conclusion. The Football League has a double jepordy rule which means that clubs can't be charged twice for the same time period.

There also seems to be a strong indication in the appeal report that the 3rd year of the period was more positive and that Everton have made attempts to comply in a positive direction. There is also the throwing out of the claim that Everton didn't act in good faith which again works in the club's favour.

It's a delicate balance at present and no one really knows which way it will go.

Kieran Kinsella
222 Posted 26/02/2024 at 20:01:22
The double jeopardy argument is a bit weak.

Let's say you go all out in Year 1 and buy the ultimate super team in the world. Then you get a points deduction. Who cares? Because if "double jeopardy" comes into the equation in Year 2 and Year 3, that first year spend is excluded and you have your super team and you win everything.

If you dismiss the double jeopardy angle and review that massive spend as part of a 3-year roll in each of the following seasons, then you will get two more points deductions. In that scenario, it's not until Year 4 you truly get the benefit of your super team, by which time, people will be getting older and contracts running down.

I believe that is the scenario they're trying to tackle with the 3-year roll and it's also why I believe we will get another points deduction.

Paul Ferry
223 Posted 26/02/2024 at 20:02:11

Ian Wilkins
224 Posted 26/02/2024 at 20:11:17
Andy @214,

My opinion ( and it is only that) in thinking a further 6 points is coming our way is based on reading the Appeal panel report.
They give their reasons for reducing from 10-6 ( wrong legal process on two specific counts).

They give their reasons for 6 being appropriate. The circumstances for the 2nd breach are much the same as the 1st ( tho nobody has declared the size of the financial breach). On that basis it feels like they will see 6 as appropriate again.

Our only mitigation to the 6 (they dismissed our mitigation reasons) is double jeopardy. Their rule book has no scope for double jeopardy, so the Premier League will not consider it.
Our Appeal might try to argue it, there is no precedent for how that would play out.

Not headlining, or saying I'm right, just offering an opinion based upon reading today's report.

Happy to hear other points of view, indeed more than happy to hear strong views that the double jeopardy argument will be successful!

Paul Ferry
225 Posted 26/02/2024 at 20:11:35
Rob, "grubby fingers" refers to the people who have run the club (Simms gets his second v Maidstone and Bowen has got two for Moyes so Brentford will stay below us - ah crap, dickhead Maupay has just scored). I have absolutely no idea how you could stretch that to cover 40,000 fans. Perhaps you could explain your logic to me? Look at my posts on the last match thread for my massive admiration for our away fans.

Where do I say that the rules were fair? Quite the reverse. I go to some lengths to make it clear that I am relieved and satisfied that the appeals board contested some of the commission's findings and their basis. What I do say is that the board followed the EPL model and although I did not say it outright, that model is fairer than the non-model followed by the commission, including that a club cannot be punished twice for the same year infringement.

Where do I say that we deserved the points deduction. Nowhere. In fact, I make it clear that ten points was unjust. Did we "deserve" some sort of sanction for getting caught with our grubby fingers in the till. I agree with the club that de facto expected some sort of sanction in admitting guilt that some sort of sanction was merited. But try and find anywhere where I said it should be ten points. Six points is too much but I'm being realistic for reasons I have mentioned a few times now on this thread.

Rob, please do not put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head that were never in either. A cursory read of my posts on this thread would show that very clearly.

Donal Armani
226 Posted 26/02/2024 at 20:14:47
Today's report reveals losses of £58m for 1st year (2019-20), £53m for 2nd (2020-21) and £10m (subsequently upped to £13.5m) for 3rd (2021-22), so

£124.5m cumulative 3-year loss vs £105m maximum allowable loss.

The fact that we are now in breach of the next rolling 3-year limit tells you that 2022-23 losses were £42m minimum, Gordon's sale notwithstanding.

So the trend is not our friend, and the Premier League warned as much in their Commission evidence last November, but “double jeopardy” can save the day…. or at least most of it.

Hans Fyhrqvist
227 Posted 26/02/2024 at 20:21:36
Better than nothing, or fewer, to get back those 4 points. Of course I would have hoped for more.

As for the second charge against Everton, as a few have here remarked, it will contain ⅔ of the time period which was already included in our first charge, of which we now have the final decision of 6 points deducted. So logically thinking there can´t be more than a 2 points deduction, if even that much, for our second charge. Otherwise, it would be double jeopardy, which would be really unjust.

One more factor favoring us concerning the second charge is the assumption, or the fact, that our losses have been reducing all the time when nearing the present day. Surely Everton´s legal team can present our case in the forthcoming hearing so that the outcome will be not more than 1-2 point(s) deduction, or preferably no points at all.

And if there is any logic in the actions of these commissions, then Nottingham Forest will be deducted 6 points with their first charge.

After all, the table looks a bit healthier for us now. Hopefully the Everton players will start to follow suit on the playing field in our coming matches!

Pat Kelly
229 Posted 26/02/2024 at 20:27:34
And all along, I thought double jeopardy was playing both Calvert-Lewin and Beto up front.

Double jeopardy on our part, that is.

Derek Taylor
230 Posted 26/02/2024 at 20:30:43
Premier League football results are no longer determined by goals for and against but by VAR panels miles away and wealthy lawyers after weeks of procrastination!

The whole structure is designed to maintain the Sky Six and Everton have only pathetic owners and directors to blame for not maintaining their place in their number at the starting line some 20 years ago.

Bobby Mallon
231 Posted 26/02/2024 at 20:31:19
I hope no more clubs get punished. All clubs should be able to spend what money the owner deems fit.

But not a single loan can go against the club. If the owner wants to spend big, then he uses his own money along with what the club makes a season.

Ernie Baywood
232 Posted 26/02/2024 at 20:35:06
I'll sit and read through the ruling in full but first impressions:

- They haven't exactly said that we acted in good faith (as the club has said in their statement). They've said that the Commission was wrong to find that we'd broken that obligation as it wasn't a charge by the Premier League in the first place. I still don't doubt that we were "less than frank" in our disclosures regarding interest on loans.

- the argument re 9 points administration was always likely to have some sway. The administration points deduction was brought in to dissuade clubs from going down that route. This punishment effectively undid that.

- The Commission's decision of "guidelines, we don't need no stinking guidelines" is embarrassing for them and the league.

6 points is a reasonable outcome for me. It had to be less than 9 but had to be a deterrent against the kind of reckless leadership that has put our future in question.

Given that's a 3 year punishment (it's actually 4 but two COVID years are combined) I'm hopeful that means we will get just 2 taken for the next charge.

Alec Gaston
233 Posted 26/02/2024 at 20:36:10
Donal @227,

That's exactly what I was thinking: our trend will be negative and I am not sure how that will be viewed by the next commission, notwithstanding the previous two years will have been included in the punishment.

I think we were relying on being able to capitalise the interest which the original commission and appeals panel both concluded we can't.

John Keating
234 Posted 26/02/2024 at 20:37:14
One thing I did read in the report was 225 (i) page 59.

It mentions " It is clearly important there will be no double counting, in the sense of treating the excess loss over £105 million more than once: but we shall not do that."

Hopefully that statement and their, many times, mentioning taking into account "trend" ensures we will be cleared of the second breach.

Mind you, based on what we have seen and read so far, nothing is impossible.

Let there be no doubt that Masters was a major player in attempting to influence these panels.

Pat Kelly
235 Posted 26/02/2024 at 20:47:25
Crucial point, John, well spotted.
Kevin Edward
236 Posted 26/02/2024 at 20:52:37
It's still a farce, more ‘made-up' rules and regs based on a pre-determined hierarchy of greed taking over sport.

So a bunch of made-up financials equates to X points, but then later on another bunch of made-up financials is X points less, but wait for it, along comes another set of made-up financials, etc, etc.

In the meantime, there's a competition going on where we are moved down and up the table without kicking a ball.

Whatever else they throw at Everton, I can't wait for another club, or clubs to get done over.

Yes, our stupid Board were brainless throwing all that money away, but no doubt we will be the first and only Premier League club to be treated this way.

I hope the fans' protests continue against the Premier League and the club doesn't just bend over and ‘assume the position'.

Bobby Mallon
237 Posted 26/02/2024 at 20:55:36
Chris Leyland,

We need to win as many games as possible like we should always be doing.

We need to be 7 points above the drop zone come the end of season. Then, if we get 6 points taken off, we are good.

Alec Gaston
238 Posted 26/02/2024 at 20:57:33
John @237,

But our trend will be worse: £58M + £55M + £13.5M first charge = £124.5M to £55m + £13.5m, so aything over £36M is a breach as it takes is over £105M. So to be over again our trend must be worse.

We have been sanctioned for the £55M and £13.5M but they could say that you haven't learned and continue to spend.

I am worried about the second charge.

Graham Mockford
239 Posted 26/02/2024 at 20:57:43
Donal 227

If your maths are correct and in fact our losses have worsened in 22/23 we really are in the shit.

Our revenues will have broadly been similar given our league position.

We had a net spend of -£23m due to the sales of Richarlison and Gordon. All of Gordon and the majority of the Richarlison money would be straight to the bottom line. Of course there will be some impact of the NcNeil, Garner and Onana and Maupay but as I understand it those fees are depreciated across the contract terms.

Brent Stephens
240 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:00:11
John #237,

"One thing I did read in the report was 225 (i) page 59:

It mentions 'It is clearly important there will be no double counting, in the sense of treating the excess loss over £105 million more than once: but we shall not do that'. Hopefully that statement and their, many times, mentioning taking into account "trend" ensures we will be cleared of the second breach".

John, my reading of that was not that the Appeal Panel were concerned with double jeopardy in counting the same offence twice, across two overlapping accounting periods; instead I read it as not wanting to count the same offence twice within a specific hearing.

I could be wrong!

Alec Gaston
241 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:04:02
Brent, that's how I read it.

It wouldn't surprise me if we got another 4.

Six reduced to 2 for the 2/3rds of the same period plus 2 because our trend is worse.

Kieran Kinsella
242 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:05:01

That is an interesting section. The prior commission treated the breach as the charge but then listed the amount of the breach as "an aggravating factor."

This commission felt that was double counting. But that doesn't mean that looking at last year's 3-year rolling average would be viewed as double counting.

Andy Crooks
243 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:06:32
Chris@221, I'm not qualified to say we won't be docked further points, which is why I said, quite clearly, that I didn't know.
John Keating
244 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:13:15
Alec, Brent, Kieran,

You could be correct, I really don't know, just hoping I suppose! One thing I just can't figure is how KCs can recognise legal errors and others can't?

This inconsistency has put so much pressure on the team and club – it's incalculable.

Hopefully someone far more knowledgeable than me can decipher the report.

James Potter
246 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:19:34
Paragraph 221 (Trends) of the summary, last sentence clearly states – 2 points should be removed from the deduction. That notion is because of the postitive trend of reduced losses over the period.

I do fear that, if the next set of numbers shows an increase in losses for the next rolling period, the context changes again and we'll get more points, than if it shows another decrease and trending in the right direction.

David West
248 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:23:06
We need to be 10 points clear of the drop zone in my opinion, that's more than the 9 for being insolvent, can they really take more than 9?

4 points is a bonus. I would've liked 6 but the way the team is playing, 4 points would be hard to accumulate.

The second charge is a big worry now, we are not going to know until after the season has finished and will our fate be decided by a commission or panel rather than on the pitch?

Tony Abrahams
249 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:29:07
The only thing that I can genuinely conclude from today's verdict is that our punishment was very disproportionate to begin with, but I think we all knew this anyway.

It also leaves the Premier League with the opportunity to come and take these points away from us again, which can't be ruled out when it's clear they have really gone after Everton.

Brent Stephens
250 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:30:27
James #246,

I think that is a contention put forward by our KC, not by the Appeal Panel (I think para 224 sets out why).

Kieran Kinsella
251 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:32:12
How was it our losses were so large again in 2022?

I guess part of it was paying off Frank and Co. But we didn't spend a lot of money on transfers. Was it just all the stadium costs ramping up and the increasing interest rates on the loans?

If so, presumably we will have the same issue again this year. We are running out of players to sell for £50 million and, with a small squad and multiple players out of contract in the summer, we are in a bit of a pickle, folks.

Alec Gaston
252 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:32:39
Mike Gow on Twitter sets out why a sporting advantage can't be quantified but why did our KC not pick up on this?

The panel refer to this as fact with no evidence to support it – yet we are sanctioned because they say it's true

Jonathan Haddock
253 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:36:27
Having now read the full 61 pages of the report, it's clear that our ‘Super Silk' didn't have the success that we expected.

