Financial Fairplay Investigation - Further 2 points deducted.

[Cereal Killer]

Not sure where this “misled” fans narrative has come from

We’ve always admitted we broke the rules

We’ve always said we were appealing against the punishment and not the being found guilty bit

[Audrey Horne]

Can anyone copy and paste?

If you post the url into this website, the article is saved there to read for free. It works on pretty much all articles ive ever needed to read.

https://archive.md/

Here is the Athletic one - https://archive.is/Ql0Rf

[Bluedylan1]

I don't see any indication of being misled by Everton in that article at all, so not sure where that suggestion has come from.

I've heard Paddy Boyland talk on the subject before and he doesn't believe the sanction is remotely fair.

Also, there's quite a bit of speculation in there. When he talks about Everton's appeal, he says ''Everton were expected to focus on several key arguments'' and then lists a few. That means he doesn't actually know what Everton's appeal is based around, and he's giving an educated guess.

It's just a general summary of the situation, as it seems from the outside. And that's fine.

It adds some stuff in there about the possible influence of various political interjections since the appeal, and it gives a picture of a club desperately scrambling to reduce costs and bring money in from key player sales.

I thought it actually gave quite a sympathetic, pro-Everton take on the situation, which you'd expect from Boyland, as one of the only coherent blues in the media.

[Gary1878]

Yep nothing in that article other than the hard facts.

Interesting though that they suggest there might be further arbitration ahead, but whether that is a genuine option in this case, I’m not so sure.

[Bob Sacamano]

I might have missed something along the way, but I kinda feel I was misled when the club said it had worked closely with the PL and the PL were happy with the progress we made. Doesn’t seem remotely true at this point.

[superpull]

I might have missed something along the way, but I kinda feel I was misled when the club said it had worked closely with the PL and the PL were happy with the progress we made. Doesn’t seem remotely true at this point.

I think that starts off true.
We were running everything past the PL and they were ok with it all.

But then we just carried on regardless, spent all the Digne and Richarlison money as soon as it came in, lost a shit tonne of sponsorship and "funded" the stadium in a way the PL didn't agree with. The sale of Gordon wasn't sufficient to overcome all of the above and so they sanctioned us.

[Trowel]

[Cods]

Not sure where this “misled” fans narrative has come from

We’ve always admitted we broke the rules

We’ve always said we were appealing against the punishment and not the being found guilty bit

Reference was in the comments and further links on social media to the article, not in the article itself, apologies if that was how it came across.

"You may be happy to be misled, I'm not.
The article is full of factual errors - the club are
deliberately briefing false information to
distract fans from their incompetence". Authored by the oft-responded to Evertonian, Neil P, whoever that is.

[brap2]

Reference was in the comments and further links on social media to the article, not in the article itself, apologies if that was how it came across.

"You may be happy to be misled, I'm not.
The article is full of factual errors - the club are
deliberately briefing false information to
distract fans from their incompetence". Authored by the oft-responded to Evertonian, Neil P, whoever that is.

The football finance fella Simon whoever who was on sky a few pages back had a similar view - evertonians have been badly let down, but not by the prem.

[Bluedylan1]

I personally haven't seen anyone connected to football business and finance that seems to earnestly believe we should win this appeal.

Pundits and journalists, people with a vested interest like fan accounts etc yes, including myself, but I'd like to see some neutral accounts, preferably with a background in football finance or governance who is talking about us winning this appeal.

If anyone could point me in the right direction I'd be grateful.

https://churchcourtchambers.co.uk/evert ... sin-patel/

It doesn't overtly state that we should win the appeal, but it certainly outlines why the punishment is ridiculously harsh and the multiple grounds for our appeal.

It's a long piece, but just to quote the conclusion -

Everton’s recent experience with the Premier League’s sanctions raises substantial concerns about the club’s right to a fair trial, potentially infringing upon Article 6 ECHR. The decision-making process of the Independent Commission tasked with evaluating Everton’s alleged breaches of financial regulations came under scrutiny when assessed through both subjective and objective tests concerning bias and impartiality.

The subjective test, which considers personal views and conduct, reveals doubts regarding the panel’s impartiality. Affiliations of panel members raise questions about the independence of the Independent Commission, and the absence of mechanisms to ensure independence and address potential bias further compounds these concerns.

Under the objective test, examining the guarantees offered to exclude doubts about partiality, the Commission’s dismissal of Everton’s mitigating factors lacks objective reasoning. The unique financial circumstances faced by Everton, including significant investments in a new stadium project, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and repercussions from geopolitical issues like the conflict in Ukraine, were not adequately considered. The exclusion of these mitigating factors, despite Everton’s compliance, transparency, and cooperation with the Premier League, suggests a failure of the Commission to objectively assess the evidence.

The New Stadium Project, COVID-19, and the Ukraine conflict all presented challenges beyond Everton’s control, impacting the club’s financial stability. The Commission’s decision to discount these factors when applying the objective test demonstrates a lack of consideration for the unique circumstances Everton faced. The consequences of these events were significant, with losses attributed to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and adverse effects due to Everton’s association with Usmanov’s company USM.

The lack of reasoning or explanations as to why exactly 10 points have been deducted from Everton’s points tally in the league season 2023-2024 raises questions as to the basis of this points deduction. If this is the barometer for Everton’s wrongdoing, Manchester City and Chelsea may find themselves being punished with relegation, being stripped of titles and cup wins, transfer bans and financial penalties. In fact, with no real authorities to base the punishment upon or no guidelines, it is almost guaranteed that any punishment would be appealed unless it was too lenient.

