Profit & Sustainability Rules Change/'Luxury Tax'

[Dave]

In hindsight, the PL should have let the EFL discipline Leicester City last season when they offered to. There's visible improvement since Trevor Birch has taken over.

The fact Leicester City have managed to wrangle out on a technicality which everybody thought was a far stretch is really concerning and sends out the message that there is no deterrent for breaching these rules.

Sadly, nobody seems to respect Richard Masterts and this verdict isn't going to do his standing any favours. The sooner we get an independent regulator in the better, and I say that knowing Steve Parish has the biggest sway in these PL Chairman board meetings.

13 minutes ago, Dan said:

You know as much as I'm loving winding up Forest and Everton fans online currently I do think they need to completely bin this and compensate those two for last season somehow. None of us should've ever been docked anything.

No. You all should have been docked something. Rules are rules and it would have been unfair on everybody else that have a developed a succesful model to operate at this level should idiots like Maranakis and Moshiri get away with a blatant disregard to the rules because they couldn't control themselves.

[RandoEFC+]

10 minutes ago, Dave said:

No. You all should have been docked something. Rules are rules and it would have been unfair on everybody else that have a developed a succesful model to operate at this level should idiots like Maranakis and Moshiri get away with a blatant disregard to the rules because they couldn't control themselves.

Forest and Everton aren't the problem with what's happened to Premier League football though. Nor are Leicester.

Football shouldn't come down to which clubs are unlucky enough to be sold to lunatics like those two.

Meanwhile nobody at the Premier League seems to give a shit about the elite clubs who have monopolised English football, and in the case of some of them, contribute every year to the sheer unsustainability of football by spending unconscionable amounts of money driving ridiculous inflation.

All of us fans of the "make up the numbers" clubs shouldn't be wasting our time bickering over who breached PSR by £20m this time. We should all be outraged at the fact that our clubs are held accountable to these rules but if you're lucky enough to have been astonishingly rich before they were introduced then you just get off with it every year. Chelsea and Man Utd are worse run clubs than Everton, Forest and Leicester. I may have some respect for a set of rules like these when they're held to the same standards as us. 

[Stan]

1 hour ago, Dave said:

The sooner we get an independent regulator in the better,

I agree. 

[Dave]

1 hour ago, RandoEFC said:

Forest and Everton aren't the problem with what's happened to Premier League football though. Nor are Leicester.

Oh come of it .

The rules over time have shown to be not fit for purpose but that doesn't mean any of you were right to have no regard for them.

[Devil-Dick Willie]

1 hour ago, RandoEFC said:

Forest and Everton aren't the problem with what's happened to Premier League football though. Nor are Leicester.

Football shouldn't come down to which clubs are unlucky enough to be sold to lunatics like those two.

Meanwhile nobody at the Premier League seems to give a shit about the elite clubs who have monopolised English football, and in the case of some of them, contribute every year to the sheer unsustainability of football by spending unconscionable amounts of money driving ridiculous inflation.

All of us fans of the "make up the numbers" clubs shouldn't be wasting our time bickering over who breached PSR by £20m this time. We should all be outraged at the fact that our clubs are held accountable to these rules but if you're lucky enough to have been astonishingly rich before they were introduced then you just get off with it every year. Chelsea and Man Utd are worse run clubs than Everton, Forest and Leicester. I may have some respect for a set of rules like these when they're held to the same standards as us. 

Imagine you're at an American school. It's lunchtime, and you and your 2 buddies bully some students, then call a teacher a dumb slut. Then the rich kid comes to class with his AR 15 and kills 115 students just after lunch. 
Sure, you aren't the news headlining student, but you deserve punishment for the things you did nonetheless. 

Follow the rules next time.

[RandoEFC+]

39 minutes ago, Dave said:

Oh come of it .

The rules over time have shown to be not fit for purpose but that doesn't mean any of you were right to have no regard for them.

