brap2 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 3:36 pm
The ten point thing has knocked me tbh. Felt quite low energy about the whole thing since it happened.
I'm really struggling at the moment with it all. Trying to hide from all the misery around it be it on forums or in the press. Was enjoying a season where we weren't facing relegation and hoping 3 other teams lost every week. Feels like we are right back where we were on the edge of total disaster. Feels like it's never going to end now.. least not without us falling off the edge
Wish they'd be honest about ffp because it's neither about sporting fairness or protecting clubs. There's a reasonable chance it might ruin us
Am I correct in thinking the Premier League wouldn't allow us to play Sigurdsson and the panel refused to accept that as a factor in the overspend? Kind of ridiculous to ignore the possibility of selling our record £50m signing during an investigation over a £19.5m overspend.
Shogun wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:24 pm
Am I correct in thinking the Premier League wouldn't allow us to play Sigurdsson and the panel refused to accept that as a factor in the overspend? Kind of ridiculous to ignore the possibility of selling our record £50m signing during an investigation over a £19.5m overspend.
I don't think the Premier League stopped us from selecting Sigurdsson. I believe that as soon as the story was about to break, the club suspended him. I still think that we did the right thing in doing that, despite the charges never being fully pursued.
If the Premier League were going to intervene and stop us from playing him, then surely the same rule should also have applied to Thomas Partey, whom Arsenal continued to field throughout.
The poor lad is utterly obsessed with us and hoping one of his shitty stories sticks to the wall
https://twitter.com/MattHughesDM/status/1730646355285045455
Despite feeling aggrieved by the Premier League’s handling of the matter Burnley, Leeds are Leicester are also conscious of not wanting to be responsible for forcing Everton into administration, a consideration which has influenced their thinking.
If Everton agree to negotiate the case would go to arbitration rather than being heard by the Premier League’s independent commission that imposed the 10-point penalty.
In addition to seeking to negotiate with Everton the clubs could also bring a claim against the Premier League for alleged failures in their disciplinary process, on the grounds that delaying Everton’s hearing by several months led to them being relegated.
The Premier League did seek to have the case heard last season after charging Everton in March however, but were denied by the commission.
In a separate development Everton have submitted their appeal against the 10-point deduction with the hearing expected to be heard next month. The Premier League have committed to concluding the case within the next three months.
Shogun wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:24 pm
Am I correct in thinking the Premier League wouldn't allow us to play Sigurdsson and the panel refused to accept that as a factor in the overspend? Kind of ridiculous to ignore the possibility of selling our record £50m signing during an investigation over a £19.5m overspend.
We outlined that we should be able to write off his wages as we continued to pay him out of kindness.
They rejected that.
We also argued that we could have sold him, I think it was £10m ffp profit.
Shogun wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:24 pm
Am I correct in thinking the Premier League wouldn't allow us to play Sigurdsson and the panel refused to accept that as a factor in the overspend? Kind of ridiculous to ignore the possibility of selling our record £50m signing during an investigation over a £19.5m overspend.
We outlined that we should be able to write off his wages as we continued to pay him out of kindness.
They rejected that.
We also argued that we could have sold him, I think it was £10m ffp profit.
They rejected that.
Cheers.
Moral of the story, always play your suspected sex offenders.
I don't think the club continued paying Sigurdsson out of kindness. He was never even charged with an offence, never mind convicted of one so we'd have been on horrifically dodgy ground not to pay him. I think the club were dead right not to play him given the nature of the allegations but there was never an option not to pay him.
In a world full of adversity, we must still dare to dream.
CannockPricey wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 9:25 pm
I don't think the club continued paying Sigurdsson out of kindness. He was never even charged with an offence, never mind convicted of one so we'd have been on horrifically dodgy ground not to pay him. I think the club were dead right not to play him given the nature of the allegations but there was never an option not to pay him.
The club referenced his mental health in their defence.
Worst part with Sigurdsson is had we not have paid him, back pay would have been expected and then the commission would say us not doing our due diligence around the situation was the reason we breached. Can’t win.
CannockPricey wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 9:25 pm
I don't think the club continued paying Sigurdsson out of kindness. He was never even charged with an offence, never mind convicted of one so we'd have been on horrifically dodgy ground not to pay him. I think the club were dead right not to play him given the nature of the allegations but there was never an option not to pay him.
The club referenced his mental health in their defence.
Undoubtedly his mental health would have made it difficult to play. Even if the case subsequently went nowhere, the strain would have been huge. Due to the nature of the allegations I think the club did right by him, for the alleged victim and generally in terms of justice but I genuinely don't believe there is a way they could have not paid him.
If common sense was applied the panel would certainly deduct his wages from calculations. Everton were doing the right thing and were certainly not gaining any benefit from spending that money.
In a world full of adversity, we must still dare to dream.
