Everton Discussion

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, Happy Blue said:

I didn't say you as such but all's you read and see online is City are guilty and getting relegated. we are 2 for 2 in the courts and the treble is a real possibility  so clubs like Liverpool need to calm down because this won't be sorted for years, it's a legal battle now and City are jostling for the best position, lots of red tape to get through and people kicked of panels we don't like so yes, Harris is correct, we are drawing it out because this is what the best legal teams do to make sure the client has the best chance. 

You’ll probably get a slap on the wrist because avoiding embarrassment and protecting the image of the league is more important than sporting integrity.

I think they’re dropping the hammer on Everton so they’ve got something to point at to say: look we enforce rules and take rules seriously. Even though the premier league was involved and rubber stamped the same financial violations they’re now punishing Everton for.

[Cicero]

The 115 breaches have been grouped together that fall under 8 or 9 major breaches. 

There was this ITK City correspondent that believes City are fucked in at least 2 of them. 

[Happy Blue]

20 minutes ago, Cicero said:

The 115 breaches have been grouped together that fall under 8 or 9 major breaches. 

There was this ITK City correspondent that believes City are fucked in at least 2 of them. 

Yeah the grass was 1mm short and the away dressing room is 1 squared foot undersize, they got us on that. probably just a fine though

What this all comes down to is Basically the whole thing was about something that was brought up in the uafa investigation and it boils down to some guy paid the money on behalf of Etisalat in 2 payments of 15m one in 2012 and in 2013 and that person was connected to our club.

however he was acting as a broker on behalf of Etisalat who was having cash flow issues, and city shown evidence at the cas hearing showing Etisalat repaid the money a year later, so basically Etisalat used a broker and intermediary to pay their sponsorship to city and then Etisalat repaid it a year later, so in essence Etisalat  borrowed the sponsorship money, this was a time bared offence at the time.

Basically this just allowed Etisalat to start their sponsorship agreement earlier when they didn't have the money, but IGT allowed city to add it to their 2012 financial figure, but this is just a everyday business thing that lots of companies do called invoice factoring where companies get paid straight away but its paid back at a later date, it is just a general business thing that gets done all the time. Yes it was time barred but it would have been dismissed anyway similar to the same accusation made about Etihad, that was within the statute of limitation but was found to NOT be true by case and city was proved innocent

Edited November 22, 2023 by Happy Blue

[Happy Blue]

36 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

You’ll probably get a slap on the wrist because avoiding embarrassment and protecting the image of the league is more important than sporting integrity.

I think they’re dropping the hammer on Everton so they’ve got something to point at to say: look we enforce rules and take rules seriously. Even though the premier league was involved and rubber stamped the same financial violations they’re now punishing Everton for.

Kicking us out the league would just damage the brand wouldn't it. i'd love a league 2 tour again though tbh now we have completed football  ..btw i've found an amazing little 20watt head that's really cheap and sounds like a mesa dual rectifier, i'll stick it in the music thread when i get chance

[Cicero]

9 minutes ago, Happy Blue said:

Yeah the grass was 1mm short and the away dressing room is 1 squared foot undersize, they got us on that. probably just a fine though

What this all comes down to is Basically the whole thing was about something that was brought up in the uafa investigation and it boils down to some guy paid the money on behalf of Etisalat in 2 payments of 15m one in 2012 and in 2013 and that person was connected to our club.

however he was acting as a broker on behalf of Etisalat who was having cash flow issues, and city shown evidence at the cas hearing showing Etisalat repaid the money a year later, so basically Etisalat used a broker and intermediary to pay their sponsorship to city and then Etisalat repaid it a year later, so in essence Etisalat  borrowed the sponsorship money, this was a time bared offence at the time.