Basically, all our mitigations (including the stadium interest) were rejected, but the commission did find in our favour on the ‘acting in good faith' issue. They have also resorted to the established EFL sanctions policies in the absence of any agreed PL policy.

These two findings have helped us to get the 4 points back, not really the efforts of our KC who was criticized by the commission throughout.

This doesn't help us on the second charge and I fully expect we will be subject to a further points deduction. Hopefully the EFL rules on double jeopardy will be also be adopted by the commission and we only get an additional 2-3 points taken off us.

Forest will have to expect a 6-point deduction after this.

Kieran Kinsella
254 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:41:49

The sporting advantage thing they basically pointed the finger at Moshiri who told them his intention was to chuck a bunch of money at the club buying players for a few years with the expectation we'd become successful and generate more income. So it's about "intent," rather than actuality.

James Potter
255 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:42:58
Brent, yes, now I've read 224, you are right.

We were effectively over the £105M threshold even before the 3rd year was even considered (£58M + £53M) so they have effectively deemed that reckless and therefore only applied modest weighting.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Brent Stephens
256 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:44:11
Alec #252,

I think para 149 and thereabouts shows our KC challenging the notion of sporting advantage.

Ernie Baywood
257 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:46:14
Jonathan, if the double jeopardy rule is taken on board... and it seems likely given this decision... then the Premier League have gone from too far to too little in a matter of months.

The 10-point deduction clearly stopped clubs spending in January. They all shit themselves at the prospect of falling foul of the rules that they had pretty much disregarded (the same as we did).

If it's 6 points plus presumably another 1-3 points a year depending on the scale of the third season loss I think we'll see the clubs with unlimited owner investment decide that's a punishment worth taking.

Will Mabon
258 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:46:28
Okay, we apparently now have the appropriate punishment for our errors.

What will be the Premier League's punishment for their errors in the original award? Oh, wait... it wasn't the Premier League, it was an "independent" commission.

John Flood
259 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:47:54
Read the report in full. A few things stood out:

(1) The PSR loss for Year 1 was £58M, for Year 2 was £53M, and for Year 3 down to £10M. The worrying thing is that we have been charged again because the £58M is removed from the 2021-22 figures and replaced with the 2022-23 figure.

To be charged again, it must mean our 2022-23 figure is over £42M which I cannot understand as we have spent hardly any money, reduced our wage bill, and sold a home grown player (Gordon) in that time which should have significantly helped the situation.

I can only think it's paying off Lampard and his staff and massive interest payments on loans to keep the club afloat before a takeover that is causing this? If so, we are in big trouble.

(2) The appeal commission have concluded that a minimum 6 points penalty is the proper punishment for a PSR breach. That is now the benchmark which will apply to both us and Forest coming up.

However, they say it is important that there is no double counting the losses more than once which will surely act as a mitigation against the full 6-point deduction for us.

Based on that, I expect we are going to get a further 2 points deduction (⅓ of 6) and Forest are going to get at least 6 and possibly more depending on how big their breach is.

However, if our PSR trend has gone up again (as it somehow must have to be charged again) then we could get an additional 2 points deduction leaving us back where we started.

Stephen Davies
260 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:49:10
Radio interview with Julie Clarke from FA (who submitted evidence to the Appeal.


Christine Foster
261 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:50:45
Its clear, frankly, that the whole PSR sanction system is flawed badly, where clubs can spend so much and take the hit because they are so high up in the league is immoral. the view is that, over a period of 3 or 4 years, the losses cannot exceed more than administration of 9 points. That's the ceiling as it stands.

It allows wealthy clubs to spend freely and acquire a team of players capable of Europe or winning the Premier League. The only sanction being a max of 9 points according to this ruling (paraphrasing to an extent); it's worth the hit as 9 points to Man City is different to 9 points for Luton..

1. So... abolish the limit for administration.

2. Make the points deduction for breaches tied to the club's relevant points and league placing over the same period as a percentage of points gained (let's say 10%); if losses are taken over the three years, then points gained over the same period should be at risk.

3. A club like Man City would have around 30 points deduction, whereas a club in the bottom tier would be 9 points.

Just an example, I know, but money as a fine to the top clubs is irrelevant, points and stripped of titles, transfer bans will mean something. It's also a way of penalising sporting advantage as a percentage of gain or placement.

It will be changed, it needs to because wealthy clubs are doing what they like, whereby the sanction becomes of little impact to them but, to the rest of the league, it's life-threatening.

If a principle of the sanction is to negate the sporting advantage, then penalise those clubs proportionally to the points amassed over the same period and their league placing.

Christy Ring
262 Posted 26/02/2024 at 21:55:04
I was looking at our transfers in 2022-23, we made a profit of over £24M, so even with Lampard and his backroom team contracts paid up, how have we overspent?

If the interest payments on our loan for the new stadium are included and push us above the limit, we should fight it in court, it's 100% wrong.

Paul Hewitt
263 Posted 26/02/2024 at 22:00:00
Tell the Premier League, if they deduct us points again, we will take them to court. Every bit of paperwork they have will be looked through.

They're nothing but crooks. They probably can't even take 6 points off us anyway.. They won't take a single point off Man City. They will tear them to shreds if they do.

Danny Baily
264 Posted 26/02/2024 at 22:01:52
The extent to which we've exceeded the threshold for losses might well be key when deciding the size of the second points deduction.

Reading the full report, paragraph 210 refers to a 3 point deduction for breaching allowable losses prescribed by EFL guidelines (which seem to have a large bearing on today's decision). Significant overspend would result in a further 3 point deduction.

Unless I've misunderstood, our losses for the final year cannot be lower than the previous year, otherwise we wouldn't be in breach. That means the 'trend' argument is out of the window. So we've got to hope the overall losses are as close to £105 m as possible. If so, we might get away with a further 3 points deduction.

Having said that, there is no formula. We've been able to argue that the commissions decision in November was out of kilter with what we were expecting, based on precedent and EFL guidelines. Those arguments may not hold water with the next panel.

Brent Stephens
265 Posted 26/02/2024 at 22:04:21
James #255 in fairness, I think you're actually right in that page 3 seems to recognise trend in spend as a mitigating factor – though "the mitigating effect of this factor is limited".
Ernie Baywood
266 Posted 26/02/2024 at 22:10:10
Christy, what interest on stadium loans? We don't pay interest on our stadium loans. They were interest-free loans from Moshiri.

The argument regarding interest on stadium loans is dead and buried. The documentation and our own testimony rules it out. The loans that have interest were for the day-to-day running of the club. It's written on the loan application!

The club has rightly focused on the extent of the punishment. And had some success.

Alec Gaston
267 Posted 26/02/2024 at 22:20:48
Christy @262,

There are no loan payments for the new stadium, we haven't borrowed any money to fund the development of the new stadium.

So costs are the costs and all are required to be included, ie, there is nothing to deduct to bring us inside PSR.

James Potter
268 Posted 26/02/2024 at 22:20:51

I think £58M (Year 1) will drop out of the reporting period, so that leaves £53M (Year 2) and £10M (Year 3).

So to still be in breach of the £105M threshold for any 3-year period, losses for Year 4 must be at least £42M which is frightening and a complete row back on the previous reducing losses trend over the previous 3 years.

Let's hope it's only fractionally over £42M, so that on a whole period basis, the breach is less than the £19.5M previously.

It's clutching at straws a bit, but we can demonstrate that overall we are still trending the right way.

Alec Gaston
269 Posted 26/02/2024 at 22:27:32
James @268,

Paul Quinn forecast £49M last summer, albeit with some margin for error.

We have to be arguing we believed the loans for day-to-day were allowable deductions- as the last financial year now included was over before the hearing and appeal that ruled them not to be (hope that makes sense)! What a mess!!!

Danny Baily
270 Posted 26/02/2024 at 22:32:08
James 268, agreed.

I just can't see how we've made such a loss in year 3, given the lack of outlay on players, cuts to the wage bill and player sales. But evidently we have. And our mitigating factors have been dismissed, so a second deduction is coming.

A potential deduction for Forest aside, I think we could survive anything up to a further 4 points deducted (ie, back to square one), but it would be close.

Alec 269, we can argue that but it won't fly. I hadn't realised the Esk had arrived at that figure, that's very worrying. It suggests the losses above £105 m could be significant enough to trigger another 6-point deduction.

Alec Gaston
271 Posted 26/02/2024 at 22:40:43
Danny - and back to Richard Masters "We want 12 points deducting." 🤔
Mike Dolan
272 Posted 26/02/2024 at 22:41:17
Paul Ferry.

I think it is a defeat. We won two games for those 6 precious points and some suit in an office decided to take them away from us.

We have never overspent on players, our books show that, so why do they penalize us with a points deduction? We have a total new board so you have a victimless small accounting crime with nobody to blame.

6 points deducted is better than 10 points, I'll grant you, but they had no right or reason to take the 6 points. Everton should fight on against this still diabolical ruling. We lost this battle and them throwing our little club a bone just gets Masters off the hook.

Alec Gaston
273 Posted 26/02/2024 at 22:42:54
Link to the Esk’s article https://theesk.org/2023/07/17/evertons-finances-a-projection-for-2022-23/
Geoff Cadman
274 Posted 26/02/2024 at 22:43:21
Regarding last year's losses to 30 June 2023, how much did Barrett-Baxendale, Ingles and Sharpe receive in settlements?
Kieran Kinsella
275 Posted 26/02/2024 at 22:50:42

Remember we had to settle with Carlo too after the club stiffed him. I am sure our late chairman gave the three stooges golden handshakes. Probably even through in a few extra million for "pain and suffering" after headlockgate.

John Byrne
276 Posted 26/02/2024 at 22:59:14
I don't know how to feel about it.

I'm certainly not ecstatic about getting 4 points back because it means that, with the deduction being at 6 points, then that's most likely what the econd charge will bring.

I think it's so wrong that off-field issues are being punished with on-field sanctions. The people responsible for this are more or less gone from the club & face no punishment.

We should be happy about getting 4 points back but it doesn't feel like a success knowing what's to come. Our best hope with the second charge is that they take into account the fact that we've already been charged for 2 of the 3 years in question and it will mean a lesser punishment.

I personally think it's disgraceful (and I'm sure everyone else does too) that we can be charged for ⅔ of the same period twice.

And I would like the Premier League to explain why a club has been allowed to accumulate 115 breaches before being investigated and we get charged the moment we have 1?

That's my Everton fan viewpoint covered. As far as the league goes overall, it's been ruined by these rules. We've been badly affected by this whole saga and will be again, as will Forest and all of the teams at the bottom have too while the team going for 4 in a row are sitting pretty with 115 breaches hanging over them over a 12- or 13-year period.

The Premier League has become less and less about football and that is so wrong. Football is about the fans and not men in suits who are all about money

Terry Farrell
277 Posted 26/02/2024 at 23:04:54

We should have had all 10 points back because the whole premise is a joke and flawed. There is no fairness in financial fair play.

There will be no Jack Walker story allowed where a club is bought and reaches for the stars – why not? FFP maintains the status quo and all clubs will subvert it and only some will get prosecuted.

How can you track down the finances of clubs who are part of a massive consortium or group of other clubs? They can launder it in circles, agree transfer values back and forth to suit.

The whole situation is a farce and PL will become the laughing stock of world football if they start relegating teams on this basis. They will do Forest as well and then change the rules. Masters is a fuckwit!

Brent Stephens
278 Posted 26/02/2024 at 23:10:37
If I read para 46 (ii) correctly, and If EPL Commissions now adopt the EFL sanctions tariff, then it seems 21 points could be the maximum penalty applied.

That doesn't seem an insignificant deterrent to top clubs to me. On the contrary, it could drop the likes of Man City to outside the European-qualifying positions. Not a sanction to be ignored.

Jim Wilson
279 Posted 26/02/2024 at 23:24:53
Mike Dolan @ 272,

I think you are right. Too many Blues are getting sucked in with the legalities when it is clear Everton are getting picked on ridiculously.

If the rules had stated before we were done that breaching the spending limit results in a 6-point deduction, fair enough. But they didn't and everyone knows if the club had been Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal, Spurs, Man City or Chelsea, no action would have been taken.

The amount of underhand stuff that is going on but we get a points deduction because our Chairman and owner were fools just shows the system is 'Accounting VAR'.

If Everton Football Club are happy with this outcome, there really is no hope for us.

Alec Gaston
280 Posted 26/02/2024 at 23:28:30
Jim @279,

I think there is an agenda related to independent regulation; however, we are also both guilty and incompetent.

Paul Ferry
281 Posted 26/02/2024 at 23:35:41
Mike (Dolan), I agree with nearly all the words that you say. But I cannot agree with this being a "defeat" for us.

