The NSNO Everton Forums

Goaljira wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 10:29 am Chelsea sold players before the end of the FY, and bought players after. They're owners have also hinted they'll fight any punishment as actions of the previous regime which they had no control over, so wouldn't be fair to punish them.

I saw the main defence Chelsea were going for was that Abramovich was forced to sell due to the Ukraine conflict and sanctions, so that year/s wouldn’t be applicable to any calcs…

Not sure how that’ll fly as they told us we should have considered that a possibility and isn’t a mitigating factor

Chelsea also spent a billion pounds structured over 7 years so in reality the amount per year isn't as crazy, and they've sold players to balance that out.

Still probably be over but the amount they've spent is quite misleading because it's smaller per year than it looks.

AjaxAndy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 11:43 am Chelsea also spent a billion pounds structured over 7 years so in reality the amount per year isn't as crazy, and they've sold players to balance that out.

Still probably be over but the amount they've spent is quite misleading because it's smaller per year than it looks.

Chelsea would have been very clever in what they'd done if they'd gotten the signings right and were doing well. The problem for them now is that they still need to spend and selling someone on an 8 year contract for a significant loss would impact ffp negatively.. they won't be over but they gambled on doing much of the next few years spending upfront

Forest have only £61m over 3 years to play with. £13m for each Championship season and a £35m loss for the season just gone.

Unless they have broken even in the current accounts and excluding any impact from Covid, then they will surely fall foul of the rules. That is of course they are using some financial wizardry in FFP terms by structuring some of these deals over weird and wonderful terms.

Chelsea’s is different, as that is a more complicated and severe charge. It shouldn’t matter, but for some reason it does.

The biggest gripe is who are overseeing these investigations to ensure that there is fairness, transparency and that there are appropriate judgements are handed down?

If the Premier League cannot handle cases of such magnitude and complexity like City’s and Chelsea’s, then they should not be allowed to govern any punishment, as it will contravene fairness and equality. And why should City continue onwards with seemingly no deadline or date in sight as to when they are informed of any punishment or hearing?

And if you are going to get clubs that are ruled by Sovereign states going against the resources of the Premier League, then the PL will never be able to win. The only viable solution is a Football Regulator that no football institution can pass by. A Football Regulator will have the powers and resources of Government to fight anyone flouting the rules. And the same goes for Europe. UEFA has no real power compared with Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia etc. There needs to be European Football Regulatory body as well.

777Kidnappings wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 11:50 am Chelsea would have been very clever in what they'd done if they'd gotten the signings right and were doing well. The problem for them now is that they still need to spend and selling someone on an 8 year contract for a significant loss would impact ffp negatively.. they won't be over but they gambled on doing much of the next few years spending upfront

Yeah they've pretty much consigned themselves to long period of mediocrity with the business they've done.

There's also talk of selling Gallagher to balance the books, and even though he's not great, at least he's not a mercenary who came for the cash... They're going to have no identity, and a whole team of expensive players on expensive contracts they have to sell but won't be able to.

Gutted for them

Cozzie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 3:42 pm

Does anyone understand this stuff? No wonder people can avoid tax etc when there seems to be so many ways of saying A=H if you factor in S and call it B, then subtract the first letter you thought of. The actual answer is AAFG, allowing for fiscally adjusted N's.

We should maybe open a January Points deduction thread, instead of a January Transfer window thread in future seasons, if the Prem is going to be issuing possible deductions on the 14th Jan every season.

Nottingham Forest and Everton will find out on Monday January 15 whether they will face new Premier League charges for breaching financial regulations.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/20 ... ity-rules/

Something to look forward to at least

Paddockoldie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2024 7:54 pm Does anyone understand this stuff? No wonder people can avoid tax etc when there seems to be so many ways of saying A=H if you factor in S and call it B, then subtract the first letter you thought of. The actual answer is AAFG, allowing for fiscally adjusted N's.

The simple answer is the "rules" of FFP & PSR were drawn up, produced and written by people who quite frankly had no clue what they were opening up and therefore confused themselves so much that no one understands them even them ! Perhaps thats exactly why they produced them in the way they did. So objectively they achieved their objective. Ie: confuse the fkk out of everyone.

I the words of monty python - "those quite simply are the rules"......"we'll be back next season...or calender year....or fiscal year..we think"

Madness that they could potentially punish us twice in the same season and we still haven't heard the results of our appeal for our first offence, along with City again not being banged to rights.

Has anyone seen a good write up anywhere of the new investigation? What period it is against etc?

Everton add Laurence Rabinowitz KC to legal team before appeal
Club believe he is one of the leading barristers in the UK

Everton have bolstered their legal team for the club’s appeal against their ten-point deduction by appointing one of the UK’s top barristers.
Laurence Rabinowitz KC is regarded as a “super silk” and the decision to hire him demonstrates the club’s determination to challenge the punishment for breaching profit and sustainability rules when the case is reconvened in the near future.

An independent commission sanctioned Everton in November after they admitted to breaking Premier League spending rules, which allow for losses of £105 million over a three-year period. They accepted they had gone above that threshold by £9.7 million, although argued that a number of mitigating factors, including interest on stadium loans, should have been taken into account.

The penalty, which was greater than the nine-point deduction handed to Portsmouth when they went into administration, was described as “wholly disproportionate and unjust” by the club.

An appeal was lodged with the chair of the Premier League’s judicial panel and a new commission will now hear the case.

Rabinowitz, who specialises in commercial litigation, will lead the appeal and work in tandem with James Segan KC, who represented Everton at the original hearing.

His appointment is regarded by Everton as a coup given he is in huge demand and they believe he falls alongside Lord Pannick KC, who has been hired by Manchester City in their fight against 115 Premier League charges, and Jonathan Crow as the best in the United Kingdom.

The appeal does not allow new evidence to be presented but will instead focus on the regulatory process followed by the three-man panel who decided upon the ten point deduction and what was presented in the commission’s conclusion.

Everton feel they have a strong case to challenge the severity of the punishment, the result of which means they are 17th in the top flight, a point above the relegation zone.

---

Feel like the bit I've bolded will be quite easy to pick holes in based on what we've heard since about the 'framework' used to dish out the punishment.