Raven

That may be something of an understatement!

I see what you did there.

Better pun than Ballon D'Art, to be fair.

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

Kebab shop doing a decent trade

Follow that.

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.

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.

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".

It's a load of Beth Twaddle.

Very selective of you. You skimmed past the key point about £100m on players "that they couldn't afford". Everton are forced to sell players now to cut their losses after previously spending bigger than they brought in. Credit where it's due, for mugging Spurs along the way. Everton made no profit though, they just posted losses for the 5th year running. £430m in total. That's what those clubs aren't doing year after year, some of them have even been known to post actual profits. But with your selective figures, good luck, you might be able to get that points deduction turned into some bonus points awarded. As well as qualifying for the nett spend league.

And there we have it. They're not going to get relegated because other clubs below them won't spend £100m + on players they can't afford. No sporting advantage, my arsenal.

See, that used to be why clubs spend large sums of money on players, for the advantage that having those players brings to the club. Imagine Clough or Shankly, or indeed Kendall, being told that they were spending money the club couldn't afford on players, to have 'no sporting advantage'.

That is of course the other question, if you're ok with it, you could do away with it entirely. (Not you personally, obviously!!)

The £105m was part of their overspend, albeit they wouldn't have been penalised if they'd stayed within that very generous allowance. And no it wasn't their overall loss, but you know that. There's no logic that it was spending that money that caused them to move down the league, or that it gave them no advantage over, just to look at the table there, Leeds or Burnley, assuming they played by the rules.

5 points, less than 2 games, just bin FFP in that case, IMO. How can you work out that overspending by £125m (give or take) over a 3 year period got them into a worse footballing situation?

Half? You might as well completely scrap any notion of FFP.

Joao Felix continues his interesting relationship with Atletico by scoring the winner for Barca against his parent club.

England vs a selection of minnows

England 4th. Liking it already.

In case anyone missed it today... Jacob Brown is a premier league matchwinning goalscorer.

If they'd got the deduction last season it could have saved Leicester, ironic given their history with FFP.

Not working for me.

They went on a tour to Australia and came back with two kangaroos.

The teams from Europe and Brazil, also Jules Rimet and his trophy, arrived for the 1930 tournament on the SS Conte Verde, built in Dalmuir. No Scotland, no party indeed.