I say that having moved on from the grossly unjust 10-point deduction to the present after that, when we had to deal with the reality of the deduction itself and its consequences.

It's not useful now to say the deduction should never have happened or that it was grossly unfair (both of which are true) because it did happen. The stage changed. It is no longer late November.

The appeal board followed a procedure that they have explained along with their reasoning. Now we might not agree with it but at least we have some clarity.

The important thing about today's decision is that we did get some points back (not enough) and that the world now knows that this appeal board have ruled that we did not act in "bad faith".

This official response to the commission's conclusions is not a "defeat" for us. I would agree that the first commission was a "defeat" for us but this is not.

Does anyone seriously think that we would have got a feather-light rap on the knuckles for our confession? That was never going to happen.

Did anyone seriously expect us to be treated justly by the people from North Wharf Road and their, erm, impartial commission? That was never going to happen either.

Paul Kossoff
282 Posted 26/02/2024 at 23:48:41
"Leaves them at risk of a further deduction in the coming weeks when another independent commission hears the Premier League's case against them for a second alleged breach of PSR."

That's another 6 points deduction then isn't it, because a precedent has now been fixed? We will be worse off than if we hadn't appealed, accepted the 10 points loss on condition that another charge was scrapped.

We are possibly facing a total loss of 12 points! Great, break out the champagne.

Alec Gaston
283 Posted 26/02/2024 at 23:57:53
Let's hope the Nottingham Forest appeal panel allows the Johnson transfer to be considered as mitigation so we can include Iwobi in ours…
Dave Lynch
284 Posted 26/02/2024 at 23:58:22
Paul @282.

That's exactly what I thought… but then again... you know what, fuck it — it is what it is.

Si Cooper
285 Posted 26/02/2024 at 00:08:36
“The prior commission treated the breach as the charge but then listed the amount of the breach as "an aggravating factor." This commission felt that was double jeopardy.”

Are you sure about that, Kieran? I don't consider that double jeopardy. It makes sense that how much you breach the limit by should potentially be an aggravating factor.

Otherwise, you are left with the ‘as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb' scenario where it doesn't matter how much you have overspent or tried to reform.

Kieran Kinsella
286 Posted 27/02/2024 at 00:51:50

They didn't say that verbatim but that is the gist of what they said and why they reduced the penalty in part.

Stephen Davies
287 Posted 27/02/2024 at 01:03:51
So we were originally deducted points in November; 3 months later, the Appeal process announces a reduction and 4 points are reinstated.

The Second hearing has not yet commenced. Using the same timeframe (should a further appeal be required), the season will be over before an announcement is made.

So there will be relegated clubs who will likely not be very happy. Will this all end in the Courts?

Ernie Baywood
288 Posted 27/02/2024 at 01:27:00
Stephen, I recall them saying that these charges and any appeals will be done by the end of this season.

All very unsatisfactory.

Ernie Baywood
289 Posted 27/02/2024 at 01:53:15
Mike Dolan, this wasn't a "victimless small accounting crime with nobody to blame".

The accounting position is actually worse. Much, much worse! Our spending was reckless, our understanding of how the rules would apply was foolish, and our mitigations embarrassing.

The Premier League are inept and selective too. I'm not defending them. But you've got to remember why they tried to put the rules in place. They did so because the government is pushing independent regulation. And why is the government pushing independent regulation? Because owners are coming in and recklessly endangering the future of football clubs.

If you take all the Premier League charges away, we are still in a crap position. The current owner has endangered the future of this club.

And somehow the protests against Moshiri have turned into protests solely against the Premier League.

It's Moshiri who is to blame. And it's football fans who are the victims. Us with our screwed up club, and those fans who saw their team relegated while the Premier League tried to figure out what to do.

It's not an accounting error. It's financially ruining a football club that is the crime.

George Stuart
290 Posted 27/02/2024 at 01:54:24
My swipe up finger is getting sore. So I stopped half way down but I think then I had seen the words Man City twice. But then again their malfeasance is different than ours.

My Shoot Soccer table looked like a pack of dogs got at it after 6 weeks. I bet someone still has a pristine mint version somewhere.

But here's the rub: they won't have tags for Brighton, Fulham, Crystal Palace, possibly Man City and Brentford!!!! I'm waving my tags for Leeds, Leicester and Derby mournfully around. Na. Kidding. Never liked Leeds or Derby.

George Stuart
291 Posted 27/02/2024 at 02:03:29
Further musing:

If we were to get a further deduction and then appeal and get a reinstatement, the yo-yo farce wouldn't be a very good look for the Premier League, now would it?

Still in trouble though… Thing is, with a striker, this would be a reasonable mid-table team. I think I first posted that in August.

Ed Prytherch
292 Posted 27/02/2024 at 03:09:28
I apologise for sounding like a broken record but the loan interest is killing us. We are spending over 90% of our revenues on wages and salaries and there are other operating expenses like the rent on Finch Farm.

We have high-interest loans which were used to cover operating expenses and they have been increased monthly with the 777 Partners loans. This interest may be taking us over the £35M allowance, in which case we will continue the be sanctioned until the loans are renegotiated or paid off with equity or new low-interest loans.

If the stadium construction loans have been mixed up with these loans, then that was either financial incompetence or an attempt to hide some of the chargeable costs from the auditors.

Jonathan Oppenheimer
293 Posted 27/02/2024 at 03:29:44
If we somehow come out of this mess by the time the new stadium opens (or even within 3 years time) with ownership that appears to be moderately sane and stable, with spiraling interest costs under control, with a young team that has adequately replaced Onana and Branthwaite (whom we'll be forced to sell) and can score goals, having avoided administration, and we're still in the Premier League — I will celebrate wildly.

Until then, we are holding on for dear life — even if we survive this next charge and avoid relegation.

I am proud as ever to be a Blue, as we will never stop loving this club, but damn — it's hard to be optimistic these days.

Derek Knox
294 Posted 27/02/2024 at 04:14:01
I wish posters would refrain from using the words 'we' and 'our' with regards to culpability, gross mismanagement, profligacy on wages, contracts transfers etc.

This is a very good online fans' forum, with some savvy members too, I may add, but 'we' have had nothing whatsoever to do with any decision making at any level. Maybe if we had, (collectively) we would certainly not be in this situation.

I have often questioned Moshiri's (supposed) acumen as a top global accountant in overseeing all this (?) and who now appears to want to disappear like Houdini! He must be the best-paid stooge ever!

As far as the points fiasco is concerned, I did expect we may have had slightly more back, but equally concerned that, within a week, the team has let another 4 points slip by (Palace and Brighton).

Hoping this will all be put to bed now with no more Damoclesian Swords and the team know where they stand, they can concentrate on climbing up that greasy pole!

Eric Myles
295 Posted 27/02/2024 at 04:17:33
Alec #267,

We have borrowed money to fund the new stadium but they are interest-free loans so cannot count the £0 interest in our PSR calculation as a "cost". (Well we could I guess, but it would still be £0).

Paul Ferry
296 Posted 27/02/2024 at 05:25:40

When I say "we", "us", "our" (etc), I am referring to Everton and the club because one of the pet hates of mine on here is when folks say "Everton" rather than "we", "us", "our".

Ernie Baywood
297 Posted 27/02/2024 at 05:39:26
To be honest, using "we" and "our" is something I'm aware of and keep falling back into. Even just for the sake of brevity.

"We" invested poorly. We got lumbered with watching a shitshow.

Alan J Thompson
299 Posted 27/02/2024 at 06:35:09
As the clubs put the management body in place, then perhaps it is time for the clubs to instruct them to drop all P&S regulations and go back to leaving clubs' finances in each club's hands.

Should a club become insolvent and drop out, then their fixtures are deleted, the number of clubs relegated is lessened with three still being promoted.

Can it be any worse than the present mess where at least the bottom third of the league don't know where they stand, and strangely, how it affects their future financial arrangements other than possibly receiving part of the TV payments (laughably prize money or parachute payment) of any dissolved club.

However, maintain the right to judge the suitability of any new owners.

Danny O’Neill
300 Posted 27/02/2024 at 06:47:16
They've reportedly cited that there were legal errors.

I'd push this, Everton.

A self-regulating organisation that doesn't know what it is doing.

Christy Ring
301 Posted 27/02/2024 at 08:04:05
Ernie/Alex 266,267,

I know that Moshiri put in his own money for the new stadium, but didn't he also secure loans towards the cost of the new stadium, wasn't that part of Everton's appeal, the interest on the loans?

Tony Abrahams
302 Posted 27/02/2024 at 08:07:36
When I heard that another very interested group were absolutely flabbergasted when Everton turned them down for 777 Partners, I was told that this other group had said they had shown they had the finances and they had it calculated at around £1.1 Billion to purchase Everton, which included paying everything off, so that this would allow the club to be put back to a sound financial putting.

I think it's getting closer now, so hopefully there is a big massive trampoline waiting at the bottom of the well, that we have definitely now reached, and it won't be long before us exasperated Evertonians can bounce back up and smile again, because god knows, we need it.

Why Usmanov chose 777 Partners is anyone's guess, but maybe Bill Kenwright always did have a lot more power than anyone believed. Hopefully soon we will see.

Donal Armani
303 Posted 27/02/2024 at 08:15:00
Danny 300,

Amen to that.

We have Super Silk to thank for successfully prosecuting the Commission's two legal breaches. Doubtless he is already chomping at the “double jeopardy” bit for the next one.

Mark Murphy
304 Posted 27/02/2024 at 08:22:39
We have been “fined” 6 points for a 3-year rolling period.
The second charge includes 2 of those years and we have already paid the penalty for those 2 years.

The “double jeopardy” applies to those 2 years so we should at most be facing a possible deduction of 2 points – we can't be “fined” twice for the same period.

That's if logic prevails.

Personally, I don't think we'll be docked any but also personally I think we should have been given the whole 10 points back due to the original “trial” being so flaky in the first place.

Alan Corken
305 Posted 27/02/2024 at 08:41:47
The Telegraph are reporting that following the Everton appeal, Premier League clubs are pushing for a change to PSR rules because they now know that breaching these will lead to a certain points deduction.

Some, including Chelsea, are in a state of panic, one set of shareholders described the current rules as 'a farce'. All of this is to be discussed at a shareholders meeting on Thursday, with a decision on future rules to be concluded at the next meeting in mid March.

There must surely be implications for the 6-point deduction at Everton if such changes go ahead. How is it fair for one team be punished under the current system and then that system gets overhauled specifically to prevent other potential 'miscreants' getting similar punishment?

A farce indeed!

Chris Gould
306 Posted 27/02/2024 at 08:50:26
Yes, Mark, and the fact that they have charged us twice in the same season for two separate 3-year cycles is outrageous. Man City et al continue to win trophies without punishment while we get both barrels.

The reason we are getting charged twice in one season is due to the Premier League doing nothing until the threat of Government oversight. They have then fast tracked our cases.

It's massively unfair, and punishing us twice in the same season for charges relating to different 3-year cycles is ludicrous. Something I am sure we will argue.

The whole saga has made a mockery of the Premier League. There is zero sporting integrity, and nobody will know for certain who is relegated at the end of the season, as appeals of any points punishments relating to us and Forest will be heard the week after.

Dave Abrahams
307 Posted 27/02/2024 at 09:11:49
Tony (302),

Your last paragraph is very interesting because I remember you telling me this story well before the ex-owner and ex-chairman had passed on, and you told me interference by that person had put doubts in the minds of whoever was dealing with that other potential buyer and the deal was then given to 777 Partners.

Hopefully 777 Partners will be refused the right to take over Everton because, if they do take over, you can forget about 10-point penalties or the worry of staying up — it will be all about the survival of Everton FC as a football club.

Ernie Baywood
308 Posted 27/02/2024 at 09:16:14
Christy 301, the club did loan money and argued that all our funding goes through one bank account so the loans could have been for the stadium.

The problem was that the application specifically stated that they weren't for the stadium. We also hadn't capitalised the interest against the stadium. And Moshiri stated that even if we could have capitalised it against the stadium, that we wouldn't have done.

Basically it can be filed under "didn't happen" along with the make believe arrangement for Usmanov to start paying for naming rights to the stadium before it even existed.

Michael Lynch
309 Posted 27/02/2024 at 09:36:09
According to The Times today:
"Everton will put forward a case for double jeopardy, insisting that 75 per cent of their transgression has now been dealt with, and so any further sanction should be significantly less than six points.

"Independent sources with knowledge of the process say the double jeopardy factor is likely to be treated as a major mitigation factor and could mean Everton receive a deduction of one to three points"

So it looks like we'll end up being docked 7 to 9 points this season.

