Why do I see endless waves of everton fans say they haven’t broke any rules, and everything will be turned over through appeal?
Has any one seen the latest athletic article?
Everton football club are really in trouble here, and I believe all 3 teams looking for a court case will win. That is another possible 9 point deduction.
Also, all this talk of a hostile goodison on the weekend, for what gain?
Second question would be, why does everyone now relate this to Man City? Since when have Man City ever been comparable to any other team in the prem?
Fairness is something we can all agree on, but it’s not the way it works.
Does anyone else think Everton are safe, even with another 9 point deduction, because I do. But I digress, why do Everton fans feel they have done nothing wrong?
I haven’t seen any of our fans claim we’ve not broken the rules, we just dispute the massively over the top punishment for doing so. Our overspending was entirely related to the new stadium being built and the independent commission’s ruling even states we gained ‘no competitive advantage’ from it, as well as stating that it was ‘a business decision’ not to sell or sue Gylfi Sigurdsson, and that the sanctioning of Usmanov (who was funding the stadium) following the invasion of Ukraine was not a mitigating circumstance. We are rightly outraged by the 10 point deduction for these reasons, however we don’t think our appeal will remove it, just lessen it hopefully.
Are infrastructure improvements like new stadiums not exempt from the FFP calculations? Pretty sure they were last I checked.
Surely Everton wouldn’t have been able to sue him unless he was found guilty. I can’t see how it would hold up otherwise. He was acquitted in the end.
They are but the biggest debate in this case is whether interest of a loan they took out should be deductible or not. It was originally deducted last year but the PL changed their position as they assumed it was used for the stadium when it had not been.
Everton argue that they would never have taken out this loan if it weren’t for the stadium and that Moshiri would have paid of it anyway. The PL argue that the interest of the loans shouldn’t be deducted because the the stadium had been funded by interest free loans by Moshiri - it also noted that when taking out the loan the club had said it would not be used on the stadium or players but working capital and the independent panel sided with them.
It was a loose loose situation for all unfortunately, due to the nature of the arrest of player x, Everton had no choice but to suspended. (Fans would be furious if he played). But they could not sue as he was ultimately not charged. It took 2 years before he got work again and we may never know the truth
Stadiums weren’t exempt from FFP, but then they were made to be exempt a little while ago (not sure how long, I’ll look for a source.) This is why Everton’s £300m loss was reduced to £20m, that accounts for a lot of the stadium costs.
You’re right, Everton couldn’t sue him until he was found guilty, which he wasn’t. The Premier League, in their infinite wisdom, decided that we should have used him anyway to make up the lost wages. Not a lot we can do about that one.
Iirc the stadium / infrastructure was excempt. The problem was that they took the loan out before they got planning permission, which then meant it couldn’t be put into this category, however stupid that is.
According to the Financial Times
“However, the commission concluded that Everton’s losses were largely due to overspending on players, which it described as “unwise” given the clear risk of exceeding permitted losses and repeated warnings from the Premier League.”
Which seems to dispute your claim above.
https://www.ft.com/content/7a527cb2-02fd-411a-a196-f8ae67a4d080
Everton allegedly got confirmation that the interest payments on their loan (many 10s of millions of pound per year) are deductible as per infrastructure spending rules, and as such planned accordingly. The PL changed their mind on this decsion part way through the 21/22 season (after the loan was secured) and the said they would no longer allow this to be deductible.
I’m just reporting that the claim it was solely or mainly due to stadium funding doesn’t appear to be the case based on the independent panel.
I’m not sure it does. Our losses came from spending on players, yes. But we are permitted losses. What we can’t do is overspend - and that overspending was caused by an issue related to the stadium.
The overspending is just that your losses were higher than the agreed amount. So the stadium may have had an some impact but the majority of the impact was from players.
I agree with you