Now we know that the Premier League is really serious about enforcing its financial rules.
And Manchester city Chelsea, in particular, may need a synthetic mop to absorb the sweat accumulating on their feet.
7
For all the talk of scrutiny, rules and the determination to ensure clubs live within their means, no one really believed the Prem chiefs meant it.
The general opinion was that it was all just a show. Interface design. It will never be acted upon.
But suddenly with Everton Sucker punches with the biggest penalty In the league’s 30-year history – with a ten-point deduction – and facing a potential season-long battle against relegation that could be the final nail in the coffin for the famous old Merseyside club, the whole picture has changed.
The Toffees, swinging in all directions, have made it clear they will push for similar measures elsewhere.
Attacking the “cruelty and severity” of punishment, EvertonThe club statement indicated: “The club will monitor with great interest the decisions taken in any further cases related to the rules of profit and sustainability in the English Premier League.”
But a new standard has been set. In its 41-page written reasons, a three-man independent panel, chaired by David Phillips KC, explained that First League – Under fire from Westminster and other critics – he has a commitment to crack down on clubs that try to cheat the system.
“The committee has no doubt that one of the primary purposes of the sanction is to punish the offending club,” they wrote.
“We should not be swayed by sympathy, for example, by the fact that punishment might make relegation more likely.
“The inference of sporting advantage must be properly drawn from the fact of the violation, and that sporting advantage has been enjoyed for four seasons.
“One purpose of punishment is to provide a deterrent effect. This is a legitimate aim.”
Unsurprisingly, Everton supporters are wondering why they have suffered such a heavy blow so quickly, while other instances drag on, seemingly indefinitely.
Rival clubs do not expect the 115 charges against City to be finalized within the next 12 months, while the league remains indicted. Chelsea – Despite being fined £8.6m by UEFA for issues they self-reported.
Free Bets – Best betting offers and bonuses for new customers
7
Even a Liverpool legend Jamie CarragherA blue boy as a child, he wrote: “The ten-point deduction is exaggerated and untrue.
They have been working with the Premier League on this for the past two years. Would it have been better to be evasive and try to pull it off like other clubs? Until other clubs are punished, Everton will feel they are being used to show that there is no need for an independent regulatory body, and they are right.
Last summer, Premier League clubs voted on new rules that mean “minor” breaches of sustainability rules must be dealt with within three months of being charged.
This does not apply to the City case, while it is understood that the Chelsea case is made more complicated by the lack of any official currently involved at the club.
But Everton now face the prospect of taking a major financial hit as well.
While Leeds, Leicester, Southampton, Nottingham Forest and Burnley have been banned from intervening in the case by a panel, they have 28 days to apply for their compensation claims to be assessed.
7
In the cases of teams relegated over the past two seasons, this could run into millions of pounds, with Leeds likely to point out that they had to sell Kalvin Phillips and Rafinha to comply with the Financial Fair Play programme.
Everton, in a precarious financial situation and now looking at the real possibility of relegation, cannot afford to be exposed to such a demand to pay.
But what is beyond doubt is that the financial framework of the entire Premier League has now changed.
Everyone knows that. For this reason, the final result for City and Chelsea will be voted on.
Counts
Everton were hit with an unprecedented 10-point penalty after they were found to have “taken a chance” in relation to the Prem’s financial regulations.
A 41-page independent panel report found that their attempt to improve results led to them acting “irresponsibly” to exceed losses allowed under the league’s profitability and sustainability rules.
“This was a serious violation requiring significant punishment,” her damning report said.
Despite making losses worth £372m over three seasons, the club was found to have breached the permitted loss of £105m by £19.5m, spending £124.5m.
They consistently denied the accusations, until the hearing, when they admitted breaching the regulations.
The committee confirmed that Everton had reported issues as early as January 2021 with the club wishing to claim £54m in stadium expenses. The association rejected this claim.
7
The club realized by early 2022 that it would fail to meet Premier League guidelines.
This saw other clubs benefiting in transfer deals. Tottenham bought Richarlison in a deal worth £60m, around £20m less than Everton had expected.
The Ukraine war, which saw billionaire Farhad Moshiri’s business partner Alisher Usmanov put on the UK sanctions list, costs £10 million a year in lost sponsorship income, the Toveys said.
In its official accounts for 2022, Everton attempted to exclude £17.4m in stadium loan interest. The club also incurred losses worth £61m related to Covid-19, which the League rejected.
The 2023 accounts claiming a loss of just £87.1 million over the three-year period were rejected.
In 2021, the Premier League warned Everton against signing new players, but the committee stated that the club’s continued transfer policy was “reckless constituting an aggravating factor”.
7
She added: “It was not wise for Everton not to reduce player purchases.
“It was aware of the potential difficulties with profitability and sustainability rules, but forged ahead in the hope that it could sell players which would enable it to achieve PSR compliance. Events have demonstrated that this is poor governance.
“The situation Everton finds themselves in is of their own making – it is Everton’s responsibility to ensure they comply with the PSR. The surplus above the threshold is important.
“The result is that Everton’s fault is great.
“Furthermore, Everton have been less than frank in their dealings with the Premier League on the issue of stadium interest.
“The reality is that Everton have failed to manage their finances so as to operate within the generous £105m limit.
“Its mismanagement led to this being exceeded by £19.5m. A financial penalty for a club with the backing of a wealthy owner is not a sufficient penalty.”
Defense
Everton’s failed attempt to escape a record points deduction has seen them claim they should be allowed extra wiggle room not to prosecute the player.
They said that after “Player X” was arrested in July 2021, they sought to protect his “mental peace” at financial cost.
The player – who was not named in the independent commission’s report – was sacked the following month, but Everton chose not to sue him for breach of contract.
However, at the hearing, Everton said the £10m they could have claimed should have been included in their losses, minimizing the breach of league rules.
According to the written reasons, Everton claimed it was “entitled to take credit for not pursuing an economically viable claim” against the player.
But the panel described the argument as “speculative,” adding that “there is no evidence that Player X would have been able to satisfy any judgment that might have been obtained.”
7
Prem chiefs were also frustrated by the claim that Everton missed out on the transfer value of another star player – ‘Player Y’ – due to Covid.
The lawyers claimed that the “factual truth” was that Everton had made the decision not to sell.
Prem rules allow for losses of £105m over three years, but Everton’s losses through 2021-22 have been shown to be £124.5m.
The club put forward several items which they felt should be excluded from the calculation, including interest costs relating to the construction of their new stadium at Bramley Moor Dock, part of the club’s transfer tax relating to the development as well as the £10m loss to Youth due to the decision not to claim damages against the club. Player X”.
Everton also argued that a depressed summer transfer market in 2020 due to Covid-19 reduced the revenue they could have earned from player sales.
They also said they lost a £200 million stadium naming rights deal with USM Group as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and sanctions imposed by the British government.
7
USM’s largest stakeholder is Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov.
The club said in a statement: “Everton Football Club is shocked and disappointed by the decision of the Premier League committee.
“The club believes that the committee imposed a sporting punishment that was disproportionate and completely unfair.
“The club has already communicated its intention to appeal the decision to the Premier League.
“Everton confirms that it has been open and transparent in the information it has provided to the Premier League.
“The club does not acknowledge the finding that it failed to act in the utmost good faith and does not understand that this was an allegation made by the Premier League during the proceedings.”
“The harshness and severity of the sentence imposed by the committee is not a fair or reasonable reflection of the evidence presented.”
Commentaires
Enregistrer un commentaire