Financial Fairplay Investigation - 2025 Nobody in Breach

[superpull]

The £19.5m overspend was after *a lot* of writing off due to unusual circumstances.

The PL just got tired of the long list of excuses and drew a line in the sand.

[brap2]

And the fact is if we had just been straight with our accounting, moshiri 0% finance loans go to running and bank high interest loans on stadium, we would have been fine.

We did it the wrong way round and then tried to blag it.

Did someone lose their head for that oversight? We've been through so many CFOs and Director of Finances I honestly couldn't tell you.

[Goaljira]

And the fact is if we had just been straight with our accounting, moshiri 0% finance loans go to running and bank high interest loans on stadium, we would have been fine.

We did it the wrong way round and then tried to blag it.

Did someone lose their head for that oversight? We've been through so many CFOs and Director of Finances I honestly couldn't tell you.

Grant Ingles was our CFO and before that FD all the way through the Usmanov era until he resigned 2 weeks before the end of the financial year last summer.

[brap2]

Grant Ingles was our CFO and before that FD all the way through the Usmanov era until he resigned 2 weeks before the end of the financial year last summer.

Ryazantsev was CFO/CCO from 2018-2021

[brap2]

Or Chief Finance AND Commercial Officer sorry, as well as being a director. *Shrugs* he's now at Burnley.

[Goaljira]

Ryazantsev was CFO/CCO from 2018-2021

Yes, and Ingles was FD since 2016 when Moshiri took over until he became CFO in 2021. So for all the period that we're being charged for Ingles was either FD or CFO. So he'd have had partial or full responsibility all the way through.

[4evablu]

When you read documents re the initial commission hearing all fingers point to moshiri's testimony. I obviously don't know but from outside looking in allegedly it appears they never believed him and his testimony was tantamount to perjury ? (unsubstantiated)
Was this the real reason behind the high points deduction ?

[Bluedylan1]

No, the real reason behind the high points deduction is that the Prem are terrified of external regulation, and so we were used as a pawn for them to show how tough they can be, without alienating any of their biggest income generators.

We all accept that we have been dreadfully run for the longest time, and that numerous errors have been made at our end, but the deduction is nonetheless ludicrous and completely unwarranted given what other teams are doing and have done.

[Gary1878]

https://news.sky.com/story/premier-leag ... s-13067278

Man City trying to throw their weight around

[brap2]

No, the real reason behind the high points deduction is that the Prem are terrified of external regulation, and so we were used as a pawn for them to show how tough they can be, without alienating any of their biggest income generators.

We all accept that we have been dreadfully run for the longest time, and that numerous errors have been made at our end, but the deduction is nonetheless ludicrous and completely unwarranted given what other teams are doing and have done.

If you believe the IC is not Independent that is.

[Bluedylan1]

If you believe the IC is not Independent that is.

I mean, even the most pro-Prem interpretation would say at the very least it's extremely questionable.

Not just me. The legal report that was posted yesterday stated that the decision ''raises substantial concerns about the club’s right to a fair trial...the decision-making process of the Independent Commission tasked with evaluating Everton’s alleged breaches of financial regulations came under scrutiny when assessed through both subjective and objective tests concerning bias and impartiality''

Look we all agree that we've been run dreadfully, and that we have even made mistakes in how we've filed our accounts which were avoidable. Absolutely we should be seething at people running the club. But we've been seething for years about that. We're all on the same page. That still doesn't justify the completely disproportionate way we've been treated, and for me at least, just kneeling and accepting it is self-defeating and compounds those mistakes further.

[Goaljira]

https://news.sky.com/story/premier-leag ... s-13067278

Man City trying to throw their weight around

Chelsea signing a one year £40m deal with 'Infinite Athlete' completely passed me by.

[Gash]

Aye, the Etihad deal was always above board and legit. A 10 year, £400m deal with an airline that had been running less than 10 years, never turned a profit and had not even subtle links to Man City's owner. Nothing to see here.

[brap2]

I mean, even the most pro-Prem interpretation would say at the very least it's extremely questionable.

Not just me. The legal report that was posted yesterday stated that the decision ''raises substantial concerns about the club’s right to a fair trial...the decision-making process of the Independent Commission tasked with evaluating Everton’s alleged breaches of financial regulations came under scrutiny when assessed through both subjective and objective tests concerning bias and impartiality''

Look we all agree that we've been run dreadfully, and that we have even made mistakes in how we've filed our accounts which were avoidable. Absolutely we should be seething at people running the club. But we've been seething for years about that. We're all on the same page. That still doesn't justify the completely disproportionate way we've been treated, and for me at least, just kneeling and accepting it is self-defeating and compounds those mistakes further.

It does however feel like the weakest argument of the lot unfortunately though, especially since we are appealing to another IC.

If the appeal fails, is it strong enough to take it further, or is it sort of conspiracy-theory flavour noise

[Bluedylan1]

It does however feel like the weakest argument of the lot unfortunately though, especially since we are appealing to another IC.

If the appeal fails, is it strong enough to take it further, or is it sort of conspiracy-theory flavour noise

I think the fact that this entire process is so ''on the fly'' and lacking precedent is what makes it so vulnerable and why it doesn't pass objective and subjective criteria for impartiality, as that legal report suggested.

It feels like you could put this information in front of 10 different ICs and you would get 10 totally different decisions, which reinforces the point of the objection.

And it's only one of the arguments. They are a number of others, as you know.

I'm not naïve. I don't expect it to be overturned, because that would be far too big of a climbdown for the Prem. But a reduction should definitely be aimed for.