Everton Discussion

[Dave]

4 hours ago, Whiskey said:

Yeah, without sounding like a broken record the fact I'm not that arsed shows how disconnected I am with football and Everton. The fact that we are docked points, yet City with their 638,239 charges will inevitably walk away with no action is just deflating to say the least. 

Corruption has never been so rife, oil money has never been so rife, disregard for human rights has never been so rife, the lack of respect for the match going fan has never been so rife. 

I think I mentioned but there's a non league club (lower than Vanarama North/South) a 5 minute walk from my house. I'm genuinely debating going there to get my football fix and sacking off this elite Premier League oil money, TV deal, #globalsport wankathon. 

 

I know at least 15 people that have given up Crystal Palace season tickets to follow Croydon Athletic and Sutton United for these reasons.

I look at Lewis (which is the best non league football ground bar none), who are the disruptor for women's football thats making the same mistakes as the mens game, which is a 20 minute drive from my house. If my son wanted to support them I'd be more happy than if he supported Palace. I never thought I would get to that situation but top league football isn't the game I fell in love with. 

[Happy Blue]

12 hours ago, Redcanuck said:

Hopefully the 10 point deduction for Everton is an indication that City will be treated correctly.   I hope they get the same treatment as Rangers and are demoted to League Two.  Personally if it was up to me they would be out of football

Everyone assumes we are guilty. if the court case goes our way again like the last two times the premier league are fucked with the damage they have caused to our reputation

[Happy Blue]

8 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

And if relegated clubs sue Everton successfully, I think the league is really to blame - not Everton. Everton cooperated fully, the league rubber stamped everything. So this combined £300m other clubs want from Everton should be coming from the league’s pockets imo.

They cant help Everton because they going to need the 300million for the first instalment of the damages payment to Manchester City by the time we are done with them  

[Happy Blue]

Under PL Rule 51.5 the independent commission can now order Everton to pay unlimited compensation to any club. Leeds, Forest, Southampton, Leicester and Burnley have 28 days to let the IC know if they want to pursue a claim for compensation

[Rick]

29 minutes ago, Happy Blue said:

Everyone assumes we are guilty. if the court case goes our way again like the last two times the premier league are fucked with the damage they have caused to our reputation

If your club was innocent of the uefa charges, you wouldn’t have paid a fine, 30m wasn’t it? 

[LFCMike]

40 minutes ago, Rick said:

If your club was innocent of the uefa charges, you wouldn’t have paid a fine, 30m wasn’t it? 

Exactly. The only reason they got off without any sort of real punishment was the time barred bollocks. No such thing with the Premier League 

[Happy Blue]

2 hours ago, Rick said:

If your club was innocent of the uefa charges, you wouldn’t have paid a fine, 30m wasn’t it? 

Wrong. the fine was for not cooperating outside a court of law like it will be this time. Its City that want this dealing with in court

[Happy Blue]

2 hours ago, LFCMike said:

Exactly. The only reason they got off without any sort of real punishment was the time barred bollocks. No such thing with the Premier League 

The fine was for not cooperating outside of a court of law, we was cleared in court of any wrong doing. The time barred stuff is also bollocks, go and read the CAS case files, even though it was time barred we still presented the evidence to the court when we didn't need too

[OrangeKhrush]

10 points is not as bad as I was thinking, Everton should overcome it.

Chelsea and City will be sweatier than a Vietnam sweatshop right now, talks of disqualification and relegation thrown around.   Im sure Todd will put some of that money in the FA pocket to get something lighter

[JoshBRFC+]

Can anyone please explain how Everton are punished yet no other club have been?

This league is as corrupt and worse than it’s ever been. 

[MUFC]

[Dave]

 

 

[LFCMike]

4 hours ago, JoshBRFC said:

Can anyone please explain how Everton are punished yet no other club have been?

This league is as corrupt and worse than it’s ever been. 

The other clubs are still under investigation. City's case is more complex and are denying everything whereas Everton have been more open to what they did

[Redcanuck]

8 hours ago, Happy Blue said:

Everyone assumes we are guilty. if the court case goes our way again like the last two times the premier league are fucked with the damage they have caused to our reputation

For me It really has little to do with the charges, I don't think that nation states should be allowed to own football clubs. Other clubs can't compete with them financially.  It's why I was hoping the Qataris would buy United, if you can't beat them join them philosophy.

[LFCMike]

21 hours ago, Whiskey said:

Yeah, without sounding like a broken record the fact I'm not that arsed shows how disconnected I am with football and Everton. The fact that we are docked points, yet City with their 638,239 charges will inevitably walk away with no action is just deflating to say the least. 

Corruption has never been so rife, oil money has never been so rife, disregard for human rights has never been so rife, the lack of respect for the match going fan has never been so rife. 

I think I mentioned but there's a non league club (lower than Vanarama North/South) a 5 minute walk from my house. I'm genuinely debating going there to get my football fix and sacking off this elite Premier League oil money, TV deal, #globalsport wankathon. 

As a side note, in retrospect I do agree with the comment regarding Dyche.

