Financial Fairplay Investigation - 2025 Nobody in Breach

[Goaljira]

I think that is the point. That the while idea of a rolling period means there's double jeopardy.

It's like being allowed to carry out zero muggings a year on a 3 year rolling period. The mugging you did in year 3 would see you punished in year 3 year 4 and year 5. The whole idea of it is clearly not far. The whole process is flawed

Its not though, is it? If you fuck up in year 3, you know you've fucked up and have to compensate for it in year 4 and 5 accordingly. If you don't, then you get punished. You know what you've done for 2 of the years, so you know what you can do in the third. If you know what you can do, and ignore it or run it too close to the wire, then you get punished. Then in the 4th, you know what you've done in years 2 and 3, so again know what you can or cannot do.

[Cereal Killer]

Its not though, is it? If you fuck up in year 3, you know you've fucked up and have to compensate for it in year 4 and 5 accordingly. If you don't, then you get punished. You know what you've done for 2 of the years, so you know what you can do in the third. If you know what you can do, and ignore it or run it too close to the wire, then you get punished. Then in the 4th, you know what you've done in years 2 and 3, so again know what you can or cannot do.

But we’ve been working with the PL for a number of seasons, then they seemed to have changed their mind on what’s admissible in the calcs

[Goaljira]

But we’ve been working with the PL for a number of seasons, then they seemed to have changed their mind on what’s admissible in the calcs

Have they? Or have they just wisened up to our grift?

[Shogun]

I actually think the second charge is more damning to the club than the first is. The first time we got screwed over by the Russian money being blocked and the Sigurdsson affair which the panel decided wasn't relevant to the loss. Like Goaljira says, they knew after that was happening (or at least they should have).

We spent the best part of £70m on the likes McNeil, Onana, Garner and Maupay.

[777Kidnappings]

Its not though, is it? If you fuck up in year 3, you know you've fucked up and have to compensate for it in year 4 and 5 accordingly. If you don't, then you get punished. You know what you've done for 2 of the years, so you know what you can do in the third. If you know what you can do, and ignore it or run it too close to the wire, then you get punished. Then in the 4th, you know what you've done in years 2 and 3, so again know what you can or cannot do.

We are at a stage where we can't compensate. Our fuck ups leave us in a cycle of punishments now. We can't just not pay the loans. We can't just cut Ali or Gomes because they are on big contracts. Some things you can't fix

Also if you fuck up in year 3 you're punished. Why then do you have to compensate in years 4 and 5 or be punished again. That's double jeopardy.

I think the problem is the punishments have left them with nowhere to go. Maybe a first punishment should be a transfer ban and suspended points because years 4 and 5 give you the opportunity of fixing things. They've handed out a punishment towards the top end and then told us fix it or have another 1. The 3 year cycle should maybe come with punishments increasing over time if you fail to improve

Right now we are in financial trouble cutting costs and missing ffp. Where do we go from here. Ffps aim surely isn't to drive a club into administration

[cassius]

I think the double jeopardy issue is being amplified by the 10 point punishment.

[AjaxAndy]

I think the double jeopardy issue is being amplified by the 10 point punishment.

And the fact they're talking about giving out 2 separate punishments for 2 different rolling 3 year periods within the same season, which is unbelievably punitive.

Even if it was correct to deduct us 10 points, there's no world where doing the same again for a different rolling 3 year period within the same season makes any logic whatsoever.

[eyesalwaysblue]

Lineker and Shearer had a financial PL "expert" on a while ago, he said after we had gone to the PL to confess the mess we were in, we were told that if we went away and did X,Y,Z we should be ok, but we didn't and carried on how we had been making the situation worse, must admit it sounded very plausible and how it's been the last years deffo no surprise

[Goaljira]

We are at a stage where we can't compensate. Our fuck ups leave us in a cycle of punishments now. We can't just not pay the loans. We can't just cut Ali or Gomes because they are on big contracts. Some things you can't fix

Also if you fuck up in year 3 you're punished. Why then do you have to compensate in years 4 and 5 or be punished again. That's double jeopardy.

I think the problem is the punishments have left them with nowhere to go. Maybe a first punishment should be a transfer ban and suspended points because years 4 and 5 give you the opportunity of fixing things. They've handed out a punishment towards the top end and then told us fix it or have another 1. The 3 year cycle should maybe come with punishments increasing over time if you fail to improve

Right now we are in financial trouble cutting costs and missing ffp. Where do we go from here. Ffps aim surely isn't to drive a club into administration

We fucked around, and we've been found out.

