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

    If club are found to have breached spending rules in next set of accounts, action will be taken by end of May under changes brought in to speed up process

    Ouch, that’s a deadly one-two punch.

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

      They can fuck over everton immediately, but man city may not see anything for 2+ years? Wtf is this?

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

          The trick is to be massively corrupt in a way that takes fucking forever to bring to trial. To get super advanced, you need to be under active indictments in four different cities under four completely different categories of law.

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

      lol at the EPL eyeing the relegation line and docking whatever points it takes to send them down,

    • Krillin113@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean if you already were being investigated and you broke the same rules again you’re a fucking dumbass beyond measure.

      Shitty situation for the fans though

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

        Given that the accounts are over a three year period it’s more like being penalized twice for screwing up the same year.

      • zzonked7@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not as clear cut as that because it’s not as simple as having budget of £105m and spending £124.5m, though that’s the final tally. They lost far more than £124.5m over 3 seasons, they lost closer to £370m but were allowed to write some of it off per the rules.

        My understanding is that their argument is twofold, 1) They think they should have been able to write off more of the losses and 2) There were good reasons that they had reduced income that tipped them over (covid, no transfer fee for Sigurdsson and unexpectedly poor results in the league).

        The difficulty is a team can invest with an expectation that it will return better results and money, but football is unpredictable and if it doesn’t work out then you can get punished like this. You could definitely argue they acted recklessly and took an unacceptable risk, but it’s not just outright stupidity.

        It’s a 3 year rolling loss tally, if they get punished again then it’s likely partly the same mistake as last time, not a fresh one.

    • Mozezz@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Im struggling to think how exactly we’d have fucked up the finances since when we got done

      We’ve not really spent any money on transfers without selling players and our wages have drastically dropped

      Sounds abit clickbaity to me tbh

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

        Yeah it’s not a ‘we suspect they might have broken the rules again so will be punished again’, just a ‘Everton still have to play by the same rules despite already being punished for breaking them before’, it’s a non story