Everton have been deducted 10 points for breaches of profit and sustainability rules, the Premier League has said.
The penalty, effective immediately, leaves the club with four points and plunges them into the relegation zone.
The Merseyside club said it was “shocked and disappointed” by the “wholly disproportionate” ruling and plans to appeal.
It comes after the league referred Everton in March to an independent commission after reviewing the financial records of all top-flight clubs for the 2021-22 season.
According to the rules, clubs can sustain losses of up to £105m in three years or potentially face penalties.
However, Everton FC reported losses of £124.5m for the relevant period.
Image: Everton have dropped into the relegation zone after being docked 10 points
Everton FC said in a statement after the points deduction: “The club believes that the commission has imposed a wholly disproportionate and unjust sporting sanction.
“The club has already communicated its intention to appeal the decision to the Premier League. The appeal process will now commence and the club’s case will be heard by an Appeal Board appointed pursuant to the Premier League’s rules in due course.
“Everton maintains that it has been open and transparent in the information it has provided to the Premier League and that it has always respected the integrity of the process.
Advertisement
“The club does not recognise the finding that it failed to act with the utmost good faith and it does not understand this to have been an allegation made by the Premier League during the course of proceedings.”
What rules were broken – and what about other clubs?
The Premier League’s financial rules are designed to ensure clubs “operate within their financial means”.
They were introduced following concerns that teams were spending far more on players than they were earning in ticket sales, merchandise and other income – sparking fears some could build up unsustainable levels of debt and go bust.
The rules include a requirement that teams must not lose more than £105m over a three-year period.
However, during the 2021/22 season, investigators ruled that Everton lost £124.5m – although the club claims there were mitigating factors.
Three clubs have previously been docked points in the league. Middlesbrough were deducted three for failing to fulfil a fixture against Blackburn in 1996/97, and Portsmouth were stripped of nine after going into administration in March 2010.
Tottenham were handed a 12-point deduction before the 1994/95 season for financial irregularities, but the punishment was later revoked.
The only other current team to have been charged with breaking the rules is Manchester City, which was accused of 115 breaches in February. However the case is still ongoing amid reported wrangling between legal teams behind closed doors. It is unclear when it will be resolved.
In August, the Premier League also announced it had launched an investigation into Chelsea over their finances. However, the club has not been charged with breaking any rules and that case is also ongoing.
Everton said both the “harshness and severity of the sanction imposed by the commission are neither a fair nor a reasonable reflection of the evidence submitted”.
The club added that it would also “monitor with great interest the decisions made in any other cases concerning the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules”.
Twitter
This content is provided by Twitter, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Twitter cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Twitter cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Twitter cookies for this session only.
Everton said they could not comment any further until the appeal process was over.
Steve Rotheram, the mayor of Liverpool City Region, said the points deduction was an “excessive and grossly unfair punishment”.
Writing on X, formerly Twitter, he said: “I’ll be supporting the club in their appeal and writing to the Premier League to ask them to rescind it.
“This is about fairness, not partisan rivalry.”
The Premier League said in a statement: “During the proceedings, the club admitted it was in breach of the PSRs for the period ending Season 2021/22 but the extent of the breach remained in dispute.
“Following a five-day hearing last month, the Commission determined that Everton FC’s PSR Calculation for the relevant period resulted in a loss of £124.5million, as contended by the Premier League, which exceeded the threshold of £105million permitted under the PSRs.
“The Commission concluded that a sporting sanction in the form of a 10-point deduction should be imposed. That sanction has immediate effect.”
Russell Brand has been charged with rape and two counts of sexual assault between 1999 and 2005.
The Metropolitan Police say the 50-year-old comedian, actor and author has also been charged with one count of oral rape and one count of indecent assault.
The charges relate to four women.
He is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Friday 2 May.
Police have said Brand is accused of raping a woman in the Bournemouth area in 1999 and indecently assaulting a woman in the Westminster area of London in 2001.
He is also accused of orally raping and sexually assaulting a woman in Westminster in 2004.
The fourth charge alleges that a woman was sexually assaulted in Westminster between 2004 and 2005.
Police began investigating Brand, from Oxfordshire, in September 2023 after receiving a number of allegations.
The comedian has previously denied the accusations, and said all his sexual relationships were “absolutely always consensual”.
Met Police Detective Superintendent Andy Furphy, who is leading the investigation, said: “The women who have made reports continue to receive support from specially trained officers.
“The Met’s investigation remains open and detectives ask anyone who has been affected by this case, or anyone who has any information, to come forward and speak with police.”
The last blast furnaces left operating in Britain could see their fate sealed within days, after their Chinese owners took the decision to cut off the crucial supply of ingredients keeping them running.
Jingye, the owner of British Steel in Scunthorpe, has, according to union representatives, cancelled future orders for the iron ore, coal and other raw materials needed to keep the furnaces running.
The upshot is that they may have to close next month – even sooner than the earliest date suggested for its closure.
The fate of the blast furnaces – the last two domestic sources of virgin steel, made from iron ore rather than recycled – is likely to be determined in a matter of days, with the Department for Business and Trade now actively pondering nationalisation.
The upshot is that even as Britain contends with a trade war across the Atlantic, it is now working against the clock to secure the future of steelmaking at Scunthorpe.