There's things we could have done in the past 3 years that were out of our control. But there's equally as many things we could have done to negate the issue.

The biggest mistake is the stadium financing. We proceeded without it fixed in place, assuming we'd be able to finance as we went along at low interest rates. That we didn't was the fault of the board. And now we're paying for it.

We missed last year's target by £20m. Is there not one player we could have sold to cover it? We wouldn't have got true value, but we could have sold Pickford to whatever the highest bidder was. We'd have been in a terrible position last year, but we'd have complied.

And the latest period. We didn't *have* to buy Onana, Garner and McNeil. We could have just kept the money. We'd have been massively weaker and probably gone down, but We'd have complied.

You can't complain about the Russian invasion losing sponsorship money. If it was a fair and just deal then you'd be able to replace it with someone else offering a similar deal, except there has been no interest at all in sponsoring Finch Farm, and no advance naming rights purchase for Bramley Moore. And that's because we were taking the piss with Usmanov's money.

We chose not to comply, thinking we'd get little or no punishment. Instead due to there being no set penalty we feel we've been hammered. Is the 10 points harsh? Absolutely, but only because no one has been done before and City and Chelsea remain untouched. Ignoring everything else us falling foul of FFP is our own fault.

The problem with the 'it's double jeopardy' argument is that we've continued to benefit from the non-compliance for the whole period. We knew in June 2022 that come March 2023 when we submitted the accounts that we'd be in breach. But rather than make sure we complied for 2022-23 we just carried on thinking we'd get away with it.

And the twice in one season thing doesn't wash either. We're lucky we didn't get the deduction implemented immediately last year. If it had we'd have gone down. Even with a reduced deduction on appeal we'd still be down.

This isn't me absolving the Premier league. Their handling of the case, the 'independant' panel, the timing, the failure to treat everyone equal, the changing of the rules this year - its all fucked up and feels very harsh to us. But that's because it's us that's been punished. If it was the other way around and we'd sold or not bought someone and gone down and Leicester stayed up and then 6 months later it turned out they'd overspent, we'd be fuming. We'd want them relegated and us re-instated and them to re-imburse our lost Premier League TV revenue for the year. If we were finishing 9th and it was West Ham who'd overspent we'd be saying 'Fuck those dirty eel eating, bubble blowing, dildo selling cunts - send them down'. Or Villa, or Palace or Bournemouth or anyone. Pretty much the only team I don't want hauling over the coals weirdly is Man City, and that's only because I don't want any chance at all of titles being stripped and given to Liverpool.

[AjaxAndy]

Disagree on the fact it's fair to punish us twice in one season because the premier league didn't have enough time to do us last season.

If you apply a punishment for one rolling period then the next rolling period punishment absolutely has to be applied the following season.

You're submitting accounts every year, the only reason why the premier league are trying to squeeze 2 punishments in to one season is that they didn't get their house in order properly to begin with. That's not our fault and it makes no sense to have punishments applied for different accounting periods within the same season.

It's laughable that it might happen, it just shows how badly put together and without thought the whole thing is.

I don't disagree that we've taken the piss and hoped to get away with it, and I don't disagree with receiving appropriate punishments... Receiving 2 in one season for different accounting periods? Nah, not even slightly.

[777Kidnappings]

For me if you forget about sporting fairness or protecting clubs from themselves then you can be left with rules are rules and no problem with double jeopardy or anything else.

The problem is really that they are claiming its about sporting fairness and protecting clubs. Then the rules and the punishments just don't fit anymore

Forest would have complied with ffp had they sold their best player to a big 6 side quicker and for less money.... thats sporting fairness or protecting forest financially

[Shogun]

We fucked around, and we've been found out.

There's things we could have done in the past 3 years that were out of our control. But there's equally as many things we could have done to negate the issue.

The biggest mistake is the stadium financing. We proceeded without it fixed in place, assuming we'd be able to finance as we went along at low interest rates. That we didn't was the fault of the board. And now we're paying for it.

We missed last year's target by £20m. Is there not one player we could have sold to cover it? We wouldn't have got true value, but we could have sold Pickford to whatever the highest bidder was. We'd have been in a terrible position last year, but we'd have complied.

And the latest period. We didn't *have* to buy Onana, Garner and McNeil. We could have just kept the money. We'd have been massively weaker and probably gone down, but We'd have complied.

You can't complain about the Russian invasion losing sponsorship money. If it was a fair and just deal then you'd be able to replace it with someone else offering a similar deal, except there has been no interest at all in sponsoring Finch Farm, and no advance naming rights purchase for Bramley Moore. And that's because we were taking the piss with Usmanov's money.

