• ! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !

    Discussions about police investigations

    In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.

    Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.

Everton FC: Everten Points Deducted

HattoriHanzo

Active Member

Country: Croatia
If you owe to the bank 1000 euros, this is your problem.
If you owe to the bank 10 000 000 euros, this is bank's problem.

This is valid also for City, Their case is problem for PL.
 

TornadoTed

Established Member
They should raise hell at the double standards. They played fair by accepting the ruling; while City with their 115 charges can arrogantly push things aside with their billions and lawyers.
Should have a maximum amount they can spend on lawyers, FFP for legal costs 🤣
 

Riou

In The Winchester, Waiting For This To Blow Over

Country: Northern Ireland

Player:Gabriel
Also this will be Luton come May, when they stay up with like 23 points after everyone else keeps getting points docked...

c5a1957a-2e86-4d89-b8e6-6ba695798e97_text.gif
 

lomekian

Essays are my thing
Something isn't adding up here, Everten been made utter scape goat from what I can see
Everton's figures are in black and white, so easy to prove what they have and haven;'t done. City much harder as to have prove categorically that they have inflated sponsorships, paid under the counter payments and lied about all their figures. Proving 2-3 charges against Everton a lot easier than proving 117 vs City and their nation state funded lawyer army. Uefa took too long because they wanted to do it right and City loopholed that one. EPL has no time limit, so they are going to take their time to try to nail the ****ers.
 

TornadoTed

Established Member
I have no idea if this would work in practice but what about FFP where total spending is capped on last years turnover. So using 2021/22 turnover figures as an example spending in the 2022/23 season would be as follows,

Man City's turnover was £619m
Liverpool's turnover was £594 so their owners would be allowed to invest £26m
Man Utd's turnover was £583 so their owners would be allowed to invest £37m
Chelsea's turnover was £481m so their owners would be allowed to invest £139m
Sp**s's turnover was £443m so their owners would be allowed to invest £176m
Arsenal's turnover was £368m so Stan would be allowed to invest £251m
etc.

This would allow any club to achieve parity with the richest club if they wanted, of course many wouldn't have the means but it would at least allow the option for ambitious clubs with mega rich owners. I'm no fan of the Saudi owners at Newcastle but why shouldn't they spend their own money if they wish, the current system protects the status quo too much for my liking.

Of course any owner investment would have to be just that, a gift to the the club and not loaded on as debt to the club.

Couple this with a wage cap and we would finally have a the potential at least to create a level playing field rather than the current situation where City have spent billions to get to the top and the rest aren't allowed to spend enough to catch up to them.
 

BenTal

Well-Known Member

Country: USA

Player:Zinchenko
I hate to say but even with another 10 points deduction, they will stay in the league.
 

Riou

In The Winchester, Waiting For This To Blow Over

Country: Northern Ireland

Player:Gabriel
That's Luton down then 😔
 

HattoriHanzo

Active Member

Country: Croatia

That 4 points should pretty much save them
I'm not financial expert, so I don't understand one thing.
They monitor 3 years period to see if clubs breach P&S rules.

So they have charged Everton first time last year for certain 3 years period (let's say 2020/21/22).
And then again this year second time (let's say 2021/22/23)

So, second time, it is 2 years from previous monitoring period.
Isn't this the case that they are charged twice for basically the same breach?

Meanwhile, in 115 charges FC, business as usual.
 
Top Bottom