Financial Fairplay Investigation - 2025 Nobody in Breach

[74Blue]

Because we left a whole in our finances.

I'm struggling with the compensation claims to be fair. If we had not overspent by 19.5m, one of the clubs who finished below us might have stayed up, but then again, they might have still gone down. Who knows how the results would have looked without that overspend? We might have gone down, we might have stayed up. If my auntie had bollocks, she could be called my uncle, but who knows whether she would want to be.

[weimaranerblues]

Another point in the report we were allowed to factor in the interest on loans as a loss one year then they changed the rules and said no

[Cereal Killer]

Dear Burnley

Demonstrate us spending £19.5m over the limit directly helped us avoid relegation at your expense

No?

Fuck off then

[AjaxAndy]

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.

In that case every single team in the division we took a point or three from has a case for compensation against us, as every point we gained affected the individual club we played and those around them in the league.

Every single place in the league is worth X millions, and all our results good or bad affected that final standings, because we played every team twice.

It could even be argued that any goals we scored even if we lost affected goal difference and had a bearing on final standings.

Absolutely bizarre they have said relegated teams have a case against us as it's either every team we affected or none.

Again something that doesn't add up and is just being done to make an example of us regardless of whether it is provable to have had an impact or not.

[Shogun]

Good to see the framework was only for Everton. Be interesting to see how they backpedal between now and the day of reckoning for Man City.

[777Kidnappings]

Even accepting our overspend relegated burnley our delayed punishment could keep Luton Sheffield utd or even burnley up this season.

Surely had they took the points 2 seasons ago and we'd stayed up no one would think they are entitled to compensation so they shouldn't be now. Least not on top of a delayed punishment

[Toddacelli]

Suing someone because they beat you at sport would set a really dangerous precedent. What about PSG having an unfair advantage? Or the RedBull teams loaning from each other?

Can’t see it happening, myself.

[Stumpy]

Suing someone because they beat you at sport would set a really dangerous precedent. What about PSG having an unfair advantage? Or the RedBull teams loaning from each other?

Can’t see it happening, myself.

These teams trying to get compensation are pathetic.
We were a complete and utter mess a shambolic excuse for a premier league club run and managed by the most inept and incompetent board and management team you will ever see.
And still Burnley, leicester et al couldn't finish in front of us.
How have burnley got a claim?
Leeds finished between us and that season we took 3 points off burnley and 4 of Leeds so how would they have stayed up if all points we took of theses clubs were taken away, they still would have been relegated.
The one thing the premier league did get right was that we gained no sporting advantage by the breach, i'd go further than that and say most of the crap we signed over the last 4 or 5 years put us at a disadvantage.
Them teams went down because they were not good enough and deserved it too, and it would have been the same if it had happened to us..
It's like everything in todays world it's always some other fuckers fault

[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.

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

If I sent a phishing email to you and managed to con you out of your life savings then got caught, if be expected to do time and pay you back.

The points are the prison sentence and the compo is reparations.

[superpull]

Fwiw, I think the case for compensation against us is very, very poor.

There is a slim chance that whoever finished 18th against us 2 years ago has a decent enough case for us to have a bit of a sweat on about, but the rest is tenuous as shit. (In fact, in agreeing with the teams from last year, the panel would be admitting that they and the PL fucked up. Can't see that).

But these teams are well within their right to have it looked into legally.

[Cods]

This is the thing that has bothered me the most about it. I read through the entire 41 page transcript of the hearing. The commission gives the reasoning for why the PL asked for 10 points (6 for the breach, 1 for every additional 5m over), says they won’t be swayed or influenced by it and then hands down 10 points with zero explanation for why they settled on the number.

A little bit of light reading mate? Couldn't sleep

Ok so, 19.5m is technically only 3x extra '5millions', so surely 6 + 3(1) = 9 points at most?

Not shooting the messenger, either, but there seems to be little logic to it.

Weren't these also the guidelines for the EFL and not the PL as well? They've just basically thought fuck it and plucked 4 points out of thin air haven't they?

Yeah I'm not sure really but seems plausible going on what's being said (although by the time the appeal is in I bet they'll come up with something to back it up).

I am sure of the the basic maths however that says 5m only goes into 19.5m *three* times and not quite *four* times, so I'd like to see them deliver some clarification on this, if this is indeed how they calculated it, and then we can look to pull holes in their argument prior to our appeal. I hope our arguments are detailed and plentiful.

I also wonder what our fine will be for not being able to maintain an orderly crowd after our game against United. It'll probably be worth it.

[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.

If I sent a phishing email to you and managed to con you out of your life savings then got caught, if be expected to do time and pay you back.

The points are the prison sentence and the compo is reparations.

But by the end of the season we might not have their money. By the end of the season burnley might have burnleys money having been relegated when they shouldn't have and stayed up when they shouldn't

If we go down this season then financially we'd have been relegated twice rather than once purely because of the delay.... also they'll be occasions where a team survives twice when they should have been relegated once and occasions why prompt punishment would have seen 2 survivals but the delay gets them relegated

All 3 are possible. All 3 are issues of the premier leagues ability to process cases quickly enough. I'm not sure how that can fall at evertons door because the premier league took too long

If we'd finished 15 points above burnley that season we'd still be facing relegation this season because of the delay. Surely that's sings and round abouts over a number of cases

[brap2]

More I hear about the charges against us the less sure I am we'll get out of it.

Got us bang to rights and rightly so.

[Shogun]

More I hear about the charges against us the less sure I am we'll get out of it.

Got us bang to rights and rightly so.

Missed you brapster

Don't think anyone thinks we'll get out of it, most just don't think 10 points is justified

[superpull]

777Kidnappings, you're doing a huge amount of mental gymnastics here.

What has happened after the the "crime" isn't relevent. You really need to start thinking about this like we conned an old lady out of her savings. If she won the lottery the next day, it doesn't matter.

It also means that the teams las year should be getting to fuck, as we were done for the 3 years prior to that.

I'm with brap2 for the most part. The only thing I'm clinging onto is the whole stadium interest thing.
I'd have died on the hill that youth, infrastructure and stadium were all things that could be removed from p&s calcs.
So seeing they repudiated interest on a loan for a stadium feels very, very harsh to me still.