"Over time" . I.E. When Everton fans were clued up on this 18 months ago and told everyone the rules and their implementation were a farce, and that they were about to become a lot more people's problem, and nobody wanted to hear it, we were right, and now it's been proven.

You're admitting now that the rules aren't fit for purpose so why should Everton and Forest not have a gripe with the fact we've been docked points because of them?

Everton have been very poorly run but there was a lot of mitigating factors behind our losses and "having no regard for the rules" makes it out to be a lot more egregious than it was.

32 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Imagine you're at an American school. It's lunchtime, and you and your 2 buddies bully some students, then call a teacher a dumb slut. Then the rich kid comes to class with his AR 15 and kills 115 students just after lunch. 
Sure, you aren't the news headlining student, but you deserve punishment for the things you did nonetheless. 

Follow the rules next time.

You need to read up on what Everton did wrong.

There's this lazy, lazy narrative that Everton have spent recklessly all this time based on a couple of transfer windows in about 2014.

Over the past 5 years (this year and the 4 years covering our charges) we're the only team in the Premier League to have a positive net transfer spend (look it up). People accuse us of "cheating". It amounts to our owner being a dumbass and using his money to pay for the stadium when he should have taken a loan because a technicality in the rules means the interest payments wouldn't have counted, and then losing his main source of income from Usmanov having his assets frozen thanks to Russia invading Ukraine.

I'm not pretending that Everton don't have a case to answer for or that they haven't been run like a circus for a decade but I'm not the one who needs to come off it. We get done for that while Chelsea seemingly don't even have a case to answer for spending a billion pounds while not qualifying for Europe and selling their hotels and women's team to their affiliates to cook the books, and Leicester get off on a technicality because the Premier League didn't write their rules properly?

I'm not calling us angels and the last thing you'll find me doing is defending Farhad Moshiri or his running of the club but we have grounds to be pissed off here.

[Happy Blue]

The premier league bringing chargers against Leicester when they had no right to do so shows what a bunch of muppets they are. these clowns are going to owe us damages when we are finished with them, we had some major success in the recent court case a few weeks ago, can see FFP getting scrapped 

Edited September 4 by Happy Blue

[Stan]

9 hours ago, Dave said:

Oh come of it .

The rules over time have shown to be not fit for purpose but that doesn't mean any of you were right to have no regard for them.

To have no regard for rules that don't work? 

Usually rules are foolproof and rigid. PL's rules clearly weren't. 

I think clubs that have done things differently have done it in spite of the rules, not because the PL can turn around and say well done. 

 

[Dave]

8 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

"Over time" . I.E. When Everton fans were clued up on this 18 months ago and told everyone the rules and their implementation were a farce, and that they were about to become a lot more people's problem, and nobody wanted to hear it, we were right, and now it's been proven.

You're admitting now that the rules aren't fit for purpose so why should Everton and Forest not have a gripe with the fact we've been docked points because of them?

Everton have been very poorly run but there was a lot of mitigating factors behind our losses and "having no regard for the rules" makes it out to be a lot more egregious than it was.

 

How much money was wasted 18+ months prior on the likes of Gbamin, Delph, Iwobu, Tosun, Keane, Gomes, Kean, Klaasen, Walcott, Bolasie etc?

I dont think you can have any gripe you have been docked points when you've drifted closer and closer to the sun every year and eventually got burnt.

20 minutes ago, Stan said:

To have no regard for rules that don't work? 

Usually rules are foolproof and rigid. PL's rules clearly weren't. 

I think clubs that have done things differently have done it in spite of the rules, not because the PL can turn around and say well done. 

 

I got a speeding ticket for going 60 in a temporary speed zone of 50 at 5am on an empty motorway where the roads are usually 70. There was no need for the temporary speed zone and the rule was stupid but I still paid the fine because that's the rules. 

Just because you don't agree with a rule doesn't mean you should be allowed to ignore it. Even more so to gain an advantage over others that are able to be succesful by abiding by the rules. Over time these rules will probably change but until a better solution is agreed teams need to play by the current rules.