We chose not to comply, thinking we'd get little or no punishment. Instead due to there being no set penalty we feel we've been hammered. Is the 10 points harsh? Absolutely, but only because no one has been done before and City and Chelsea remain untouched. Ignoring everything else us falling foul of FFP is our own fault.

The problem with the 'it's double jeopardy' argument is that we've continued to benefit from the non-compliance for the whole period. We knew in June 2022 that come March 2023 when we submitted the accounts that we'd be in breach. But rather than make sure we complied for 2022-23 we just carried on thinking we'd get away with it.

And the twice in one season thing doesn't wash either. We're lucky we didn't get the deduction implemented immediately last year. If it had we'd have gone down. Even with a reduced deduction on appeal we'd still be down.

This isn't me absolving the Premier league. Their handling of the case, the 'independant' panel, the timing, the failure to treat everyone equal, the changing of the rules this year - its all fucked up and feels very harsh to us. But that's because it's us that's been punished. If it was the other way around and we'd sold or not bought someone and gone down and Leicester stayed up and then 6 months later it turned out they'd overspent, we'd be fuming. We'd want them relegated and us re-instated and them to re-imburse our lost Premier League TV revenue for the year. If we were finishing 9th and it was West Ham who'd overspent we'd be saying 'Fuck those dirty eel eating, bubble blowing, dildo selling cunts - send them down'. Or Villa, or Palace or Bournemouth or anyone. Pretty much the only team I don't want hauling over the coals weirdly is Man City, and that's only because I don't want any chance at all of titles being stripped and given to Liverpool.

Honestly, there are so many different avenues that you could go down with this case and it feels like all roads lead to shit.

I think what leaves the most bitter taste in my mouth is that all the people who have caused this have gone. All the people that allowed this to happen are no longer at the club (giving Thelwell the benefit of the doubt) with the exception of Moshiri who is desperately trying to get away by any means possible and most likely to the detriment of the future of the club considering the noise around 777.

Like rats deserting a sinking ship. They're the ones who should be punished for all this, yet I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like DBB back in football somewhere in the future even though she didn't bother to turn up and defend us during the process.

There's something wrong with the game when the fans, players and manager can be punished (and it is them being punished here) whilst the people that caused it to happen have absolutely nothing negative happen to them. No bans from football. No financial punishments. Nothing.

When you see all those people remaining in the big 6 clubs get a £3m fine each for attempting to form their own league and fuck the rest then it's hard to even pretend that there's fairness in any of this whether we 'deserve' to be punished or not. We're not operating in a just league here.

[Gash]

Lampard chatting shit saying Kenwright was Mr Everton and it was hard cos he couldn’t go to games.

Fed up of fans being made out to be monsters constantly!!

Unfortunately that's the narrative that the club very carefully cultivated to make the fans out to look the bad ones. It got loudest when Kenwright died, got sick of reading people on the socials saying that Evertonians should hang their heads in shame over the way he was driven out of the club etc.

I don't mind Lampard but I've been disappointed in some of the things he's said since he left, trying now to blame everything on what was going on rather than the fact he's a terrible manager, also he was asked once when he was interim at Chelsea about us and basically said 'Everton's nothing to do with me anymore' which kind of goes against all the stuff he said about buying into the club and history etc.

[Cantoffee]

I dont have an issue with being punished for consecutive years.

The issue is that we shouldn't be receiving both within the same season. The PLs incompetence in prosecuting/punishing us is not our fault. They should have laid out a clear system for timelines to prosecute, appeal, etc.

The truth is if they'd done thing properly and punished us last season we'd have gone down. I think this plays into how the PL wants to punish us more because they've fucked it up.

The whole thing is obviously making it up as they go, they're a fucking joke and everyone knows it.

[777Kidnappings]

I dont have an issue with being punished for consecutive years.

The issue is that we shouldn't be receiving both within the same season. The PLs incompetence in prosecuting/punishing us is not our fault. They should have laid out a clear system for timelines to prosecute, appeal, etc.

The truth is if they'd done thing properly and punished us last season we'd have gone down. I think this plays into how the PL wants to punish us more because they've fucked it up.

The whole thing is obviously making it up as they go, they're a fucking joke and everyone knows it.

I'm the opposite don't really have a problem with 2 punishments in the same year. My issue is there making it up as they go along and the fact that 10pts for 20% really leaves them with nowhere to go. Oh and the the lies about it being about fairness and protecting clubs. Oh and when a team is in trouble it appears that just means an endless cycle of punishments cos they can't balance their books