Jump to content

Raven

Gold Members
  • Posts

    675
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Raven

  1. 22 hours ago, Red Kite said:

    If I were an Evertonian, I'd tell you that all the Norwegians were saving up for the next game at Anfield.  Top Barclays bantz.

    If there's one thing we have learnt this season, it's that Everton don't know much about saving up.

  2. Just now, Miguel Sanchez said:

    Been a while (about 15 years) since I watched darts. Is it always this fast?

    Depends on how keen you are on the post match kebab.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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".

×
×
  • Create New...