• thesizeoftheocean@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Would a better punishment be to reduce the number of registered players for a period of time? By reducing to 25 to 22, it would force clubs to use academies and young players. There’s always the option to manage it more proactively like La Liga but sure that’s not perfect either. The points deduction just seems to punish fans, players and managers, who likely didn’t contribute much to the breach of rules.

    • emize@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It always seemed kind of strange to me to fine someone because they don’t have enough money.

    • _pjanic@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It kind of makes a weird sort of sense. Everton got in trouble for spending—perhaps only having 22 listed players would help their budgetary troubles.

  • Reece3144@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    OK then honour that statement and go hard on other teams there so eager to punish us over 20 million due to numerous reasons but nothing for others.

    • AvikHyp3@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Didn’t Everton cooperate with the prem as well? Like a 10 point deduction for being over 20 mil seems like a lot

      • eht217@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not for 20 million its for 125 million. Clubs are required to disclose losses of more than 15 million. The next threshold (the max threshold) is 105 million in losses over 3 years. Everton had 125 million in losses (about). Over the 105 limit you are subject to punishment. I agree it’s harsh but it’s a rule. Now it’s about making that rule consistent and holding the Chelsea’s and Man city’s to that same standard.

      • JustDifferentGravy@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They discussed it with the PL before and during the breach and were advised it would be a breach, it’s hard to claim unfair.

        The 10 points is in line with Sheffield Wednesday’s 12 points for slightly worse offence, which was reduced to 6 on appeal.

        So if Everton get 5 point deduction and stay up, the precedent is in tact for City case, and everyone has been warned that future sanctions will be tougher.

        All makes sense when you look into it in detail.

      • Ikhlas37@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is like when a teacher punishes a kid for being honest but can’t be bothered to punish the kid that’s lying because it’d require effort

        • Sneaky-Alien@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The PL just don’t want an independent regulator. FFP is a joke.

          They’re doing us for stuff in years before it was even implemented in 2011. But we’ll get done and made an example of. Stopped cooperating after the Der Spiegel article kicked off their investigation (30 charges for that btw).

          But we have a small support, it’s a completely PL operated “court” and everyone in the country is chomping at the bit to see us heavily punished. They’re charging us with things the CAS already cleared us for too lol. We’re going down lmao. Shit happens.

          You(not you, you) can reply rabidly about us all you like, I won’t be reading or engaging. Sick of reading the exact same boring and sometimes unhinged comments lol.

          • RushExisting@alien.topB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The key to what’s happening is as you said it, no independent regulator. They want to show they can keep their own house in order. I’m just wondering why. If a regulator came in and looked at the EPL money and practises as well as the clubs, what would it find…?

          • Yupadej@alien.topB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Funny thing is Everton fans support more FFP punishments which are designed to keep teams like Liverpool at the top and this punishment probably means they have won their last title lol.

    • wawa1867@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be fair to Everton, this points deduction already doesn’t really pose much of a threat given the gulf in quality between Prem teams and Championship promotion teams. I can see this been appealed and reduced to 6 pts or less.

      • jod1991@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The big risk is they’re financially stuffed already. Going down to the championship could cause a domino effect resulting in them doing a Portsmouth.

        As a Liverpool fan I hope you’re right and that it’s reduced on appeal.

        Them being sunk by FFP due to a negligent owner on top of circumstances mostly out of their control would be shit for the league and shit for the city.

  • BarryButcher@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    My guess is they are coming down hard on all the old breaches they 100% knew about but let slide because so Man City don’t have an precedents to point at and claim they are being targeted whilst others are being given leniency

    • ChocolateStill5901@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “City beat uefa charges with their army of lawyers”

      Erm no they didn’t, they went to CAS the highest sporting court in the land and entirely independent, they and they alone ruled on the charges, clearing city of everything bar failure to co-operate.

  • DrPinkusHMalinkus@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Telegraph writer here doesn’t seem to have followed through his thought process to its natural conclusion.

    Without wishing to go into the specifics of Everton or Man City or Chelsea and without wishing to discuss the ‘fairness’ of P&S rules it seems to me we have a system where:

    1. The financial gains of sporting success, through TV money and Champions League qualification (and success), massively outweigh in both terms of size and speed, the possible gains of sustainable commercial off-field success; and

    2. P&S is set up to reward a team’s commercial success and the ability to trade players at higher value - a process where the rewards are far more long-term (if at all possible for most teams).

