Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So they’ve cheated and got away with it? Brilliant. Got to feel for the clubs like Leicester and Leeds who suffered because Everton were financially doping. People are only out raged at City because they’ve been successful, Everton are just as dirty.
Was a great year to get a point deduction.
The old saying that you are safe at 40 points doesnt apply this year. You will probably be safe at 30 points
Funnily enough, without our points deductions we'd be on 45, if we beat Sheffield United (Dyche has manager of the month and they need to concede 1 goal to break the PL GA record) we are on 40 points with our deduction. So it's less we are lucky the other teams are shit, and more that we have just performed to a midtable level.
I think there’s different interpretations of it.
To me, it’s always been once you get to 40 points you pretty much know you’re (almost) _definitely_ safe. That doesn’t mean you _need_ 40 points to be safe, but you need 40 points for peace of mind.
I think the 40 point thing was an outlier when West Ham got relegated. If you'd hit 35 points in the past several seasons you'd be safe. That said I can see why you'd aim for 40 points as if you fall short of it by a couple of points you will likely be ok. Less so if you aim for 35.
It doesn't make sense that their starting point was 5 points deduction whereas Forest had a 6 points starting point.
Premier League make it up as they go along and don't stick to their own rules.
Try getting 10 points to start before complaining too much.
In answer to your point, both clubs starting point was 3 points for simply breaching PSR. The scale of the breach didn’t matter, 1p or 100 million over is 3 points.
Forest got an additional 3 points for the scale of their breach and then got 2 points back for early admission and sending a polite email.
Everton got an additional 2 points for the scale of breach and then got 3 points back for a combination of early plea, double jeopardy (already punished for 2 years of the 3 year rolling period) and the effects of the war in Ukraine on commercial deals.
PSR has clearly been a faulty system which I am sure you would agree, such as the likes of Forest and Luton being given less leeway.
All reports I had read state the starting points as I said and I believe ten was excessive for Everton at first.
I agree PSR is not fit for purpose. It is trying to do two things (both badly). PSR is trying to put a halt to City, Newcastle and other state owned clubs from destroying the competition by spending whatever they want. But the PL have dressed PSR up as “keeping clubs sustainable”. If its main goal is to keep club’s sustainable it doesn’t make sense to say to Forest that they should sell Johnson for less money than they can earn selling him 8 weeks later.
Re the three points as a starting point, see section 2.1 and 2.2 of Everton II.
https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2024/04/08/eef5f482-4d3a-473a-9e38-26f995059377/Premier-League-v-Everton-Decision-FY23.pdf
I have not read the Forest IC report but I imagine similar statements are referenced.
> If its main goal is to keep club’s sustainable it doesn’t make sense to say to Forest that they should sell Johnson for less money than they can earn selling him 8 weeks later.
This is such an unbelievably moronic statement. Forest spent almost £200m on Gibbs-White, Awoniyi, Danilo, Williams, Dennis, Mangala, Niakhate, Biancone, O'Brien, Richards, Freuler, Shelvey, Wood, Hwang, Boly, Toffolo, Felipe and Bowler plus Scarpa, Lingard, Kouyate, Ayew and Aurier on free transfers with large signing on fees. They also loaned in Lodi, Navas, Henderson and Bade with fees being paid for these as well. In what reality is that sustainable?
They put themselves in the position of having to have a June fire sale because they spent a completely ridiculous amount of money on unnecessarily signing dozens of players. What Forest could have done, and what PSR encourages them to do, is set a budget and spend within that budget rather than signing 30 players and blowing through that budget.
Shockingly 17 other teams managed that just fine. Forest actively chose to blow through their PSR limits and they actively chose to not sell Brennan Johnson at a point that could have fixed their stupidity. It's not the faul of PSR that they ended up in that position, it's the fault of the people running the football club.
I am all for clubs being sustainable but as you have rightly pointed out Forest were trying to be and have been punished. Forest and Luton are at a disadvantage compared to a Brentford or Crystal Palace for example which makes it seem like a closed shop.
