Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability - New APT Rules Approved by Premier League

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Why do you assume this? If city and Chelsea get found guilty they will also get the Book thrown at them. This is pretty black and white   

 

While the rest of us look on as Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal snap up everyone and outspend everyone and make it like Portugal with Sporting, Benfica and Porto.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

While the rest of us look on as Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal snap up everyone and outspend everyone and make it like Portugal with Sporting, Benfica and Porto.

Well yeah, unfortunately these legacy clubs have built revenue in line with the anti competitive rule set the league voted in. As I’ve said the clubs are eye absolutely stupid to vote in rules which restricted trade but let’s be honest; most of the owners are in it to make money which is why they went for it. 

[The Prophet]

Didn't CAS rule in favour of Man City because UEFA's case was time-barred?

[nufcnick]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

Didn't CAS rule in favour of Man City because UEFA's case was time-barred?

This ^^^ they didn’t find them innocent of any of the charges 

[Pilko]

 

[The Prophet]

I do have a degree of sympathy for Everton. The Financial Fair Play laws are an absolute mess and whether by design or not, prevent fair competition within the Premier League. While I'm not against a more equitable system, limitations on clubs being able to use capital available to them seems misguided.

 

At the same time it sounds like the senior management at Everton were incompetent and given ample opportunity to get their house in order. Some of the Premier League's case (particular around stadium costs) is pretty damning, while other bits don't quite stack up and look like they could be appealed. It's like the PL have chucked the kitchen sink in ("belt and braces approach") to strengthen their case.

 

I can't see Everton getting off completely, but a reduction in punishment seems plausible.

[WideopenMag]

2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

I do have a degree of sympathy for Everton. The Financial Fair Play laws are an absolute mess and whether by design or not, prevent fair competition within the Premier League. While I'm not against a more equitable system, limitations on clubs being able to use capital available to them seems misguided.

 

At the same time it sounds like the senior management at Everton were incompetent and given ample opportunity to get their house in order. Some of the Premier League's case (particular around stadium costs) is pretty damning, while other bits don't quite stack up and look like they could be appealed. It's like the PL have chucked the kitchen sink in ("belt and braces approach") to strengthen their case.

 

I can't see Everton getting off completely, but a reduction in punishment seems plausible.

It sounds like they actually decided to take the gamble though doesn't it, spend the money hope it pays off and they break into the champions league etc then they might have got the income to back up the spends. It didn't work and has back fired. Seems fair enough really.

[RS]

21 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Why do you assume this? If city and Chelsea get found guilty they will also get the Book thrown at them. This is pretty black and white   

Just based on things like the lack of impactful action against the big 6 when they decided they wanted their own special league as the smaller English clubs weren’t good enough competition.  

[r0cafella]

4 minutes ago, RS said:

Just based on things like the lack of impactful action against the big 6 when they decided they wanted their own special league as the smaller English clubs weren’t good enough competition.  

Fair point on that aspect,  I think part of the reason they got off lightly domestically was due to them not wanting to actually leave the premier league. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

What does time barred mean BTW? You did lots of dodgy things but it’s too late to get you for it? 

[FloydianMag]

2 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

What does time barred mean BTW? You did lots of dodgy things but it’s too late to get you for it? 

Is it a bit like a statute of limitations, that would be my guess.

[The Prophet]

6 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

What does time barred mean BTW? You did lots of dodgy things but it’s too late to get you for it? 

 

Pretty much.

[TheBrownBottle]

25 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

I do have a degree of sympathy for Everton. The Financial Fair Play laws are an absolute mess and whether by design or not, prevent fair competition within the Premier League. While I'm not against a more equitable system, limitations on clubs being able to use capital available to them seems misguided.

 

At the same time it sounds like the senior management at Everton were incompetent and given ample opportunity to get their house in order. Some of the Premier League's case (particular around stadium costs) is pretty damning, while other bits don't quite stack up and look like they could be appealed. It's like the PL have chucked the kitchen sink in ("belt and braces approach") to strengthen their case.