Paul Hewitt
310 Posted 27/02/2024 at 09:44:59
We will get no more than 2 points deducted for the second charge. Forest will get a minimum of 6. I'd say Forest have more to worry about than us.
James Marshall
311 Posted 27/02/2024 at 09:47:53
My guess is the double jeopardy aspect will come into play, and we'll only be docked points for one of the 3 seasons.

I also reckon it'll be a further 2 point deduction, equalling 2 points for each season we were over. Given the double jeopardy aspect, we'll only get done for 1 year in the next charge, so 2 more points is my shout - 8 in total

Dave Abrahams
312 Posted 27/02/2024 at 09:55:00
Michael (309),

A further reduction of points, the 10 points to begin with was 10 points too much and now “The Times” are predicting a further reduction.

Not shooting the messenger, Michael, but if this reduction is given, then Everton should retain our KC and ask him to take our case to a High Court and sort it out there.

Fuck this lark of civil courts with Premier League officials starting the action, running the prosecution and handing out their sentences while at the same time protecting their richer clients from any sort of trial, which they will completely achieve when they change ‘their’ rules in August.

Anthony Dove
313 Posted 27/02/2024 at 10:12:31
By the time the case and any appeal is heard, it is likely that the panel will have a fair idea of how many points deducted would lead to the club's relegation. Not sure whether that would work in our favour or not, but it is a ridiculous situation.

Of course if the present rules as to timing of accounts and hearings had been in place last season, a 2-point deduction would have seen us in the Championship.

Oliver Molloy
314 Posted 27/02/2024 at 10:13:21
The more I read about these 777 guys, the more concerned I become as to what could happen if the Premier League give the okay.

Just wondering has there been any visible anti-777 banners etc around Goodison? What's the general mood and views amongst Evertonians in Liverpool regards this?

Brian Harrison
315 Posted 27/02/2024 at 10:16:46
I read the other day that David Dein, the ex Arsenal CEO, was suggesting that the Premier League should accept 777 Partners bid to take over Everton.

Which made me wonder why he would be remotely interested in what happened to Everton… but let's not forget it was David Dein who sold his Arsenal shares to Usmanov. Makes me wonder if Usmanov is somehow funding 777 Partners via A-CAP.

Also, on a much brighter note, I saw an Everton fan had emailed our KC, Laurence Rabinowitz, thanking him for his work on our appeal. He replied to the email saying he hopes there are better times ahead for the club and he was proud to represent the club and its passionate supporters.

I just hope the club have retained Mr Rabinowitz for our next appearance before the commission.

Mark Taylor
316 Posted 27/02/2024 at 10:17:30
Does anyone get the same feeling that we are a sort of guinea pig for P&S rules to be tested on, as they make up the rules as they go along?

It should be a resigning matter for Masters that the regulations and guidance for Premier League compliance are so threadbare, it has left the legal eagles casting around to other sporting franchises for some clarification.

To coin a phrase, 'What would the EFL do?'

Paul Hewitt
317 Posted 27/02/2024 at 10:37:00
The way I see this is that, if we've already been charged for 2 of the seasons already, and the new season comes onto the 3 year cycle.

But surely we made a profit in that new 3rd season. We've sold loads of players for decent money. So no charge will be forthcoming. Or am I seeing it wrong?

Ray Robinson
318 Posted 27/02/2024 at 10:43:07
As Anthony says above, by the time the second verdict is about to be announced for Everton and Forest, the Premier League will have a much better idea as to what points deduction will affect the relegation issue.

In other words, they may be able to manufacture the outcome they desire. Best get enough points meanwhile to extract ourselves from the equation.

Brendan McLaughlin
319 Posted 27/02/2024 at 10:43:19
But Paul #317,

The Premier League have already stated we are in breach again and the club appear to have accepted this.

Paul Hewitt
320 Posted 27/02/2024 at 10:48:08
But if we're only in breach for the other 2 seasons and not the new 3 rd year. Surely they can't do us for that.

And it should be over 3 separate years, not rolling.

Michael Lynch
321 Posted 27/02/2024 at 10:54:34
According to The Esk on Twitter 20 minutes ago, who if I remember correctly was previously suggesting we weren't in breach for a second time:

"I think there's every chance that we have breached the rules for the 2nd time based on the treatment of debt interest – the club's position prior to the hearings was different to what was accepted at the commission & not challenged in the appeal"

Some are suggesting the breach is even bigger this time. Moshiri has well and truly fucked this club with his incompetence. I just hope the new stadium is worth it, even if it means we will be either battling relegation or playing in the Championship over the next few years.

Danny O’Neill
322 Posted 27/02/2024 at 10:57:18
Keep fighting these self-regulators, Everton. Self-serving Animal Farm type individuals.

And get the points. If they are going to take more off us, possibly 6, maybe 9, then we need a few wins to make it irrelevant.

Hold your nerve and focus on the pitch.

As Paul refers to, moving forward, we are in the clear, so get this out of the way and they can't come at us again.

Maybe they can look at the £1BN spending Chelsea or go after the 115 offences by Manchester City?

They've embarrassed themselves.

Saturday and then we take on Lucifer's Children.

Pete Neilson
323 Posted 27/02/2024 at 10:57:42
I don't think that we have accepted that we are in breach again, just that we have to defend the absurd double jeopardy charges.

From our official website, “the Club remains fully committed to cooperating with the Premier League in respect of the ongoing proceedings brought for the accounting period ending in June 2023.”

And from January “The Club must now defend another Premier League complaint which includes the very same financial periods for which it has already been sanctioned, before that appeal has even been heard. The Club takes the view that this results from a clear deficiency in the Premier League's rules.”

No acceptance of the supposed breach.

Michael Lynch
324 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:02:34
I'm not sure that the issue is whether or not we've accepted the breach, it's that the precedent has now been fully set after the appeal.

The basis for over-spending includes our debt interest because of the way we've accounted for it. That means, as The Esk suggests, we are almost certain to be found guilty of a breach again.

Christine Foster
325 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:04:03
Brendan @319,

It would appear that's correct, and this time I imagine there will be few, if any, mitigating circumstances to consider, unless there are a couple of rabbits we don't know about. In which case, an appeal would be unlikely unless any second set of deductions is way beyond expectation.

For instance, a 2-point deduction probably won't get appealed, a 6-point one probably would.

Remember, even if we are safe, loss of points means lower league placings, which means lower prize money, which equals bigger losses the following season.

It's a sick joke and no one is laughing.

One hopes any new PSR system is impact-based. Deducting a max of 8 points (if 9 is the ceiling given for administration) from Forest is massive in terms of liquidity and relegation. Conversely 8 points off Man City is nothing.

So, if the 3-year cycle is maintained and losses calculated over the 3 years are determined to give a sporting advantage, then the total number of points a team has won over that period is the sum total of the sporting advantage.

For it to be equitable in relation to the advantage gained, a percentage of the total number of points obtained are deducted... a lower team could reasonably expect 120 points over that period, while City may have in excess of 320 points.

A 10% points sanction on any club breaking the rules sees a bottom tier club deducted 10 or 12 points whilst a top club could be 30 points plus.

A bit more balanced.

Brian Harrison
326 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:04:18
Christian Norgaard, the captain of Brentford, being interviewed after last night's game, said the Premier League decisions are impacting on people's lives and a decision should not be left till the end of the season.

I suppose it's understandable that players and managers didn't make any comment about our 10-point deduction but now the appeal commission have restored 4 of those points which now affect a few other teams, they now want clarification before the season ends.

But because the Premier League is dog eat dog, the only time anyone wants to speak out about the system is when it affects them. But let's not forget 14 clubs voted for this £105M rule without voting on what consequences should be put in place for breaking the rules. Had they done that, it would have been open and transparent.

I still believe setting a figure of £105M massively favours the big clubs. Chelsea have spent over a billion in the last 2 windows, maybe a yearly overspend limit would prevent this happening.

Tony McDonald
327 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:05:41
Pete, 323 and Michael 324. Everton and Forest have both confirmed to the Premier League that they are in breach.

It’s just a question of the punishment again.

“Everton FC and Nottingham Forest have each confirmed to the Premier League that they are in breach of the league's PSR," the league said in a statement. "This is as a result of sustaining losses above the permitted thresholds for the assessment period ending 2022-23.”

Michael Lynch
328 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:09:56
Thanks for confirming that, Tony. Another "exciting" end to the season coming up then.
Peter Gorman
329 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:10:45
Tony - Everton have not confirmed to the Premier League that they are in breach a second time, they merely acknowledged that they have been charged.

The club's statement in full;

"Everton Football Club acknowledges the Premier League's decision to refer a breach of Profit and Sustainability rules (PSR) for the assessment period ending with the 2022/23 season to an independent Premier League commission.

“This relates to a period which covers seasons 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23. It therefore includes financial periods (2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22) for which the club has already received a 10-point sanction. The club is currently appealing that sanction."

“The Premier League does not have guidelines which prevent a club being sanctioned for alleged breaches in financial periods which have already been subject to punishment, unlike other governing bodies, including the EFL. As a result - and because of the Premier League's new commitment to deal with such matters “in-season” - the club is in a position where it has had no option but to submit a PSR calculation which remains subject to change, pending the outcome of the appeal."

“The club must now defend another Premier League complaint which includes the very same financial periods for which it has already been sanctioned, before that appeal has even been heard. The club takes the view that this results from a clear deficiency in the Premier League's rules."

The league might take that as a statement of confirmation but it is clearly not the intention or sentiment expressed by the club.

Christine Foster
330 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:16:45
I can see this being terminal for the Premier League if this isn't sorted. Remember, the Premier League is a company owned by shares the clubs have, Master and Co are it's employees.

Theoretically, they can re-write the rules any time they wish. I doubt any of them foresaw what an almighty stuff up it's caused.

Paul Hewitt
331 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:21:55
If the Premier League are changing the way PRS is worked out next season, why not just fine ourselves and Forest and stop all this nonsense?
Brian Harrison
332 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:23:26
Our published accounts show the Premier League that over a 3 year period we have transgressed the £105M overspend we are allowed.

Then we can put forward whatever mitigating circumstances that could have led to the overspend, so it's not a case of admitting or not — the published accounts are what deems our breach.

As I have said on many occasions, you would have hoped that, however hopelessly Moshiri ran the football side of things, he would have been across any possible breach of financial rules.

Pat Kelly
333 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:23:53
I've had time to sleep on it. The injustice remains while others continue untouched. We have acted with dignity throughout the process. We acted in good faith, despite the calumny heaped upon us by the Premier League.

We can rise above this. Be the better person. Continue to demonstrate our inherent sportsmanship to all. And hope to fuck Forest get done asap and are consigned, inescapably, to the pit of despair that is the Bottom 3.

Christine Foster
334 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:25:01
I think the club should issue a counter press release disputing the Premier League statement and stating no such thing has been confirmed.

In making this disputed statement, the Premier League is clearly defaming the club, causing economic and reputational loss. If it persists in doing so, they should seek legal redress and sue accordingly.

Brian Williams
335 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:26:19
Financial expert fella on TalkSport right now. I know it's TalkShite but this is a guy who is supposed to know!

He states we will be done again and double jeopardy doesn't come into it so much as we can't be done again.

He said that because 2/3 of the period has been dealt with that we'll get between 1 and 3 points further sanction.

He also states that 5 clubs could seek compensation from the Premier League but Premier League clubs cannot sue each other. So, should any of the clubs seek and win compensation, the Premier League pays — not Everton.

He also said Forest may only get hit with 3 points, something to do with because for 2 of the 3 year period they were in the Championship.

Now I'm only posting what he said. It's not my opinion and I neither agree nor disagree with what I've posted, so don't shoot the messenger please.

Ernie Baywood
336 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:29:51
That was fair comment before. They were facing a charge for which the facts were being disputed.

But it's now clear. The PSR we've submitted isn't changing.

Kunal Desai
337 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:37:04
Some presenter on Talkshite last night summed it in a nutshell, either the Premier League are stupid or they want Everton relegated.

The Premier League know what they are doing, it's the latter — they want the club relegated.

Danny O’Neill
338 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:48:36
Just win our games and keep picking up points.

It then becomes irrelevant whatever they try to do to us with their Stalinanist like behaviour.

Come to Goodison, Mr Masters. I bet you wouldn't dare.

Dave Lynch
339 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:49:18
As mentioned, the club should go public with this, put out a daming press release on why us, and shout from the rooftops about Man City, Chelsea, Forest and any other club they care to mention.

Drag it into the public domain and let's see the reaction of other clubs. Call these bastards out publicly, release witness statements and minutes. Fight fire with fire.