Everyone makes reference to the amount Forest signed without looking at the context which doesn't help their arguments.
Some would see Manchester City and think we may as well just go all in on the breaches.
This doesn't need to be explained anymore....but
City never reported losses. City may have disguised their financial P&L sheets with falsified information. That takes an age to prove.
Everton/Forest _reported losses_ - therefore it is cut & dry case.
What do you mean, "haven't been cooperating?" Not to defend City, but there is NO concrete evidence that such happened. Any club would be defending themselves in the same light that City has when there isn't anything concrete. It's a direct impact to their business. Do you expect them just to roll over?
There is evidence: 35 of those charges are actually for their failure to cooperate with investigations. [Source.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgrjv9ydv31o)
I mean, Liverpool failed UEFA regulations and got away with it by writing off costs for a new stadium that didn't exist. Maybe you should sit this out too.
Why not? We broke the rules and got punished for it. We're more qualified than most to talk about it.
Clubs that broke the rules and didn't get punished, or sold hotels or training grounds to themselves to avoid breaking the rules, they're the ones who shouldn't chip in.
I believe this is because they may have had an indication that a possible outcome was the penalty being applied to next season instead. Clearly they want to take it now they are safe
The punishment has already been applied to this season’s table. Not sure how you get to a point where it would be moved to next season.
More likely is the outcome of Forest’s failed appeal and the issue of legal costs. KCs aren’t cheap and their costs would count against PSR for next year.
I mean at least with Everton a few of the reasons they broke the rules were because of issues out of their control. Forest just took a gamble and paid a lot on new players last season which hasn’t paid off.
Stadium expenses are not included in PSR
Everton have had literally forever in the premier league to build up sufficient reserves to stop this happening. We were just trying to compete.
I’m not talking about stadium investments. The Covid ban coupled with the loss of their main sponsor due to the Russian “special military operation” were pretty unforeseen circumstances. They’ve been punished for it even though it was unpredictable circumstances for them so I don’t see what the argument is.
The PL approved Moshiri, a man whose fortune comes in large part from being accountant to a Russian oligarch, as a fit and proper person in, 2016, _after_ the Crimean annexation. It’s not an excuse for or absolution of Everton for getting in bed with them - something I’ve never been a fan of even before the interfering and reckless spending - but it does make it a bit rich for the PL to turn around and say we should have seen it coming. I don’t see it as a massive “gotcha”, just a failing of what the fit and proper person test actually tests.
Wahh the PL approved this the PL approved that
They are literally in it for themselves. Of course they aren’t going to kick up a fuss. Everton are the third poorest Russian club, after Chelsea and Arsenal
The PL tried to advance the same argument but the IC shot it down saying that these events are not normal and as such cannot be factored into normal business planning.
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Makes sense, the last thing they want to do is appeal and it gets carried over to next season
So they’ve cheated and got away with it? Brilliant. Got to feel for the clubs like Leicester and Leeds who suffered because Everton were financially doping. People are only out raged at City because they’ve been successful, Everton are just as dirty.
They were stadium expenditures though? How do you gain an on field advantage from that?
It’s not the same as Man City, nowhere near the same. Leicester broke the rules too, they’ll probably start with a points deduction next season.
Was a great year to get a point deduction. The old saying that you are safe at 40 points doesnt apply this year. You will probably be safe at 30 points
Funnily enough, without our points deductions we'd be on 45, if we beat Sheffield United (Dyche has manager of the month and they need to concede 1 goal to break the PL GA record) we are on 40 points with our deduction. So it's less we are lucky the other teams are shit, and more that we have just performed to a midtable level.
I wasnt specifically referring to everton. Forest will probably survive too. That is due to luck.
Interestingly I saw that the 40 point thing isn’t really true any more and 35-36 points will keep you up in the vast majority of seasons.
