Sounds like they danced with the devil
Everton deducted 10 points for PSR breach (reduced to 6) | Deducted further 2 points for second breach
- Thread starter SilentWitness
- Start date
Sounds like they danced with the devil
As a second offence Everton will be hit hard by this I imagine.
We were apparently in contact with Spurs already so not a gamble
Sorry that statement makes no sense - Ignoring whom?
A bit of a strange post
I know that 100+ charges is not the same as one or two and that it takes time but it is still "funny". Two clubs will maybe get relegated for few charges while City winning trebles.
Was that the one and only deal Forest made?
I’ve heard this reasoning a lot today, but is it not the half a dozen deals Forest did prior to the sale of Johnson that caused the problem in the first place.
City’s shit is so wide reaching that it’ll take years to untangle.
Seems like you’re starting to understand judicial process. You have to gather evidence to prove they did what you said they did. Would you rather them just rush it and totally feck it up? You know they only get one shot at charging them for these things right? They can’t do it again later when they’ve got their shit together better.
Right now imagine you charge someone for doing something wrong and they say no. Now you have to prove they did something wrong, so you ask them to provide the documents you need to prove they did something wrong. They also say no. Now you have to go to court and get them to release said documents. Now imagine that 100+ times and you’ll start to understand why this process will take time.
Not only that, you think they can rock up to court with some jumped up charges on the back of a fag packet? City’s lawyers will destroy them, but if that’s what you want then feck it, let’s just rush it and have it over and done with.
Now imagine you charge Everton and they say, yeah we did that, and here the proof we did that, we want to comply. Okay, here’s your punishment for breaking the rules.
Quick that wasn’t it?
You turned down a lower bid (ended up being a lower bid) for a higher one that came after the deadline even though you knew you’d be punished by waiting?
Thats a balls up from the club isn’t it?
Will make the disgracing all the sweeter. Imagine winning a treble and then being told it’s null and void? Heartbreaking.
That is the worst thing in all this shit. They will get a ban, probably get demoted in lower division BUT trophies will stay in their hands.
At the end we will have a thread here; "5 years in lower leagues vs 20 trophies. What do you pick?"
The sale of Johnson brought us in compliance so the previous deals are irrelevent.
We were Communicating with the FA throughout the window about the Johnson sale. Presumably at no point in that conversation did the FA say sorry we will do you if you proceed with that plan so how is that a balls up?
Null to rival fans yes.
But they're only investigating the period at the start of City's run aren't they? Not the last few years.
I think they're doing up to 2018 but they want the recent docs also which City won't share with them, which is why part of the charges are due to an unwillingness to cooperate. Safe to say, they'll do the lot once they get their hands on everything. I doubt the under the table payments just stopped one summer in 2022.
The Premier League already have the evidence that they believe prooves City committed the offences thats why they were charged, its now up to City to proove their innocence by producing evidence in their defence.
The reason this is taking so long is because City are apparently using every tactic in the book to delay it as much as possible including trying to get it blocked by the courts despite claiming they have evidence that prooves their innocence.
That is not how things usually work. You charge someone if and when you have evidence to back that. And then it is up to them to bring evidence that they are not guilty.
It was outside of the required time frame right?
Might be harsh, but for example if 2 clubs in 17th and 18th in the table. The club in 17th complies with all the regulations and stays within FFP rules.
But the club in 18th spunks a load they don’t have and survives the drop in place of the other club…only to give the excuse, don’t worry about it we’re gonna sell a load of players in the next window.
Is that fair?
Last edited:
You mean "Mr.Let me stop in mid sentence to emphasize everything i am saying" is full of shite?
I for one, am shocked sir!
My thoughts exactly. Spurs may have paid 17 million more (or whatever it was) in the end in September after the deadline had passed but they could have at any point decided to bugger off and buy someone else and Forest remain over the limits.
Anyway anyone nice enough to explain what period Everton are being charged for now and which period they were charged for that resulted in the points deduction?
Oh don't get me started on journalist voice! Ornsteins meandering nonsense in particular brings me out in hives.You mean "Mr.Let me stop in mid sentence to emphasize everything i am saying" is full of shite?
I for one, am shocked sir!