Basically this just allowed Etisalat to start their sponsorship agreement earlier when they didn't have the money, but IGT allowed city to add it to their 2012 financial figure, but this is just a everyday business thing that lots of companies do called invoice factoring where companies get paid straight away but its paid back at a later date, it is just a general business thong that gets done all the time. Yes it was time barred but it would have been dismissed anyway similar to the same accusation made about Etihad, that was within the statute of limitation but was found to NOT be true by case and city was proved innocent

It's actually 5 major breaches looking back. The 2 you are allegedly fucked on are

- Failure to comply with the Premier League over their investigation

- Alleged FFP and profit and sustainability breaches. 

 

Apparently there were some botched revenue streams City simply cannot provide legitimate explanation for. 

[Happy Blue]

1 hour ago, Cicero said:

It's actually 5 major breaches looking back. The 2 you are allegedly fucked on are

- Failure to comply with the Premier League over their investigation

- Alleged FFP and profit and sustainability breaches. 

 

Apparently there were some botched revenue streams City simply cannot provide legitimate explanation for. 

We defo getting done for failure to comply, the other one we will have to see what we show in court as we have failed to comply we just haven't shown anyone our hand. looks like Spurs are the next target with Chelsea, Liverpool, United and Everton. just start the whole league on -10pts next season at this rate 

[RandoEFC+]

[DeadLinesman]

5 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Jesus Christ. Please tell me you can appeal this and take these cunts to court?

[Stan]

3 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

What a joke

PL have fucked up majorly there.

[Happy Blue]

6 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

The PL is run by cowboys, i'm fairly sure our new planned expansion is not going to count for FFP too, something Everton can use

[OrangeKhrush]

when there are to many rules, it becomes confusing to enforce rules.   

FFP should be scrapped, it will encourage wealthy backers to buy smaller clubs and rattle the big 6 some more.

[Stan]

2 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

when there are to many rules, it becomes confusing to enforce rules.   

FFP should be scrapped, it will encourage wealthy backers to buy smaller clubs and rattle the big 6 some more.

While the rich get richer and richer? 

[RandoEFC+]

2 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

when there are to many rules, it becomes confusing to enforce rules.   

FFP should be scrapped, it will encourage wealthy backers to buy smaller clubs and rattle the big 6 some more.

 

7 minutes ago, Stan said:

While the rich get richer and richer? 

I actually agree with OrangeKhrush to an extent because it has become clear now that the primary function of FFP, intentionally or not, is to keep the big six as the big six. 

Even if Everton had spent this money well, you'd be on the fringes of the top six at best, even now, and getting a 10 point penalty knocking them back into mid-table anyway. I don't know what will happen with Newcastle. It'll be interesting to see if they can establish themselves and make it a big seven. They have a better chance because they have owners in charge of the club who know how to "know the right people" and "whisper into the right ears" just like Man City's owners. Aston Villa have spent some decent money but they would be in the same boat as Everton if they hadn't brought a £100m player in Jack Grealish through their academy to make their books look miles better and that sort of thing happens once in a generation. Generally, everyone else can forget about it.

That brings us to the problem of scrapping FFP. Apparently you have to get 14 out of 20 clubs to vote for a change like this, just as we saw the other day with the rule change about loans from affiliate clubs. The ban didn't go through because only 13 clubs voted in favour of it. There are six clubs in the league who will never, ever vote to get rid of the FFP rules, because they currently ensure that those six clubs are the only ones in the league who can realistically compete at the top of the league. All it then takes is one other club to vote with them. You only need to find one team further down the league who are currently doing pretty well for themselves but don't have that much more money to spend, so wouldn't vote to allow the richer mid-table clubs like Aston Villa, West Ham or Everton (five years ago) to just spend their way past them.

These financial rules are here to stay. The whole point is that they don't want anymore Chelseas or Man Citys. The top table is full and they've settled on the group of clubs that are good for the Premier League brand. It's all eyes on Newcastle to see if they can make it seven instead of six.

[OrangeKhrush]

30 minutes ago, Stan said:

While the rich get richer and richer? 

not sure what your point is.  Abolishing FFP will make small market teams viable to rich investment which will lead to more competition and thus breaking the big 6 monopoly.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by the rich get richer.

