#Barclays 24/25

[Musketeer Gripweed]

1 hour ago, ClydeTon said:

Sheffield United's last two promotions have seen them spend:

£62.14m (2019), and £55.29m (2023). For that club, it's quite a lot. They're no Man Utd. And This season's spending comes under an owner who wants to sell the club, and is investing nothing, meaning it's effectively all from the promotion money/revenue. And it'll be a fair chunk of it.

Burnley?

Just a wee £95m* spent.

So, you know...

Pretty much £100m.

Luton, who are quite obviously preparing to go back down and be strong in the Championship - have spent £17m. This is also whilst having to spend £10m on their stadium, and whilst building a brand new stadium elsewhere in Luton.

So, we have one club who aren't trying to stay up (Luton), one who spent a decent amount of money to try and stay up, all while having little to no investment (Sheffield Utd) and one who absolutely have splashed the big bucks to try and stay up (Burnley).

But yes, that's Everton's fault...

Edit: Prices are in Euros on sources, converted them to £ in this edit. Also;

ETA - More on this:

All three clubs have spent more on players than they have made one sales (SHU = £-28.76m / BUR = £-91.93m / LUT = £-19.5m)

Everton? A profit of £36.25m.

Even last season, £21.77m in profit.

Thanks for playing.

Why are 777 still loaning the club £20m a month at a huge interest rate if they as so well off?

 

 

Edited December 11, 2023 by Musketeer Gripweed

[ClydeTon]

7 minutes ago, Musketeer Gripweed said:

Why are 777 still loaning the club £20m a month at a huge interest rate if they as so well off?

 

 

I don't think I said anywhere that Everton are well off..?

[eez-eh]

1 hour ago, ClydeTon said:

Sheffield United's last two promotions have seen them spend:

£62.14m (2019), and £55.29m (2023). For that club, it's quite a lot. They're no Man Utd. And This season's spending comes under an owner who wants to sell the club, and is investing nothing, meaning it's effectively all from the promotion money/revenue. And it'll be a fair chunk of it.

Burnley?

Just a wee £95m* spent.

So, you know...

Pretty much £100m.

Luton, who are quite obviously preparing to go back down and be strong in the Championship - have spent £17m. This is also whilst having to spend £10m on their stadium, and whilst building a brand new stadium elsewhere in Luton.

So, we have one club who aren't trying to stay up (Luton), one who spent a decent amount of money to try and stay up, all while having little to no investment (Sheffield Utd) and one who absolutely have splashed the big bucks to try and stay up (Burnley).

But yes, that's Everton's fault...

Edit: Prices are in Euros on sources, converted them to £ in this edit. Also;

ETA - More on this:

All three clubs have spent more on players than they have made one sales (SHU = £-28.76m / BUR = £-91.93m / LUT = £-19.5m)

Everton? A profit of £36.25m.

Even last season, £21.77m in profit.

Thanks for playing.

So because some other clubs are spending lots of money within the rules, that means Everton should escape punishment for actually breaking the rules ?

This must be about the fifth load of batshit crazy mental gymnastics you’ve come out with today. It’s genuinely impressive.

[Musketeer Gripweed]

35 minutes ago, ClydeTon said:

I don't think I said anywhere that Everton are well off..?

They're going to be in big trouble when the relegated teams from last season sue them for loss of earnings then.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

1 hour ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Tbf if you read the article (which I obviously didn't bother doing before posting the link) then you can see that the headline is misleading and they've only been deducted six points so far.

the rest is a suspended sentence 
 

A further 135 points will be deducted if they field an ineligible player before the end of the 2024-25 season.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

26 minutes ago, Musketeer Gripweed said:

They're going to be in big trouble when the relegated teams from last season sue them for loss of earnings then.

 

Everton’s breached the rules for the three season period 19/20, 20/21 & 21/22

So what kind of case do the  teams that went down in 22/23 have?

 

[Raven]

1 hour ago, ClydeTon said:

All three clubs have spent more on players than they have made one sales (SHU = £-28.76m / BUR = £-91.93m / LUT = £-19.5m)

Everton? A profit of £36.25m.

Even last season, £21.77m in profit.

Thanks for playing.

Very selective of you. You skimmed past the key point about £100m on players "that they couldn't afford". Everton are forced to sell players now to cut their losses after previously spending bigger than they brought in. Credit where it's due, for mugging Spurs along the way. Everton made no profit though, they just posted losses for the 5th year running. £430m in total. That's what those clubs aren't doing year after year, some of them have even been known to post actual profits.  But with your selective figures, good luck, you might be able to get that points deduction turned into some bonus points awarded. As well as qualifying for the nett spend league.

[Raven]

1 hour ago, eez-eh said:

This must be about the fifth load of batshit crazy mental gymnastics you’ve come out with today. It’s genuinely impressive.

It's a load of Beth Twaddle.

[Molotov]

6 hours ago, ClydeTon said:

Luton, Burnley and Sheffield United are in the league. Come on.

That’s like saying Morten won’t get relegated to the seaside leagues because of Arbroath, Queens Park and Ayr United. 

I mean you’ve never been lower than the championship in your history have you?  

[DrewDon]

[Musketeer Gripweed]

9 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 

Everton’s breached the rules for the three season period 19/20, 20/21 & 21/22

So what kind of case do the  teams that went down in 22/23 have?

 

The sanctions should have been applied last season. Why the delay? After all, Everton plead guilty.

[craigkillie]

12 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 

Everton’s breached the rules for the three season period 19/20, 20/21 & 21/22

So what kind of case do the  teams that went down in 22/23 have?

 

The benefits of the rule breaches didn't magically stop in May 2022. The players they cheated to sign contributed to them staying up ahead of those clubs.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

The benefits of the rule breaches didn't magically stop in May 2022. The players they cheated to sign contributed to them staying up ahead of those clubs.

They can have their day in court but I don't give much for their chances
It's not even clear whether they should be suing Everton or suing the league for not being faster
 

[ClydeTon]

13 hours ago, eez-eh said:

So because some other clubs are spending lots of money within the rules, that means Everton should escape punishment for actually breaking the rules ?

This must be about the fifth load of batshit crazy mental gymnastics you’ve come out with today. It’s genuinely impressive.

The post you've quoted was a direct response to a claim that Everton will survive because the clubs below them won't spend.

It didn't suggest anything different.

I also don't see the mental gymnastics in sticking to one consistent arguement (No sporting advantage + change in transfer activity to meet FFP) and present figures that back that up.

The non-footballing expenses don't buy players. Hence my focus on transfers.

13 hours ago, Musketeer Gripweed said:

They're going to be in big trouble when the relegated teams from last season sue them for loss of earnings then.

The three teams planning to sue have already dropped their plans.

12 hours ago, Raven said:

Very selective of you. You skimmed past the key point about £100m on players "that they couldn't afford". Everton are forced to sell players now to cut their losses after previously spending bigger than they brought in. Credit where it's due, for mugging Spurs along the way. Everton made no profit though, they just posted losses for the 5th year running.

I am focusing on transfers because that's what the whole point is - you don't gain a sporting advantage from the cleaning staff.

I also focused in on that because it is - as you also point out here - clear that Everton have now given up key players for financial reason... Sounds like the opposite of sporting advantage, no?

I also didn't claim Everton as a club made a profit, they made a transfer profit. Contextually it made sense to focus on that.

[ClydeTon]

12 hours ago, Molotov said:

That’s like saying Morten won’t get relegated to the seaside leagues because of Arbroath, Queens Park and Ayr United. 

I mean you’ve never been lower than the championship in your history have you?  

We're looking like the Burnley, not the Everton. It'll be Inverness making that statement, most likely.

[Freedom Farter]

The children of Thatcher still going strong. From Newcastle and Manchester, no less. As stupid as it gets.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67682536

[topcat(The most tip top)]

6 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The benefits of the rule breaches didn't magically stop in May 2022. The players they cheated to sign contributed to them staying up ahead of those clubs.

 

5 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

They can have their day in court but I don't give much for their chances
It's not even clear whether they should be suing Everton or suing the league for not being faster
 

 

I should have also pointed out just as the benefit of the players signed earlier didn't magically stop neither did the cost of amortizing those fees

So signing or Alex Iwobi in 2019 on a five year contract for about £30m would have been split for FFP purposes over five  batches of £6 million for season  19/20, 20/21, 21/22, 22/23 & 23/24  (except they sold him to Fulham last September)

Everton still had the benefit of his services last season but that cost was taken into account. in their Profit Loss position for 22/23 and they still complied

I was reminded of this by the news that The League is introducing a reform to the rules that the maximum length of contracts will be 5 years for FFP purposes. Which basically means that nobody else can pull the stunt Chelsea did with the likes of their 8 year contract for Mudryk
 

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by topcat(The most tip top)

[Musketeer Gripweed]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12854409/Everton-forced-administration-Premier-League-owners-takeover-NO-CHANCE-approval.html

Looks like they might be in administration soon anyway.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

2 minutes ago, Musketeer Gripweed said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12854409/Everton-forced-administration-Premier-League-owners-takeover-NO-CHANCE-approval.html

Looks like they might be in administration soon anyway.

that’s the daily mail take

a few hours later the mirror has gone with a decidedly less alarmist interpretation of the situation 
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/everton-takeover-administration-points-deduction-31657552

[Musketeer Gripweed]

To be fair, they would be better off if 777 ended their interest altogether anyway. They are bad news and would saddle them with even more debt for years to come. They are only interested in BMD and the money that might generate.