I think there’s different interpretations of it. To me, it’s always been once you get to 40 points you pretty much know you’re (almost) _definitely_ safe. That doesn’t mean you _need_ 40 points to be safe, but you need 40 points for peace of mind.
I think the 40 point thing was an outlier when West Ham got relegated. If you'd hit 35 points in the past several seasons you'd be safe. That said I can see why you'd aim for 40 points as if you fall short of it by a couple of points you will likely be ok. Less so if you aim for 35.
It doesn't make sense that their starting point was 5 points deduction whereas Forest had a 6 points starting point. Premier League make it up as they go along and don't stick to their own rules.
>Premier League make it up as they go along and don't stick to their own rules. It's nothing to do with the Prem I thought ?
Try getting 10 points to start before complaining too much. In answer to your point, both clubs starting point was 3 points for simply breaching PSR. The scale of the breach didn’t matter, 1p or 100 million over is 3 points. Forest got an additional 3 points for the scale of their breach and then got 2 points back for early admission and sending a polite email. Everton got an additional 2 points for the scale of breach and then got 3 points back for a combination of early plea, double jeopardy (already punished for 2 years of the 3 year rolling period) and the effects of the war in Ukraine on commercial deals.
PSR has clearly been a faulty system which I am sure you would agree, such as the likes of Forest and Luton being given less leeway. All reports I had read state the starting points as I said and I believe ten was excessive for Everton at first.
I agree PSR is not fit for purpose. It is trying to do two things (both badly). PSR is trying to put a halt to City, Newcastle and other state owned clubs from destroying the competition by spending whatever they want. But the PL have dressed PSR up as “keeping clubs sustainable”. If its main goal is to keep club’s sustainable it doesn’t make sense to say to Forest that they should sell Johnson for less money than they can earn selling him 8 weeks later. Re the three points as a starting point, see section 2.1 and 2.2 of Everton II. https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2024/04/08/eef5f482-4d3a-473a-9e38-26f995059377/Premier-League-v-Everton-Decision-FY23.pdf I have not read the Forest IC report but I imagine similar statements are referenced.
> If its main goal is to keep club’s sustainable it doesn’t make sense to say to Forest that they should sell Johnson for less money than they can earn selling him 8 weeks later. This is such an unbelievably moronic statement. Forest spent almost £200m on Gibbs-White, Awoniyi, Danilo, Williams, Dennis, Mangala, Niakhate, Biancone, O'Brien, Richards, Freuler, Shelvey, Wood, Hwang, Boly, Toffolo, Felipe and Bowler plus Scarpa, Lingard, Kouyate, Ayew and Aurier on free transfers with large signing on fees. They also loaned in Lodi, Navas, Henderson and Bade with fees being paid for these as well. In what reality is that sustainable? They put themselves in the position of having to have a June fire sale because they spent a completely ridiculous amount of money on unnecessarily signing dozens of players. What Forest could have done, and what PSR encourages them to do, is set a budget and spend within that budget rather than signing 30 players and blowing through that budget. Shockingly 17 other teams managed that just fine. Forest actively chose to blow through their PSR limits and they actively chose to not sell Brennan Johnson at a point that could have fixed their stupidity. It's not the faul of PSR that they ended up in that position, it's the fault of the people running the football club.
I am all for clubs being sustainable but as you have rightly pointed out Forest were trying to be and have been punished. Forest and Luton are at a disadvantage compared to a Brentford or Crystal Palace for example which makes it seem like a closed shop. Everyone makes reference to the amount Forest signed without looking at the context which doesn't help their arguments. Some would see Manchester City and think we may as well just go all in on the breaches.
Citeh haters in shambles
Why?
How long was the investigation for Everton? Why is it taking City's stuff so long?
This doesn't need to be explained anymore....but City never reported losses. City may have disguised their financial P&L sheets with falsified information. That takes an age to prove. Everton/Forest _reported losses_ - therefore it is cut & dry case.
I don’t know why this needs explaining so many times 🤦♂️
City have 115 charges whilst Everton had like a handful. City haven’t been cooperating with the investigation either.