Michael Lynch
340 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:51:39
So it seems "experts" expect us to get a 2-point deduction, +/- 1 point, and Forest will get something similar. Straight three-way battle between us, Forest and Luton for the final relegation place then. Which is a shame for Dyche, as he's done enough to get us well clear of the dogfight.

Any more charges in the offing next season? I've not heard rumours of any other clubs breaching – with the obvious exceptions of Chelsea and Man City. If not, then the Premier League have done their job to stop clubs going into too much debt, whilst at the same time ensuring no club will ever challenge the hegemony of the Big 6.

Not that it was ever in danger - over the last 20 years, 6 clubs have taken 77 of the 80 available Top 4 finishes. And since we last won the FA Cup, 5 of the same 6 teams have won 25 of the 28 finals.

Dave Lynch
341 Posted 27/02/2024 at 11:56:42
I'm sick of us being poor little Everton, doffing their cap like Ted from the Fast Show.

Fucking grow a set Everton and kick and scream like a spoilt brat.

That's what the Gobshites do and they get everything they want.

Tony Abrahams
342 Posted 27/02/2024 at 12:03:10
Brian @326,

You have slagged off Dyche, which is definitely your right as a very long serving Evertonian, and you have also suggested that the players are better than our current position and the type of football we are currently playing, which is also your right, and also not very easy to disagree with either, mate.

I have defended Dyche, because I don't think we have been playing this way all season and I have defended Dyche because I don't believe any other team has had to play with anywhere near the pressure that his team has had to play under since the end of November.

Not only that, but I honestly thought that just before we were punished was the first time the Everton players had began to play without “real pressure” since the crowd was allowed back into stadiums after Covid.

The pressure has been enormous and Dyche and his players deserve an enormous amount of respect for not buckling, although you could definitely see it getting to them recently.

Let's see how a few other clubs cope now the Premier League have made the relegation battle a lot more interesting than it was going to be before they decided to dock Everton with a massively disproportionate points deduction.

Brent Stephens
343 Posted 27/02/2024 at 12:07:01
In relation to the maximum points sanction that the EPL might impose on the likes of Man City, until the EPL changes and / or clarifies its sanctions framework, then the following seems to be applicable...

There is a source (Football Law; 21 August 2020 I think) that produces an extract from the Birmingham 2018 case, specifically the EFL's Independent Disciplinary Commission summary of the EFL's sanctioning guidelines (the guidelines themselves nobody seems able to locate). The IDC summary states:

"Under the guidelines the points deduction to be imposed is 12 points, which is to be reduced by reference to the amount of overspending...The guidelines then provide for an additional points deduction up to 9 points for 'any aggravating factors', which are not defined...".

Our own appeal panel cites this possible additional 9 points sanction, leading to the 21 total.

So a possible maximum total of 21 points. That would not be a minor issue for Man City.

What I can't find is any reference anywhere to double jeopardy (anything above I've missed?)

Phil Lewis
344 Posted 27/02/2024 at 12:56:50
At the time of Catterick's tenure our youth policy was such that players coming through the ranks together blossomed naturally as first team talent. This strategy necessitated making big money signings only when truly great players became available.

In Kendal's day he blended youth with cast offs and has beens to create a team fit for world domination.

Neither of these great managers would have entertained any of the vastly overrated bums that our club has signed for ridiculously high fees over the last 10 years on ludicrously inflated wages. Furthermore, neither of our great former managers would have fell for nor pandered to Kenwright & Co's lies. The books were well and truly cooked. That's the legacy of our once great club. That is the cumulative reason for our current predicament.

I sincerely hope that a reputable buyer surfaces soon, other than the odious 777 partnership and we may look forward to entering our new stadium in 2025 with hope of a return to former glory.

Brian Harrison
345 Posted 27/02/2024 at 13:00:14
Tony @342,

I would say criticised Dyche rather than slagged him off. I don't quite know why you mentioned this on this thread, I am not sure, and you say that some of my points are hard to disagree with.

I do agree that the points deduction has had an effect on both fans and players, and I think the impact on the fans is as important as the effect on players.

Although we lost to Man Utd, the game after the deduction of points was announced, we then went on to win 4 games on the bounce. This led most pundits to suggest it fired the players and the fans up, and most pundits at the time suggested despite the deduction, that Everton would be fine.

I really respect your views being an ex pro and you would understand the dressing room culture of players far more than I can. I have said that the players looked fitter under Dyche than they did under Lampard and their heads don't go down when they go behind like they did with Lampard.

I also think the points deduction gave a huge lift to Luton and to the other clubs who were in the danger zone before our points deduction.

I do stand by my criticsm of Dyche that we should be playing a better brand of football than we are currently seeing. His reluctance to give young Dobbin more minutes I can't understand, and when he suggested that he started Young the other week to freshen things up, really?

Since he arrived, he has shown a reluctance to give any hope to any of our younger players, in fact he sold our 2 young strikers in Cannon and Simms.

I don't know whether either was good enough but he didn't give them much time to prove it one way or the other.

Let's also remember that, although Branthwaite had an excellent season for PSV, it was weeks before Dyche played him despite our back 4 being all over the show early season.

I hate mentioning them but the other lot started the final on Sunday missing its 3 main attackers and then through injury ended up with a few kids on the pitch. But they didn't try and shut up shop and try and get to penalties, they still went for a win. Yet even with a team of established internationals we tend to surrender possession and don't show half the belief or desire those kids showed on Sunday.

As I say, I always read and respect your views as they come from someone who has played the game at the highest level, and I don't mean this to be a criticsm of your views about Dyche. I just wish he would send his team out with more belief and desire. But like you, as long as we stay in the Premier League., that's all that matters.

Kevin Edward
346 Posted 27/02/2024 at 13:11:40
Having read various articles across the web on this topic since yesterday I particularly like the way our redemption is meeting with some approval. But completely missing the fact that we still have 6 points deducted by a kangaroo court based on fantasy rules and regs.

We're still getting a severe bashing by the ‘holier than thou' brigade, while others forge ahead with no shame.

Premier League too big to fail? History says not, I really wish it could be Everton to take them down (but we'd get squashed in the process, unfortunately).

Ged Simpson
347 Posted 27/02/2024 at 13:11:44
"But like you as long as we stay in the Premier league that's all that matters"

Ever wonder? My mate a Crewe fan. Enjoying it all much more… Ever get to the Premier League? Maybe not. Happier fans? Umm.

Used to never miss a game online but now? Just me? Maybe alone on TW.The eest left! You know the figures, MK?

Brendan McLaughlin
348 Posted 27/02/2024 at 13:17:41
Peter #329

The Premier League issued a statement advising that Everton had "admitted" breaching PSR.

In response Everton did not challenge that claim but focused instead on the intrinsic "double jeopardy" weakness in the Premier League's approach to PSR.

So fair enough, Everton didn't hold their hands up and admit guilt but given there's a lengthy process to play out, that's not at all surprising. However it's significant to my mind that the club aren't strenuously protesting their innocence this time around.

Alan Corken
349 Posted 27/02/2024 at 13:40:22
Brent @343: This article in the Athletic, refers to the EFL Double Jeopardy rule. It was written before the appeal outcome, but that particular section is still relevant.


Paul Hewitt
350 Posted 27/02/2024 at 13:43:14
We should have done what City did from the start. Tell the Premier League to sod off, and see you in court.
Brent Stephens
351 Posted 27/02/2024 at 13:46:43
Alan #349. Thanks for that. The article is behind a paywall. Do you have a copy of the article? Does it actually say where in the rules double jeopardy is referred to?


Rob Dolby
352 Posted 27/02/2024 at 13:49:49
Paul @350,

You're right, in hindsight, we should never have complied, tied the whole thing up in red tape, and delayed until the Premier League look stupid.

I hope Man City get away with it. They have broken through the old guard at home and abroad and the establishment don't like it.

Newcastle will be next up to try and break through though you can bet the Premier League have already tied them down to keep them in their place.

Ged @347,

Is your post in the style of Norman Collier?

Sean Mitchell
353 Posted 27/02/2024 at 13:52:08
In a time when mental health is well documented and how important it is, these shit bags have taken zero time to think about the impact this is having on fans, club staff, etc.

Happy to promote mental health and all of this LGBTQ crap, but forget when it comes to long suffering Evertonians.

Maybe they look at the past 30 years and think that we're just used to it now and having bad mental health is the norm.

Thanks, teary Bill and your plastic billionaire for causing all of this to begin with. The feeling says this is far from over and worse is to come.

It's a living nightmare and those pricks picking up another trophy being the icing.

Tony Abrahams
354 Posted 27/02/2024 at 13:53:28
I mentioned it on this thread Brian, because I thought what you brought up about the Brentford player, was very significant in the whole process, with it being only Everton, that have suffered from having enormous pressure until yesterday’s verdict was announced.

I think this has played a massive part in our performances lately, but also think that the way the players vented their anger, by taking twelve points on the bounce, has also affected our squad physically with it being in the month of December.

If it was me, I think i’’d definitely use Dobbin more, and I’d have also used Brainthwaith, earlier, (which is why I agreed with you) but it made me smile when you mentioned Liverpool, Brian, because I thought their kids did, what kids will always do, which is run and run against a rapidly tiring opponent, and they got rewarded for staying in the game and scoring from a set-piece, Everton style!

Also Brian, I also don’t know if either Simms or Cannon, are good enough, but I doubt that Dyche, would have preferred to swap Tom Cannon, for this chiermetti kid, but it seems like Cannon, was only sold to help the club’s very precarious financial position?


Michael Lynch
355 Posted 27/02/2024 at 13:53:59
Ged @347 most won't agree with you, but I'm not so sure. The game at the top level is just so predictable now – all but 6 teams start the season either hoping to nick a Europa Conference spot or avoid relegation. It's no fun.

And in addition to the stats I quoted above – over the last 20 years, 6 clubs have taken 77 of the 80 available Top 4 finishes, and since we last won the FA Cup, 5 of the same 6 teams have won 25 of the 28 finals. I can add that 5 of those 6 teams have won 18 of the last 20 League Cups.

The odds tell me that it's unlikely I'll see Everton win anything for the rest of my life unless we go down at some point and win promotion. Might be a bit more exciting if nothing else. And no VAR.

Tony Abrahams
356 Posted 27/02/2024 at 14:04:01
I can imagine there were absolutely thousands of Man City fans having the same thoughts at the turn of this century, Michael.

Your stats do show us how lob-sided the game has become though, and I think this is why there has got to be some real changes in the next few years, and probably with the invention of the European Super League.

I think what Christine has been proposing only makes sense to the teams outside the top four, and it's these clubs that have most of the power.

Steve Brown
357 Posted 27/02/2024 at 14:48:33
Here you go Brent. It was written in January.

“There is a general principle in law that, if a party who is bringing a charge is aware of facts that should lead to another charge, then those charges should all be brought at the same time. That's just natural justice because, otherwise, you can drip-feed charges and keep a club constantly in front of disciplinary commissions for years.

“Double jeopardy isn't quite the right term because that's a criminal allegation. It's more just a question of natural justice; that if the Premier League had been aware of facts for some time — and they presumably have been — then all charges ought to be brought at the same time so that they can be considered holistically and appropriate sanctions given.

“You can't hold back facts that you are reasonably aware of and then subject a party to multiple charges. You shouldn't have to fight allegations which could and should have been brought all at the same time.

Everton have been quick to point out that, unlike the English Football League (EFL), the Premier League “has no mechanism to prevent a club being sanctioned again for breaches in financial periods which have already been subject to punishment”.

“The EFL rules prohibit a club's given season from being considered for multiple PSR breaches,” Cuthbert explains.

“As to whether that approach should be introduced in the Premier League, while double jeopardy is undesirable, there is certainly an argument that clubs should be sanctioned for overspending and then sanctioned for subsequent seasons in which they've continued to enjoy the benefits of the overspend.”

With so much overlap between the two PSR cycles, the KC comes back to the point about ‘natural justice'.

“Essentially, if you're going to charge over a period, you need to bring everything that you want to charge in relation to it,” he says. “Otherwise you end up in a Kafka-esque situation where you are just constantly being pulled back in over the same period over matters that could and should have been brought at the same time.

“Clubs are obliged to submit accounts each season, so all these matters would have been brought before the Premier League — or, for that matter, the EFL — at the end of particular seasons and I know they would then lead to investigations. I can simply see the logic as being fair to clubs and saying, ‘Once you've had a charge on a particular season, that is it, unless there's been concealment or fraud'.

“Now, the rules are the rules, but all rules are subject to general fairness principles. For example, in the event that you're in breach of a charge and have to pay £1million even though the loss arising from that breach is a penny, the law will step in and say that contract term is unfair and void it.

