Everton/Forest Points Deduction..

Everton overspent by £20m, how much advantage do you think that gave them? Didn’t they have a naming rights deal set up only for that to be scuppered by the sanctions on Russia? The price of their stadium went up by £250m due to the war, once they started they couldn’t just walk away. It’s been a perfect storm and Everton are the sacrificial lamb.

FFP needs binned. It’s sham to keep the established clubs at the top.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 16 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 seconds ago
What were the FFP rules in 2009?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"They also allegedly broke rules “requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager” related to seasons 2009-10 to 2012-13 inclusive".

So pay Mancini a bit on the side is in breach of the requirement to provide full details of payments AND as part of his time at City was under FFP, would also be a breach of FFP if you have not provided accurate accounts, which in turn may also lead to a failure comply with losses made under FFP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mancini had a seperate contract with UAEFA for extra coaching work, just like players have seperate contracts for product sponsorship or doing punditry.

If the PL had a problem with that then they should have questioned Mancini
----------------------------------------------------------------------



It wasnt registered with UEFA. They were secret payments until leaked.

How can you look at your manager on £1,45m a year at City, a full time job and rationalise that he also has a consultancy job with Al-Jazira, an Arab Football team owned by Sheik Mansour, which pays £1.75m a year and not think that stinks to high heaven!

If this was a Tory politician then you would be all over such obvious blatant corruption.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would it have been registered with Uefa? Not saying it isn’t suspect in general, but not sure I get what your point is there?

Think the main question to answer with Mancini will be was the salary paid by City at the time fair value or was it subsidised.

You're wasting your time Melts.

comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 8 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Melbourne Red (U5417)
posted 8 hours, 40 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 (U2462)
posted 8 hours, 56 minutes ago
If rules have been breached then it's not really harsh to punish the culprits. What it does need to be though is consistent.

If United have broken the rules then they must also take their medicine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everton are being punished again for 75% of the same reporting periods they've already been punished for. And it looks like the Premier League are refusing to accept the cost of their new stadium as a mitigating factor/cost, despite PSR allowing for infrastructure costs as a deduction. If a stadium isn't infrastructure then I don't know what is. It sounds like the Premier League are just making it up as they go along, while allowing City to go unpunished for years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair, that’s because Evertons own documents show it wasn’t just stadium development and they’d have failed anyway.

There’s a lot of reporting on this from people that seemingly haven’t actually read the judgment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed, the biggest thing here is that Everton have admitted the charge, what they are re appealing is the severity of the likely sentence.

Their arguments along with Forests are as floored as it gets - and it can well be argued that both stayed up at the expense of clubs that complied with the rules.

What’s interesting for me is given that they are guilty - will the clubs relegated instead of them now try to sue them for loss of revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Faaaack me my spelling here is appalling - apologies

comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 8 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Melbourne Red (U5417)
posted 8 hours, 40 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 (U2462)
posted 8 hours, 56 minutes ago
If rules have been breached then it's not really harsh to punish the culprits. What it does need to be though is consistent.

If United have broken the rules then they must also take their medicine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everton are being punished again for 75% of the same reporting periods they've already been punished for. And it looks like the Premier League are refusing to accept the cost of their new stadium as a mitigating factor/cost, despite PSR allowing for infrastructure costs as a deduction. If a stadium isn't infrastructure then I don't know what is. It sounds like the Premier League are just making it up as they go along, while allowing City to go unpunished for years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair, that’s because Evertons own documents show it wasn’t just stadium development and they’d have failed anyway.

There’s a lot of reporting on this from people that seemingly haven’t actually read the judgment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed, the biggest thing here is that Everton have admitted the charge, what they are re appealing is the severity of the likely sentence.

Their arguments along with Forests are as floored as it gets - and it can well be argued that both stayed up at the expense of clubs that complied with the rules.

What’s interesting for me is given that they are guilty - will the clubs relegated instead of them now try to sue them for loss of revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Faaaack me my spelling here is appalling - apologies
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It wasn’t that bad And you’re right about the clubs relegated, I do t think they can sue them as such though, I thought it was down to the independent commission to come up with what they consider appropriate compensation.

https://images.app.goo.gl/XmfkjMaonW8QBPzu6

Just rermind us how much Arsenal have spent over the last 5 years to win the FA Cup?

Interesting thread on it.

https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/1747398758025801826?s=19

The City case, that is.