 

[Stan]

23 minutes ago, Dave said:

How much money was wasted 18+ months prior on the likes of Gbamin, Delph, Iwobu, Tosun, Keane, Gomes, Kean, Klaasen, Walcott, Bolasie etc?

I dont think you can have any gripe you have been docked points when you've drifted closer and closer to the sun every year and eventually got burnt.

I got a speeding ticket for going 60 in a temporary speed zone of 50 at 5am on an empty motorway where the roads are usually 70. There was no need for the temporary speed zone and the rule was stupid but I still paid the fine because that's the rules. 

Just because you don't agree with a rule doesn't mean you should be allowed to ignore it. Even more so to gain an advantage over others that are able to be succesful by abiding by the rules. Over time these rules will probably change but until a better solution is agreed teams need to play by the current rules.

 

Whether we gained an advantage from exposing this loophole is very much an argument to be debated

 

[Happy Blue]

1 hour ago, Dave said:

How much money was wasted 18+ months prior on the likes of Gbamin, Delph, Iwobu, Tosun, Keane, Gomes, Kean, Klaasen, Walcott, Bolasie etc?

I dont think you can have any gripe you have been docked points when you've drifted closer and closer to the sun every year and eventually got burnt.

I got a speeding ticket for going 60 in a temporary speed zone of 50 at 5am on an empty motorway where the roads are usually 70. There was no need for the temporary speed zone and the rule was stupid but I still paid the fine because that's the rules. 

Just because you don't agree with a rule doesn't mean you should be allowed to ignore it. Even more so to gain an advantage over others that are able to be succesful by abiding by the rules. Over time these rules will probably change but until a better solution is agreed teams need to play by the current rules.

 

What if the rules are illegal? are they still valid if it's against English law?

[OrangeKhrush]

Hey oh, PSR has got to go

[OrangeKhrush]

13 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

Just scrap these awful rules ffs.

Amein, it only serves to reduce competition and detract from investment.   Chelsea just do what they like with no transfer plan and can just glide through red tape

[RandoEFC+]

1 hour ago, Dave said:

How much money was wasted 18+ months prior on the likes of Gbamin, Delph, Iwobu, Tosun, Keane, Gomes, Kean, Klaasen, Walcott, Bolasie etc?

I dont think you can have any gripe you have been docked points when you've drifted closer and closer to the sun every year and eventually got burnt.

You can point to individual transfers all you want. Here are the facts of Everton's net transfer spend over the past five seasons, which ENTIRELY covers the period for which we were docked points. I don't really care about the 18+ months before that because they're irrelevant, that's not the period for which we were charged.

The only current Premier League team to have made a profit on transfers over the past 5 years. Outspent by Luton and Burnley. Even the likes of Brentford, Bournemouth and Fulham have spent £150-200m more than us in that time period. Everton have had a problem with inflated wage budgets throughout those years which offsets these differences to some extent but not a big enough one to justify calling our dealings reckless or irresponsible. Our financial problems are nothing to do with transfers we made 8 years ago like Sky Sports News and Twitter would have you believe. It's all shitty historical debt and an owner who had his main source of funding removed because of the Ukraine war. All those transfers you mentioned, Everton could afford at the time. We've cut our cloth but we're strangled by interest on loans that go back to Kenwright's early years at the club. The owner has botched the sale of the club three times which is generating more debt. In the meantime, those at the club are doing everything they can to stay in the league and on the right side of PSR until we can get into the new ground, which itself has been a huge financial bell-weight hanging around the club's neck, the funding of which has also been affected by the Usmanov issue.

Rules are rules and Everton breached the threshold, but if you want to comment on this, you need to get your facts straight. This wasn't down to a series of egregiously reckless transfer dealings like you seem to want to believe. Nottingham Forest might have "disregarded the rules" by signing 30+ players in one transfer window. I don't know about Leicester. But to level that charge at Everton is unfair.

