The NSNO Everton Forums

Shogun wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 7:29 pm The whole thing is a farce, so if we're successful then I wouldn't be surprised if we got all 10 back. It should never have been a points deduction in the first place.

It seems like we naïvely and arrogantly went into the first charge thinking nothing would happen and we'd be given brownie points for keeping the Premier League informed. There was loads of stuff in the report from the original IC that you could pick holes in without even being a qualified legal professional. Laurence Rabinowitz appears to have a strong reputation, so him coming in to proceedings gives me confidence that everything will be scrutinised.

I don't believe it's independent though and I won't put anything past the Premier League. Nothing would surprise me.

Really doesn't feel independent and the fact that we've no recourse gives me very little hope of real fairness.

I know they've refused to release the minutes does that mean everton haven't seen them too?

It will still all he winged, that's the problem.

Even if we get points back I'd still want an explanation as to how they came to that conclusion.

Genuinely think if we survive this season then we might get clear of relegation battles for the foreseeable. Almost feels that it being everton we'll go this season when we really are too good to go down and maybe turning the corner. Probably should have been relegated the last 2 seasons on the performances we produced

Shogun wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 7:41 pm Better question might be, what would it take to shut the club up and make it all go away? If it's less than 4 points then I think we'd take it to the courts.

Do we have actual grounds to take it to a court of law though? I'd hope so but have zero idea how sporting sanctions are viewed when you're basically being penalised for breaking rules of an independent organisation rather than any actual legal wrong doing

Cozzie wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 6:53 pm Where did you get this from?

Some AI chatbot by the way it’s worded

AjaxAndy wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 8:18 pm Do we have actual grounds to take it to a court of law though? I'd hope so but have zero idea how sporting sanctions are viewed when you're basically being penalised for breaking rules of an independent organisation rather than any actual legal wrong doing

There must be a legally binding agreement in place for the very existence of the Premier League. Therefore, there are grounds for legal recourse should any party be wronged as a result of a breach of such agreement. Since there were no actual guidelines in place for dealing with breaking P&S, then any punishment applied must be fair and justifiable. Since the precedent set by the Premier League for a business going into administration is just 9 points, then there is no way on this earth that they could possibly justify an even bigger penalty for what is, in the grand scheme of things, a piffling amount of overspend (£20m), especially since the business continues to be solvent.

Quite specifically told we can't take it to CAFS as we have admitted guilt. This is just about severity of punishment.

As there's no legal groundwork for dictating the punishment the best solicitor in the land isn't of great use as the panel get final say really.

There's a private litigation route. But that's not exactly a swift prospect.

We've just got to hope someone on this panel can think of a way to knock a few points off for this and forests losses are worse than ours for the next round of punishment

Why is it that the general thought is that knowingly breaking the spending rules over a 3 year period(twice) is thought of as not as bad as going into administration?

Goaljira wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 11:21 pm Why is it that the general thought is that knowingly breaking the spending rules over a 3 year period(twice) is thought of as not as bad as going into administration?

The 3 year rules are to prevent going into administration.

So it seems a bit odd that the punishment for risking something is worse than the punishment for doing something?

superpull wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 11:25 pm The 3 year rules are to prevent going into administration.

So it seems a bit odd that the punishment for risking something is worse than the punishment for doing something?

If it was truly to prevent administration then they'd be much stricter. You operate at a profit other than funds you can show were direct injection from the owner(not loans from them or any other party).

If we'd not overspent and got ourselves into further debt with more and more dubious loans, then we'd have likely been relegated and be facing administration anyway, so why should you get away with a lesser punishment?

Still of the belief it should have been a transfer ban. If the point is that we gained a sporting advantage because of the personnel we had (lol) then the most sensical way to even that out is to prevent us from improving that personnel. That's what happened when Chelsea were found guilty of tapping up youth players (i.e. gaining a sporting advantage).

I don't how they can equate our sporting advantage to an actual amount of points to deduct.

superpull wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 11:25 pm The 3 year rules are to prevent going into administration.

So it seems a bit odd that the punishment for risking something is worse than the punishment for doing something?

Exactly. It’s like catching the kids smoking so then making them smoke a whole pack to teach them that smoking is bad for them.

Fucking brainless.

Should be spending sanctions and financial punishment for overspending and breaking financial guidelines.

Goaljira wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 11:49 pm If it was truly to prevent administration then they'd be much stricter. You operate at a profit other than funds you can show were direct injection from the owner(not loans from them or any other party).

If we'd not overspent and got ourselves into further debt with more and more dubious loans, then we'd have likely been relegated and be facing administration anyway, so why should you get away with a lesser punishment?

If not to prevent clubs going bust - why do you think these rules exist?
It's demonstrably not to level the playing field, rather to ensure clubs 'operate within their means'.

(and whilst your general point stands for other clubs - overspending has brought us closer to relegation than being prudent under Moyes did. So that hypothetical point is moot)

superpull wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:07 am If not to prevent clubs going bust - why do you think these rules exist?
It's demonstrably not to level the playing field, rather to ensure clubs 'operate within their means'.

(and whilst your general point stands for other clubs - overspending has brought us closer to relegation than being prudent under Moyes did. So that hypothetical point is moot)

The rules are there to ensure the enshrined big teams with their existing higher levels of income from years of CL football are able to keep their place at the top of the table.

Its not 20 years ago. You can't just go and get a 10 goal a season attacking midfielder from the Championship or League One for £2m. Or even £5m adjusted for inflation. At best they're costing you £15m+ each with the same reputations. Moyes is having to spend over £100m to be still pretty shite. Thats with them having a free new ground, and generating London money. Stick him with us now with a stadium to fund and our still non-existant non-TV revenue income and we'd still be selling the family jewels, and be down fighting relegation or worse.

If we've spent and come so close to relegation, then what do you think the outcome would have been if we'd sold one more good player to comply with the rules? We'd have likely gone down and faced administration, so given we've materially benefitted from the extra year TV income why should the punishment not be equivalent to that for going into administration if by doing what we've done prevented it?

Isn't the £105m losses over 3 seasons 11 years old?

So no adjustments for inflation, and in a period when wages and fees have blown up

11 years ago Jack Roswell was joining Man City and we signed Thomas Hitzelsburger.

None of it is fair.