So, it sounds like what is happening is that Everton are saying: ‘We are in technical breach but, as a matter of natural justice, we can't be sued for defaults in the same season because you could and should have brought it earlier'.

“By having a second bite of the cherry, you essentially could end up in a situation where any sanction that Everton get is disproportionate.”

The importance of the 2021-22 appeal for this and future cases

Everton's clear focus remains on the appeal, where they intend to argue their 10-point deduction was “unjust” and “disproportionate”.

They believe not enough credence was given by the commission to the mitigating factors they put forward, including the impact of the war in Ukraine on sponsorship revenues and the significant cost of building their new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock.

Having already admitted their 2021-22 breach, the aim will be to reduce or completely overturn the deduction. In October's hearing, they argued that a financial penalty or a transfer embargo would have been a more appropriate penalty given what is largely, in their eyes, a commercial dispute.

The new interpretation of interest-bearing loans — how they are accounted for and whether they should be taken out of the PSR calculations — in the appeal could also be decisive.

“If Everton won the appeal,” Cuthbert adds, “the mitigating factors they put forward for their losses — things like interest on loans for the new stadium and a series of commercial deals required due to links with sanctioned company USM — would likely reduce the breach up to 2023 with clear implications for any breaches committed in the 2022-23 season.”

Everton have appointed renowned super silk Laurence Rabinowitz to lead their appeal.

It is arguably Rabinowitz, rather than any potential January signing, that now holds the key to Everton's survival.‘

Andy Crooks
359 Posted 27/02/2024 at 15:07:11
There's some good posts on this thread. Some positive, some negative.It's the one from Ged Simpson that resonates with me and intrigues me most.

It goes right to the core of whst being a supporter is. Ged, if you had the time, I would like to read that expanded into an article.

Brent Stephens
360 Posted 27/02/2024 at 15:22:13
Steve #357 — thanks for the info.
Paul Kossoff
362 Posted 27/02/2024 at 15:31:06
On Monday, Everton's penalty for breaching the Premier League's financial rules was reduced from 10 points to 6 after the club appealed against the immediate deduction they received in November last year.

But we are also waiting to find out if they will be punished for a further alleged breach in their accounts for 2022-23, for which they were charged in January along with Forest.

The Premier League said at the time that both clubs "have each confirmed that they are in breach of the league's profitability and sustainability rules".

A date for Everton's hearing is not yet known but it must be heard by 8 April. However, any appeal could take that process to 24 May, the week after the season has concluded. We still don't know and probably won't until the season has ended; that's not right for us and the other clubs, utter shambles.

Andy Duff
363 Posted 27/02/2024 at 15:58:31
What I don't get is why they need to wait until 8 April for this second charge. Why is Forest a whole month earlier?

This means Forest could have theirs and their appeal heard before the end of the season. Everton however will not have any appeal heard before the end of the season. If I was putting my tin hat on, I'd say this is almost deliberate so Everton's fate can be determined by committee and not on the pitch.

There's absolutely no reason at all to drag this out.

Pete Jeffries
364 Posted 27/02/2024 at 16:08:27
Whatever the present or future points deduction brings upon us, our survival in the Premier League now depends solely upon results.

Let's face it, our current run of form doesn't bode well. So it's no good presuming we will stay where we are now. Rightly or wrongly, it's now entirely up to the team and team management to get us on another winning streak – starting with West Ham – to avoid the drop.

Can we handle it like last season? I hope so for everybody's sake, but most of all, for us the lifelong fans who will be here after the rest have departed.

Gerry O’Riordan
365 Posted 27/02/2024 at 16:15:10
The key information we are missing in order to see whether we have breached the rules a second time is the 2022-23 accounts.

Using the 2021-22 accounts, I've tried to estimate losses for this year. I estimate that turnover is £20M higher due to broadcasting income. I think profit on player sales is £14M less. Other costs roughly the same. Interest costs £2M more. That would mean a net loss of roughly £40M compared to 2021-22 when losses were £44M.

However, remember that the losses for 2021-22 were reported as £13.5M after allowing for academy, women's league and community costs, roughly £30M.

Thus surely the figures for 3 years to 2023 should be £53M + £13.5M + £10M which totals £76.5M and is below the threshold of £105M!

Now I realise I don't have access to the accounts and I've had to make certain assumptions but I would welcome your feedback.

Michael Lynch
366 Posted 27/02/2024 at 16:22:11
I can't stress enough how much I hate the Premier League and Sky. The Chelsea away game has just been changed to a Monday night at 8pm.

Why didn't the European Super League go ahead? It could have saved football from these greedy, don't give a shit, fuckers.

Christy Ring
367 Posted 27/02/2024 at 16:25:58
I was watching Alex Crook, chief football writer on TalkSport, and he said that Everton thought the interest payments on loans for the new stadium was negative equity on the balance sheet and would be left out of the profitability and sustainability rules, but it wasn't.

Why can't the club challenge this in court?

Gerry Quinn
368 Posted 27/02/2024 at 16:48:13
Michael @366,

It would be interesting to see which teams tend to get the bum end of the deal for these Monday Night matches – they should limit them to teams no more than a certain shortish distance apart...

Peter Gorman
369 Posted 27/02/2024 at 16:51:40
Brendan @348,

I thought the club's position at the time was pretty clear.

They couldn't be "strenuously protesting their innocence" the second time around whilst the first punishment was subject to appeal, they had to let that case be settled, likely on legal advice.

The actual sequence of events has gone something like this;

PL: "Are you in breach of the rules again?"
Everton: "Well, only according to your fucked-up rules that make no sense."
PL: "Aha! You admit it! Did everybody hear that? They admit it!"

It is a completely disingenuous statement from the Premier League to claim that Everton have admitted to a second breach.

Brent Stephens
370 Posted 27/02/2024 at 17:04:22
Christy #367 - they did challenge that.
Andy Crooks
371 Posted 27/02/2024 at 18:16:21
Michael @366, I absolutely agree. Let them fuck off. I would watch Everton v Bolton in a Football League game.

I wouldn't watch any of the top six play anywhere if it was on free tv. I wouldn't watch Man City v Barcelona, Saudi United, Qatar Athletic, Liverpool, Emirates Albion or Dubai Diamonds if you gave me a million quid to do it.

Some things count; Everton and the good folk I know through our club do. The rest is just flotsam.

Geoff Williams
372 Posted 27/02/2024 at 18:51:08
Unless Dyche can conjure up a couple of victories, we are still in trouble as a further points deduction is in the offing.
Sean Kelly
373 Posted 27/02/2024 at 19:16:50
Excuse me for being thick but can we not just tell these cretins to fuck off, we will see you in court with Man City?

We have 1 charge dealt with and another pending while Man City have 115+. City kicked their cans down the road and out of sight while we put our hands up and pleaded guilty. Men versus boys.

Tell them cretins to deal with Man City's issues and then we will take the full deduction along with them. Man City won't be relegated and we shouldn't be either.

Looks like our alleged big wig just smoked the cigars with the City briefs. He did fuck-all for us. We may as well have employed Lionel Putts from the Simpsons.

David West
374 Posted 27/02/2024 at 19:25:57
A further points deduction may very well be on the way.
Even if it wasn't Everton, I'd say it would be unfair to deduct points twice in 1 season for matters over 3 years.

I get they want matters resolved in the season they come up. That's reasonable, but you can't be punished this season for accounts for this year on a rolling 3-year period.

The best thing we can do is win matches, all this will be insignificant if we can put in performances on the pitch. It's on the players and manager, they are the ones who can do it. Still a hard task, the way we are playing.

Get 10 points clear of the drop and hopefully they can't justify no deduction more than that of administration, 9 points. Forest are surely going to now be deducted too so it may be us or them!!

Alastair Donaldson
375 Posted 27/02/2024 at 19:35:32
At what point do we expect the Premier League to leak their preference for our 2nd charge?

I seem to have missed the Forest deduction.

What a total shambles the whole thing is, but as many have said the team really have to start winning.. COYB

Bobby Mallon
376 Posted 27/02/2024 at 19:53:43
What we all have to get used to is the very real sale of Branthwaite. He will be sold along with Onana to pay the provident man. That's easily £100 million .
David West
377 Posted 27/02/2024 at 20:00:24
Michael 355.

I agree, the game as an equal playing field has gone. It has been for a while, Everton had a chance to bridge the gap with the Moshiri money, but it shows how difficult it is, with PSR & FFP, it's impossible to compete with the superclubs now.

An article in The Independent a while ago shows how the massive money is stifling competitiveness. It's from 2020 so it's missing some recent records. >It's not just England and the Premier League, it's the whole of Europe's footbal:

"The last decade alone, which represents the true rise of the super-clubs alongside the huge rise in money, has seen:
a second Spanish treble
a first German treble
a first Italian treble
a first English domestic treble
three French domestic trebles in four years
a first Champions League three-in-a-row in 42 years
the first ever 100-point season in Spain, Italy and England
‘Invincible' seasons in Italy, Portugal, Scotland and seven other European leagues
13 of Europe's 54 leagues currently seeing their longest run of titles by a single club or longest period of domination."

Add Man City's treble last year to the list.

For clubs trying to break in, it's never going to happen and then the whole reason we watch, to see if Everton could put a team together to win the Premir League, is being taken away. They are taking away the dreams of millions of fans around, England and Europe.

Read the article: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/champions-league-superclubs-liverpool-man-utd-barcelona-real-madrid-a9330431.html

Andy Crooks
378 Posted 27/02/2024 at 20:05:46
Jesus, Bobby, I remember the Provident man. Funded my first Harrington jacket!!!
Brian Williams
380 Posted 27/02/2024 at 20:12:06
That football financial expert on TalkShite today, who "seemed" to know his stuff and explained things very well and very clearly (videos on Youtube) has forecast a further 1 to 3 points deducted for us and the same for Forest.
Rob Dolby
382 Posted 27/02/2024 at 21:07:12
There are 14 other clubs that make up the Premier League. Maybe the 14 need to jump off the gravy train and make a stand.

They won't because the only people who are concerned about the fans are actually the fans. Does our FAB have regular contact with other fans?

All the boards, directors etc are only interested in the TV money, the rest is lip service only.

Bobby Mallon
383 Posted 27/02/2024 at 21:41:13
So, in the last 31 years since the Premier League began, there's been 93 winners of the Premier League, FA Cup and League Cup.

80 of them have been the Sky 6 and 13 were other teams (8 of those were League Cup only, 4 teams have won the Premier League or FA Cup in that time).

That's 86% of the time, the Sky 6 win the trophy including the League Cup and 92% of the time they win the Premier League or FA Cup.

Let them go and have their Super League.

Bobby Mallon
384 Posted 27/02/2024 at 21:44:08

Ae was a regular around Huyton. Don't know if he ever made much money. 😂

Sean Kelly
390 Posted 27/02/2024 at 22:27:45

hear you but there's an energy about them, something that we have lacked for some time. We need to treat our remaining games like cup finals. We are so static from midfield up.

We just need to make sure there is daylight between us and the bottom 3 come May.

Mark Murphy
391 Posted 27/02/2024 at 22:39:05
Told ya!
Rob Jones
392 Posted 27/02/2024 at 22:47:10
Hi Sean.

I was out of line in the way I spoke to you the other day. No excuse for questioning your fandom, even if we disagree on some things.

I'm really sorry.

Bob Kerr
393 Posted 27/02/2024 at 22:51:03
Reference Gerry @ 365:

2019-20 = £58M Loss
2020-21 = £53M Loss
2021-22 = £13.5M Loss
2022-23 = £49M Loss (Guesstimate from Paul the Esk)

If taken over 4 years, as the Premier League suggest:-

Total Losses = £124.5M + £49M = £173.5M
Net of Allowance, Losses = £173.5M – 4 x £35M = £35.5M

If taken over most recent 3 years:-

Total Losses = £53M + £13.5M + £49M = £115.5M
Net of Allowances, Losses = 115.5m – 3x £35M = £10.5M

So it would appear to be £35.5M over 4 years and £10.5M over the 3 most recent years.

Hope that this helps. I am not an accountant, so all feel free to point out the deliberate mistakes. Ciao.

Peter Halsall
395 Posted 27/02/2024 at 22:59:23
It seems to have been overlooked with all eyes on the 4 points returned, but the latest report seems very clear that the overspend gave us a sporting advantage.

No doubt Leeds and company will be planning to sue in due course…?

Gerry O’Riordan
396 Posted 27/02/2024 at 23:30:35
Bob @393,

I don't think that Paul "the Esk" has taken account of the academy, women's league and community costs in his calculations.