Last edited:
They could probably dock Man C 50 points and they still wouldn't be relegated.
It sounds like things could get really bad for Forest
Yeah this is the problem.
Everton and Forest are openly perhaps unwittingly admitting that they have fecked up whereas City knew theyd fecked up so hid all their failings behind fake crypto currency sponsors and completely over inflated deals.
I doubt they'd go to that level of granularity. I presume it'll be more like "this is the rule and you need to adhere to it". The club are culpable if they do not comply unless they have it in writing that the rule will not apply to them if the deal is done after the compliance deadline.
It just seems weird to me that they'd be financially monitoring certain clubs and then allow them to do business that would mean they are breaking rules - it damages the integrity of the competition to let people break rules and then charge them.
If they stopped your club from breaking rules while you knew you were about tj break rules then the crying from your fanbase would be 100x worse than it is now. But we haven’t even broken rules how can they do this while City etc etc
Preventing a club from doing business is a stretch I reckon. They just monitor and check for compliance during a specified time period (which is where I think Everton may have an argument in their favour having been already charged previously for what I think is an overlapping timeframe).
It's just Keegan jumping on the bandwagon after they've been charged, they had a "story" about it months ago saying they owed players millions and they weren't even due to be paid yet, when they were due they were paid as normal. The FA charge is obviously an issue for them but this from Keegan is just a load of shite.
You realise that the vast majority of football clubs don't need babysitting and have to be spoon fed information around rule breaking?
It damages the integrity of the competition for clubs like Leicester who sold good players before the start of last season and ended up getting relegated because clubs like Everton didn't comply with the rules.
Hard to feel for Forrest when they signed 500 players last summer. You know other clubs got relegated by spending within their means whilst these lot spent a complete fortune which the clearly don’t have
How do you know they didn’t? Did the club not know what situation they were in? Since you’ve being punished it’s a pretty safe fecking bet that the FA didn’t say go on ahead and wait, it’s acceptable.
Meanwhile you went out and spent 120 fecking million odd last summer. This is one hundred percent on your club
I doubt it because we wouldn't have point deductions? It would be shit having to scrape by on little money each window but at least we wouldn't have deductions on our record and ongoing legal battles that completely mentally damage a club and team.
I think you're missing my point. See below. I know the club has been guilty of horrible mismanagement, but let's not pretend the PL isn't guilty of horrible mismanagement either.
Also the document said we gained no sporting advantage so Leicester being relegated and us surviving is irrelevant.
I'm upset with my club and the board because they've got us into a situation where we are in this mess and I've wanted them out for a couple of years now but I am also upset with the PL because they place sanctions during ongoing seasons which mentally damages fans, players, staff and clubs.
Well apparently our business has been stringently monitored by the PL since the first alleged breaches. We can't do business without first going to the PL and them cross referencing our accounts which is why we have had to be very very careful and we've been doing deals like the Dele and Beto ones which mean we pay little to no initial payments for a player and it's all structure on clauses based on game time or in future seasons. It's also why we had to make a potential loss on Richy in terms of what we could have perhaps got for him - we were in the same situation with him as Forest were with Johnson - we needed to sell pre-deadline so it would count for the financial year. I assume with Forest they were absolutely told they need to sell or risk charges and they stupidly gambled.
If the PL knows all this though and they can see club accounts of those in perilous places, it's better for them to block transfers etc. that would lead clubs to breaking rules because it's worse PR for them if they do break them and it fecks with ongoing competitions which can then lead to all sorts of legal battles. It's much more simpler if it's all attended to at the beginning.
Last edited:
IMO your fanbase would be complaining about having their spending restricted while oil states can do A B and C. Plus you can’t really restrict spending if you haven’t broken the rules, warnings should really be enough. How can the FA restrict a club that’s in ffp trouble? Its not an ongoing process, you don’t make or break ffp rules until the end of the season (accounting year?) that’s why there’s warnings in place.
John Cross from the Mirror has absolutely nailed it here.
