Everton, surely a points deduction?

Norman Bell said:
My Uncle lived on the outskirts of Leicester but was no fan of the football club. He used to attend Grace Road ( @Frank Lincoln cricketing mecca !!! ) to watch Leicestershire play. When Leicester City won the league, Clive said there were people at the cricket who were full of it and making comments to my Uncle. He said that when he mentioned they can now pay the full amount out of their winnings to the food suppliers, the bakers, greengrocers, program printers, coach firm and everyone else who they had paid up at a penny pound when they took the bankruptcy route the silence was deafening !!!!
Click to expand...

The strange thing is that many Leicester fans think the football club did nothing wrong, try telling that to the businesses that went under thanks to them.
 
Frank Lincoln said:
The strange thing is that many Leicester fans think the football club did nothing wrong, try telling that to the businesses that went under thanks to them.
Click to expand...
I'm sure we're just the same, but you know how it is, in general Everton fans think the PL hate them, Newcastle fans don't have an issue with Saudi owners, Man City fans just assume their owners will pay enough lawyers to keep the PL at bay, Forest fans think their owner should be able to spend what he likes.
 
Werewolf of Wombourne said:
Villa have always been a jammy club. Something will happen to get them out of it, just like it did when Dr. Evil bankrupted them, or when they sold their training ground because of HS2 to stave off administration
Click to expand...
They were up **** creek without a paddle at the time Covid struck in 2020.
Half of their starting eleven out with long -term injuries, losing games left, right and center.
Without the 2 month(?) forced interruption of the season(which gave Dean Smith enough time to implement his ideas to the players), they would have been dead and buried in March, with relegation and a very very expensive team of No Hopers ill suited for the Chump the following season.
Hell, they could even had gone bust with that Chinese joker Xia(?) as their owner.
 
WickedWolfie said:
Justice would be for both the EPL and EFL to punish them....
Click to expand...
Maybe 6 points deduction this season from the EFL, and 6 points deduction from the EPL (as a suspended sentence) to happen if they still get promoted to the EPL for the 2024/5 season.
 
Achilles Last Stand said:
They were up **** creek without a paddle at the time Covid struck in 2020.
Half of their starting eleven out with long -term injuries, losing games left, right and center.
Without the 2 month(?) forced interruption of the season(which gave Dean Smith enough time to implement his ideas to the players), they would have been dead and buried in March, with relegation and a very very expensive team of No Hopers ill suited for the Chump the following season.
Hell, they could even had gone bust with that Chinese joker Xia(?) as their owner.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget the ref’s broken Hawkeye watch against Sheff Utd which ultimately kept them up.
 
Ned said:
Don’t forget the ref’s broken Hawkeye watch against Sheff Utd which ultimately kept them up.
Click to expand...
Scripted the league wanted them to stay up…. For those reasons. The same way they are helping Everton avoid relegation at all costs
 
Achilles Last Stand said:
They were up **** creek without a paddle at the time Covid struck in 2020.
Half of their starting eleven out with long -term injuries, losing games left, right and center.
Without the 2 month(?) forced interruption of the season(which gave Dean Smith enough time to implement his ideas to the players), they would have been dead and buried in March, with relegation and a very very expensive team of No Hopers ill suited for the Chump the following season.
Hell, they could even had gone bust with that Chinese joker Xia(?) as their owner.
Click to expand...

Could you not use the same argument for us and the World Cup break?

A second event that had never happened before that allowed for a season to have a mini reset to help save a team who looked certs for the drop to stay up.
 
This feels like justice.....


Leicester may well start next season with a points deduction whatever league they are in....
 
sedgwolf1980 said:
This whole FFP thing just feels like its spiralling out of control and the people in charge aint got a scooby what they are doing. The lack of rigour and clear rules/punishment just makes the whole thing a complete farce.
Click to expand...
Yep … clearly defined rules and penalties are needed. I’m not so sure points deductions are a good idea.
 
sedgwolf1980 said:
This whole FFP thing just feels like its spiralling out of control and the people in charge aint got a scooby what they are doing. The lack of rigour and clear rules/punishment just makes the whole thing a complete farce.
Click to expand...
It's funny that they seemed to have decided that they have to show that they're running the game properly by actually enforcing the rules, in order o head off a regulator and all that's done is expose how much of a mess they've made. Although whether a regulator would be any better, who knows?
 