For instance, the losses for 2021-22 were £44M, similar to 2022-23 estimate, but were allowed a reduction of £30M for these costs. So surely the same should apply this year.

Hope I've explained that so it's clear!

Sean Kelly
397 Posted 27/02/2024 at 23:54:09
Rob, there's no problem at this end lad. My old man always said our maker gave us all a different thumb print. We don't have to agree on everything but I do believe all of us on ToffeeWeb hold the best interests of Everton close to our hearts.

The last few years have been frustrating as hell for all us Evertonians and it comes out in different ways. Sometimes I can be a right pain in the arse and come across as a right old moan. Apologies for that folks.

Let's hope that Dyche and the players will find their way to deliver us from relegation despite the best efforts of Masters and Co. Keep the faith, Rob.

Bob Kerr
399 Posted 28/02/2024 at 00:37:51
Gerry @396 and 365,

Thanks for finding the deliberate mistake and a silver shilling to you. If we use this £30M "windfall" to adjust the 2022-23 figures, the guesstimate of £49M loss reduces to £19M loss.

So, if taken over 4 years losses = £124.5M + £19M = £143.5M.
Net of Allowances, Losses = £143.5M – 4 x £35M = £3.5M

If taken over the most recent 3 years:
Total Losses = £53M + £13.5M + £19M = £85.5M
Net of Allowances, Losses = £85.5M – 3 x £35M = +£9.5M Profit!

If these figures are even approximately correct, it might explain why the Premier League want to take the 4-year figures and not the most recent 3 years as there would be no case to answer.

Now all that we need is for "Paul the Esk" to endorse these figures and we can all sleep more soundly… Ciao.

Ernie Baywood
401 Posted 28/02/2024 at 00:53:53
Peter 395 - both the original commission and the appeal commission considered that overspending gave us a sporting advantage.

It just got widely misreported.

Ernie Baywood
402 Posted 28/02/2024 at 01:05:13
Bob Kerr - I think you're supposed to take the average of 2019-20 and 2020-21 and count it as one year.

So it's a 4-year period but it's treated as a 3-year period.

I don't want to sound defeatist but we're obviously over again. The club as much as acknowledged that in their statement relating to the second charge. No principles have been changed by the appeal in relation to the PSR calculation they submitted.

Bob Kerr
403 Posted 28/02/2024 at 01:36:54
Ernie @402 and Gerry @396 and 365

Thanks for your very much appreciated input.

Okay,, so the numbers change to:-

2019-20 and 2020-21 Average of £58M and £53M = £55.5M loss
2021-22 Remains at £13.5M loss
2022-23 becomes £49M – "£30M" = £19M loss (Womens', Community etc in the "£30M").

Note that we admit to a loss in 2022-23.

So the total losses over the 4 squished into 3-year period = £55.5M + £13.5M + £19M = £88M
Net of allowed losses = £88M - 3 x £35M = +£17M Profit

There would still be no case to answer.

I must be making a fundamental error and hope that others (more qualified and awake than me) can spot this. Also, would love Paul the Esk to find where I have gone wrong. Ciao.

Alec Gaston
404 Posted 28/02/2024 at 19:38:08
The annual loss figure is £35M — you can lose £105M over a rolling 3-year period which allows then some scope to go over and recover it.

So £58M plus £55M plus £13.5M gave us the £124.5M, for which we have been sanctioned.

Now, take the first year (£58M) off and add last year — we don't know this figure but has to be higher than £42M to have taken us over the £105M PSR limit.

Alec Gaston
405 Posted 28/02/2024 at 20:04:21
Sorry, those 3 figures don't quite add up but they are near enough.
Brendan McLaughlin
406 Posted 28/02/2024 at 20:15:29
Alec #405,

A career as Everton's next Finance Director surely beckons...

Alec Gaston
407 Posted 28/02/2024 at 22:03:38
Brendon 😂😂
Peter Halsall
408 Posted 28/02/2024 at 22:12:37
Ernie 401.

Yes you are totally correct.

The point I am making is that there was no point in rival clubs opening a case against while the appeal was underway. Now that the appeal has concluded, and includes this paragraph below, I am worried that Leeds and company will recognise that we broke the rules and gained a sporting advantage and litigation will inevitably follow. I hope I am wrong.

Everton also argued alternative sanctions to a points deduction should have been more heavily considered, that the impact the 10-point deduction would have on the club was not properly assessed, and that the £19.5M breach did not necessarily lead to a sporting advantage. All of those arguments were dismissed.

Brian Williams
409 Posted 28/02/2024 at 22:48:57
Premier League clubs are not allowed, under Premier League rules, to sue each other.
Neil Tyrrell
410 Posted 28/02/2024 at 23:15:28
I've probably missed this somewhere, and please excuse my thickness on matters financial and legal, but can someone please explain this for me?

Accounts for PSR are reviewed on a rolling 3-year period, right? So presumably our 10 reduced to 6 points deduction was for the period covering the previous 3 seasons, ie 20-21, 21-22, and 22-23.

What I don't understand is how we are facing a second charge from the same period. Surely if there's 2 charges, one should have been charged a season previous or next season? Again, I'm probably missing something obvious but would really appreciate a simple explanation if anybody has one.

How can we be charged twice in one season?

Peter Halsall
411 Posted 28/02/2024 at 23:44:17
Brian 409.

I really wish that was true. It isn’t unfortunately.

Lyndon Lloyd
412 Posted 28/02/2024 at 23:44:29
Neil, accounts for PSR are, indeed, reviewed on a rolling 3-year period but, due to the pandemic, seasons 2019-20 and 2020-21 were combined, with the losses averaged.

Our first charge (for which we were deducted 10 points, reduced to 6) was for the seasons 2018-19; 2019-20 + 2020-21; and 2021-22 for which we were found to have breached by £19.5M over the upper threshold of permitted losses over a 3-year period of £105M.

We're facing a second charge because, based on the figures used during the first Independent Commission (that £124.5M loss Everton were accused of making), the club had to admit to breaching that upper threshold again for seasons 2019-20 + 2020-21; 2021-22; and 2022-23.

Because the £58M loss from 2018-19 dropped off the beginning, Everton will have had to have lost more than £36m for the 2022-23 financial year to be in breach again.

So, we're facing a second charge, not from the same first period, but for new three-year period. What Everton will argue is that we have already been punished for 75% of that period (2019 to 2022).

As for the final question, we're being punished twice in the same season (which is ridiculous if anyone at Premier League HQ would stop and think about it) because they took so long to charge us for 2021-22 that the relegated clubs that year complained.

So they've accelerated the timescale for the hearings and appeals so that punishments can be meted out in the same season in which the charges are brought.

John Chambers
413 Posted 28/02/2024 at 23:55:54
Neil, the financial period we have lost 6 points for ended in 2021-22. Last season, our accounts and PSR submission for that period weren't submitted until 31 March 2023 so (fortunately) the Premier League didn't have the time to charge us before the end of last season.

They changed the rules as a result and all clubs had to submit their PSR numbers for the 2022-23 season by 31 December 2023. That is why we are getting charged for a second time this season.

Neil Tyrrell
414 Posted 29/02/2024 at 01:43:10
Thanks, Lyndon and John, for the explanations, seems like the cause of my confusion is the Premier League essentially combining 2 seasons into one average (per Lyndon's first paragraph) due to the pandemic.

And per his second last paragraph, I'm not the only one scratching my head as to how ridiculous this is. But as John implies, maybe their dithering helped save us last season.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around this off-the-field stuff and long for the days when our excuse for football was all there was to worry about. Thanks again for the explanations.


Eric Myles
415 Posted 29/02/2024 at 03:40:49
Apologies if this has been asked before as I've not read the whole thread but, since Man City have breached the 'old' rules but will not come before a Commission until the 'new' rules are in place, just how can the Commission investigate them?

Man City will surely argue the old rules were not fit for purpose, hence the need for change, and that they haven't breached the new rules.

Or will we get the ridiculous legal situation where someone is prosecuted for a crime that is no longer an offence? I can see Man City's lawyers having a field day with that one!

Lyndon Lloyd
416 Posted 29/02/2024 at 07:25:21
Eric, if anything actually happens to Man City, they'll be dealt with under the old rules because the charges pertain to 2009 to 2018 and were brought against them last year.

The same would go for Chelsea if they're ever charged for what went on under Abramovich and also I imagine if they're found to be in breach for the current financial year.

My guess is any charges brought under the new rules would only apply to offences committed after they come into effect.

Peter Mitchell
417 Posted 29/02/2024 at 09:19:42
Some interesting speculation on here about what further points deductions we might or might not get for the second charge and what that means for all concerned.

In particular, I have been struck by the "double jeopardy" debate. It is, in fact, a potential quadruple jeopardy that we face, given that both the commission and appeal board have said that we gained a sporting advantage, so opening up the possibility of other clubs taking legal action against us for compensation.

This, coupled with the points deduction already suffered, the further one we are likely to get for the second charge, and the impact of that on our league placing (including possible relegation) and therefore prize money gives rise to the quadruple punishment.

Arguably, it might actually be a quintuple punishment, as we have had to sell players and not really replace them in order to try to meet the threshold averaged over 3/4 years, which then affects our competitiveness and prize money etc.

This all seems very over the top as the reason for imposing a points deduction in the first place was that we gained a sporting advantage, so the points deduction imposed should surely rectify that (especially as it is now imposed during the season in question). To my mind, that should prevent anyone being able to sue us for where they finish this season, as the points deducted should reflect the sporting advantage gained.

However, the first points deduction relates to last season, due to the delay in it being heard (could this delay be laid at the Premier League's door, as they are in charge of process?). This probably means that clubs relegated last season do potentially have a claim against us (and maybe the Premier League). What a mess — let's hope that our KC is on top form for Round 2!

Gordon Beattie
418 Posted 29/02/2024 at 13:16:58
Bob #403,

You don't need Paul the Esk. You just need to re-read para 221 of the Appeal Board decision document and Donal #226, James #255, #268, John #259, Gerry #365 and the club statement:

In para 221, T is 21-22 which means T-3 (£58M loss) is 18-19 and not 19-20 as you have calculated. For the second charge where T is 22-23, 18-19 would be T-4 and so it drops off.

For the first charge in para 221, they took the mean of T-2 (19-20) & T-1 (20-21) to give a £53M loss. In the second charge for a 4-year period, this £53m loss becomes the mean of T-3 & T-2.

For the first charge in para 221, T had a loss of £10M but Donal #226 suggests this was subsequently upped to £13.5M which makes the first charge add up correctly to £58M + £53M +£13.5M = £124.5M.

This means the second charge must be based on £53M + £13.5M + 22-23 loss of more than £38.5M. The club's reply shows its annoyance with this charge.

You say ‘Note that we admit to a loss in 2022-23.' Nothing wrong with that but please note that the club statement doesn't admit to a breach as the Premier League charge implies (see Peter #329 & Brendan #348).

This has been a continuing theme by the Premier League throughout so that onlookers and indeed our own supporters assume the club has pleaded guilty. Peter #369 hits the nail on the head. The club should start counter-measures as Christine #334 suggests.

Finally, I have to point out something very strange: Donal #226, James #255 & #268, John #259, Gerry #365 and myself all read para 221 of the Appeal Board decision document at roughly the same time and our comments are all based on the mean of T-2 (19-20) & T-1 (20-21) being a £53M loss. However, when you read the document today, para 221 says £55M even though para 224 still says £53M.

On the surface, it looks like all 5 of us have mis-read para 221 and all our posts need revising accordingly.

Bob Kerr
419 Posted 01/03/2024 at 01:22:38
Gordon @ 418 Thanks very much for your excellent input. The pivot point of £38.5m that you mentioned is a really powerful figure that concentrates our minds.

My reason for looking for Paul the Esk's input is that he had the courage to put forward a guesstimate of £49m for losses in the final year - which of course is greater than your pivot point by £10.5m and would spell more big trouble.

However, Ernie@402 felt that this may be a gross figure and may have to be reduced by approx. as much as £30m when consideration is made for Womens' soccer, Community etc i.e. "the allowable".

If the net figure was anything like this i.e. "£49m" - "£30m" = "£19m" then we are well below your pivot figure of £38.5m i.e. happy days.

Of course, if anyone else can come up with a guesstimated NET figure for the final year i.e. gross estimated net of "the estimated allowables" then feel free to shout up. I hope that you can see why I was so keen to look for "Paul the Esk's" input. Ciao.

Ernie Baywood
420 Posted 01/03/2024 at 02:30:50
Not me, Bob, I haven't speculated on what they might have tried to exclude.

