Financial Fairplay Investigation - 2025 Nobody in Breach

[AjaxAndy]

Is there a case to argue for any team that finished bottom three, or is it just certain relegated teams that are going to be able to get compensation?

I'm struggling to work out how they will decide this as surely only the team finishing third bottom would have a case? And even then we finished 16th two seasons ago so it's not exactly black and white how that would work surely?

[Escalator]

I guess that any team that we beat in the bottom three would claim that we had an unfair advantage therefore claim compensation, who knows, the KC has already said “teams” would have a case for compensation, plural, so sounds to me as it’s a done deal, we will get screwed.

[Gash]

https://twitter.com/The1878s/status/1727340584447455454

Is that the 38k placards? How do they plan to distribute them? I can't see the club allowing fans groups into the stadium to put them on all the seats, even if the club agree with the message surely they can't be seen to be helping the fans get the message across while we've still an appeal hanging over our head.

[TheRam]

https://twitter.com/The1878s/status/1727340584447455454

Is that the 38k placards? How do they plan to distribute them? I can't see the club allowing fans groups into the stadium to put them on all the seats, even if the club agree with the message surely they can't be seen to be helping the fans get the message across while we've still an appeal hanging over our head.

Think there’s going to be people dotted around county road handing them out.

[NickNack]

I guess that any team that we beat in the bottom three would claim that we had an unfair advantage therefore claim compensation, who knows, the KC has already said “teams” would have a case for compensation, plural, so sounds to me as it’s a done deal, we will get screwed.

But did the panel themselves not state we received no sporting advantage? So I don’t get what they can base their case on?

[Escalator]

I guess that any team that we beat in the bottom three would claim that we had an unfair advantage therefore claim compensation, who knows, the KC has already said “teams” would have a case for compensation, plural, so sounds to me as it’s a done deal, we will get screwed.

But did the panel themselves not state we received no sporting advantage? So I don’t get what they can base their case on?

Don’t know, did they say that ?

[superpull]

Bit worrying how, as a fanbase, we can't wrap our heads around this.

We were guilty of mismanaging our finances and so have been punished. There should be no real disagreement over that as a fact. (just the weight of the punishment).
As we are guilty of losing more than was allowed, the panel has also confirmed we are open to being sued by teams who may have been adversely effected.

That leads to a split as to what would happen next:
- If we take out the money we overspent by over those three seasons, does it stand to reason we may have done worse over 38 games?
- As such, any single team who finished below us can argue that they could have finished one place higher than they did do (All could argue we may have came bottom) and so should have received a higher proportion of prize money.
- The times we finished 17th would also result in the team finishing 18th being able to argue they would have stayed up and then claim subsequent loss of revenue (PL money minus parachute payments minus Championship money)

Whether you agree with point one or not, any compensation panel would be dedicated specifically to answering that question. It should be a yes/no answer and that will dictate whether the compensation claim is successful. But the effected clubs *do* have the right to assert that we would have been worse off if we brought in £19.5m less of players.

The other possibility would be the team that finished 18th last season pursuing the PL themselves for not resolving this in a timely manner and so preventing the punishment last season and thereby relegating them.
This one is a non-starter as these are complex cases and the panel themselves have confirmed they had to give us a reasonable amount of time to put our defence together and that we were open and honest with the initial charge.

[Bluedylan1]

I think everyone has wrapped their head around the process.

I think all the questions are normal questions about things that are unknown and unanswered and are mostly based on how cloak and dagger and arbitrary the entire process is, almost as if it's being made up as they go along.

[Trowel]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/11dd ... 6ace4ed4ce

Sky Sports will take steps to prevent offensive language from a planned protest by Everton fans being clearly audible during the live TV match against Manchester United on Sunday. To comply with Ofcom’s rules, the broadcaster may turn down crowd noise, or take other steps to lessen the clarity of the audio from Goodison Park.

Organisers of the protest against Everton’s ten-point deduction for breaching the Premier League’s financial rules are calling on all fans inside Goodison Park to chant “Premier League corrupt as f***” in the tenth minute of the game.

The broadcast regulator Ofcom’s regulations state that broadcasters should avoid televising material that could cause offence to viewers, and as the kick-off time is 4.30pm there are concerns that families and children will be watching in large numbers.

Sky Sports has had an internal meeting about the issue and insiders said it takes its responsibility to protect its viewers seriously and will look to mitigate any offensive language being heard on air. Any action by the broadcaster would be to ensure it is following Ofcom’s regulations rather than to take a position on a protest.

In the past broadcasters in such cirmcumstances have reduced the volume of sound from the crowd and even introduced pre-recorded crowd noise. It is understood Sky do not intend to use fake noise on Sunday.

[Juanito]

listened to the American Toffee Pod, good detailed description of what we submitted to the premier league - what shambolic, dreadful management/leadership. The worrying thing is, Moshiri is going to be replaced by a group equally as shoddy and shambolic by the sounds of it.

[Trowel]

I think everyone has wrapped their head around the process.

I think all the questions are normal questions about things that are unknown and unanswered and are mostly based on how cloak and dagger and arbitrary the entire process is, almost as if it's being made up as they go along.

The punishment was literally made up for us: https://twitter.com/mikeygow/status/1727111386814349345

[777Kidnappings]

Bit worrying how, as a fanbase, we can't wrap our heads around this.

We were guilty of mismanaging our finances and so have been punished. There should be no real disagreement over that as a fact. (just the weight of the punishment).
As we are guilty of losing more than was allowed, the panel has also confirmed we are open to being sued by teams who may have been adversely effected.

That leads to a split as to what would happen next:
- If we take out the money we overspent by over those three seasons, does it stand to reason we may have done worse over 38 games?
- As such, any single team who finished below us can argue that they could have finished one place higher than they did do (All could argue we may have came bottom) and so should have received a higher proportion of prize money.
- The times we finished 17th would also result in the team finishing 18th being able to argue they would have stayed up and then claim subsequent loss of revenue (PL money minus parachute payments minus Championship money)

Whether you agree with point one or not, any compensation panel would be dedicated specifically to answering that question. It should be a yes/no answer and that will dictate whether the compensation claim is successful. But the effected clubs *do* have the right to assert that we would have been worse off if we brought in £19.5m less of players.

The other possibility would be the team that finished 18th last season pursuing the PL themselves for not resolving this in a timely manner and so preventing the punishment last season and thereby relegating them.
This one is a non-starter as these are complex cases and the panel themselves have confirmed they had to give us a reasonable amount of time to put our defence together and that we were open and honest with the initial charge.

But if everyone is compensated and made whole then why are we losing 10pts?? Everyone has been made whole again.

[Bob Sacamano]

https://twitter.com/neila1878/status/1727020174400975008

[777Kidnappings]

Financially we could be relegated twice or even 3 times if the media are to be believed

100m to burnley. 100m to Leicester. Then we go down this season losing 100m

Obviously we might stay up this season but then there's a chance the next time this happens a club has been comfortable the seasons it wasn't implemented and then the deduction relegates them the season its applied. Surely you just have to take the rough with the smooth. 1 punishment and its the luck of the draw which teams benefit from it

[Bob Sacamano]

Cba fucking about with the embedding. It’s just someone doing the maths on pts per overspend during the cycle