The NSNO Everton Forums

But how and why can that stop us going to the court of arbitration?
THEY have made the issue. We should gave the right to address that TOTALL independent of the PL/FA.

Sirblue57 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 2:47 pm But how and why can that stop us going to the court of arbitration?
THEY have made the issue. We should gave the right to address that TOTALL independent of the PL/FA.

I don’t think we have any leg to stand on re the breakage of the rules, we signed up to them and we broke them, we’ve admitted that.

For sure our fight is the strength of the punishment they imposed on us, that is where we are appealing and where I think we have strong cause for optimism.

Sirblue57 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 2:47 pm But how and why can that stop us going to the court of arbitration?
THEY have made the issue. We should gave the right to address that TOTALL independent of the PL/FA.

It's because the Premier League is a private company owned and controlled by the 20 clubs that are from time to time members of it, and those clubs agree and sign up to the rules of the league competition.

i.e. We made our bed, and we must lie in it.

NomadskiEFC wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 3:13 pm I don’t think we have any leg to stand on re the breakage of the rules, we signed up to them and we broke them, we’ve admitted that.

For sure our fight is the strength of the punishment they imposed on us, that is where we are appealing and where I think we have strong cause for optimism.

I think we acknowledged that we went over the limit, but you're allowed to submit mitigation and it's totally up to them whether they accept your mitigation or not, which is another massive hole in the process, because it's open to human error, bias, or even corruption.

I think we thought we had sufficient mitigation with Covid, the war in Ukraine and impact on sponsorships, having to cancel the contract of a £50m player when we could have gone after compensation, stadium costs, and they just went ''we've got the Government breathing down on us for regulation, and you're not one of the primary brands in the Prem, so nah, we've arbitrarily decided to ignore your mitigation''

Bluedylan1 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 3:19 pm I think we acknowledged that we went over the limit, but you're allowed to submit mitigation and it's totally up to them whether they accept your mitigation or not, which is another massive hole in the process, because it's open to human error, bias, or even corruption.

I think we thought we had sufficient mitigation with Covid, the war in Ukraine and impact on sponsorships, having to cancel the contract of a £50m player when we could have gone after compensation, stadium costs, and they just went ''we've got the Government breathing down on us for regulation, and you're not one of the primary brands in the Prem, so nah, we've arbitrarily decided to ignore your mitigation''

I agree they certainly seem to be acting in panic mode, we can see that in the scattergun approach they have adopted to the process following legal threats from Leicester etc, and the lack of structure for actual penalties (which, as part of the PL, we are actually partly at fault for) but I'm not going down the corruption road. The PL just isn't very good at self regulation.

Re the mitigation, I just don't understand the interest payment on stadium part of the equation and why that isn't included in the mitigations, but then I'm no lawyer nor accountant.

Bluedylan1 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 3:19 pm I think we acknowledged that we went over the limit, but you're allowed to submit mitigation and it's totally up to them whether they accept your mitigation or not, which is another massive hole in the process, because it's open to human error, bias, or even corruption.

I think we thought we had sufficient mitigation with Covid, the war in Ukraine and impact on sponsorships, having to cancel the contract of a £50m player when we could have gone after compensation, stadium costs, and they just went ''we've got the Government breathing down on us for regulation, and you're not one of the primary brands in the Prem, so nah, we've arbitrarily decided to ignore your mitigation''

The mitigation isn't the biggest issue for me. The issue for me is there's no framework on the punishments even without mitigation. So they are just going to make random numbers up regardless of what teams have breached ffp by. 10pts for less than 20% seems very extreme when you consider someone could potentially go over by 100% or even 1000%

We are in a situation where us and forest could get different punishments for the exact same crime relegating 1 and keeping the other up. For me given there's only 20 potential cases a year there has to be lots of framework to make sure all punishments are equal(ly fair) they seem to be admitting we won't get that because forests commission are allowed to take a completely different view of what a fair punishment is. Not because of mitigation but simply because they believe a 30% overspend is only worth 2 points not 10.

It's like parking on a yellow line and not knowing if that gets you a fine or your hands chopped off

NomadskiEFC wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 3:57 pm I agree they certainly seem to be acting in panic mode, we can see that in the scattergun approach they have adopted to the process following legal threats from Leicester etc, and the lack of structure for actual penalties (which, as part of the PL, we are actually partly at fault for) but I'm not going down the corruption road. The PL just isn't very good at self regulation.

Re the mitigation, I just don't understand the interest payment on stadium part of the equation and why that isn't included in the mitigations, but then I'm no lawyer nor accountant.

My extremely amateur not an accountant and my wife does all our complicated admin because I am functionally idiotic so please bear with me, understanding of it is :

You can mitigate for stadium costs.

