Goaljira wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:54 pm
The audited and verified accounts show that Everton lost far far far more than the allowable £105m in the first period. That isn't questioned. It's the justification for those losses that is being argued over. Everton are claiming (somewhat extended) extenuating circumstances, which the 'independant commison' deemed not relevant.
And one of our accountants apparently testified to the IC that it was 'his role to help his client manoeuvre around the rules' or words to that effect.
Gash wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:57 pm
We claimed £170m for Covid losses, Aston Villa a similar sized club to us claimed around £56m, Arsenal a club who stand to lose far more in revenue than us claimed around £85m.
Just to address this point specifically (and because I largely agree with you on the other stuff).
I think claims like this are mostly based around ground capacity. But our Covid losses do not just relate to bums on seats. We had assets to sell that were massively devalued by the Covid market. Player movement around the world slowed down for economic reasons as well as medical safety reasons.
So if we lost millions on a player value and clubs were also not trading as much in players at this time - this possibly had as much, if not more impact than an empty stadium.
Saying Arsenal lost more because they have a bigger stadium is an oversimplification. What if they didn’t need to sell? What if our plan had been to sell someone at this point?
We claimed £170m for Covid losses, Aston Villa a similar sized club to us claimed around £56m, Arsenal a club who stand to lose far more in revenue than us claimed around £85m. Several journalists and newspapers have written about our financial affairs, Panorama even investigated our ownership. As well as wasting money on shite players we've been dodgy as fuck for years and got caught, we weren't even subtle about it half the time.
We seem to be "dodgy as fuck" to those who wish us to appear as "dodgy as Fuck" ye cant be "dodgy as fuck" with so much compliance continually scrutinising you. The art of the accountant is to find "the loopholes" into what you can and cannot claim for, which in our case was ratified by the PL's own financial people...we weren't "dodgy as fuck" in our spending ..just plain stupid... but trying to recoup those costs throughout a world health crises is what made all this shit happen in the first place.
Toddacelli wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 1:33 pm
Just to address this point specifically (and because I largely agree with you on the other stuff).
I think claims like this are mostly based around ground capacity. But our Covid losses do not just relate to bums on seats. We had assets to sell that were massively devalued by the Covid market. Player movement around the world slowed down for economic reasons as well as medical safety reasons.
So if we lost millions on a player value and clubs were also not trading as much in players at this time - this possibly had as much, if not more impact than an empty stadium.
Saying Arsenal lost more because they have a bigger stadium is an oversimplification. What if they didn’t need to sell? What if our plan had been to sell someone at this point?
But the argument you're making could apply to every club. Without knowing all the details of every clubs finances, assets and who they were hoping to sell we can't really say we were affected any differently to other clubs. Even if there was truth in what you're saying, we still put in a figure far higher than most (maybe all) clubs, we couldn't be the only ones affected as badly.
Trowel wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 9:54 am
Bookmark this - a staggering indictment of Kenwright's reign and the total absence of a long-term strategy.
There is clearly a correlation between thes numbers and our claimed covid losses compared to other clubs which makes our £170 million claim look ridiculous.
Last edited by Escalator on Mon Feb 12, 2024 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gash wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 1:47 pm
But the argument you're making could apply to every club. Without knowing all the details of every clubs finances, assets and who they were hoping to sell we can't really say we were affected any differently to other clubs. Even if there was truth in what you're saying, we still put in a figure far higher than most (maybe all) clubs, we couldn't be the only ones affected as badly.
i agree with what your saying here flipping it though maybe we hired people with a better understanding of what could/couldn't be claimed which then realised and highlighted the gap between different club claims...maybe if everyone had of claimed what we claimed or similar it wouldn't of been an issue ? Maybe they under claimed ? Maybe they didn't need to claim as much ?
The bug point is no one knows what could couldn't of been claimed dya think if say had put in the biggest claim they'd of been pulled for it?
brap2 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 1:24 pm
Of course it is, but it's a case of saying the quiet part loud in the worst possible place (during a hearing for your breaking the rules!).
I totally agree that we were naïve in our handling of the first hearing. I just don't think anyone was expecting this level of sanction, when we're worked with the league for an extended period, run transfers past them, reduced costs, opened our books to them (unlike others) and had sold highly valuable players.