16 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

 

I actually agree with OrangeKhrush to an extent because it has become clear now that the primary function of FFP, intentionally or not, is to keep the big six as the big six. 

Even if Everton had spent this money well, you'd be on the fringes of the top six at best, even now, and getting a 10 point penalty knocking them back into mid-table anyway. I don't know what will happen with Newcastle. It'll be interesting to see if they can establish themselves and make it a big seven. They have a better chance because they have owners in charge of the club who know how to "know the right people" and "whisper into the right ears" just like Man City's owners. Aston Villa have spent some decent money but they would be in the same boat as Everton if they hadn't brought a £100m player in Jack Grealish through their academy to make their books look miles better and that sort of thing happens once in a generation. Generally, everyone else can forget about it.

That brings us to the problem of scrapping FFP. Apparently you have to get 14 out of 20 clubs to vote for a change like this, just as we saw the other day with the rule change about loans from affiliate clubs. The ban didn't go through because only 13 clubs voted in favour of it. There are six clubs in the league who will never, ever vote to get rid of the FFP rules, because they currently ensure that those six clubs are the only ones in the league who can realistically compete at the top of the league. All it then takes is one other club to vote with them. You only need to find one team further down the league who are currently doing pretty well for themselves but don't have that much more money to spend, so wouldn't vote to allow the richer mid-table clubs like Aston Villa, West Ham or Everton (five years ago) to just spend their way past them.

These financial rules are here to stay. The whole point is that they don't want anymore Chelseas or Man Citys. The top table is full and they've settled on the group of clubs that are good for the Premier League brand. It's all eyes on Newcastle to see if they can make it seven instead of six.

I am sure FFP won't disappear if the power rests in the current status quo.   I also don't want to be part of that group if clubs, nor do they want us there as 6 ways is more than 7 ways, I regard Villa as rich but like us the top 6 don't want anyone in that party as the more you add the less the profits get

I agree with punishment for Everton for breach of rules but I find it concerning that Everton are made scapegoats to Chelsea whom have dropped 1.3bn in 4 years while gross income was less than a third of that and somehow this is "legal".   If Everton got 10 points deducted then Chelsea should be in serious trouble

[Bluebird Hewitt]

20 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

We all now agreeing at long last that the premiership ('the best league in the world', 'where all the best players in the world want to go', etc etc etc) is corrupt and mainly protecting the big boys?

I'm sure if it gets to be more mainstream that the likes of Gary Neville, Carragher, Rio Ferdinand et al will try to defend it.

[Dave]

There has to be a more fair way to implement FFP. At the moment its just luck as to where you were in the football pyramid when Portsmouth sank.

This summer showed it more than ever, between Manchester United and Chelsea the only signing I can say off the top of my head that was a good signing in the last five years is Bruno Fernandes. Yet there still allowed to spend nine figures whilst Everton, Wolves and Leicester have all had to reign it in recently.

The approach that rich owners can put in as much as they want isn't the answer. Derby County showed that when the club became completely dependent on Mel Morris' and he lost interest.

My initial thought was there should be a grace period where new owners are allowed to invest as much as there own money as they want. That way ambitious infrastructure can be created to set those that are serious about a long term project. However the obvious criticisms to this are the Delphon Chansiri's of the world, who recklessly spend as much they want with a two year plan with no plan after.

I quite like the Spanish model. It's harsh but clubs will not go under with it. No matter how hard Barcelona try. Maybe implement on budgets on July 1st as opposed to September.

[RandoEFC+]

If they wanted a competitive Premier League they could just introduce a budget cap, but they don't. 

[LFCMike]

On 22/11/2023 at 07:27, RandoEFC said:

You don't half come out with some shite when it comes to Everton. I've seen probably not far short of a thousand people comment about this penalty including about 100 Reds on social media and those I know in person who aren't shy about sticking the knife in and you still manage to distinguish yourself as the only person who attempts to paint the fans as wrong for protesting.