Our issue is to do with loans for stadium costs, that don't necessarily say on the tin 'stadium cost loan', and the interest incurred in paying those back.

Some of which I know for sure, look or are, totally bogus from a 'are these actually stadium' pov.

And then or maybe this is actually the thing, loans we had to take out *because* normal money was going on the stadium, so then these loans we want to minimise as stadium costs because they are cost incurred because of the stadium costs...if you get what I mean?

This is the thing the esk is talking about, and possibly the club too. The club has been told, or is under the impression, that they can capitalise interest on loans that were incurred to the business because it's normal spending was going on the stadium. And since case one, has now capitalised those loans/interest on the next set of books.

Prem isn't having that, because the loans are general loans, not stadium loans.

I THINK.

NomadskiEFC wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 3:57 pm I agree they certainly seem to be acting in panic mode, we can see that in the scattergun approach they have adopted to the process following legal threats from Leicester etc, and the lack of structure for actual penalties (which, as part of the PL, we are actually partly at fault for) but I'm not going down the corruption road. The PL just isn't very good at self regulation.

Re the mitigation, I just don't understand the interest payment on stadium part of the equation and why that isn't included in the mitigations, but then I'm no lawyer nor accountant.

Iman accountant and i dont get it

brap2 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 5:28 pm My extremely amateur not an accountant and my wife does all our complicated admin because I am functionally idiotic so please bear with me, understanding of it is :

You can mitigate for stadium costs.

Our issue is to do with loans for stadium costs, that don't necessarily say on the tin 'stadium cost loan', and the interest incurred in paying those back.

Some of which I know for sure, look or are, totally bogus from a 'are these actually stadium' pov.

And then or maybe this is actually the thing, loans we had to take out *because* normal money was going on the stadium, so then these loans we want to minimise as stadium costs because they are cost incurred because of the stadium costs...if you get what I mean?

This is the thing the esk is talking about, and possibly the club too. The club has been told, or is under the impression, that they can capitalise interest on loans that were incurred to the business because it's normal spending was going on the stadium. And since case one, has now capitalised those loans/interest on the next set of books.

Prem isn't having that, because the loans are general loans, not stadium loans.

I THINK.

I think I sort of understand that, in the same way I sort of understood Tenet. Sort of.

Seems a grey area that can be argued one way or another, so can be applied to our debt, or not.

Cheers

. Wrong thread - that excited we scored a free kick!

Gary1878 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 1:26 pm
If you commit a crime and go to court, the judge has a set of sentencing guidelines if you are found guilty. Before you even commit the crime, and before you go to court, you know approximately what you are up against in a worst case scenario.

Where are the sentencing guidelines for our case? Imagine if a judge decided that he didn’t particularly like someone very much for what they did, and gave someone 10 years in prison for stealing a mars bar? And then there were little to no repercussions for that sentence other than an appeals board, who again have no guidance to work from.

To take that analogy a step further, you are sentenced to 10 years in prison for stealing a Mars bar, having held your hands up and plead guilty, whilst your next door neighbour has commited a number of bank robberies and is importing kilos and kilos of class A drugs every week. Everyone knows that he's a wrongun and there is a whole heap of evidence of many of his wrongdoings, yet he is still completely free, whilst you're rotting in your prison cell.

When the judge is asked why you received a 10 stretch for such a.minor infringement, whilst your neighbour continues to be an absolute fucking scumbag, the response is "Oh that's completely different and will be dealt with at some point in the future. We cantell you when because it's a secret and we'll have already changed the rules by the time he goes to trial, so he'll probably get a six month suspended sentence and a few hoirs of community service" then you're quite rightly going to be mighty possed off about it.

Does anyone actually have a number for the interest the club have had to pay on loans for the new stadium?

I think the key issue is them using previous submissions to charge us again. That's where we need to attack.

Did anyone look at the new proposed rules?

UEFAs is a sliding scale, but 70% of revenue max limit to spend on wages, transfers and agents fees

Our revenue was £181m? So we’d be allowed to spend £126.7m - I assume it’s just done per season, so a large increase and happy days?

Chelsea’s revenue is £481m so they could lash £336.7m a season at it

At least the current stupid rules are even for everyone (supposedly)

The new ones aren’t going to make anything better and will just let the top clubs get even further ahead

Paddockoldie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 6:58 am I think the key issue is them using previous submissions to charge us again. That's where we need to attack.

I don't really understand this bit admittedly because surely that's how rolling periods work?

2019 2020/21 2022 | check

20/21 2022 2023 | check

2022 23 24 | check

But lots of people are saying "charged twice for the same period.." etc including the club so I assume there must be an argument but my understanding was this was the entire point.