Why can’t there be a system where clubs can spend what they want as long as the owner has put an agreed amount of their own money (different for every club) in an escrow account to cover the club if the money well runs dry?

Or how about massive fines for owners who breach the rules? No points deductions but huge fines that filter money down the pyramid?
 
Ned said:
Why can’t there be a system where clubs can spend what they want as long as the owner has put an agreed amount of their own money (different for every club) in an escrow account to cover the club if the money well runs dry?

Or how about massive fines for owners who breach the rules? No points deductions but huge fines that filter money down the pyramid?
Click to expand...

The issue with that is the knock on impact further down the league pyramid.

I’d prefer a model where they try to get to a position where football clubs are profitable.
 
WolfLing said:
The issue with that is the knock on impact further down the league pyramid.

I’d prefer a model where they try to get to a position where football clubs are profitable.
Click to expand...
The issue is I don’t see how every club can be profitable and sustain any form of challenge to improve on Europa League qualification at best. The big clubs will only get further and further ahead if teams can only disproportionately try to keep up.

There’s got to be some way, some middle ground somewhere… I just can’t think of it!
 
Ned said:
The issue is I don’t see how every club can be profitable and sustain any form of challenge to improve on Europa League qualification at best. The big clubs will only get further and further ahead if teams can only disproportionately try to keep up.

There’s got to be some way, some middle ground somewhere… I just can’t think of it!
Click to expand...

I think under the new squad cost rules, at best the disproportion narrows slightly from where it is currently. At best, it gets no worse.

For example, our turnover is currently about £180m, which is about average for a club of our size in the PL.

If we can eventually spend 70% of that on wages and player amortisation, that's a £126m budget for player costs.

Around £55m goes on wages for us currently, with amortisation costs around £80m. But those are still inflated from taking into account higher wage players no longer with us, players on loan that won't play for us again, and a splurge in spending in January 2023. The wage bill and amortisation will come down.

Based on the 70% (comes in from 25/26) we can't increase our player costs at all, or spend any money.

Based on the 80% for next season, it's tight until we decrease the wage bill with sales of dead wood, and reduce amortisation costs with new contracts.

If we manage to say decrease our wage bill to around £45m, and reduce amortisation to around £60m, that gives us £21m of squad cost left to player with.

A £20m player, on £50k a week uses up £6.6m of squad cost. So 3 players of that value to use up that £21m. That's sustainable for us and where a club like us should be fishing.

United's turnover is £648m. 70% of that would give them a budget of £453m for player costs - 360% of our budget.

But they are fishing (or should be fishing) in different pools. Large transfer fees, with large wages. For them, their current wages are around £245m, and their amortisation costs are around £125m, so £370m of their £453m budget is already used.

That gives them £83m to use.

An £80m player, on £200k per week uses up £24.4m of their squad cost. So 3 of them is what's sustainable.

In theory, 3 £80m players on £200k per week should bring more output than 3 £20m players on £50k per week. But Jadon Sancho, Antony and Harry Maguire vs Pedro Neto, Hwang Hee-Chan and Max Kilman suggests that's not always the case.

Get you recruitment right at the lower level, at the same time a larger club gets their recruitment wrong and you can still compete.

What the squad cost rules stop is a club like Man United just increasing the size of their squad to compensate for poor player performance. They can't just buy their way out of trouble, without first shifting the poor performing players. They are currently holding onto a legacy of poor choices. We are too to a degree, with highly paid loan players holding us back a bit in terms of spending power.

After that 70% squad cost, what's left over means United will be a lot more profitable, with £195m left over to spend outside of player costs on things like general costs of running the club, ground development, or shareholder dividends. There's probably not a lot left over for clubs of our size after all these things, but we probably won't be losing money.

So there's a huge incentive off the pitch to improve a club's infrastructure too, as increasing turnover outside of TV money will increase a club's spending power.

It takes us from a model of nearly every club making a loss and pouring every penny of resource into the playing side, to a model where most clubs at least break even, and considered long-term planning on infrastructure will be rewarded. Get it right off the field, develop stadiums or build new ones, recruit the right players, at the right price, and you will move forward and progress.

