Dahnsouff

You can’t, it’s too subjective, and that’s even if you get to this point which seems super unlikely too me.

Consumerism is the new democracy. Who knew?

Is he still too good to be there?

Can only assume tin foil hats are de rigueur on these Everton forums, as they spend so much spouting conspiracy, without many souls stopping to ask if they actually did anything wrong

Yes, think Rodgers was done, but I too fear we would have been left with an “off the peg” manager, like Smith. edit Also think any rebuild commencement would have been much trickier in the Premier League, but could be wrong.

Here is the first instalment of the settlement Cos he would still be here….

Apparently not as they waited until 2 days before the deadline to submit their accounts, which left insufficient time to review and impose any sanctions last season. It was before the deadline mind, not late, so not sure there is blame in this area.

Assuming that is why none of this will come to much beyond posturing.

Wouldn’t be having that nonsense, the three cases must be treated with distinct independence, and the other two are far more complex so will take much longer to come to a conclusion.

Of course, neither am I, I just hope.

Disagree strongly, you should not need to prove anything beyond the confirmed fact that they broke the rules of the organiser. The punishment for breaking those rules is within the gift of the organiser to determine. Don’t think much will happen tbh, but it could based on them simply breaking the rules, not the subsequent impact of the break.

Everton forum seems to think along the lines of “Yeah officer, I stole his car as it looked decent, but turns out it was shite, so can I get slap on the wrist?”

Do you need to prove that? Isn’t the potential benefit gained by breaking these rules enough? I understand it makes it difficult, nigh on impossible for the EPL to adopt such a stance, as there Will/would be inevitable scrutiny on their favourites, it surely this should be the argument?

Doesn’t it depend when the 3 year period covers, which is the period over which loses are allowed?

10 points is laughable, can only assume it’s to set a lower start point

Seems a bit elitist, it should be nothing but a meritocracy, ideally with a level playing field, that being this problem

Cannot see the EPL wanting to boxing themselves into a corner when it comes to dealing with the big boys, points for Everton and large fines for the bigger clubs

Reduced on appeal I reckon

This is their one in five season, where they survive fairly easily and their board and fans then complain in the closed season about how deserve better than Dyche-ball. Then the cycle will repeat.

Not sure this is definitively true or knowable (and it’s also irrelevant outside of fans rage) but whether they broke the rules is no longer in doubt, so the only question we can ask is if them breaking FFP is enough grounds for them to be due payment to third parties such as ourselves.

Wouldn’t Everton just blame the EPL for not policing the clubs within its competition? Hope you are right, but do not know what it achieves if you are tbh. Also not sure how overspending proves Everton stay up either, or alternatively underspending would see them relegated. I realise the overspending against FFP should be the crux, but it’s hard sell against their peers in the league I imagine. However, it would be a very interesting test case!

Totally agree, but I am sure the EPL could sell the delay unfortunately.

But this is may in the eyes of the independent chair which would then leave the EPL to refute, it’s a long road from there

Unsubstantiated inference and opinion will not find Everton guilty unfortunately, although their perpetual mismanagement should send them down in poverty, it won’t. Do see not a way that we can blame them with certainty, so it will not be entertained by the EPL is my assumption.

The choice of the connoisseur