Follow your local Sunday league team. It's a great laugh, no one takes it too seriously. 

Honestly, I've started doing that on a Sunday and it's fucking great. Love Sunday's and if Liverpool are playing on a Sunday it just gets in the way

[Reluctant Striker]

1 hour ago, Redcanuck said:

For me It really has little to do with the charges, I don't think that nation states should be allowed to own football clubs. Other clubs can't compete with them financially.  It's why I was hoping the Qataris would buy United, if you can't beat them join them philosophy.

Yes, for me, all I hear of FFP, is just wired up wrong. It feels designed to stop clubs doing a Man City, Chelsea, or if you go back far enough, a Blackburn. Coming from mid table, or even further back & getting to the top.

I don't have any issue with that, in theory. It's a part of what I liked way back decades ago. 

For me, the issue is broadly spiralling market values, where smaller or less currently successful clubs, find it very difficult to compete. To the extent Luton & Sheffield United have arguably not even bothered to try. Clubs that were able to win league titles & cups in the 70s, 80s & 90s are now nowhere near. Or get a once in a blue moon shot. And in the case of Everton, being harshly punished for essentially messing up an attempt to change that.

I'm not sure what the rules should be. But a more American twist of the least successful having more allowance to place big bets / take first pick, really would not be too bad. And less allowance for Champions League regulars to splash out crazy money when they finish mid table. It does start feeling like a tangled complicated mess to get to something everyone can be happy with & also level out the playing field, at the same time.

[Redcanuck]

18 minutes ago, Reluctant Striker said:

Yes, for me, all I hear of FFP, is just wired up wrong. It feels designed to stop clubs doing a Man City, Chelsea, or if you go back far enough, a Blackburn. Coming from mid table, or even further back & getting to the top.

I don't have any issue with that, in theory. It's a part of what I liked way back decades ago. 

For me, the issue is broadly spiralling market values, where smaller or less currently successful clubs, find it very difficult to compete. To the extent Luton & Sheffield United have arguably not even bothered to try. Clubs that were able to win league titles & cups in the 70s, 80s & 90s are now nowhere near. Or get a once in a blue moon shot. And in the case of Everton, being harshly punished for essentially messing up an attempt to change that.

I'm not sure what the rules should be. But a more American twist of the least successful having more allowance to place big bets / take first pick, really would not be too bad. And less allowance for Champions League regulars to splash out crazy money when they finish mid table. It does start feeling like a tangled complicated mess to get to something everyone can be happy with & also level out the playing field, at the same time.

It's definitely the spiraling of player values that's the major problem.  This is where City advantage comes into play, they can afford to make mistakes in the players they buy.  If they need to fill a need in one area of the pitch, they can keep buying players til they get the right one.  Other clubs have to get it right the first time or they end up stuck with expensive players that aren't any better than the ones they have replaced.

[OrangeKhrush]

city and Chelsea should be shitting themselves but somehow the FA will go light on them, watch the space.

Edited November 19, 2023 by OrangeKhrush

[Honey Honey]

On 18/11/2023 at 10:10, JoshBRFC said:

Can anyone please explain how Everton are punished yet no other club have been?

This league is as corrupt and worse than it’s ever been. 

Which other clubs have broken the 3 year rule? Aston Villa came close but as far as I'm aware ended OK. Forest have already started recalibration.

Man City and Chelsea are under investigation for fraud, very different, far more serious and complex. 

Everton are a lesson to anyone who tries to taks a punt at bettering themselves.

Basically, the rule is £105m on paper, but in practice if you dare to get up to £105m from a mid table position you are gambling. Thats the lesson here. So really the unwritten rule is more like £50m-£75m for the mid table clubs.

The saddest part in all of this is Everton failed. They didn't even manage to make a good enough team to progress. They've basically had to sell good players sending them further back than where they started from, isn't that enough of a price to pay? Now they're getting a points deduction as well it is kicking a man when he's down. 

You can argue rules are rules, but I do think it should be weighted by the advantage you gave yourself. And no, Leeds and Burnley didn't get relegated because of Everton overspending, quite the opposite, Everton were only at Leeds and Burnleys level in the first place because their spending failed and they then had to sell sell sell. Where does it end? Everton pay everyone below them in the pyramid until they're in the conference?

[JoshBRFC+]

1 hour ago, Honey Honey said:

Which other clubs have broken the 3 year rule? Aston Villa came close but as far as I'm aware ended OK. Forest have already started recalibration.

Man City and Chelsea are under investigation for fraud, very different, far more serious and complex. 

Everton are a lesson to anyone who tries to taks a punt at bettering themselves.

Basically, the rule is £105m on paper, but in practice if you dare to get up to £105m from a mid table position you are gambling. Thats the lesson here. So really the unwritten rule is more like £50m-£75m for the mid table clubs.

The saddest part in all of this is Everton failed. They didn't even manage to make a good enough team to progress. They've basically had to sell good players sending them further back than where they started from, isn't that enough of a price to pay? Now they're getting a points deduction as well it is kicking a man when he's down. 

