On the subject, I would love for that Burnley, Leicester and Leeds united effort to sue Everton. Dock them more points. Cunty club.
Thatâs my pointâŚvery unfair to the other clubs that did get relegated. I get that you reward clubs working with PL but there should be a minimum points deduction and 10 is nowhere near enoughâŚ30 sounds about right to me!
1 Like
If Man City are found guilty, then I think a points deduction for one season isnât good enough. They cheated for 10 years, so they should have points deducted for 10 years also.
Though, I get the feeling theyâll be acquitted of everything and the only thing theyâll be in trouble for is not complying to hand over docs etc.
1 Like
300 pt deduction :ramsdale:
2 Likes
Nah thats rubbish for me. Unless you can explain how them not having tricky enough accounting techniques to not show an overspend of 20m gives them an inherent advantage im not agreeing with this.
We live in a world where city invent tens or hundreds of millions of income and still pay players, managers and agents in secret to avoid detection. Everton as the first bad guys worthy of a punishment this severe doesnât wash for me.
3 Likes
So in respect of City, I agree. BUT we have to wait for that process to be completed. Because they appealed they have delayed things. I hope they get punished as I canât understand, like you, how they have stayed within the rules.
Everton also broke the rules and deserved to be punished. The point Iâm making is that their overspend potentially enabled them to stay up with the squad of players they had, whereas those teams which were relegated played within the rules. As such, I think the punishment needs to be severe enough to prevent others from doing the same. Itâs frustrating that Cityâs case has not been concluded yet, but that doesnât not absolve Everton.
No we dont. They are guilty as fuck and we all know it regardless of what legal conclusions eventually get drawn.
I fundamentally disagree with the level of the punishment. How on earth does a 7m overspend (essentially an accounting anomaly when you consider the figures we are discussing here) a season over three years account to a ten point deduction in a single season? Why did they draw the line at three seasons? You make it 5 and they are potentially fine. They havenât lied. They havenât withheld anything amd they are receiving the harshest penalty the PL has ever dished out for anything. It pales into insignificance compared to what we all know city have done.
If they follow through with the city case (and there is zero doubt about their guilt imo) and deduct similar penalties i may withdraw my objection but until then i maintain Everton have been hard done by here and i seriously doubt when all is said and done Iâm going to have a different opinion. Hope Iâm wrong.
4 Likes
We canât judge Evertonâs penalty until Cityâs case is concluded. If they are found guilty, and I hope they are, and are relegated down to the lower leagues and given a transfer ban, their punishment would be much more severe (quite rightly) and the punishment would be commensurate with what is alleged. However, fundamentally, if you break the rules, there needs to be a consequence and Everton should not be excused from this.
While I accept it is a small amount in the scheme of things, what if one of the relegated clubs were unable to sign a player last January because they wouldnât pay the extra ÂŁ7m the other club were demanding as it would have taken them over their own financial limitsâŚthat player could have made the difference and could have meant they stayed up and Everton were relegated. Football is all about small margins.
Thats fine. I agree.
10 points in a single season for a 7m average overspend across three seasons? I disagree thatâs just.
Unless you can make a convincing case for this i dont agree its right to put Everton at such a disadvantage now, several years later. Why should fucking Burnley of this season benefit when fucking Leeds of last season didnât?
So you donât think their overspend could have affected the league standings and Everton staying up in the PL?
The figures weâre talking about here, no. Absolutely not.
2 Likes
Ok fair enough, we disagree on that point thenâŚ
Letâs hope City get what they deserve though!
Thatâs why point deductions donât really make a ton of sense as the entire punishment. If the breach was overspending or sketchy accounting that enabled a club to sign players they otherwise wouldnât have been able to sign the fair punishment would be capping a squad and imposing a transfer ban forcing the club to not register some of those players and be unable to replace them.
If you give Everton a low punishment now than you box yourself in to a corner for future punishments. If Chelsea sell a couple more youth players next summer and âonlyâ break the limit by ÂŁ30mill how do you justify a big points deduction from them if your only giving Everton a 5point hit or so for ÂŁ20mill?
Also the limit on losses is ÂŁ110millâŚâŚ To break the limit you are already at batshit unsustainable levels of loss making over a sustained period. If your a bottom half team in the league and not trying to bankrupt your club without ridiculous levels of financing Evertonâs spending power over you will actually be over 100mill.
I think the narrative that Everton are being hard done by is so wide of the mark itâs unreal.
Id probably be less inclined to voice it but if Chelsea got a 10/15 point deduction for overspending by 30m Iâd think that was harsh too.
Weâll have to agree to disagree. But think itâs much better to have the deterrent so high clubs are forced to stay within the limit. Instead of having clubs decide whether they can strategically fail the limit to kickstart growth/rebuild because they wont be too heavily punished.
2 Likes
Itâs like offside - doesnât matter if the club were a tad bit offside or 200m meters offside, they are offside and the punishment should apply.
PL/English FA gave pre-emptive warnings to Everton through the financial disclosures, and Everton still managed to break the rules. Other clubs complied with this rule, especially the ones who got relegated in the last two seasons. Yet, they could have had another season in PL if Richarlison or Iwobi had been sold a year earlier.
You canât quantify the impact, so the punishment should be severe for such instances when enough warnings were thrown.
2 Likes
Itâs not enough, and as for Chelsea, they should get more. 
But rather than a points deduction, which will only affect a club for a season, there should be a transfer ban for clubs cheating FFP rules.
This would level things up more and would mean they wonât be able to replace players that leave and canât rotate the team, which is the main reason they get fewer injuries.
There should also be a cap on wages because top European players wouldnât have been interested in Chelsea or Man City before they started their massive spending, so players like Haaland would have gone to a genuine elite club.
1 Like
Mathematically, points deduction will work for one season only, and the punishment is too slow.
Letâs say they got 100 points deduction, they still had a chance to stay in the division to finish it.
What if (of course it is not quite possible but still) they win all the games, got over 100 points, and at the same time there are 3 shit teams getting fewer points than City/Chelsea?? Which means they stay in the division?
Okay, even if they get relegated. next season they will be in the Championship, another 100 points deducted. They still had that opportunity to play a full season in that division and see if there are enough teams to have fewer points.
Now they are in Championship, teams are much more inferior than the EPL teams, so there is a very high chance that they could win most games and stay.
They will bounce back in 2-3 years⌠and the punishment is not harsh enough.
1 Like
Yups, thatâs why I want a multi-year punishment for their crimes. 10 years worth of penalties (both fines, titles swiped and points deducted) for the sheer amount and gravity of cheating theyâve done.
1 Like