I don't want to be writing more essays on this but Everton's net transfer spend over the last 4 years (not chosen randomly like some fans like to do to suit their argument, but because that's the timeframe for which we've been sanctioned) is the 18th highest in the league, only more than Brighton and Luton. Unlike our reckless squad building of 6-7 years ago, the first team is actually full of young-ish players with good resale value (Branthwaite, Garner, Onana, arguably McNeil, arguably Mykolenko) and those that don't fall into that category were either brought in for next to nothing or on loan (Young, Danjuma, Tarkowski, Harrison, Calvert-Lewin) or have given us many years of service to repay their large fees (Pickford, Doucoure).
The wage budget isn't quite as pretty. We're paying about £80m a year in wages which puts us near the middle of the league. You could argue that we should be paying more like £60m a year in wages for where our team is performing. (You could also argue that this squad has scored the 12th most points this season before deductions and that it's therefore not unreasonable to have the 10th highest wage budget but I'll be harsh on us to prove my point.) That puts us a bit above Wolves and Bournemouth and bit below Fulham and Palace. However, if you increase our net spend over the last 4 years by £80m to include the impact of an approximate £20m per season overspend on wages for four seasons, that takes us to the same sort of region as Crystal Palace and a bit ahead of the likes of Bournemouth, Fulham and Wolves, still nowhere near the top half of what any team has spent over the past four seasons. You should also account for the fact that Everton have successfully reduced their wage bill year on year since Kevin Thelwell became Director of Football and Moshiri stopped interfering.
Why am I bothering with all of these numbers? Well firstly it's to debunk any talk that Everton have continued to spend recklessly. We've spent a similar amount to the rest of the teams in the bottom half over the past 4 years on our footballing operation, so what major difference is there between Everton and the likes of Wolves, Crystal Palace and Fulham? Well Everton are building a stadium of course and paying for it all themselves.
The bottom line here, if Everton weren't building a new stadium in order to become more profitable in the long run, they wouldn't be anywhere near breaching the profit and sustainability rules. You couldn't really think of a better and more necessary way to spend money in order to be sustainable and profitable long-term. The problem with the three-year cycle for us is that it takes more than three years to build a stadium. We're doing all of the investing in that project now and seeing none of the benefits during the same time period. Surely, there has to be some mitigation here. If the actual aim of the financial rules is to encourage clubs to think long-term and think about sustainability then you have to allow them to invest in long-term projects exactly like this without holding it against them. The club couldn't have done more to cut back on their footballing operation over the past 4 years.
Everton admitted a breach the first time around. If the Premier League had been sensible and said alright, you're currently investing in something that's going to pay you back down the line but you've still breached the rules and we can't let it go, we'll hit you with a transfer ban or even a modest points penalty of say 4 points, then I really don't think Everton or the fans would have kicked up that much of a fuss. 10 points was already a harsh, harsh penalty and now we're facing the potential prospect of being punished a second time for 2 of the same 3 years, and potentially being punished for two different time periods in the same season because our case has been fast-tracked.
As for the size of the original penalty, and an unknown further penalty, nobody knows what number the Premier League will find this time when they reach into thin air to pluck one out (because make no mistake, that's literally what they did last time). I know hindsight is 20-20 but it beggars belief that when these rules were set up in 2013, there wasn't a clear sanctions policy set up to go with it. The Premier League have left themselves in a position where they're making it up as they go along and turned the league for the foreseeable future into a farce where relegation battles, European qualification and possibly even league titles could now end up decided in courtrooms. Everton have a 10 point deduction already subject to appeal, and could end up with another points penalty which would then likely be appealed as well. If Everton and Forest both get another points deduction then it affects all the clubs around the relegation zone. What if Luton and Burnley start playing for draws here and there because that's enough to get them on track for safety and then Everton and/or Forest get some of their points back on appeal? It's a circus.
This whole system needs a massive rethink. The sanctions policy needs putting on the table and sorting out as soon as possible and they need to start thinking about live accounting for the implementation of these sanctions because this process of submitting the accounts once a year and then letting accountants and lawyers fight it out for months after is ridiculous.
I think that's pretty much all I have to say on the matter. We'll see what happens this time around but I'm going to try my best to control myself in writing paragraphs and paragraphs more about this because I'm frankly totally bored of it. It also goes without saying that as much as the Premier League have totally botched the implementation of these rules and sanctions, our football club has been run extremely poorly under Moshiri which has put us in this position in the first place. He has been an absolute cancer on our club and so was Bill Kenwright for giving him the keys to the kingdom. Everton fans are under no illusions that the club is by no means innocent in this. However, the point remains that Everton would comfortably be compliant by now if they weren't spending so much money on building a new stadium for their long-term profitability. If the Premier League's answer to that is to dish out heavy-handed points penalties and very possibly relegate us, inflicting even more financial hardship on a club that has done nothing but cut back on their spending and sell their best players over the time period in question, then I don't see how they can claim to be advocating for financial stability at all. It also sends out a very firm message to the rest of the league that unless you're already rich enough to do so, you shouldn't bother trying to invest in anything like stadiums or training facilities or youth academies that aren't going to yield you immediate benefits in the next three years because as far as FFP is concerned, that's wasted money.