FFP charges? | Page 86 | Vital Football

FFP charges?

BlackGold said:
No idea, but this was revenue 2022/2023 in million euros, according to deloitte

City - 827
Man U - 745
Scouse - 638
Spurs - 632
Chelseas - 589
Arsenal - 533
Newcastle - 288
West Ham - 275
Click to expand...
And there lies the City FFP problem
No way is their revenue anywhere near the level of Man Utd , Scouses etc.
I travel all round the world and very rarely do you ever see a City shirt.
Yet they claim the revenue for millions of them every year.
They also have sponsorships from major Middle Eastern companies for crazy money for nothing
 
Pope John XXIII said:
The question with this system is how any promoted club is supposed to work it.

Is it based on previous years revenue (known) or current year's revenue (not known).

For instance, how are you supposed to know what you are allowed to spend if based on current year revenue? You won't know what it is! Does that revenue include player sales? How are you supposed to know if you are going to sell all your boxes in May or get to the quarter finals of a cup with multiple home games?

So if it is based on previous year's revenues, how is any promoted club possibly supposed to compete financially? They will be conforming to 85% of championship revenues?

What am I missing here in terms of how this is supposed to work?
Click to expand...
Not a lot - I am perplexed by it all as well.
In your first season for 23 years you can’t know what your revenues and spend are going to be as you have no previous to base it
It can only be estimated budget, which can be adjusted by utilising your assets.
That’s what we did - allegedly with the knowledge and approval of the epl.
Until Brentford got pissed off that we wouldn’t give them Johnson for half price and complained
 
At least the barrister reckons we have a case for mitigation with the BJ sale which I always thought (and still do) was dodgy ground.
 
Phatnovice said:
Interesting chat on this video

Click to expand...
Fine, or suspended sentence not deemed enough. Points deduction only. They also suggested the points are between 3 and 8. I can understand why not nine or above but didn’t follow the argument as to why 1 or 2 being deducted has been ruled out.

Sporting advantage, subjectively and BJ playing 3 games and only advantage (subjective) being 3 points. (Shef U).
 
Geedo61 said:
Interesting.
So do we get 3 points or less with mitigation?
Click to expand...
3 points is likely to be the minimum but if we can prove no, or limited, sporting advantage along with any other mitigating factor then it could be less.

The appeal commission did state that an overspend inferred sporting advantage so nothing less than an immediate points deduction would be appropriate.

From there it leaned into Portsmouth’s 9 point penalty for basically being insolvent so for me Everton’s 6 point penalty is actually still on the high side.

The fact that we sold Johnson weeks later, that we had been talking to the Premier League about it and that he only played 3 games should all be taken into consideration.

The fact that we had a lower threshold is arguably unfair and we can also point to the January window as proof of our intent to comply with the rules.

Any more than 3 points and we should be making an appeal. I would even be inclined to appeal if we got 3 points but that would depend on the commission’s ruling.
 
Polly 433 said:
Fine, or suspended sentence not deemed enough. Points deduction only. They also suggested the points are between 3 and 8. I can understand why not nine or above but didn’t follow the argument as to why 1 or 2 being deducted has been ruled out.

Sporting advantage, subjectively and BJ playing 3 games and only advantage (subjective) being 3 points. (Shef U).
Click to expand...

Whilst you could turn the BJ argument into a (slightly) more objective we might not have got three points if he hadn't played, going down that route would then give us something like Anthony Gordon played 35 league games in 2021-22 for Everton, plus 16 in 2022-23 etc
 
Lienking said:
Whilst you could turn the BJ argument into a (slightly) more objective we might not have got three points if he hadn't played, going down that route would then give us something like Anthony Gordon played 35 league games in 2021-22 for Everton, plus 16 in 2022-23 etc
Click to expand...
This is why it isn’t really quantifiable beyond a yes or no. Particularly when the range tops out at 9 points so you are dealing with fractions of points. Then there is the extent of the breach itself and any mitigations.

The lack of any clear primary legislation is really unhelpful especially as there is only limited case law as well.
 
Basha73 said:
This is why it isn’t really quantifiable beyond a yes or no. Particularly when the range tops out at 9 points so you are dealing with fractions of points. Then there is the extent of the breach itself and any mitigations.

The lack of any clear primary legislation is really unhelpful especially as there is only limited case
Basha73 said:
3 points is likely to be the minimum but if we can prove no, or limited, sporting advantage along with any other mitigating factor then it could be less.

The appeal commission did state that an overspend inferred sporting advantage so nothing less than an immediate points deduction would be appropriate.

From there it leaned into Portsmouth’s 9 point penalty for basically being insolvent so for me Everton’s 6 point penalty is actually still on the high side.

The fact that we sold Johnson weeks later, that we had been talking to the Premier League about it and that he only played 3 games should all be taken into consideration.

The fact that we had a lower threshold is arguably unfair and we can also point to the January window as proof of our intent to comply with the rules.

Any more than 3 points and we should be making an appeal. I would even be inclined to appeal if we got 3 points but that would depend on the commission’s ruling.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Basha73 said:
well if 3 points is the minimum then presumably that’s all we can mitigate down to. However they didn’t actually say that but inferred it has to be some penalty points up to 9. They said both sporting advantage and as a disincentive being the reason for points deduction and they should be immediate which is a joke in itself. Surely the argument should be if there is compelling strong mitigation suspended sentences or fines or even transfer embargo should be options for the IC. As stated there is no real case history to go on.
Click to expand...
I agree any more than 3 we should appeal, 3 or less accept and get on with it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.