The talks between the government and Jingye broke down last week after the Chinese company, which bought British Steel out of receivership in 2020, rejected a £500m offer of public money to replace the existing furnaces with electric arc furnaces.
More on China
Related Topics:
The sum is the same one it offered to Tata Steel, which has shut down the other remaining UK blast furnaces in Port Talbot and is planning to build electric furnaces – which have far lower carbon emissions.
Image: These steel workers could soon be out of work
However, the owners argue that the amount is too little to justify extra investment at Scunthorpe, and said last week they were now consulting on the date of shutting both the blast furnaces and the attached steelworks.
Since British Steel is the main provider of steel rails to Network Rail – as well as other construction steels available from only a few sites in the world – the closure would leave the UK more reliant on imports for critical infrastructure sites.
However, since the site belongs to its Chinese owners, a decision to nationalise the site would involve radical steps government officials are wary of taking.
They also fear leaving taxpayers exposed to a potentially loss-making business for the long run.
The dilemma has been heightened by the sharp turn in geopolitical sentiment following Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
The incipient trade war and threatened cut in American support to Europe have sparked fresh calls for countries to act urgently to secure their own supplies of critical materials, especially those used for defence and infrastructure.
Gareth Stace, head of UK Steel, the industry lobby group, said: “Talks seem to have broken down between government and British Steel.
“My advice to government is: please, Jonathan Reynolds, Business Secretary, get back round that negotiating table, thrash out a deal, and if a deal can’t be found in the next few days, then I fear for the very future of the sector, but also here for Scunthorpe steelworks.”
Prince Andrew’s efforts to make money from his Pitch@Palace project have been branded as a “crude attempt to enrich himself” at the expense of “unsuspecting tech founders”, as new documents may shed more light on what he and his team have been attempting to sell.
Today is the deadline for documents to be released relating to Prince Andrew‘s former senior adviser Dominic Hampshire and his interactions with the alleged Chinese spy Yang Tengbo.
In February, an immigration tribunal heard how the intelligence services had contacted Mr Hampshire about Mr Yang back in 2022. Mr Yang helped set up Pitch@Palace China, a branch of the duke’s scheme to help young entrepreneurs.
Image: The alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo, has links with Prince Andrew
Image: Yang Tengbo. Pic: Pitch@Palace
Judges banned Mr Yang from the UK, saying his association with a senior royal had made Prince Andrew “vulnerable” and posed a threat to national security. Mr Yang challenged that decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).
Since that hearing, media organisations have applied for certain documents relating to the case and Mr Hampshire’s support for Mr Yang to be made public. SIAC agreed to release some information of public interest. It is hoped they may include more details on deals that he was trying to do on behalf of Prince Andrew.
So what do we know about potential deals for Pitch@Palace so far?
In February, Sky News confirmed that palace officials had a meeting last summer with tech funding company StartupBootcamp to discuss a potential tie-up between them and Prince Andrew relating to his Pitch@Palace project.
More on Prince Andrew
Related Topics:
The palace wasn’t involved in the fine details of a deal but wanted guarantees to make sure it wouldn’t impact the Royal Family in the future. Sky News understands from one source that the price being discussed for Pitch was around £750,000 – there are, however, reports that a deal may have stalled.
Photos we found on the Chinese Chamber of Commerce website show an event held in Asia between StartupBootcamp and Innovate Global, believed to be an offshoot of Pitch.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:08
Who is alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo?
Documents, released in relation to the investigations into Mr Tengbo, have also shown how much the duke has always seen Pitch as a way of potentially making money. One document from 21 August 2021 clearly states “the duke needed money at the time, and saw the relationships with China through Pitch as one possible source of funding”.
But Prince Andrew’s apparent intention to use Pitch to make money has led to concerns about whether he is unfairly using the contacts and information he gained when he was a working royal.
Norman Baker, former MP and author of books on royal finances, believes it is “a crude attempt to enrich himself” and goes against what the tech entrepreneurs thought they were signing up for.
He told Sky News: “The data given by these business people was given on the basis it was an official operation and not something for Prince Andrew, and so in my view, Prince Andrew had no right legally or morally to take the data which has been collected, a huge amount of data, and sell it…
“And quite clearly if you’re going to sell it off to StartupBootcamp, that is not what people had in mind. The entrepreneurs who joined Pitch@Palace did not do so to enrich Prince Andrew,” he said.
Rich Wilson was one tech entrepreneur who was approached at the start of Pitch@Palace to sign up, but he stepped away when he spotted a clause in the contract saying they’d be entitled to 2% equity in any funding he secured.
He feels Prince Andrew is continuing to use those he made a show of supporting.
He said: “It makes me feel sick. I think it’s terrible – that he is continuing to exploit unsuspecting tech founders in this way. A lot of them, I’m quite grey and old in the tooth now, I saw it coming, but clearly most didn’t. And a lot of them were quite young.
“It’ll be their first venture and you’re learning on the trot, so to speak. So to take advantage of people in such a major way – that’s an awful, sickening thing to do.”
We approached StartupBootcamp who said they had no comment to make, and the Duke of York’s office did not respond.
With reports that a deal may have stalled, it could be a big setback for the duke – especially with questions still about how he’ll continue to pay for his home on the Windsor estate now that the King no longer gives him financial support.