"The Premier League is effectively a collective. The 20 member clubs are shareholders. They vote through the rules, including profit and sustainability rules which have been in place for more than a decade. So, for all that time the vast majority have spent within their means and obeyed the rules. No-one has complained, they’ve all lived within the rules that they voted for. Basically, you can’t lose more than £105m over three years. Many people had their say on the original Everton case clearly without reading the written reasons. Why not take an hour to read them before going on radio and TV to talk about them? You could tell who had and who hadn’t. This time, I’ve got sympathy with Everton as it’s hard to break the cycle in the three years. In fairness, the rules may get tweaked from next season. But the current rules were in place and had been voted through. The clubs didn’t want set tariffs imposed. Each case different. I found the coverage of Newcastle’s frustrations bizarre. PSR was brought in by clubs to ensure competition and so mega wealthy owners couldn’t come in and buy up a league. Those who didn’t want sportswashing suddenly want them to be able to spend more. Er…
The Guardian calculated Forest spent £250m on 43 players since promotion. And yet they’re unhappy about when one sale - Brennan Johnson - was added to their accounts. Seriously?!
What’s the point in clubs like Wolves or Palace trying to conform if others are allowed to break the rules and potentially finish higher than them? Wolves must have been close. So, guess what? They got their house in order, lost a manager over it and didn’t get charged. PSR is a good thing, in my opinion. It means the Prem remains competitive. Why politicians get involved is beyond me. If the club is in their constituency and affects their community then fair enough. But aren’t they busy enough? What next? Rishi Sunak complaining about VAR? PSR is like a tax return. You have to get your figures in by a certain date. It’s relatively simple. It’s totally different to Man City’s case which is way more complex. That’s why it’s taking longer. In all of this, it’s the fans who suffer and have my sympathy. The uncertainty is ridiculous and unfair. But surely it’s the clubs to blame. Not the Premier League. Rant over…
"The Premier League is effectively a collective. The 20 member clubs are shareholders. They vote through the rules, including profit and sustainability rules which have been in place for more than a decade. So, for all that time the vast majority have spent within their means and obeyed the rules. No-one has complained, they’ve all lived within the rules that they voted for. Basically, you can’t lose more than £105m over three years. Many people had their say on the original Everton case clearly without reading the written reasons. Why not take an hour to read them before going on radio and TV to talk about them? You could tell who had and who hadn’t. This time, I’ve got sympathy with Everton as it’s hard to break the cycle in the three years. In fairness, the rules may get tweaked from next season. But the current rules were in place and had been voted through. The clubs didn’t want set tariffs imposed. Each case different. I found the coverage of Newcastle’s frustrations bizarre. PSR was brought in by clubs to ensure competition and so mega wealthy owners couldn’t come in and buy up a league. Those who didn’t want sportswashing suddenly want them to be able to spend more. Er…
The Guardian calculated Forest spent £250m on 43 players since promotion. And yet they’re unhappy about when one sale - Brennan Johnson - was added to their accounts. Seriously?!
What’s the point in clubs like Wolves or Palace trying to conform if others are allowed to break the rules and potentially finish higher than them? Wolves must have been close. So, guess what? They got their house in order, lost a manager over it and didn’t get charged. PSR is a good thing, in my opinion. It means the Prem remains competitive. Why politicians get involved is beyond me. If the club is in their constituency and affects their community then fair enough. But aren’t they busy enough? What next? Rishi Sunak complaining about VAR? PSR is like a tax return. You have to get your figures in by a certain date. It’s relatively simple. It’s totally different to Man City’s case which is way more complex. That’s why it’s taking longer. In all of this, it’s the fans who suffer and have my sympathy. The uncertainty is ridiculous and unfair. But surely it’s the clubs to blame. Not the Premier League. Rant over…
They'd moan, but everyone moans about that in football. It's a reach to then say we would moan 100x about that. The reason we are moaning and upset is because we might be on the verge of our club collapsing. I think that's fair reason to moan and be upset and again, the board is to blame for that, but the PL share some responsibility.
This is a perfect summation. Rules are voted on, agreed by clubs and PL have no choice but to act. The only problem is that the “complexity” of City’s case is based partly on the fact that they have refused to cooperate. Everton and Forest don’t have the power to do that.
Too much money and too many political connections means that the PL have failed before they even started. City, quite simple, shouldn’t exist in their current form, and the fact that they do makes a mockery of everything else the PL are trying to accomplish in terms of competition and sporting integrity