The NSNO Everton Forums

We are usually the first and last of any punishment and so it was forever thus.

First to have a player punished for retroactive red card offense
First to be punished for PSR/FFP/WTF compliance regulations

Although I'm not sure share issues count towards PSR?

The dont, technically.

But it increases the amount you can "lose" per year from £5m to £35m. (3x£35 is the £105m figure over 3 years you hear about).
You can only make that jump if an owner (or owning body) has made an investment in the club - buying share issues is the simplest method of doing this.

Share issues like the above don't tend to be listed as income or turnover (in the PL accounts anyway)

Trowel wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 10:08 am

Said that last season too didn't he

Blows my mind that the last we heard was that the prem did not consider our loan accounting compliant and since then - nothing.

That could land at any point and put us in breach.

Are we in the post-Niasse retrospective diving punishment phase of things?

superpull wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 8:42 am Wish people would stop bringing up the City case. It's just not comparable.

Theirs is relating to the fair market value of deals that allowed them to comply with p&s rules.
Ours has been about being dickheads enough to actually breach them thinking everything will be ok.

Cheating is cheating. Whether it's getting your mates to launder a fuck ton of your money through the club by way of sponsorship or simply spending more than the rules allow, it still amounts to the same thing. We've already been punished TWICE, whilst those cunts just carry on regardless.

74Blue wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 5:21 pm Cheating is cheating. Whether it's getting your mates to launder a fuck ton of your money through the club by way of sponsorship or simply spending more than the rules allow, it still amounts to the same thing. We've already been punished TWICE, whilst those cunts just carry on regardless.

If i punch somebody in the face, i'm not expecting the civil courts to be getting in touch.

they're two entirely unrelated things. City are fighting an entirely different battle

superpull wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 5:23 pm If i punch somebody in the face, i'm not expecting the civil courts to be getting in touch.

they're two entirely unrelated things. City are fighting an entirely different battle

We are talking about financial irregularities here, not common assault. What the fuck has punching someone in the face got to do with Financial Fair Play?

What has psr got to do with fair market value of naming rights of a stadium?

superpull wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 5:23 pm If i punch somebody in the face, i'm not expecting the civil courts to be getting in touch.

they're two entirely unrelated things. City are fighting an entirely different battle

Completely disagree. Its the same thing but city were clever enough to try and hide it.

Free Agent wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 10:32 am First to have a player punished for retroactive red card offense
First to be punished for PSR/FFP/WTF compliance regulations

You'll never sing that.

superpull wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2025 6:49 pm What has psr got to do with fair market value of naming rights of a stadium?

Overinflating the value of naming rights of your stadium directly affects the amount of revenue coming into the club, ie Profit. By over-inflating the amount of "profit", you can spend more money that you would not have had were it not for the over-inflated naming rights deal. The fact that the naming rights deal is with a company that just happens to be owned by your brother in law and is way, way in excess of any deal that anybody else would have been prepared to make is a bit fishy don't you think?
By MASSIVELY over-inflating your profits, you are gaining an unfair advantage (cheating) in exactly the same way that a team that overspends could be gaining an unfair advantage (cheating). One gets punished for cheating, but the other one doesn't, despite the fact that everybody knows that they are over-inflating their profits.
Profitability and Sustainability Rules. Over inflating your profitability is essentially cooking your books, whilst overspending is not realistically sustainable. Both are wrong, but only one is being punished, so perhaps the name of PSR should be changed to something more appropriate.

Ok, we're all broadly in agreement about the morals here.

My point is though, what we were punished for (and what nobody was punished for today), City didn't fall foul of. It's irrelevant.

Because there were no rules against what City (or Chelsea) did do, it's not reasonable to hold them as some kind of example of how unfairly we've been treated.
- We broke the rules we signed up to.
- City didn't.

Now, the 115 charges brought against them may very well be against the ethical guidelines and "spirit" of the rules. But that's a separate, drawn out and litigious matter. One that wouldn't have helped our cause whichever way it went.