Everton fans, understandably, are very angry with the Premier League after they were deducted ten points for one Financial Fair Play breach. As a result, the Toffees have united and have plenty of …
Have you read the decision because it’s very clear in how they calculated the sanction.
Sanction Principles:
The Commission is allowed to use its discretion for sanctions providing they follow the principles set out by the Premier League. The Premier League has proposed a specific formula which starts from a 12 point deduction for breaches, which had the Commission used would likely have resulted in a more severe punishment for Everton given the below
Aggravating Factors:
The Premier League identified four factors that it believed aggravated Everton’s breaches:
The club overspent despite repeated warnings.
The amount by which Everton’s actual losses exceeded the £105 million threshold.
The submission of misleading information about stadium financing costs.
The decision not to sell a particular player, despite previous assertions to the contrary.
Mitigating Factors:
Everton presented six factors it believed should mitigate the breach:
Could have treated certain interest charges as capital expenditure. IC Response: Everton’s argument based on a false premise.
The player termination loss should be considered as mitigating. IC Response: Loss stemmed from a business decision Everton made, which doesn’t typically qualify as a mitigating factor.
Covid impacts on player trading and the ability to sell players. IC Response: Largely attributable to the fact that there was no ready purchaser for those players at the prices that Everton was seeking
Full cooperation with the Premier League’s investigation. IC Response We have already found Everton’s conduct not to be in compliance with the obligation of utmost good faith imposed by Rule B15.
A positive trend in the club’s PSR adjusted losses. IC Response: Positive trend in 2020/2021 but returned to a negative trend in 2023
The impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on Everton’s investment and sponsorship income. IC Response: Predominantly related to a £10m naming rights deal which doesn’t come into effect until 2025/26 season.
Quantification of Sanction:
The Commission concluded that Everton’s breach was significant and required a sporting sanction in the form of a points deduction. Everton’s culpability was deemed high due to significant overspending and a lack of transparency. An immediate deduction of 10 points was determined as the appropriate penalty.
Seems like you’ve copy-pasted text from the ruling without addressing anything I’ve said. The PL does not have a codified punishment framework and has said that the approach used against Everton here may well not apply elsewhere. That is horseshit and fans are rightly aggrieved
You are incorrect about the sanction principles, the EFL used the 12 point deduction starting point then lowers the punishment based on mitigating factors, not the EPL.
The EPL proposed starting at 6 points, adding 1 for every £5m over £105m which would have resulted in a 10 point deduction in this instance. However the EPL declined to use this formula as Rule W51 of the prem allows them to “make any other such order as they see fit”.
It is bizarre that they refused to use the proposal and ended up at the same place with no actual rationale other than saying that was a suitable punishment. Beyond that, to then come out and say the method won’t be used in future cases is dodgy and means we can’t compare the suitability of punishments effectively.as they can make it up as they go along.
Your right EPLs is 6+ the severity would have remained the same not more. Why they didn’t just adopt the EPLs formula I don’t know, as although Man City/Chelsea are not easy to compare to compare to Everton, it would have taken away some of the controversy
Have you read the decision because it’s very clear in how they calculated the sanction.
Sanction Principles: The Commission is allowed to use its discretion for sanctions providing they follow the principles set out by the Premier League. The Premier League has proposed a specific formula which starts from a 12 point deduction for breaches, which had the Commission used would likely have resulted in a more severe punishment for Everton given the below
Aggravating Factors: The Premier League identified four factors that it believed aggravated Everton’s breaches:
The club overspent despite repeated warnings. The amount by which Everton’s actual losses exceeded the £105 million threshold. The submission of misleading information about stadium financing costs. The decision not to sell a particular player, despite previous assertions to the contrary.
Mitigating Factors: Everton presented six factors it believed should mitigate the breach:
Could have treated certain interest charges as capital expenditure. IC Response: Everton’s argument based on a false premise.
The player termination loss should be considered as mitigating. IC Response: Loss stemmed from a business decision Everton made, which doesn’t typically qualify as a mitigating factor.
Covid impacts on player trading and the ability to sell players. IC Response: Largely attributable to the fact that there was no ready purchaser for those players at the prices that Everton was seeking
Full cooperation with the Premier League’s investigation. IC Response We have already found Everton’s conduct not to be in compliance with the obligation of utmost good faith imposed by Rule B15.
A positive trend in the club’s PSR adjusted losses. IC Response: Positive trend in 2020/2021 but returned to a negative trend in 2023
The impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on Everton’s investment and sponsorship income. IC Response: Predominantly related to a £10m naming rights deal which doesn’t come into effect until 2025/26 season.
Quantification of Sanction: The Commission concluded that Everton’s breach was significant and required a sporting sanction in the form of a points deduction. Everton’s culpability was deemed high due to significant overspending and a lack of transparency. An immediate deduction of 10 points was determined as the appropriate penalty.
Seems like you’ve copy-pasted text from the ruling without addressing anything I’ve said. The PL does not have a codified punishment framework and has said that the approach used against Everton here may well not apply elsewhere. That is horseshit and fans are rightly aggrieved
You are incorrect about the sanction principles, the EFL used the 12 point deduction starting point then lowers the punishment based on mitigating factors, not the EPL.
The EPL proposed starting at 6 points, adding 1 for every £5m over £105m which would have resulted in a 10 point deduction in this instance. However the EPL declined to use this formula as Rule W51 of the prem allows them to “make any other such order as they see fit”.
It is bizarre that they refused to use the proposal and ended up at the same place with no actual rationale other than saying that was a suitable punishment. Beyond that, to then come out and say the method won’t be used in future cases is dodgy and means we can’t compare the suitability of punishments effectively.as they can make it up as they go along.
Your right EPLs is 6+ the severity would have remained the same not more. Why they didn’t just adopt the EPLs formula I don’t know, as although Man City/Chelsea are not easy to compare to compare to Everton, it would have taken away some of the controversy