And I think, as it does in criminal cases, that should buy you some leniency in the severity of the punishment. 10 points with a possibility of further sanction for an overlapping period is ludicrous, no matter how badly we've been run.
4evablu wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 1:57 pm
i agree with what your saying here flipping it though maybe we hired people with a better understanding of what could/couldn't be claimed which then realised and highlighted the gap between different club claims...maybe if everyone had of claimed what we claimed or similar it wouldn't of been an issue ? Maybe they under claimed ? Maybe they didn't need to claim as much ?
The bug point is no one knows what could couldn't of been claimed dya think if say had put in the biggest claim they'd of been pulled for it?
Do you honestly believe that, we hired someone with a better understanding of it than every other club and everyone else under estimated their Covid losses? You're right, you are niave.
4evablu wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 1:45 pm
We seem to be "dodgy as fuck" to those who wish us to appear as "dodgy as Fuck" ye cant be "dodgy as fuck" with so much compliance continually scrutinising you. The art of the accountant is to find "the loopholes" into what you can and cannot claim for, which in our case was ratified by the PL's own financial people...we weren't "dodgy as fuck" in our spending ..just plain stupid... but trying to recoup those costs throughout a world health crises is what made all this shit happen in the first place.
We have been dodgy, every club probably is in some respects but as I said we weren't even subtle about it at times. Did you read the link? An accountancy firm didn't want to put their name to our accounts raising questions over our finances and ownership, that answers your point about accountants and auditors signing off our books. And BDO had only been doing them for two years, the company that took over from them then raised questions over our ability to remain solvent if we were relegated.
Everyone knows that Moshiri is only Usmanov's front man and the face of the business but it was Usmanov pulling the strings and making the decisions, didn't he even sit in a couple of managers interviews and agreed bonuses with Ancelotti? That's why so many journalists have starting sniffing around and asking questions, there's a lot of shady things being going on at the club. You seem of the opinion that we've done nothing wrong when even the club admitted that they have and there will have been far more that we've not been caught for.
The penalty is very harsh, a second would be even worse but we can't take the moral high ground and try blame everyone else or make out that we've done nothing wrong.
Absolutely absurd we're being punished twice in the same season for two separate accounting periods. It's the biggest indicator that they're making it up as they go along.
Gash wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 2:38 pm
Do you honestly believe that, we hired someone with a better understanding of it than every other club and everyone else under estimated their Covid losses? You're right, you are niave.
What about the possibility (not saying it’s true or that I believe it - just that it’s possible) that our recruitment strategy relied heavily on 2 or 3 big sales in that period that we had planned to make, but then the market crashed as no-one was moving.
If our target at that time was generating £50M in sales and Arsenal’s was £0 - then that could have fucked us regardless of financial ability or understanding.
I am not trying to argue with you - I am trying to demonstrate that it is more complex than seating capacities and if we were expecting more in than other clubs at this time - maybe it was because we were planning for it during this period?
Edit: and so who the fuck are the PL to say we wouldn’t have in a better market?
Toddacelli wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 3:18 pm
What about the possibility (not saying it’s true or that I believe it - just that it’s possible) that our recruitment strategy relied heavily on 2 or 3 big sales in that period that we had planned to make, but then the market crashed as no-one was moving.
If our target at that time was generating £50M in sales and Arsenal’s was £0 - then that could have fucked us regardless of financial ability or understanding.
I am not trying to argue with you - I am trying to demonstrate that it is more complex than seating capacities and if we were expecting more in than other clubs at this time - maybe it was because we were planning for it during this period?
Edit: and so who the fuck are the PL to say we wouldn’t have in a better market?
Well if that was our strategy it would be the first time in years that we had any sort of transfer plan. We may have had to sell to keep things ticking over, I don't believe it was part of any proper transfer strategy though.
Didn't we try and claim we had deals for Sigurdsson and Tosun lined up but they fell through for various reasons, suspended by the club being one of them obviousl? Even if we did I wonder how much we have got for Sigurdsson with big wages and not long left on his contract and how we even prove it, other than getting the buying club to back it up. Not sure about Tosun either, did his ACL on loan to Palace in March 2020 so that ruled him out for the best part of a year and he'd only have a year two left on his contract by the time he recovered. Maybe we'd have got enough for both to cover the £20m deficit?
