@ALANMYERSMEDIA Hi Alan, I know there were historic reasons for keeping the old dock entrances and they look very nice but are the Club aware of quite serious crushing going on when we are trying to exit on foot? They are not wide enough
@VirginAtlantic Firstly that link doesn’t work and secondly I have sent various messages via that link and every agent who ‘assists’ me simply directs me back to a web page where they assure me I can contact them. I have specific queries and the answers do not lie via website contact forms!!!
@VirginAtlantic can someone please look at my case VSCR-00701103 / Email:0002915857 Your customer service keep sending me back to the website to resolve my issue re Flying Club points. Why will nobody listen to me.! I cannot resolve my issue via the website!
@theesk But Paul, weren’t the loans made into the Club, as opposed to the Stadium company, to fund working capital? In that case I am not sure such loans can be capitalised? I agree there can be capitalisation of loan interest for a Capital project but this is different
How can that be said to be a penalty that fits a 'crime' ; we did not act dishonestly and we did not set out deliberately to break the rules? I hope to goodness our lawyers are playing at the level required at the appeal and the new panel hearing that appeal act fairly
@Everton There is nothing in paragraph 139 of the decision explaining how they got to that figure. Some thoughts from a retired lawyer whose first season ticket was August 1966 when the greatest player I ever saw in a Blue Shirt, Alan Ball, joined us from Blackpool.2/10
The commission say the cause was overspending on players and inability to sell others. However, earlier they said (para 104) Everton may have taken unwise risks but it did so in the mistaken belief that it would achieve PSR compliance.
These rules were introduced in 2013 and came into effect in 2015. Had the level of the threshold gone up by the rate of inflation to the end of 2022 from 2013 then Everton would not have been in breach.
So was it really more serious than going into administration? Was it really worse than West Ham did when they signed Tevez, broke the rules, and admitted they acted dishonestly?
It talks of Everton being less than frank over the stadium interest issue.
It seems to me these findings contradict the crucial finding of fact that Everton did not deliberately breach the rules.
10-point deduction?
The commission in its summary it seems in Para 139 to have forgotten those findings. It describes the position as being of Everton's own making. It says the culpability is great. It says it was the result of Everton irresponsibly taking a chance.
Having found that, and having then crucially said: it is not a case of a deliberate breach — and having earlier said Everton did not act dishonestly, why did the panel award a 10-point deduction?
@Everton rules". The commission say stadium costs are not attributable to the PSR difficulties. Maybe so from a pure accounting point of view but surely they should have accepted the point that, if Moshiri had not gone ahead with the stadium, he would not have borrowed £176M 3/10
@Everton Some thoughts from a retired lawyer whose first season ticket was August 1966 when the greatest player I ever saw in a Blue Shirt, Alan Ball, joined us from Blackpool.
So why did the panel order Everton to suffer an immediate deduction of 10 points?1/10
@KavanaghsArklow @LevinsLaw Exactly. Why does he now think a penalty deduction was necessary when only a fine applied to WHU for a similar £20m figure?
@LevinsLaw The £105m limit came in during 2013. Does anyone know whether inflation has been taken into account since? In EFC’s case the £105m should probably be inflation adjusted to about £129m which would mean we stay within the allowed limit.