I could probably look it up but think it comes down to co-efficients who gets the extra spot. If Liverpool win the Europey and Villa win the European Sherpa Vans trophy we get loadsa points but City and Arsenal doing well in the CL and ideally winning it guarantees it* * I don’t care. Should be a knockout between league winners only.
That doesnt need to happen for 5th place to get a CL spot. I think Arsenal and City both getting to the Semi of the CL and/or one of Liverpool or Villa winning one of the second tier euro trophies will be enough. It also depends on how the German and Italian teams do. Germany are who we are competing with really for the 5th spot, so Bayern going out to Arsenal would more or less seal it. West Ham beating Leverkusen would also be immense, but with the way Leverkusen are playing this season, I dont see that happening.
Things are looking very, very bleak for Everton financially - completely aside from the PRS deductions. Full article - Closing Summary: https://theesk.org/2024/04/11/the-inescapable-reality-for-evertons-directors/ The role of Everton’s directors I’ve talked endlessly about the role of Everton’s directors for many years. Never has the need for them to act responsibly been greater than it is now. Such is our plight that their legal duties must overcome any other interests or beliefs they may have. Their recklessness in managing the running of a football club has been laid bare in the Commission hearings (regardless of how one feels about the Premier League, PSR, the Commission’s decisions etc, this is irrefutable). Their inability to secure long term, sustainable funding for the stadium incomprehensible. The decision of Moshiri to agree the sale of his majority stake to 777 Partners and his unwillingness to seek alternatives is beyond comprehension. He and they’ve got us to this point. A point in which realistically, despite there having been alternatives, the only realistic outcome is insolvency. Whilst I’ve stated previously (and stick by) the belief that the acquisition by 777 Partners was the worst of all outcomes, the second worst, administration is seemingly inescapable. I don’t believe the directors can ignore this most likely outcome any longer. It is the most desperate of times.
Yeah this is what I was getting at, the fact that it's pretty much England or Germany for the extra spot so the Arsenal-Bayern game could be pivotal. Leverkusen are possibly the team I'd want to avoid most in Europe at the moment so good luck to West Ham but they've got to be huge underdogs for it. Also Charisma Carpenter was a solid 10. My wife used to love watching Buffy and Angel, I also used to be a keen watcher for different reasons. A few different reasons in fairness...
Whatever you think of Everton this is bleak reading for any fan of the game if it's reliable. There's probably onto 2 or 3 clubs in the country that could have survived this kind of mismanagement and Everton weren't one of them.
Is this the new rule where clubs can overspend as much as they like, as long as they dish out cash to the other 19 clubs in the league? The "Pay to Cheat" rule, as I have dubbed it?
The richest clubs have always been the most successful - with the odd, non-sustainable, exception along the way - spending constraints on clubs based on some arbitrary figure that some suit has dreamt up does not ensure 'fairness' in football - the opposite in fact ... makes it less competitive as it means big money player transfers will only be possible amongst the long established elite ... Needs a complete rethink ....
Here's the thing - are Everton, Villa, Forest, Newcastle, Leicester City, Chelsea or Manchester City in danger of going bust because of 'overspending'? - absolutey not - petty cash amounts to the respective owners - so where is the 'fairness' issue here? ... is it unfair that Liverpool, United and Arsenal have serious competition for the signatures of top players financially? ... really?
I don’t agree with FFP And totally believe clubs should be able to spend what they want Crazy concept is FFP But It was the rules and those clubs who have broken the rules that they all voted in, now need to face the punishment as the have cheated end of Whatever that may be (I hope not removal of titles etc etc) I also think they should have been clearer on what the punishment is for the crime Another farce
Yeah, I'd take great satisfaction in seeing Everton relegated after flirting with it so often while not toeing the line, but I'd never wish to see a club go to the wall the way it's looking they might. It's insane it's been allowed to happen in all honesty.
As it stands it's an uncompetitive constraint of trade ... would be bordering on illegal to implement something like it in any other arena ...
I absolutely agree that just because you don't agree with the rules doesn't mean you can just ignore them. Is it correct to say they all voted them in though as I think it was a 14-6 in favour at the time? Then when you add in the changes of clubs in the top flight since then and the changes of ownership I reckon well under half the current owners voted for the rules. That's not to say they don't still obviously have to follow the rules but the argument of "you voted for it" doesn't really stand up. The main issue though is the reasoning behind them was versus what they are now being used for. As with all rules and laws there can often be a disconnect between the purpose of what a law/rule was brought in to achieve and what it actually does and it's fairly standard that courts will implement the purpose behind the law/rule (the purposive approach) rather than what the rule/law on paper actually says (the literal approach). Opinion: I think part of the reason changes are being made is because some of the clubs are arguing that the rule is being used in a way beyond that which it was voted for at the time. To be honest I think they're probably correct. Clarity as to punishment is a problem but not one that is easy to fix. If you simply say that you get docked a point for every £20m you overspend (or some such) then clubs will make calculations about whether a player is worth it or not rather than avoid breaking the rule. Finally, got to agree with Fosse here as this isn't something that could be used in other sectors (indeed a reasonable amount of EU case law is made up of throwing out such anti-competition legislation). I think the FA are lucky the tories are going to lose later this year as once they get an independant regulators hands on it I'd imagine they'd be more pro-competition and foreign investment as is their capitalist way and the entire concept of FFP is an issue to all that.