For a club like us, it stops us treading water until a bad season where we are relegated.

If that happened to us in the next 3 or 4 season, our income is slashed, our best players are sold and the ground is no better and maybe 10 years older than when we were promoted, so have we actually moved forward as a club since 2018?

I'm not saying we have done anything wrong by concentrating on the playing side, every club has to at the moment. We've seen in the past where money has been diverted away from the playing side, we have struggled to keep up. At the moment, the only way to survive is to pur everything into the playing side. But that's not sustainable and it doesn't help any clubs develop off the field.
 
Ned said:
Why can’t there be a system where clubs can spend what they want as long as the owner has put an agreed amount of their own money (different for every club) in an escrow account to cover the club if the money well runs dry?

Or how about massive fines for owners who breach the rules? No points deductions but huge fines that filter money down the pyramid?
Click to expand...
Exactly this. The absence of such a system is what convinces me that FFP/PSR is about protecting the status quo and nothing else.
 
Darvo said:
Yep … clearly defined rules and penalties are needed. I’m not so sure points deductions are a good idea.
Click to expand...
They are the only real sanctions that have any meaning or rich owners/clubs will just spend as they please. A fine is obviously pointless as clubs that want to throw money around will happily pay one every year, same with transfer embargo you'll just have a big window to cover you over for the next couple.
 
Ned said:
It’s why I’ve got a feeling we could have a frustrated Neto on our hands in the summer.
Click to expand...
I don’t necessarily think we’ll have an unhappy Neto. I think in general fees will be low this summer across the board so we won’t get the telephone number fee some expect on here (I think £50 million) but that will be balanced by any replacement will be cheaper than expected also.
 
Darvo said:
Exactly this. The absence of such a system is what convinces me that FFP/PSR is about protecting the status quo and nothing else.
Click to expand...
I think there’s a bit of both in it. Genuinely think there’s an element of levelling the playing field and stopping owners putting clubs in financial peril. There’s undoubted pressure from the government for football to put its house in order because administration looks awful on all concerned and ends up costing the wrong people.

What needs to be addressed in my mind is the distribution of wealth to make it more of a sporting competition. The idea that the winners of the league gets the most money makes little sporting sense.
 
SteveBullsKnee said:
Correct, there’s no conspiracy between two completely different topics
Click to expand...
Two different topics?……actually, there some shared issues…..granted, a little bit of a stretch.

Maybe my post was inspired by my dislike of extra subs that, imo, unfairly benefits the richer clubs. Tightening up the FFP rules makes it very difficult for many smaller clubs to have expensive and higher caliber players sitting on the bench.
So, City have nearly 100 PL violations pending……I won’t hold my breath that they will receive any meaningful punishment.


I agree with you said in your post #2662 about making it a sporting competition. I hate how lopsided the game is.
 
VancouverWolf said:
Two different topics?……actually, there some shared issues…..granted, a little bit of a stretch.

Maybe my post was inspired by my dislike of extra subs that, imo, unfairly benefits the richer clubs. Tightening up the FFP rules makes it very difficult for many smaller clubs to have expensive and higher caliber players sitting on the bench.
So, City have nearly 100 PL violations pending……I won’t hold my breath that they will receive any meaningful punishment.


I agree with you said in your post #2662 about making it a sporting competition. I hate how lopsided the game is.
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure extra subs does benefit the top teams. United always used to score late on with just 3 subs. Pep rarely uses all his subs. Lots of lesser teams can defend but it's when the legs and minds get tired that mistakes happen
 
What do we think they will get ? Was breach worse than Everton ? 10 points again ? Lose tomorrow and they’ll really be in it.
 
greco wolf said:
What do we think they will get ? Was breach worse than Everton ? 10 points again ? Lose tomorrow and they’ll really be in it.
Click to expand...
There seems to be a lot of suggestion that they'll get 6 and Everton will get another 4 (getting them back to the original 10). I don't know if there's any accuracy to that, but there always seem to be leaks.
 
VancouverWolf said:
Two different topics?……actually, there some shared issues…..granted, a little bit of a stretch.