Gordon 418, the club didn't say they had breached. But they did say that "the club is in a position where it has had no option but to submit a PSR calculation which remains subject to change, pending the outcome of the appeal."

The appeal changed nothing. I think we can very safely assume that our PSR calculation has us again in breach.

Bob Kerr
421 Posted 01/03/2024 at 03:05:00
Ernie @420.

Very sorry Ernie and humblest apologies. It was, of course, Gerry@365 who speculated that "the allowables" could be as high as approx £30M – which has the ability to change everything. Ciao.

Eric Myles
422 Posted 01/03/2024 at 05:19:15
Thanks, Lyndon #416, that would be the sensible way to go about it.

But in another 5 years time when Man City actually have to appear before a Commission and are in the Super League anyway, it'll all be moot.

Andy Finigan
423 Posted 01/03/2024 at 10:15:05
I know we have an important game on Saturday but, if we go down or stay up this season, I would like every Evertonian in the world to remember the Premier League bastards for what they have done to our team and us fans, using us for their own political gains.

No matter what happens this season, they have wanted to make us a sacrificial lamb and I for one will not forgive or forget.

Ernie Baywood
424 Posted 01/03/2024 at 10:25:37
There's another thread on here speculating as to our ability to continue operating, Andy.

If it wasn't for P&S rules, we might already have been past the brink such was the recklessness of Moshiri and how poorly this club has been run.

We might not like the P&S rules, nor the delay in charging other clubs, nor the reason the Premier League are doing it, but something has to be in place. You can't have rich owners messing around for a few years and then sending clubs to the wall.

Our club has more than played its part in this shit-show.

John O'Brien
425 Posted 01/03/2024 at 11:14:03
Ernie @420,

Just regarding the club statement – "the club is in a position where it has had no option but to submit a PSR calculation which remains subject to change, pending the outcome of the appeal."

I remember reading this at the time and therefore thought that they must be challenging the amount of the PSR loss figures that the Independent Commission had originally ruled on.

But these figures were never challenged on the appeal, the appeal was based purely on the mitigation issues, not the actual loss figures.

So why put out that statement saying the PSR figures were subject to change???? When clearly, they weren't unless subsequent to the statement they made a legal strategy decision to focus purely on the mitigation.

So clearly, we are over the £38.5M. If the club felt that there were 'allowables' as it's been referred to, they would have deducted these anyway. They've already deducted what they believe is allowable and we are still somehow over the £38.5M.

It's anyone's guess as to how much?

The Esk messaged yesterday that he estimated that it could be around £43M and also said it could be close to the overall £105M figure.

Ernie, I know you are fairly hardline on these issues against the club's position, but if we were over by about ballpark £5M or so, could this be used as mitigation to show a downward trend given that we were over by £19.5M on the previous cycle?

I think best case scenario for us would be 1 or 2 points further.

Also, is it possible just to avoid uncertainty that we as a club could agree to an out-of-court settlement with Premier League to accept 1 or 2 points without the need for a hearing as at least that would give Dyche, the staff etc the absolute certainty that this is what we are dealing with.

Could Forest do the same although Carragher believes they will get 6 points deducted and we will only get 1-2. Like he's an expert but I would be delighted if that was the outcome as we would benefit by around 4 points over Forest on that outcome.

Andy Finigan
426 Posted 01/03/2024 at 11:53:24
Ernie @424, that's still millions minus 1.
Brendan McLaughlin
427 Posted 01/03/2024 at 12:38:45
John #425,

I assume the varying PSR figures reflected the uncertainty around the appeal. Ten points back we budget for a higher finish together with the associated income. No points back... almost certainly a lower finishing position and less income.

Ernie Baywood
428 Posted 02/03/2024 at 05:40:13
Brendan, the PSR calcs are actuals – so up to last year. Points deductions definitely become a factor for this year though.

I wonder if we could be claiming mitigation for double counting in future?– ie, if unbudgeted points deductions cost us, say, £5M in Premier League placings then it's probably not fair to punish us for that £5M loss again.

John, I'm inclined to agree with 'Carra' on our next deduction: 1-3 for the final year looks likely depending on the loss amount in that last year.

Forest's will depend on the size of the breach, which could be massive given their 'breach point' is so much lower than ours. And it's also worth noting that their 3rd year will be their worst. They'll certainly get no credit for that.

Eddie Dunn
429 Posted 05/03/2024 at 13:44:43
Just saw this on BBC website https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68476722
Aston Villa have posted a loss of £119m for the year up to May 2023.
The piece says nothing about whether the PL will charge them.
Brendan McLaughlin
430 Posted 05/03/2024 at 13:54:15
Of course Ernie #428

Rookie mistake on my part...

Tony Abrahams
431 Posted 05/03/2024 at 15:00:26
Forest will get no credit for their owner being prepared to dip into his own pocket to try and make a fist at staying in the Premier League.

If the league don't want this, what do they want exactly?

Michael Kenrick
432 Posted 05/03/2024 at 21:46:28
Eddie @429,

Without checking, I'd suspect you are reading about gross losses before P&S allowances have been deducted.

The PSR calculation based on net losses would have been submitted to the Premier League by 31 December 2023 and, if there was a breach, the Premier League would have charged Aston Villa back in January, when they charged Everton and Nottingham Forest.

I suspect we're going to see a lot of this as clubs publish their accounts… but not their PSR calculations.

Christine Foster
433 Posted 05/03/2024 at 22:30:52
So much for "sporting advantage" bollocks, what about the "sporting disadvantage" we have suffered through blighted ownership? Reputational destruction by the media and Premier League? The constant and continued threat of relegation, legal threats of being sued by clubs who deserved to be relegated. On-field decisions of officials...

Christ sake Everton, fight back, threaten other clubs, the Premier League, just don't meekly, nicely, accept it.. it's why the Premier League know they can finger Everton for seemingly any transgression with impunity.

Yeah, Michael, I know, it's all conspiracy bullshit, but it's media speculation and Premier League decision-making coupled with no comment from Moshiri, or the club (all very civilized isn't it?)

We have to start fighting back as a club, the fans have done their bit, but who is there to get down and dirty at the club? We only have an interim board and an absent owner! They are lining up to do us without a whimper!

You know what, let 777 Partners have the club, Americans know exactly how to play the game... it's what we need to fight back.

Rant over... jeez!!

Peter Moore
434 Posted 05/03/2024 at 22:48:46
Well said, Christine. Though I have grave reservations about 777 Partners.

We need proper leadership at Boardroom level, urgently.

Les Callan
435 Posted 05/03/2024 at 00:03:34
Fully agree with you, Christine. We just seem to roll over.

Good god, we are “satisfied” with the appeal decision! Are we? Really?

Time the kid gloves came off. What do we sing “Fight, fight, fight, with all our might!!!”

Jamie Crowley
436 Posted 06/03/2024 at 00:19:02

You know what, let 777 Partners have the club, Americans know exactly how to play the game. it's what we need to fight back.

Trust me, you don't want this. Your comment is down to exasperation. I get it.

But we do not want 777 Partners. It's not the typical American "fighting spirit" group. It's more like shady, money laundering, bleed everything dry with bullshit accounting tricks and funny money antics.

American ownership would be great. But not these fellas!!

Jay Harris
437 Posted 06/03/2024 at 00:32:06
Wyness seems to be taking a strong line against the Premier League. He is all over the media like a rash.

Why not let him take a consulting role until the takeover and PSR are resolved? He is crooked enough to know which Premier League buttons to press.

Derek Thomas
438 Posted 06/03/2024 at 01:18:50
If we had somebody (anybody) in charge even half as good as Levy, the Premier League would be giving us extra points and making good our losses out of their own pocket.

Even our Super Silk cannot do anything until somebody points him at a target and says 'kill'.

Wake Up, Everton – start getting down the wicket and slogging all these googlies they sling at us.

Start throwing out chaff, start muddying the water, do something, try to embarrass them, start kicking and screaming, get off your fucking knees.

Do not go gentle into that goodnight.

Christine Foster
439 Posted 06/03/2024 at 04:43:06
Jamie, I know you're right, but God help us, at this rate we will be sunk without a trace before anyone sets foot in the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock. Somehow we have to stop the rot... surely Moshiri doesn't want to lose it all?

You're right, it is total exasperation and 777 Partners aren't the answer but someone, somewhere needs to stop the bus.
Threaten to sue the Premier League, threaten other clubs with counter suits, demand points compensation for bad onfield decisions that cost us points.

We need a champion to fight for us.

Brent Stephens
440 Posted 06/03/2024 at 06:06:55
Derek #438. Feels like we're in Llareggub, Derek. Has it all been a dream? Will we ever enjoy the pleasures of the world again?

ToffeeWeb feels like Mrs Organ-Morgan's shop, with all the gossip. Mog Edwards worrying about his club and going out of business; writing to Myfanwy Price, but that's all he can do now. The club, Mrs Dai Bread One, risks being swindled by Mrs Dai Bread Two who has a bogus fortune in that crystal ball.

As you say, do not go gentle into that good night.

Danny O’Neill
441 Posted 06/03/2024 at 07:40:31
We need to stand our ground and stop being a silent club.

Fight Everton. This is Rorke's Drift. Dunkirk. Call it what you want. But we need to stand up to this dictatorship that is the Premier League.

I appreciate there are no doubt legal sensitivities. And as long as those suits hold the keys, if we piss them off too much, they will come down on us.

So be it, but lift the lid on the can of worms they have opened. There are others.

No consideration for supporters. Early kick-offs. Late kick-offs. Having to get up at an ungodly hour, getting home very late. That applies to all clubs.

They need reigning in and be held accountable.

Apologies for the Wednesday morning rant.

John Keating
442 Posted 08/03/2024 at 12:59:18
Good piece in the Echo regarding the situation with Leicester.
The very Leicester that were talking about suing us!!!!

The Premier League really have opened a can of worms.
If they don't do Leicester this season, then I can't see how any case against us and Forest can stand up on a legal appeal.

Derek Thomas
443 Posted 08/03/2024 at 13:40:57
Brent @ 440;


Christopher Timmins
444 Posted 08/03/2024 at 13:58:10
What about Chelsea's numbers, huge losses for the year to June 2023 and 2022, what were their numbers like for 2021 and the 3-year rolling average to June 2023?
Brent Stephens
445 Posted 08/03/2024 at 14:11:45
Diolch, Derek.
Ray Robinson
446 Posted 08/03/2024 at 15:24:07

I am using an exaggerated example here but it highlights how meaningless P&S rules are. Chelsea's can spend a billion pounds on players over a 3 year period, give them 8 and a half year contracts, meaning that their total write down values are £125m per annum, sell a few home grown players each season from the massive squad they have accumulated at the expense of “feeder clubs” , and remain compliant.

It's a disastrous long term policy that puts the club at risk further down the line but hey, they've not beached the rules!!

John Keating
447 Posted 08/03/2024 at 17:17:55

I think the Premier League have realised Chelsea were taking the piss and closed the 8 year contract nonsense.

Rest assured they and the other "big" teams will find other ways…

I read somewhere that Etihad total sponsorship for Man City is £70-80 million a year.

Good on City but do you reckon Etihad would pay other clubs that much, especially that they and the owners are linked via the Abu Dhabi ruling family?

I still think it's going to be interesting watching how this Leicester situation pans out

Ray Robinson
448 Posted 08/03/2024 at 17:22:54
Yes John. Sponsoring a stadium that was paid for with taxpayers’ money. Fair Play indeed.
Christopher Timmins
449 Posted 08/03/2024 at 17:45:28
If you show losses of €110 million in 2023 and similar losses in 2022, surely you have to generate a profit in 2021 of €115 million to keep within the required cumulative loss figure of €105 million over the 3 year period to 30 June 2023 and will also have to generate a profit of €115 million in the year to 30 June 2024?

Good luck with that Chelsea, once the vultures know your are in trouble, they will just sit and wait. Gallagher will be off so as they need to sell home grown talent.

John Keating
450 Posted 08/03/2024 at 18:35:17
I read somewhere that Chelsea were well over our losses, however, due to these 8 year contracts they've got away with it.
Obviously their accountants were far more switched on than our boy.
Mind you with these contract loopholes being closed they will have to get rid of a few home grown players in the close season
Bobby Mallon
451 Posted 14/03/2024 at 22:08:48
Just tell the Premier League to fuck off. We are not taking any more points deduction until Man City are taken to task… and Chelsea
Robert Jones
452 Posted 18/03/2024 at 13:53:54
Forest have been deducted 4 points according to the Guardian. Will be interesting to read the justification for a much lower penalty than our own, original and revised. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/18/nottingham-forest-docked-four-points-premier-league-financial-rules-breach-profitability-and-sustainability

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