General Premier League Thread 2023-24 Mod Note in op 27/6/23 And 21/05/24

I'd say the City lawyers are sitting back with cigars laughing at the Everton fiasco. If the PL can make such a **** up over that Everton charge there isn't a hope in hell of getting anywhere near City with the complexties those charges bring.

I just found it odd, I imagine most other managers would brush the question off or make a joke out of it.

But are you not falling for the Everton excuse narrative? According to the report linked earlier , even if Everton had got the interest expense into the stadium company that would only have reduced interest costs in the main trading company by £2.2m, and they failed by £19.5m.

Why does the period have to be three years, why couldn't it be five or ten?

Everton aren't going to go into administration.

They're the rules they agreed to. That everyone did. It doesn't matter why it's 3 and not 5 or 1.

Everton were over the limits and accept they were over the limits.

And, the 105 limit is only their based on the owner underwriting significant losses. From a sustainablity point of view the first limit is 15 million. And they blew past that.

Everton spent more than they should have, and with that overspend comes a potential competitive advantage. You can say they squandered that, it doesn't matter. You can say other clubs spend more, it doesn't matter.

There is a set of rules the pl clubs voted to accept, and Everton were in breach of them and deserved punishment.

And, adding my own option.... It has to be a points punishment at least cause any fine would just be seen as the cost of doing business.

They were committed to a maximum of 105million in losses over 3 years. They spent more than that. And stayed up on the last day of last season. Clubs that did not breach the cap got relegated. If they had similarly breached the maximum cap by 15million, by buying a striker or something and stayed up that would have been fine?

Why are you so adamant that Everton should get the advantage of spending more than their means over 3 years? It's bizarre.

I understand these rules but I think they are ridiculous. If a club goes into administration then throw the book at them is my opinion on things.

They spent a lot of money but it didn't improve their team as the wage bill is pretty average and the net spend on transfers is very low.

They are not like the big clubs where they have massive cash coming in all the time. Just trying to avoid the drop is a struggle in many seasons for all clubs outside of the big ones.

They didn't spend the money on players or wages which is what most here are saying happened.

So tell me why a club that isn't near administration and didn't gain an unfair competitive advantage by spending should be given a ridiculous points deduction?

The overspending figure should only be a warning to help clubs avoid serious trouble. If they prove they can fix it then there shouldn't be any penalty, not even a fine. As I said, if it's uncontrollable and the club goes into administration or worse then penalise them heavily.

@eagle eye

By the time they enter administration the bulk of the damage is done. Preventative measures always work better in these situations. There's little point in throwing the book at an already sinking ship. We'll just end up losing more football clubs.

Make the ship less likely to sink!

If a club is not like a big club with massive cash coming in all the time then it is an even worse decision by that club to put themselves in a situation where they are massively overstretched financially as it will be more difficult to recover. No?

So none of their spending that has been looked at was on players or wages? I'm not on about what might have tipped them over the edge. They obviously spent money they didn't have on players. Whether that is 10m, 20m 30m etc.. doesn't matter. They didn't have it to spend.

3 teams played by the rules, stayed within the limits and ended up being relegated. That was Everton's competitive advantage.

Should Everton have had Onana, McNeil etc..?

Again... at that stage the horse has bolted. The club could be in huge trouble. Saying Everton wouldn't have entered administration is hard to know for sure. If left unchecked and with no penalties do you think they would just stop overspending?

Everton are in this position because they did not run their football club correctly. That's the long and short of it.

No 12.30 KO again this week. I can understand the last week's game being moved because of the mid-week game (only applies to European games though, if a club plays domestically mid-week, they are still fair game to play at 12.30 KO). But this week, there is a game being televised in a different slot where both teams didn't play mid-week.

I can see why the 12.30 KO riles up so many managers when it is being used selectively, let alone the recovery time/travel issue with it.

Why should that matter? GW32 currently has a game at 1230, it just isn't televised. They could have played one at 1230 today and not had it on UK TV.

Ah, It's not listed on the fantasy football page.

Regardless, they can play at 1230 and not show it on TV. There's no law against it.

The same reason why they bother to show games at other times when they aren't on TV - to get the game played and for the fans in the stadium. There's 6 games on right now, only one of them is on TV. Should the others not have been played?

We're continually hearing about certain games being moved to different time slots for public safety reasons, especially when it finishes in hours of darkness, it seems odd not to use the supposedly safer time slot just because it's not on TV?

I think every club should play the 12.30 on Saturday and the Monday night game twice a season. Fairest way to do it and stop all the complaints.

And both slots should be between clubs who aren't at opposite ends of the country.

Play until Liverpool score. 8 mins added time and Nunez wins it 30 seconds after the 8 mins. Not good for City and Arsenal. Feels like everything is going right for Klopp at the moment.

Big moment that in the title race

Why did Liverpool get the ball after konate went down. Forrest had possession?

Why did Forest get the ball after their defender went down with a head injury 10 minutes prior? I guess thems the rules for this game. At least it's consistent.

The Forrest keeper was down for over 5 minutes, is that meant to be ignored??

I assume its the way Tieney reffed it. He did the exact same against Liverpool just 10 minutes earlier after the Forrest defender went down with a head injury...has the rules been changed??

Lads, it was a question. I thought the team in possession got the ball back. Sorry I asked a question that seemed negative against Liverpool.

I was actually genuinely answering the question. Like for for it to happen twice in 10 minutes seems mad. The Forrest players first and then Konate...did the ref actually forget about the rules of the game? Or is it a rule?

Considering they're playing City next weekend there's a good chance they will drop all 3!!!