The NSNO Everton Forums

Newcastle have just signed Lewis Hall from Chelsea for £28m + £7m add ons.

If anyone is talking about Dobbin going for £9m/£10m as potentially unrealistic, then please see the above. That is a heck of a lot of money for a full back who hasn't done too much.

Financial "fairplay".

I love how everyone's finding ways to fuck over FFP... Although on the flip side it's also infuriating knowing we'll likely be the target of any clamp downs not the richer teams who aren't even trying to hide it!

I mean, they allowed huge COVID losses for us?

superpull wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 8:14 pm I mean, they allowed huge COVID losses for us?

Was that in 2022?

Shogun wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 8:15 pmWas that in 2022?

2022 PSR submissions would have still contained an element of COVID write-offs as they were for the proceeding 3 years.

It may be that United didn't require the write-off at the time so didn't bother. But as the PL let us and a few others off, when they're books became stretched retrospectively asked for it.

It's all about context. You can't just pull one line out of a set of accounts and declare it proves anything one way or another.

superpull wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2024 8:35 pm 2022 PSR submissions would have still contained an element of COVID write-offs as they were for the proceeding 3 years.

It may be that United didn't require the write-off at the time so didn't bother. But as the PL let us and a few others off, when they're books became stretched retrospectively asked for it.

It's all about context. You can't just pull one line out of a set of accounts and declare it proves anything one way or another.

I disagree. I don’t think the message here is ‘Why did United get special treatment?’ I think the message is that there are such varying circumstances over what is allowed and what isn’t, that clubs are discovering after the fact, that the Premier League really need to set out everything properly, with full transparency how this process works, and then remain consistent. Otherwise there will be more instances of clubs falling foul of the rules and more clubs benefiting from the rules, which just leads to an atmosphere of injustice and confusion.

The bit about how Forest were not allowed to use their promotion bonuses in their top line earnings but Man U were able to use share sales to Ratcliffe which should have been paid by the Glazers, not the club, illustrates the diffuse and seemingly random way that different financial movements are valued in this system. Make it make sense.

Whilst I agree broadly, the Forest example is a poor one - because that wasn't diffuse or random.

Clubs know that any years spent in the championship mean the EFL limits will be used for that year.

The share exemption could do with a bit further explanation though

Yep. Some of this is bad club management - no doubt whatsoever, but any lack of clarity only exacerbates the mistakes made by the badly run clubs. This does not excuse how clubs like Everton are run - BUT - this process should be in place to help clubs and they have so see how making it clear and consistent is a must.

Slbsn face turn

That's the point Kieran Maguire is trying to make, that the Covid allowances specifically allowed for the impact of Covid on commercial partners.

So different rules to our circumstances - rules that the PL clubs voted for - as much as we may disagree with the outcome.

So the most any other club got in the league for Covid allowance was 1 million and united got 40 something stinks there

Kerryblueboy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2024 8:33 am So the most any other club got in the league for Covid allowance was 1 million and united got 40 something stinks there

Eh?

Didn’t we blag over £100m

Because we were ridiculously over PSR