    So we have a situation that actually rewards gambling on sporting success as if the gamble pays off the rewards are huge and immediate. For teams like Man City and Chelsea who can fund the gamble with some ease it makes perfect sense for them to take that gamble and the nature of their, and now Newcastle’s, commercial ownership structure means that they will attempt to bend the rules while waiting for that gamble to pay-off.

    Indeed, for teams that can afford the gamble the financial and sporting risk is negligible. For a team like, Brighton, for e.g. the sporting risk is far greater.

    In short: theres way too much money sloshing around the top of English football.

    • Critical-Oil9031@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The system only encouraged risk taking as long as there was no tangible punishment for failing to comply.

      Chelsea have been spending money they don’t have and can’t sustain, almost certainly because they thought they’d just take the punishment on the chin. The Premier League has rightly taken a tough stance with Everton, who were given plenty of time and opportunity to become compliant, to show that there is a tangible punishment.

      The 10 point deduction sets a precedent, it establishes that you can’t just game the system and take a token fine on the chin.

      • DrPinkusHMalinkus@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Where the prize for success is so large and the alternative path to success so impossible to achieve, the potential benefit will always outweigh the punishment of getting it wrong. It will also encourage increasingly complex ways of getting around the regulation by those who have the means to do so.

        It’s something all regulators don’t seem to understand well, including the Premier League.

  • grrrranm@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Suppose it’s fair, as long as all the leagues do the same, which they won’t, Real Madrid & Barcelona have been in the past government backed all sorts of dodging us going on, but is a state of national pride having a strong leave in Spain.

    PSG in the desperate attempt to win the Champions League, do you thin They haven’t broken FFF rules, most clubs & big teams in Europe have been doing it for years?

    So why is the English Premier League going to damage its worldwide reputation as being the best league in the world, do you think La Liga would relegate Real Madrid? No it’s madness.

  • mcjc94@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No. That’s stupid. What one party did won’t increase or lower another party’s chances of having committed a different crime.

    You guys lack common sense. No one in this subreddit is qualified to determine if a club is innocent or guilty.

    • Dorkseid1687@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am, because I have common sense. Anyone who thinks city’s revenue is legit is either deeply misinformed or knows next to nothing about European football

      • mcjc94@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then why waste time on the internet man, just go to court with your common sense? You’ll probably earn big money with your skills in football law lol

  • Some-Speed-6290@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Starting point is to impose immediate sanctions on clubs refusing to co-operate fully with investigations.

    You want to be part of the league, then abide by the rules and be prepared to hand over everything and prove that you have.

    If you don’t, then piss off to another league

    • ChocolateStill5901@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Found the next Stalin…

      They refused to co-operate as they didnt feel they were getting a fair hearing, they did exactly the same with uefa and guess what, when given a fair unbiased ruling by CAS, they were cleared and therefore completely justified in their reasonijg fir not co-operating.

      With the threat of an independent regulator looming over the premier league its clear to everybody and their dog what their intentions are with the city, chelsea and everton charges.

    • Chilli__P@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “If you don’t, then piss off to another league.”

      There’s six of them you won’t have to ask twice.

  • prof_hobart@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There seems to be very little discussion about what the P&S rules are even officially meant to achieve.

    If there’s going to be any regulation about spending, there seem to be broadly two sensible options.

    • Protection of a club’s finances - limiting allowable debts based on what the clubs and owner can afford
    • Levelling the playing field - an NFL-style salary cap

    The current rules are clearly not intended to do either.

    Everton/Moshiri could presumably afford these losses. If allowed, he could just choose to put more money into the club to cover them. And enforcing the rules is far more likely to push them off a financial cliff.

    And it’s clearly does nothing to help with levelling the playing field. Even ignoring their own dodgy dealings, the big clubs massively outspend clubs like Everton simply because their football revenues are vastly bigger, and will continue to get bigger as long as they’re able to outspend everyone.

    It’s fairly obvious that this is the real point of P&S - to stop anyone new ever challenging the existing status quo.

    But what’s the official justification that’s used for it? And why do the rest of the Prem go along with it?

  • kliq-klaq-@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    City were always facing major sanctions if proved guilty of the breaches they’re accused of because they will essentially amount to potentially criminal levels of fraud from multiple stakeholders. Everton are neither here nor there on that point.