George Overhill

Wed 22 November 2023 12:10, UK

Everton spending on building a new stadium is not what FFP rules were designed to prevent and there has been “precious little” discussion on how the rules were changed on the club to cause their spending breach, says Ian Herbert.

The Daily Mail journalist argued on the paper’s website on 21 November that both Manchester City and West Ham have benefitted from being “gifted taxpayer funded stadiums” since the turn of the century, with the treble winners then able to spend £200million on their training facilities and have none of it counted against profit and sustainability while it was used in “persuading young players to join City, rather than Manchester United”.

Herbert notes that, on the contrary, the Toffees tried to pay their own way into a new home and saw rules changed on them, so that interest payments on loans for their dockside development were included in their P&S calculations where they hadn’t been previously, and have now been hit by a 10-point deduction.

Herbert writes: “Everton were given the very distinct impression that the cost of interest on loans to build their Bramley Moore Dock Stadium would be excluded from sustainability considerations, just like City’s. 

“They argued that six other clubs had been able to keep them out of the financial calculation and that this was an investment in the long-term future of a club and its city.

“The Premier League agreed. Last week’s independent commission report, which ruled against Everton, relates precisely when – January 14, 2021 – in black and white, in points 26 and 27 of its findings. 

“Yet read on a further two pages, to points 33 and 34 of the report, and you see the picture changing. It relates how a call, in December 2022, from the Premier League to Katie Charles, Everton’s director of legal services, informed the club that a subsequent stadium interest payment would count towards the losses.

“There’s been a lot of chin-stroking about the ten-point punishment imposed on Everton by the Premier League for a £19.5million overspend – the cost of a decent Championship player. But precious little discussion about how those rules actually changed mid-process in Everton’s case.”

After highlighting the 2002 Commonwealth Games stadium which is now the Etihad, and the 2012 Olympic Stadium which is now the Hammers’ London Stadium Herbert asks: “What wouldn’t Everton have given for a purpose-built stadium, all costs covered, to move into, during their infernal battle to get planning permission for one, stretching back the best part of 15 years?”

Uneven

It is no wonder that Everton supporters are so furious at the punishment the club has received, with the threat of further financial turmoil as other clubs potentially seek compensation, for trying to achieve a goal others have been handed on a plate.

That the club has been run poorly is not news to the Toffees fanbase and has led to regular protests at previous board members, who somehow were absent from the commission hearing, over a sustained period.

With the details of the finances at Goodison Park laid bare it appears to show a plan for the accounts that was optimistic at best, and yet it is perhaps little surprise when the Premier League has largely seemed happy for clubs to do as they pleased.

While Everton can’t claim to be beyond criticism for wasting huge amounts of money in the Farhad Moshiri era they can justifiably argue that building a stadium which is widely expected to be highly worthwhile is a very different investment.

And when the likes of City and West Ham have comparatively waltzed into far more favourable situations it feels all the more unjust that the Toffees’ attempts to build a new home have come back to bite them in this way.

The Premier League, the commission, and rival clubs appear to want to hold up the Toffees as an example of unscrupulous spending and come down hard on them as a result, while ignoring the argument that it would not have been a problem without various factors outside their control and a huge, legitimate expense that has previously been exempt.

Largesse in the transfer market at Goodison was an issue and failed miserably but it also ended multiple seasons ago, and without the extenuating circumstances in recent years the austerity the club has operated under in selling prized assets to fund signings would have been sufficient.

There is certainly enough for those who look unfavourably on Everton to justify their view that the club deserve what they have got, but there seems to be a huge amount of mitigation that has been given very short shrift by the authorities, and when other club’s circumstances are examined they appear very fortunate in comparison.

It would be wrong to say that the Toffees are beyond reproach, as a furious fanbase has been desperately trying to make clear for at least two years, but when they appear to have done little that rivals haven’t done also it doesn’t seem right for the powers that be to have zeroed in on them over all others.

In other Everton news, 777 Partners have been given £306million to buy the club as the source of their funding has finally emerged.