 

I can't see Everton getting off completely, but a reduction in punishment seems plausible.

They’ve been overspending for years.  I’ve zero sympathy whatsoever.  Other clubs followed the rules, Everton flouted them.  Without their flouting of the rules, they’d likely have been relegated in the last couple of years.  One of those relegated clubs would have stayed up instead.  This has been a long time coming.  10 points is light, frankly. 

[The Prophet]

1 hour ago, WideopenMag said:

It sounds like they actually decided to take the gamble though doesn't it, spend the money hope it pays off and they break into the champions league etc then they might have got the income to back up the spends. It didn't work and has back fired. Seems fair enough really.

 

They definetly did the crime, the argument is about the severity and whether the punishment is proportionate.

 

I'm not sure the PL can argue it is when its sanctions are so opaque, with nothing written down for everyone's understanding.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by The Prophet

[Dr.Spaceman]

3 hours ago, Andy84 said:

Sorry mate but you sound delusional 

 

What do you know that UEFA don't?

[Kanji]

 

[PauloGeordio]

24 minutes ago, Kanji said:

https://x.com/mailsport/status/1725844685707489623?s=46

???

[RodneyCisse]

Jesus, the only ones suffering are the fans too.

 

Some awful owners out there.

[Choppy Chop Chop]

Can't think of a fan base more deserving of this. I'm a sad sod I know but my resentment goes back to the 1970's 

[Pilko]

3 minutes ago, Choppy Chop Chop said:

Can't think of a fan base more deserving of this. I'm a sad sod I know but my resentment goes back to the 1970's 

 

I can think of one in the same city as them for starters who I'd say are way more deserving of it.

[Dokko]

14 minutes ago, RodneyCisse said:

Jesus, the only ones suffering are the fans too.

 

Some awful owners out there.

 

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

I wonder where this leaves them in terms of not breaking the rules again this year.  

Also if they were to be sued for 300 million.  Would that count against the losses for the club?  If so it would cause them to break the rules again.  Opening the door for other clubs to sue them ? 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by KetsbaiaIsBald

[GeordieT]

You have to suspect that the Premier Leagues gutless response to Man City and Chelsea to date is partly out of fear Super League plans will be revisited. In both cases based on this precedent we would surely see relegation and titles stripped.

[nufcnick]

2 minutes ago, GeordieT said:

You have to suspect that the Premier Leagues gutless response to Man City and Chelsea to date is partly out of fear Super League plans will be revisited. In both cases based on this precedent we would surely see relegation and titles stripped.

Man City have been charged by the PL, but they have 113 charges to go through and get right compared to Everton’s 1 charge, and city are fighting and blocking every step of the way, the PL will get them and Chelsea in the end. Do you want it done quickly where there is a chance the PL fuck up and city get away with it, or do you want it done properly and City and Chelsea get nailed to the wall. 

[Gawalls]

12 hours ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

I dont know any of the finer details of this, and any other club's potential transgressions, or even really the rules for certain, but this still stinks a little.

 

If you've got rules in place they have the be enforced, otherwise there's zero point in any rules at all and its just the wild west. Whether or not those rules are fit for purpose is another matter entirely. If other clubs have broken the rules, they need to be enforced the same way they are being with Everton. If other clubs have managed to swerve the rules by exploiting loopholes, then those loopholes need closing but you cant apply them retroactively. If they've swerved them with fancy accounting, that's breaking the rules and they should be punished. The stuff coming out about the Roman years sound insane and clear rule breaking, but who knows what finer detail may get them off. Same with City. 

 

The whole thing is a fucking mess. There's no real authority enforcing this, and lumping clubs and fans with the consequences when it's individuals at fault isnt good for football. I think the authoritative bodyt needs to have much more clout and there needs to be more consequences on individuals higher up, rather than for the fans. \And it has to be enforced by law. You'd see a change in attitude then.

 

 

 

They closed the eight year loop hole Chelsea exploited and have punished Everton with others still under investigation - seems to me it’s not a “fucking mess”.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Gawalls