You answer your own question in one sentence. Everton have already spent years protesting this ownership. The bloke is already selling up and he's already got rid of the board who oversaw all of this shitshow. What's the point in still telling him to fuck off now? Plenty of fans have said it's the club's own fault for breaking the rules, which they have.

Also "now the Premier League are corrupt". Forgotten have we that you and a slice of your fanbase said stuff like "the integrity of the Premier League is now in serious question" and "this isn't even just about Liverpool, all football fans need to come together against the officiating in this league" because *a single offside decision* went against you? God help us if this were to happen to your lot.

Nobody sensible disputes the fact that Everton have technically breached the rules. That's on the club and the ownership who need to do better. But a 10 point penalty is totally disproportionate to the crime in question. If one of your players got sent off for an inoccuous trip in the middle of the field and got sent off for it, you'd blame the referee for dishing out an excessive punishment, not the player for committing a simple foul. If you got caught speeding at 63mph in a 60mph zone and ended up with a 10 year driving ban, you'd be pissed off at the judge who dished that out, even though you shouldn't have been speeding in the first place. If a kid in my class forgets their pen and I put them in after school detentions for two weeks, then I'm the dickhead. Etc. Etc.

The punishment here doesn't remotely fit the crime. That's the thrust of the protests. And I really don't think it's that fucking complicated to be honest pal so I hope that clears it up for you.

Is it totally disproportionate? We won't know cos no club has ever been done for this before. And we don't know what other clubs have coming to them yet. 

If other clubs are found guilty and get away with punishments that don't fit the crime then it's wrong but we need to see the outcome of those.

People need to stop comparing the situations with Everton and City. It's like saying 'why is that shoplifter already in prison when that serial killer hasn't been to trial yet'. Totally different situations.

I hope City get done proper if they're found guilty

[RandoEFC+]

3 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

Is it totally disproportionate? We won't know cos no club has ever been done for this before.

Yes because there's no way an overspend of ~£20m has gained us a 10 point advantage.

If you want to be a part of the vanishingly small minority of people who think 10 points isn't at least questionable then fine, but you can park the nonsense about our fans being wrong to be outraged for our reaction for the reasons I've already explained.

[LFCMike]

3 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

Yes because there's no way an overspend of ~£20m has gained us a 10 point advantage.

If you want to be a part of the vanishingly small minority of people who think 10 points isn't at least questionable then fine, but you can park the nonsense about our fans being wrong to be outraged for our reaction for the reasons I've already explained.

It surely doesn't matter how much you've overspent by? If you're over then you're over. 

Love how you are all concerned with City's cheating now though when it wasn't an issue when they were denying Liverpool titles

[RandoEFC+]

58 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

It surely doesn't matter how much you've overspent by? If you're over then you're over. 

Love how you are all concerned with City's cheating now though when it wasn't an issue when they were denying Liverpool titles

I don't agree with you on the overspend thing but I have nothing left to add to what I've already said so I won't repeat myself.

I haven't mentioned City in either of my replies to you. It is valid for Everton fans to point at them and say "well you better sort them out too". You aren't wrong either that their case is separate. There are many other reasons for our grievance that have nothing to do with City though (again, see the earlier posts). The Everton response wouldn't have been much different if there was no noise around City at all.

But, if we're honest, the reason you're bringing City up is a cheap point-scoring attempt and I can't be arsed joining in with that game I'm afraid.

[Stan]

Everton to play in new stadium from 25/26 season. 

Heard the stadium may be ready at some point during next season but club deciding not to change stadium at that point and wait for the start of 25/26.

[OrangeKhrush]

https://www.goal.com/en-za/lists/everton-facing-administration-second-points-deduction-777partners-takeover-delayed-premier-league-due-diligence-checks/blt357a00605e35f9c9#csbf6fbed130ee2bd7

any truth here, that would be a kick in the nuts

[RandoEFC+]

Click bait.

[LFCMike]

2 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

Click bait.

That Esk fella has been saying the same thing. Evertonians shot him down when he was criticising Morshiri years ago