#Barclays 24/25

[Raven]

8 hours ago, ClydeTon said:

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

They know what chance they have of ever getting paid.

It'd be understandable if they didn't actually want to go down the route of suing clubs in the same league (or for some of them, the league they might be back in soon). Even if they felt they had a valid grievance.

 

8 hours ago, ClydeTon said:

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.

It's a long way from being whole point. Are transfer fees really all their costs related to their playing and managment staff? They're not in this situation because of paying too much for the cleaners, are they? Read the commision's report, the cause of the issue was overspending largely on new players and inability to sell other players. Buying players to win games and stay in the Premier League - that is exactly where sporting advantage comes from. Contextually? They started to reduce their losses, largely by selling a couple of players, once they were already screwed. Maybe once they have a squad they can afford they can talk about "no sporting advantage".

[ClydeTon]

18 minutes ago, Raven said:

They know what chance they have of ever getting paid.

It'd be understandable if they didn't actually want to go down the route of suing clubs in the same league (or for some of them, the league they might be back in soon). Even if they felt they had a valid grievance.

 

It's a long way from being whole point. Are transfer fees really all their costs related to their playing and managment staff? They're not in this situation because of paying too much for the cleaners, are they? Read the commision's report, the cause of the issue was overspending largely on new players and inability to sell other players. Buying players to win games and stay in the Premier League - that is exactly where sporting advantage comes from. Contextually? They started to reduce their losses, largely by selling a couple of players, once they were already screwed. Maybe once they have a squad they can afford they can talk about "no sporting advantage".

There's a lot of irony in telling me to "Read the commission's report" whilst also dismissing the idea of "no sporting advantage" - you know, just... The exact conclusion the commission came to.

Nice try, though.

[Raven]

1 hour ago, ClydeTon said:

There's a lot of irony in telling me to "Read the commission's report" whilst also dismissing the idea of "no sporting advantage" - you know, just... The exact conclusion the commission came to.

Nice try, though.

Couple of questions there.

1/ do you really believe they spent all that money on players without it being for the purpose of gaining a sporting advantage?

2/ Does the report really dismiss the idea that a sporting advantage was gained? Can you quote the paragraph/article where this occurred?

Not #51 as that's Everton's statement. Not 92: a breach of the PSR will confer a sporting advantage on the defaulting club, to the detriment of competing clubs who have managed their finances more responsibly. Not 95: We also recognise that the inference of a sporting advantage is one that should properly be drawn from the fact of a PSR breach, and that sporting advantage will have been enjoyed for each of the seasons on which the PSR calculation was based. Now, 104 is interesting because it goes quite some way in Everton's favour by describing them as unwise and mistaken: a deliberate cynical breach of the PSR to achieve a sporting advantage might increase culpability beyond that already arrived at by the extent of the breach; to which point Everton are not to be accused: Everton may have taken unwise risks, but it did so in the mistaken belief that it would achieve PSR compliance: it is not a case of a deliberate breach. That's not actually saying a sporting advantage was not gained but is a mitigation against throwing the book at them, since Everton may have mistakenly believed they could bring the losses under the "generous" PSR limit, hence the lenient sanction. Not 133-135, which upholds the PL viewpoint a sporting advantage is to be inferred so that anything other than a points deduction would be simply inappropriate and rejects Evertons suggestion that they should slip them a few quid to forget about it, or maybe impose a transfer ban on a club who had spent their wedge anyway. Not 137 which says by ther own admission they spent said wedge on players, including replacing what they considered to be their "non existent midfield".

This is why I have a disbelief of the "no sporting advantage" mantra. I dont see anyone actually pointing out where the report disagrees with its own key points, and its conclusion of applying a sporting sanction.

[ClydeTon]

5 minutes ago, Raven said:

Couple of questions there.

1/ do you really believe they spent all that money on players without it being for the purpose of gaining a sporting advantage?

2/ Does the report really dismiss the idea that a sporting advantage was gained? Can you quote the paragraph/article where this occurred?

Not #51 as that's Everton's statement. Not 92: a breach of the PSR will confer a sporting advantage on the defaulting club, to the detriment of competing clubs who have managed their finances more responsibly. Not 95: We also recognise that the inference of a sporting advantage is one that should properly be drawn from the fact of a PSR breach, and that sporting advantage will have been enjoyed for each of the seasons on which the PSR calculation was based. Now, 104 is interesting because it goes quite some way in Everton's favour by describing them as unwise and mistaken: a deliberate cynical breach of the PSR to achieve a sporting advantage might increase culpability beyond that already arrived at by the extent of the breach; to which point Everton are not to be accused: Everton may have taken unwise risks, but it did so in the mistaken belief that it would achieve PSR compliance: it is not a case of a deliberate breach. That's not actually saying a sporting advantage was not gained but is a mitigation against throwing the book at them, since Everton may have mistakenly believed they could bring the losses under the "generous" PSR limit, hence the lenient sanction. Not 133-135, which upholds the PL viewpoint a sporting advantage is to be inferred so that anything other than a points deduction would be simply inappropriate and rejects Evertons suggestion that they should slip them a few quid to forget about it, or maybe impose a transfer ban on a club who had spent their wedge anyway. Not 137 which says by ther own admission they spent said wedge on players, including replacing what they considered to be their "non existent midfield".