Maybe my post was inspired by my dislike of extra subs that, imo, unfairly benefits the richer clubs. Tightening up the FFP rules makes it very difficult for many smaller clubs to have expensive and higher caliber players sitting on the bench.
So, City have nearly 100 PL violations pending……I won’t hold my breath that they will receive any meaningful punishment.


I agree with you said in your post #2662 about making it a sporting competition. I hate how lopsided the game is.
Click to expand...
14 clubs voted for both sets of rules so not really a conspiracy. I spent a few weeks pondering that. Why do the other clubs allow that? Is it the money and influence of the top 6? Came up with a different theory.

The spending rules clearly impact the lower clubs disproportionately.

Yet they voted for them.

But here's the thing. The spending rules protect clubs against losses. The chairmen of the lower clubs want to be protected against losses. They want a model that protects their asset. Profit year on year with rules designed to restrict clubs from lower league disrupting that.

The aspirations we fans hold of competing at the top are not shared by our owners and neither by the owners of all the other mid table fodder (except maybe Newcastle and Villa). Yes that would be great. But it's a high risk, low liklihood strategy. Only 2 teams have really conquered the top 6 from the outside this century. So if you're not taking that on, what's the next best strategy?

AccepteL the closed shop rules as it locks them into into a 'profitable and sustainable' business model.

There's a reason why Jeff no longer spouts off about aiming for the top. It is no longer the aim.
 
Hanbury_Wolf said:
14 clubs voted for both sets of rules so not really a conspiracy. I spent a few weeks pondering that. Why do the other clubs allow that? Is it the money and influence of the top 6? Came up with a different theory.

The spending rules clearly impact the lower clubs disproportionately.

Yet they voted for them.

But here's the thing. The spending rules protect clubs against losses. The chairmen of the lower clubs want to be protected against losses. They want a model that protects their asset. Profit year on year with rules designed to restrict clubs from lower league disrupting that.

The aspirations we fans hold of competing at the top are not shared by our owners and neither by the owners of all the other mid table fodder (except maybe Newcastle and Villa). Yes that would be great. But it's a high risk, low liklihood strategy. Only 2 teams have really conquered the top 6 from the outside this century. So if you're not taking that on, what's the next best strategy?

AccepteL the closed shop rules as it locks them into into a 'profitable and sustainable' business model.

There's a reason why Jeff no longer spouts off about aiming for the top. It is no longer the aim.
Click to expand...
Good points and ones we’ve all discussed…..I STILL DON’T LIKE IT :)

Of course they’re no conspiracy …..said that tongue in cheek.
 
Southdownswolf said:
Isn't the minimum now 6 PTS under the latest regulations?
Click to expand...
Well God knows, I think the short answer is that there are no regulations, there's what the PL ask for and what the 'Independent Comission' are willing to enforce. I spent ages saying it was 6+overspend/5, but they chucked that in the bin when they changed it to 6. As I understood it the size of the breach was judged irrelevant and implications that they'd not been transparent were found to be wrong, so there was no aggravating factor.

It's all rubbish IMO, but the failure to actually specify sanctions in the first place has made it very difficult. Everton will also play the 'double jeopardy' card to ask for less for the second offence.

All a shambles. The time it's taken and the possibility of changing the relegated teams after the season finishes might look like due process to the lawyers, but it just looks incompetent to the rest of us.
 
Everton could lose another ten points and be absolutely fine.

Forest will get hit for at least ten but Sheffield, Burnley and 'plucky' Luton are all utterly hopeless.

Everton should have been relegated last season and have no right to say the Premier league are against them. The opposite is true.

They'll also be fine next season because nobody in the top six of the Championship is any better than last season's top six - where Burnley were seen as outrageously brilliant.

Everton have got away with it, much like Villa did with that goal line technology failing. I'm convinced that Villa would have gone right down the pan apart from that luck and buying their ground off themselves before the loophole was closed.

What it all highlights is the complete incompetence of the game's ruling authorities. It's easy to see how they've left themselves open to accusations of corruption.
 
WickedWolfie said:
The BBC are saying this week rather than today....
Click to expand...
Yes, I've seen 'could be as soon as Monday' which I think just comes from it being this week. After years of believing clubs should have points deductions though I'm almost at the point of saying, sod it, it's making such a farce of the league I'd rather they just used fines (even though that's farscical too). The idea of points deductions after the league finishes is just beyond ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom