Bitters and Forest in the shit
- Thread starter dee
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Sickening really .
Poor the Everton . They will be on - points before you know it..
And Man City still get away with it.
Poor the Everton . They will be on - points before you know it..
And Man City still get away with it.
The PL need to give City a "comply or die" ultimatum. But they're too scared of City's lawyers.
If I was Everton and Forest I'd be launching a counter lawsuit against the PL due to City.
That'll be a lot easier for them to do once they're relegated and are no longer shareholders of the PL.
The City case is expected to be resolved in 2025 I think. Was a journo that tweeted that earlier today.
OK, some thoughts on this.
Firstly, Forest say they will "CONTINUE to cooperate", so they knew this was coming and have been in dialogue. But it's in the hands of an independent commission now, so any cooperation with the Premier League is moot, they deal with the commission from here on.
Secondly, we don't know the facts in Forest's case, but it's evident that they accept the charge and their mitigation is that they sold Brennan Johnson because they recognised they needed to put things right but couldn't do so before their year-end. This is likely to be much stronger mitigation than Everton's "we could have sold players for loads of money but we didn't and still expect you to give us credit for it". It's unlikely Everton fans will appreciate the ever-so-subtle difference. And going against Forest's case, they didn't sell Johnson until 1 September, which was much later than their year-end and doesn't really suggest that they were trying to get a deal done in time to fix their numbers. So it's questionably how much leeway the commission will allow.
Thirdly, Everton were nearly £20m over the limit last time. Their unadjusted loss for 2019, which will have dropped out of the 3-year calculations (bear in mind 2020 and 2021 are averaged due to covid and count as one year) was £112m. That's over the limit in insolation. So if that dropped out, then in order to be over the limit over three years, they need to have lost £112m - £20m = £92m in 2023. Which is more than twice what they lost in 2022. All of those numbers are unadjusted, so it's possible they had huge add-backs in 2019, such that they wouldn't have needed to make such a huge loss in 2023 to still be over the limit. But they must have still well and truly fucked it all the same. And also bear in mind that they fudged the issue a few years ago with some bollocks commercial deal with USM buying the right of first refusal on naming rights for the new stadium. Those naming rights had an approximate market value, by my calculations, of the square root of fuck all (Tottenham still haven't been able to sell the actual rights to an actual state-of-the-art, completed stadium in London for god's sake). USM paid £30m. For the right of first refusal. That's the same USM that is owned by the sanctioned Russian oligarch Alisher Usmanov, who, Everton assure us, had no ownership interest in Everton, nor any involvement in the management of the club. It's a pure coincidence that he sat in on Carlo's job interview and offered him an off-the-books bonus which Carlo didn't get until he sued for it. That's just perfectly normal behaviour for a sponsor, and I'm sure we wouldn't have appointed Klopp if the CEO of Dunkin' Donuts hadn't been impressed with his interview.
Fourthly - it's OK for us to feel some sympathy for the fans of both clubs - they didn't mis-manage their clubs into this mess, although none of them called for restraint in the transfer market either. But their owners / managers? Fuck those guys. They took the piss on a royal scale. A reminder again, the basic test is break-even over three years. The £105m isn't a target, it's a huge and very generous safety net, designed to make allowances for huge one-off factors beyond the control of the affected clubs.
I only hope the fans of both clubs will realise that they should direct their anger at their owners / senior management, not at the Premier League.
But if they want to have a go at the PL for dragging their heels over City and Chelsea then I'll happily stand shoulder to shoulder with them.
Firstly, Forest say they will "CONTINUE to cooperate", so they knew this was coming and have been in dialogue. But it's in the hands of an independent commission now, so any cooperation with the Premier League is moot, they deal with the commission from here on.
Secondly, we don't know the facts in Forest's case, but it's evident that they accept the charge and their mitigation is that they sold Brennan Johnson because they recognised they needed to put things right but couldn't do so before their year-end. This is likely to be much stronger mitigation than Everton's "we could have sold players for loads of money but we didn't and still expect you to give us credit for it". It's unlikely Everton fans will appreciate the ever-so-subtle difference. And going against Forest's case, they didn't sell Johnson until 1 September, which was much later than their year-end and doesn't really suggest that they were trying to get a deal done in time to fix their numbers. So it's questionably how much leeway the commission will allow.
Thirdly, Everton were nearly £20m over the limit last time. Their unadjusted loss for 2019, which will have dropped out of the 3-year calculations (bear in mind 2020 and 2021 are averaged due to covid and count as one year) was £112m. That's over the limit in insolation. So if that dropped out, then in order to be over the limit over three years, they need to have lost £112m - £20m = £92m in 2023. Which is more than twice what they lost in 2022. All of those numbers are unadjusted, so it's possible they had huge add-backs in 2019, such that they wouldn't have needed to make such a huge loss in 2023 to still be over the limit. But they must have still well and truly fucked it all the same. And also bear in mind that they fudged the issue a few years ago with some bollocks commercial deal with USM buying the right of first refusal on naming rights for the new stadium. Those naming rights had an approximate market value, by my calculations, of the square root of fuck all (Tottenham still haven't been able to sell the actual rights to an actual state-of-the-art, completed stadium in London for god's sake). USM paid £30m. For the right of first refusal. That's the same USM that is owned by the sanctioned Russian oligarch Alisher Usmanov, who, Everton assure us, had no ownership interest in Everton, nor any involvement in the management of the club. It's a pure coincidence that he sat in on Carlo's job interview and offered him an off-the-books bonus which Carlo didn't get until he sued for it. That's just perfectly normal behaviour for a sponsor, and I'm sure we wouldn't have appointed Klopp if the CEO of Dunkin' Donuts hadn't been impressed with his interview.
Fourthly - it's OK for us to feel some sympathy for the fans of both clubs - they didn't mis-manage their clubs into this mess, although none of them called for restraint in the transfer market either. But their owners / managers? Fuck those guys. They took the piss on a royal scale. A reminder again, the basic test is break-even over three years. The £105m isn't a target, it's a huge and very generous safety net, designed to make allowances for huge one-off factors beyond the control of the affected clubs.
I only hope the fans of both clubs will realise that they should direct their anger at their owners / senior management, not at the Premier League.
But if they want to have a go at the PL for dragging their heels over City and Chelsea then I'll happily stand shoulder to shoulder with them.
Don't hold your breath mate. Even if it is resolved in 2025, you'd still suffocate.
Please don't pull out the violin
That's literally their defence though.
The 10 point deduction covered 2019-2022 seasons
.
This sanction covers 2020-2023 seasons.
So their argument is its double punishment for something they are already appealing.
There seems to be small sorts of subtext to this one.
If Everton successfully appeal their current fine, then the new one falls automatically, I presume - which means Forrest will likely be able to get off and City & Chelsea won’t be looking at anything significant in terms of punishment either.
I wonder if they should scrap this 3 year average thing as it seems to confuse things - it could end up meaning, in Forrest’s case, that while they fail on the average during the current 3 year period, they pass it in the next 3 year period which includes the transfer (which was in the window that sort of straddles both periods).
Maybe just apply to to the current season with transfer windows and maybe use something like the Baseball system whereby you can spend as much as you want, but over a certain threshold it costs you points and the more you spend the more you get deducted points.
I dunno - I’d like to see some sort of system based on average wages for the league rather than related to individual club income, with spending being curtailed to a flat spend regardless of income too.
Dunno how it’d work like
If Everton successfully appeal their current fine, then the new one falls automatically, I presume - which means Forrest will likely be able to get off and City & Chelsea won’t be looking at anything significant in terms of punishment either.
I wonder if they should scrap this 3 year average thing as it seems to confuse things - it could end up meaning, in Forrest’s case, that while they fail on the average during the current 3 year period, they pass it in the next 3 year period which includes the transfer (which was in the window that sort of straddles both periods).
Maybe just apply to to the current season with transfer windows and maybe use something like the Baseball system whereby you can spend as much as you want, but over a certain threshold it costs you points and the more you spend the more you get deducted points.
I dunno - I’d like to see some sort of system based on average wages for the league rather than related to individual club income, with spending being curtailed to a flat spend regardless of income too.
Dunno how it’d work like
Being Everton is a punishment
The clubs voted it in. You can't cry about it after the fact.
I mean, they can and will cry about it and their fans will moan and cry also - Not that it’ll do any good and not that I care much either.
Most definitely.
I don't think it's a motive behind fast-tracking the Everton and Forest cases, but it'll definitely be a consequence of them. The more cases that are held, the greater the clarity there will be on sanctions.
I think the bigger issue City face, if found guilty, is their lack of co-operation. Everton were docked 10 points despite regular dialogue with the Premier League, but they were given no mitigation for co-operating as they went against the advance rulings the PL gave them in their submission. But there was no doubt that they engaged in the process. Forest seemingly have been doing so as well. City have stonewalled the Premier League for years. Whatever punishments Everton and Forest eventually end up with, if found guilty, City's will be much worse because they didn't co-operate (and indeed they've even been charged with that exact offence).
Abu Dhabi's Royal Family own Man City, I really think they'll get off lightly. I really can't see any Government wanting to upset a wealthy family whose networth is in the hundreds of billions if not in the trillions.
It's got nothing to do with the government. Assuming it's at independent panel stage, it doesn't even have anything to do with the Premier League any more. And if the UK government, who are imposing an independent football regulator against the PL's wishes, were to interfere with the PL over regulation, then I'm pretty sure Richard Masters would be on to the press to kick up a public fuss the second they hung up the phone.
And if they were going to interfere, they'd have done it long before now.
No idea where to find it, but I'm certain there was a communication from the government to Man City (or vice versa) around the detrimental effect of any investigations into UK - Middle East relations.
Maybe someone else knows where that bit of speculation resides.
Problem for me personally on this whole thing is that we have been through possibly the best period of performance our football club may ever see in my lifetime, and we don't have much to show for it. City will almost certainly not get any retrospective punishments, none of the historic wrongs will be made right and in the future it will be someone else's turn to have their best spell in a generation (be it Arsenal, Villa, Spurs, United again etc.).
Future punishments mean largely fuck all, titles should be stripped, executives fired and banned from professional football and honours retrospectively given to the clubs who didn't break the rules. Prize money should also be retrospectively applied too.
Future punishments mean largely fuck all, titles should be stripped, executives fired and banned from professional football and honours retrospectively given to the clubs who didn't break the rules. Prize money should also be retrospectively applied too.
As if that could happen! Talk about grasping at straws.
Have you checked these figures yet? Err I forget so I'll just count them all over again.
Sky are guessing. Maybe having been influenced to say this (I'm sure City will create a coordinated media maelstrom).
But if the PL have already given heavier sentences to clubs with fewer and less serious offences, and those clubs cooperated, then they can't give a more lenient punishment to City.
Could open case to lawsuits against PL by Everton? Why do we get 'x point deduction' and City '(x-5) point deduction' when their violations were far more serious?
Is everyone sufficiently informed about City’s situation re PSR etc or would it be worth me doing a thread on it? There’s quite a lot to say so it would be a few lengthy posts and I’d like to gauge if there;’s enough interest before I make the effort and dump a load of info on you all. I’m thinking in terms of talking through the charges, what evidence is out there and my take on what a commission should be reviewing and what decisions they ought to be making. There are some areas that I think are easy for them to rule on, others where it will be more subjective. Comments please.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