This is why I have a disbelief of the "no sporting advantage" mantra. I dont see anyone actually pointing out where the report disagrees with its own key points, and its conclusion of applying a sporting sanction.

1/ The money was spent to lift the football club higher up the leagues. Everton (as the report notes) were in the belief they could keep this within PSR limits.

Everton note that they had budgeted £20m over what they got from the Richarlison sale, they lost ~£10m from Player X (Sigurdsson) and that the loss of revenue from USM.

You could pick any of them and still find that Everton had no intention to spend outwith PSR limits. Again, the commission note that.

It's not illegal for a club to spend money to get a sporting advantage.

The key arguement against Sporting Advantage is that Everton fell down the leagues.

You can't get an advantage and get worse from it. It doesn't make sense.

Regardless, Everton have appealed. I stand by my view that Everton's punishment is misplaced and harsh.

[velo army]

Can you guys just make an Everton Admin thread or something? This has me longing for the "Barclays" banter or any post referencing Richard Keyes.

[Raven]

9 hours ago, ClydeTon said:

 

The key arguement against Sporting Advantage is that Everton fell down the leagues.

So the report didn't actually conclude what your previous post stated. At which point, I'll leave it, I won't get a straight answer here. Good luck with the appeal.

[peasy23]

You have to admire Spurs commitment to suicidal defending, all Forest's best chances so far have come from Spurs gifting them the ball high up the pitch.

[Crawford Bridge]

Horrible goalkeeping. 

How have Forest managed to go from Keylor Navas to this jabroni? 

[ClathyDave]

Awful tackle there 

[vikingTON]

Perhaps I'm missing something but to me there was no real contact with that challenge. And it wasn't a highly forceful 'leg-breaker' where avoiding contact is irrelevant to the risk of the challenge. The challenge *was* high but a high challenge can also be reckless, not dangerous play. 

[ClathyDave]

7 minutes ago, virginton said:

Perhaps I'm missing something but to me there was no real contact with that challenge. And it wasn't a highly forceful 'leg-breaker' where avoiding contact is irrelevant to the risk of the challenge. The challenge *was* high but a high challenge can also be reckless, not dangerous play. 

I could be wrong but I thought Bissoumas stud cut a hole in the Forest players sock where his shin pad was. I think it’s a red all day long 

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, ClathyDave said:

I could be wrong but I thought Bissoumas stud cut a hole in the Forest players sock where his shin pad was. I think it’s a red all day long 

I fail to see what cutting a hole in a sock has to do with measuring the risk of a challenge tbh. Perhaps the sock manufacturer are just gubbins at their job.

[ClathyDave]

27 minutes ago, virginton said:

I fail to see what cutting a hole in a sock has to do with measuring the risk of a challenge tbh. Perhaps the sock manufacturer are just gubbins at their job.

He went studs up right into his leg. He was nowhere near the ball. Might just be me but I have no complaints with the card 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

9 hours ago, virginton said:

I fail to see what cutting a hole in a sock has to do with measuring the risk of a challenge tbh. Perhaps the sock manufacturer are just gubbins at their job.

^^^^ Shareholder in rival sock manufacturer found

[Barry Ferguson's Hat]

Every week it's Christmas in the Barclays.

[The Equalizer]

Buzzing watching Celtic v Hearts but hope that Luton player is okay. Doesn't look good at all. 

[The Master]

8 minutes ago, The Equalizer said:

Buzzing watching Celtic v Hearts but hope that Luton player is okay. Doesn't look good at all. 

Tom Lockyer. Same happened during the play-off final. 

Being reported that he’s awake and responsive in the tunnel which is good news. 

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

Good news

https://twitter.com/LutonTown/status/1736080936503009371?t=AfYqeHTYeWA2u3vHg_Wa9A&s=19

[Salvo Montalbano]

Man City throwing points away at home will never not be funny. Think Ederson was lucky too - not just because he should have been sent off, but because the laws meant that he really couldn't. If an outfield player flies into a challenge like that and doesn't get the ball it's a red all day long, but as it's a keeper and outside the box it's almost a given that it's just a yellow and a free kick because it wasn't DOGSO.

[Bully Wee Villa]

Imagine how good Everton would be if they'd taken twenty points off. They'd win the league.