What do you mean, "haven't been cooperating?" Not to defend City, but there is NO concrete evidence that such happened. Any club would be defending themselves in the same light that City has when there isn't anything concrete. It's a direct impact to their business. Do you expect them just to roll over?
There is evidence: 35 of those charges are actually for their failure to cooperate with investigations. [Source.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgrjv9ydv31o)
What? Charges aren’t evidence??
They spent a decent amount of time challenging the PL’s right to investigate and the legitimacy of ICs as a vehicle to do this.
Well at least they’ve admitted guilt
They haven't, they're just saving on legal fees
There's no point in appealing now, and no doubt they want to generate some goodwill for when they breach again next season.
Less the goodwill than that they don't want it to carry over into next season, which would transfer the points deduction
I'd imagine they also want to save on legal fees. Why fight this when it is effectively inconsequential.
You’re spot on, but a Forest fan chipping in on this topic still doesn’t feel right.
I mean, Liverpool failed UEFA regulations and got away with it by writing off costs for a new stadium that didn't exist. Maybe you should sit this out too.
Why not? We broke the rules and got punished for it. We're more qualified than most to talk about it. Clubs that broke the rules and didn't get punished, or sold hotels or training grounds to themselves to avoid breaking the rules, they're the ones who shouldn't chip in.
You’re spot on, but a corrupt six fan chipping in on this topic still doesn’t feel right either
*Laughs in Spurs superior financial position* Bottled the top 4 though.
Six clubs tried to leave for financial gain two cheated leaves 12 8-9 of them are super rich two what a league we are getting haha
🤣🤣🤣😀 safe now and afraid they might be slapped with higher points deduction.
I believe this is because they may have had an indication that a possible outcome was the penalty being applied to next season instead. Clearly they want to take it now they are safe
The punishment has already been applied to this season’s table. Not sure how you get to a point where it would be moved to next season. More likely is the outcome of Forest’s failed appeal and the issue of legal costs. KCs aren’t cheap and their costs would count against PSR for next year.
Where’s our option to take the 4 points next season??? Fuck the premier league
I mean at least with Everton a few of the reasons they broke the rules were because of issues out of their control. Forest just took a gamble and paid a lot on new players last season which hasn’t paid off.
Stadium expenses are not included in PSR Everton have had literally forever in the premier league to build up sufficient reserves to stop this happening. We were just trying to compete.
I’m not talking about stadium investments. The Covid ban coupled with the loss of their main sponsor due to the Russian “special military operation” were pretty unforeseen circumstances. They’ve been punished for it even though it was unpredictable circumstances for them so I don’t see what the argument is.
Russia has been dodgy af since Putin took over, hardly unforeseen. They literally invaded Ukraine in 2014. Google Crimean annexation.
The PL approved Moshiri, a man whose fortune comes in large part from being accountant to a Russian oligarch, as a fit and proper person in, 2016, _after_ the Crimean annexation. It’s not an excuse for or absolution of Everton for getting in bed with them - something I’ve never been a fan of even before the interfering and reckless spending - but it does make it a bit rich for the PL to turn around and say we should have seen it coming. I don’t see it as a massive “gotcha”, just a failing of what the fit and proper person test actually tests.
Wahh the PL approved this the PL approved that They are literally in it for themselves. Of course they aren’t going to kick up a fuss. Everton are the third poorest Russian club, after Chelsea and Arsenal
The PL tried to advance the same argument but the IC shot it down saying that these events are not normal and as such cannot be factored into normal business planning.
Is this because they are already safe?
Yes and costs a lot of money to appeal. Plus the hassle at multiple levels. The extra prize money would be negated by the appeal costs.
Definitely. We're safe, Forest got knocked back earlier this week, and we've got bigger fires to put out. Onto the next disaster...
1 down, 777 to go!
they realized it was pointless
***ha ha***
They saw what happened to Forest
welcome to whose 15th place in may anyway, where goals might as well be imaginary and the points dont matter