The Commission’s decision failed both the subjective and objective tests concerning Article 6 ECHR. Everton was seemingly denied a fair trial, raising questions about the fairness, transparency, and integrity of the Premier League’s regulatory processes. This case underscores the importance of ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to human rights principles in the context of sports governance and the events of 2024 may prove pivotal in determining the league’s commitment to upholding integrity and ensuring equitable treatment for all member clubs.

[Juanito]

We find out tomorrow?

[Shogun]

Plenty more to this but I'll share the conclusion:

https://churchcourtchambers.co.uk/evert ... sin-patel/

Everton’s recent experience with the Premier League’s sanctions raises substantial concerns about the club’s right to a fair trial, potentially infringing upon Article 6 ECHR. The decision-making process of the Independent Commission tasked with evaluating Everton’s alleged breaches of financial regulations came under scrutiny when assessed through both subjective and objective tests concerning bias and impartiality.

The subjective test, which considers personal views and conduct, reveals doubts regarding the panel’s impartiality. Affiliations of panel members raise questions about the independence of the Independent Commission, and the absence of mechanisms to ensure independence and address potential bias further compounds these concerns.

Under the objective test, examining the guarantees offered to exclude doubts about partiality, the Commission’s dismissal of Everton’s mitigating factors lacks objective reasoning. The unique financial circumstances faced by Everton, including significant investments in a new stadium project, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and repercussions from geopolitical issues like the conflict in Ukraine, were not adequately considered. The exclusion of these mitigating factors, despite Everton’s compliance, transparency, and cooperation with the Premier League, suggests a failure of the Commission to objectively assess the evidence.

The New Stadium Project, COVID-19, and the Ukraine conflict all presented challenges beyond Everton’s control, impacting the club’s financial stability. The Commission’s decision to discount these factors when applying the objective test demonstrates a lack of consideration for the unique circumstances Everton faced. The consequences of these events were significant, with losses attributed to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and adverse effects due to Everton’s association with Usmanov’s company USM.

The lack of reasoning or explanations as to why exactly 10 points have been deducted from Everton’s points tally in the league season 2023-2024 raises questions as to the basis of this points deduction. If this is the barometer for Everton’s wrongdoing, Manchester City and Chelsea may find themselves being punished with relegation, being stripped of titles and cup wins, transfer bans and financial penalties. In fact, with no real authorities to base the punishment upon or no guidelines, it is almost guaranteed that any punishment would be appealed unless it was too lenient.

The Commission’s decision failed both the subjective and objective tests concerning Article 6 ECHR. Everton was seemingly denied a fair trial, raising questions about the fairness, transparency, and integrity of the Premier League’s regulatory processes. This case underscores the importance of ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to human rights principles in the context of sports governance and the events of 2024 may prove pivotal in determining the league’s commitment to upholding integrity and ensuring equitable treatment for all member clubs.

[Gary1878]

It really is a huge decision for us and the Premier League.

Whatever they decide will have serious repercussions for nearly every club in the league (and beyond) when you consider that it could either make us safe or push us towards relegation.

It will also have repercussions for City, Chelsea and Forest and any other club who breaks the rules.

Even if points are reduced, I want to know how they have arrived at that decision, and how they justify that particular points total. Every point taken off needs to be accounted for, not just for now but any future cases.

[brap2]

Fairly sympathetic view from a football finance expert, and someone who has been critical of Everton's running in the past, even if he is based locally.

[Cods]

https://churchcourtchambers.co.uk/evert ... sin-patel/

It doesn't overtly state that we should win the appeal, but it certainly outlines why the punishment is ridiculously harsh and the multiple grounds for our appeal.

It's a long piece, but just to quote the conclusion -


"The New Stadium Project, COVID-19, and the Ukraine conflict all presented challenges beyond Everton’s control, impacting the club’s financial stability."

This is the thing for me: obvious material and unforeseeable mitigating factors beyond the clubs control, some of which were ignored completely.

- A 1 in 100 year pandemic shutting down the sporting business, and parts of the world's economy

- Political* sanctions against our largest financial contributor and/or associates due to a breakout of war.

- all whilst embarking on a huge stadium project to financially transform the club, its revenues, and region. (not sure other clubs in the Prem were this invested in new infrastructure to this extent, perhaps why we claimed our covid impact was so high, esp in relation to others? ) It was almost the perfect storm, the rugs pulled out just at the time we didn't need it.

Breaking down the relatively paltry 19.5m overspend that would otherwise have had us in the clear for FFP, this could likely have been covered by the sale of a single additional player, perhaps one we (correctly) decided to not play when charged with a crime (whilst others decided, or intended to play their players who were also under the clouds of potential conviction), even with the background of financial problems associated with relegation, if we chose to gut the squad.

This all in light of the fact that it can be argued we are a club that understandably pushed the boat out, wanting to do everything it could to improve and rejoin the top echelon again, with obviously a time-critical higher-risk profile to achieve pay-off (the likes of Carlo Ancelotti, other supposed star power, and player spend largesse), in an a competitive environment which could best be described as heavily weighted towards the richest clubs' favour and in an 'anything goes' atmosphere. Our approach should not necessarily be seen as a weakness (player acquisition choices, aside) it's what every business wants to do.

And like any big business; oil companies, supermarket giants, mining, airlines, etc, their accountants will have asked how the owners want the financial results to appear, based upon the political landscape; being able to pull levers, making decisions and assumptions within the laws and applicable accounting standards, to make it happen. It's an accountant's game within a financial game run by wealthy owners, the sporting competition is almost a side issue.

Picking apart decisions the club could have made with hindsight, without consideration to the bigger picture, and ignoring some unforeseeables, with what seems to be 'policy on the run' regulation instigated due to the leagues own political pressures, is not how a competition should be governed.