Everton fans won't defend our ownership. Most of us accept that the club had a case to answer, but the Premier League botched it and lost all right to be treated with any respect or good faith. They came after us twice in one season because of their own poor administrative processes and requested that we get docked a total of 17 points in one season. This isn't the behaviour of a good faith actor. To initially give us a worse points deduction than you'd get for actually going into administration was a disgrace, then Forest got a 4 point deduction for a breach twice the size of our initial one which we got 10 points for which was reduced to 6. Now Leicester are getting off on a clumsy technicality. Man City get to set the terms of their hearings while Chelsea's spending completely takes the piss out of the rest of the league.

[Dave]

1 hour ago, RandoEFC said:

You can point to individual transfers all you want. Here are the facts of Everton's net transfer spend over the past five seasons, which ENTIRELY covers the period for which we were docked points. I don't really care about the 18+ months before that because they're irrelevant, that's not the period for which we were charged.

The only current Premier League team to have made a profit on transfers over the past 5 years. Outspent by Luton and Burnley. Even the likes of Brentford, Bournemouth and Fulham have spent £150-200m more than us in that time period. Everton have had a problem with inflated wage budgets throughout those years which offsets these differences to some extent but not a big enough one to justify calling our dealings reckless or irresponsible. Our financial problems are nothing to do with transfers we made 8 years ago like Sky Sports News and Twitter would have you believe. It's all shitty historical debt and an owner who had his main source of funding removed because of the Ukraine war. All those transfers you mentioned, Everton could afford at the time. We've cut our cloth but we're strangled by interest on loans that go back to Kenwright's early years at the club. The owner has botched the sale of the club three times which is generating more debt. In the meantime, those at the club are doing everything they can to stay in the league and on the right side of PSR until we can get into the new ground, which itself has been a huge financial bell-weight hanging around the club's neck, the funding of which has also been affected by the Usmanov issue.

Rules are rules and Everton breached the threshold, but if you want to comment on this, you need to get your facts straight. This wasn't down to a series of egregiously reckless transfer dealings like you seem to want to believe. Nottingham Forest might have "disregarded the rules" by signing 30+ players in one transfer window. I don't know about Leicester. But to level that charge at Everton is unfair.

Everton fans won't defend our ownership. Most of us accept that the club had a case to answer, but the Premier League botched it and lost all right to be treated with any respect or good faith. They came after us twice in one season because of their own poor administrative processes and requested that we get docked a total of 17 points in one season. This isn't the behaviour of a good faith actor. To initially give us a worse points deduction than you'd get for actually going into administration was a disgrace, then Forest got a 4 point deduction for a breach twice the size of our initial one which we got 10 points for which was reduced to 6. Now Leicester are getting off on a clumsy technicality. Man City get to set the terms of their hearings while Chelsea's spending completely takes the piss out of the rest of the league.

You say you don't care about the 18+ months before, but the reality is that period is still important as you would have amortised transfer fees and still paid those players wages. So let's consider the whole picture before making 'get your facts straight' jibes.

2 hours ago, Happy Blue said:

What if the rules are illegal? are they still valid if it's against English law?

However you're trying to justify Man City's achievements counting for anything to yourself is fine by me. You do you in the corner.

[OrangeKhrush]

Clubs should be able to spend what they want but constraints on wage caps which are proportional to revenue  sort of like MLB.   That will prevent signing rockstars as you cant sustain the loses on the wages eg: cant load a team with Mbappe, Bellingham etc and pay 500m in wages for a revenue stream that only supports 250m.   If a team violates this first offense 1 window ban, second offense 3 window ban, 3rd offense relegation and the club placed under league administration to cut costs

[Dave]

13 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

Clubs should be able to spend what they want but constraints on wage caps which are proportional to revenue  sort of like MLB.   That will prevent signing rockstars as you cant sustain the loses on the wages eg: cant load a team with Mbappe, Bellingham etc and pay 500m in wages for a revenue stream that only supports 250m.   If a team violates this first offense 1 window ban, second offense 3 window ban, 3rd offense relegation and the club placed under league administration to cut costs

I remember hearing the problem with the proposals to change the PSR rules at the end of last season was that they'd effectively be putting a limit on what players could earn, and the EFL lost a legal battle around salary caps in 2020 so they'd struggle against a stated case.

The lawyer that went up against the EFL in 2020? Nick De Marco.

[Reluctant Striker]

I do actually think a fairer & more competitive encouraging way to govern things, would in some way allow perhaps new owners to set out some funding guarantee for X number of years. They guarantee costs will be covered. No risk to the clubs existence. So no Portsmouth, Leeds, etc.

And everyone in & around the club know the ticking clock to when they need to have raised their standard income levels.

It feels like it would give more chance to a Villa or a Newcastle or whoever, to take a better attempt at being the next Chelsea or Man City. But, then it loops back to the fact the rules were designed to prevent that scenario. And it still kind of exempts profitable pre-rulings clubs, as very high spending is covered, almost regardless. It certainly seems more difficult to lose current income than generate new.

[RandoEFC+]

1 hour ago, Dave said:

You say you don't care about the 18+ months before, but the reality is that period is still important as you would have amortised transfer fees and still paid those players wages. So let's consider the whole picture before making 'get your facts straight' jibes.

However you're trying to justify Man City's achievements counting for anything to yourself is fine by me. You do you in the corner.

I mentioned the wages already. I've provided my evidence. I'm sure Everton took some losses on the likes of Gomes, Tosun and Bolasie but not all of the players you mentioned. We got all of our money back for Kean when Juventus activated his buy back clause. Iwobi and Klaassen we made about a £10m loss on.

It's boring as fuck this anyway. Amortisation has become the biggest boner-killer in the history of discussing football.

My original point wasn't even that Everton shouldn't have been punished, it was Dan who said us and Forest should get our points back. I've said multiple times that we had a case to answer. My point is that PSR is so flawed on every level and the implementation has been carried out so inconsistently that they need to rip it up and start again. It was also evident the second the Premier League asked for us to get a 12 point deduction that they weren't a good faith operator because that punishment would be worse than the consequence for administration.

You agree with me that the rules aren't fit for purpose anymore. I agree with you that an independent regulator needs to be brought in imminently to get English football under control. I just think that within 24 hours of us finding out that Leicester have got off on a technicality where we ended up deducted 8 points (for smaller breaches than them as well) that I have some grounds here to be annoyed, get on my high horse and say "I told you these rules were an absolute joke" after months of being accused of bitter lemons last season.

[Happy Blue]

1 hour ago, Dave said:

However you're trying to justify Man City's achievements counting for anything to yourself

It seems people still don't understand me after all this time, i really don't care what outsiders think about my club, changes nothing for me  we have done nothing worse than the other top clubs before FFP 

[OrangeKhrush]

5 hours ago, Dave said:

I remember hearing the problem with the proposals to change the PSR rules at the end of last season was that they'd effectively be putting a limit on what players could earn, and the EFL lost a legal battle around salary caps in 2020 so they'd struggle against a stated case.

The lawyer that went up against the EFL in 2020? Nick De Marco.

There is no limit on what players can earn,  there is a limit on what clubs can pay for wages,  thus if they want a player that wants 400K a week,  it will mean balancing their finances to afford that player and the rest of the team.   It was a shameful outcome that protects a bent system. 

[RandoEFC+]

 

 

[OrangeKhrush]

Selling hotels to themselves,  interesting. 

[MUFC]

Spreadsheets.

[MUFC]

1 hour ago, OrangeKhrush said:

There is no limit on what players can earn,  there is a limit on what clubs can pay for wages,  thus if they want a player that wants 400K a week,  it will mean balancing their finances to afford that player and the rest of the team.   It was a shameful outcome that protects a bent system. 

@mufc