You can argue rules are rules, but I do think it should be weighted by the advantage you gave yourself. And no, Leeds and Burnley didn't get relegated because of Everton overspending, quite the opposite, Everton were only at Leeds and Burnleys level in the first place because their spending failed and they then had to sell sell sell. Where does it end? Everton pay everyone below them in the pyramid until they're in the conference?

Cheers mate, makes sense. I’ve not spent time looking into it and knew asking the question on here would give me a better insight than searching online.

[RandoEFC+]

This idea around Leeds etc suing Everton for their relegation surely cannot be stood up legally. Everton have been punished (excessively). They can't also then be held culpable for being punished too late.

I'm still staggered by this two days later. The alleged overspend is £20m and there are two mitigations that could make the difference alone. One, Gylfi Sigurdsson was a £45m asset that we ended up losing for nothing due to circumstances completely beyond our control. Of course he wasn't worth £45m by then (or ever) but that's our club record signing and the club claimed they could have at least sued him for breach of contract to the tune of £10m but chose not to because there was no need to kick a man while he's down. Two, Everton decided to fund the stadium themselves because Moshiri could get help from Usmanov to fund it. Then the Ukraine war kicked in and Usmanov had his assets frozen costing the club up to £200m in naming rights. Of course, Usmanov is not a savoury character and I'm glad he has nothing to do with the club but if Everton had known this would happen, they'd have taken a loan to fund the stadium instead and never have ended up with the balance sheet looking the way it does.

All that and you end up only £20m outside the threshold you can get away with. The club haven't denied that they've broken the rules but surely with these mitigations you get a fine or a suspended points penalty so you get the opportunity to prove it's a one-off... 10 points is an absolute outrage.

[Lucas]

1 hour ago, RandoEFC said:

This idea around Leeds etc suing Everton for their relegation surely cannot be stood up legally. Everton have been punished (excessively). They can't also then be held culpable for being punished too late.

My understanding is we're suing for damages, loss of earnings, impact of relegation etc whilst you held an unfair competitive advantage.

From that perspective, I can understand the club's arguements however, I personally think it's a waste of time and something we could do without.

On the face of it, I agree with you, I don't think the case is really that valid but I'd assume our lawyers have advised the club have a valid case hense the initial intention to sue if you were found guilty.

For me, what's done is done, no point looking at the if's but's and maybe's.

You've admitted to breaking the rules, you've been proven to be guilty of that and you've been given a punishment, harsh or not, and that should be the end of the matter.

My only take really in this as I said before is that I find it ironic Everton have been dealt this penalty at a time where the odds are heavily in their favour to survive. 

That's not their fault, it's the Premier League's for taking as long as they have, but effectively it's probably worked out kindly for them anyway.

Edited November 19, 2023 by Lucas

[RandoEFC+]

18 minutes ago, Lucas said:

My understanding is we're suing for damages, loss of earnings, impact of relegation etc whilst you held an unfair competitive advantage.

From that perspective, I can understand the club's arguements however, I personally think it's a waste of time and something we could do without.

On the face of it, I agree with you, I don't think the case is really that valid but I'd assume our lawyers have advised the club have a valid case hense the initial intention to sue if you were found guilty.

For me, what's done is done, no point looking at the if's but's and maybe's.

You've admitted to breaking the rules, you've been proven to be guilty of that and you've been given a punishment, harsh or not, and that should be the end of the matter.

My only take really in this as I said before is that I find it ironic Everton have been dealt this penalty at a time where the odds are heavily in their favour to survive. 

That's not their fault, it's the Premier League's for taking as long as they have, but effectively it's probably worked out kindly for them anyway.

The only teams that can say they would have stayed up if we'd have been punished earlier are Leicester and Burnley. They can both still fuck off though because Leicester breached the rules themselves and were allowed to pay a settlement and Burnley can fuck off because they're already back in the Premier League to profit from our 10 point penalty now (and are hilariously the only club to be behind us after just TWELVE games even with a ten point penalty applied).

Leeds have a better case than Southampton or Forest(!?) who have also been mentioned. Southampton would still have finished bottom if we'd been docked 10 points last season and fuck knows how Forest think it involves them given that they weren't in the league for most of the period in question and finished above us last season anyway, so I'll give Leeds that.

Partisan ranting aside though, I stand by the part that the Premier League should be responsible for paying any damages, especially to Leeds and Burnley who they effectively told to do one two years ago when they complained about our finances... which they did because Everton had approached them and worked with them closely to ensure we were compliant... oh I'm back to the start again.

[Happy Blue]

16 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

city and Chelsea should be shitting themselves but somehow the FA will go light on them, watch the space.

Why would City be shitting it when the guy the premier league got the "information" from is currently sat in a jail cell  ..we will get a fine for not cooperating outside of court again, that's it 

[OrangeKhrush]

2 hours ago, Happy Blue said:

Why would City be shitting it when the guy the premier league got the "information" from is currently sat in a jail cell  ..we will get a fine for not cooperating outside of court again, that's it 

I wonder what he is in prison for, fraud maybe?