6 + 2 Point Deductions

PeregrineT said:
Oh wow, so, the league created a secret sanction policy for Everton 5 months after they referred them to the commission... didnt tell Everton about it, then told the commission this was their sanction policy. But it only applies to Everton, so they dont need to do any for Man City or Chelsea etc. The commission then punished them EXACTLY on that policy. Thats an absolute bombshell and thats a way to appeal. From the Athletic Article at Athletic-Everton Appeal:

"The commission heard how, on August 10 this year, five months after Everton’s case had been referred, league officials put forward what was described in the report as a “sanction policy”...

According to evidence supplied by its chief executive Richard Masters, the league proposed “a fixed starting point of a deduction of six points, with an increase from that starting point of one point for every £5million...

Crucially, they still reached the same conclusion as the league: a 10-point penalty for an overspend of £19.5million, with their adjudication summarised in the final two pages of the report. None of this is likely to have been lost on Everton’s lawyers...

The Athletic has since been told the aforementioned sanction framework was only meant to be used for Everton’s case. It is understood no such league-wide sanction policy is in the pipeline at the moment and that such a change would need to be communicated to clubs formally and via the handbook. Everton were unaware of the league’s recommendation both at the time of their referral and approaching the pre-trial review in early October."
Click to expand...
Makes me ill every time I read that. No reason the original regs couldn’t have a defined penalty calculation instead of “ranging from fines to expulsion etc”. Clubs pretty dumb for signing up to it in that state. No choice given?

Re that legal opus on X, it reads better than the report. Really do hope that is the sort of science put into our initial hearing and appeal. The way the report is written it sounds very immature. He said/she said.
 

Moomin said:
When you see that brief statement it looks bad and I thought the same at first.

When you read the full article in the Athletic it explains what happened in August. The Premier League came up with the framework and went to the commision with it. They rejected it as in the handbook the commision has the final decision on the punishment after mitigation.

This works in our favour as we can argue no set sanctions in place.

If the commision agreed it might have been put into the rules and into the handbook. These rules would have been set for everyone.
Click to expand...
Yes in paras 88, 89 and 90 the commission did make a big song and dance about rejecting the PL framework.

88 The Commission recognises the attraction of a regulator imposing a structured formula that was required to be applied in breaches of a particular regulation. Such a structured formula would fully inform clubs of the consequences of PSR breaches – although that would deny the Commission the power, as a specialist tribunal, to approach the question of sanction in whatever way it considered to be appropriate to the individual case before it.

89structured formula such as is advocated by the Premier League would be inconsistent with the unrestricted powers conferred by Rules W50&51. We consider that it is not for a Commission to introduce such a structured formula even on a case by case basis. We consider that we are required by the Rules to hear and consider the mitigation, after which we have a wide discretion to impose any of the sanctions listed in Rule W51. If the Premier League wishes to impose a mandatory structured formula on a Commission dealing with PSR breaches, it can do so. In that event the Commission would be required to comply with those Rules. But as things stand at present that has not been done: the Commission has the wide discretion conferred by Rules W50&51.

90 We therefore decline to adopt the structured formula proposed by the Premier League. We will determine the appropriate sanction according to all the circumstances of the case, including (as required by Rules W50&51) any mitigating factors.

They then proceeded to get to the exact same points deduction that the PL formula would have arrived at (assuming 19.5 million was rounded up to 20m) with absolutely zero detail on how they came to their figure. So forgive me if I think it whiffs a bit.

Agree that there being no set formula published (as in EFL) it might help our appeal. However I do think if they are going to start docking points off clubs that there should be a formula published and agreed in advance to ensure at least a modicum of consistency between judgements.
 

peteblue said:
www.dailymail.co.uk

Everton unhappy same disciplinary panel will hear compensation claim

EXCLUSIVE BY MATT HUGHES: The three-person panel is completed judge Alan Greenwood and chartered accountant Nick Igoe, a former finance director at West Ham..
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
“The leading barrister also has history with Everton, having sat on the independent panel that fined the club a record £300,000 following pitch invasions that marred a Premier League win over Crystal Palace at Goodison Park in May 2022.”

I’m not sure anyone there thought the win over Palace was “marred”?

He reeled me in by making it look like he was about to imply bias on the commission, then wiped his scrawny beard all over my face.
 
GrandOldTeam said:
Exactly but putting anything out as lipservice would undermine unity.
Click to expand...

Yep, I mentioned within the hour of us getting docked 10 points that Everton just need to step aside now and let Evertonians take things on from here.

Everton can sort all the legal stuff out but they'd do well to not say a negative word this weekend about flags/banners and protests and let the fans get on with it.

Or maybe, its time the club started making amends to the fans after the accusations levelled at us and a simple "yep, we are right behind you on this Evertonians" will do.
 

Don't know if this has already been posted - but it may be of interest to those seething enough. I wrote my specific objections about the unfairness of the penalty to Richard Masters ceo of the Premier League.

Suffice it say I very much doubt that my correspondence has yet passed his eyes, as today I received the "General photocopied" fob off reply from some minnion that addressed none of the points I raised (fairly typical big business response). I have written back seeking confirmation that the message has been sent to the named recipient.

Meanwhile ....
www.premierleague.com

Everton FC deducted 10 points by independent Commission

www.premierleague.com www.premierleague.com
 
The rules had been changed mid process eh?? Not corrupt in the slightest. This surely will be destroyed at appeal??

IMG_5036.webp
 
GrandOldTeam said:
I hope Everton don't put anything out discouraging protests/signs etc...

I suspect the Premier League instruct removal etc of any signs. One was removed within a minute or so last season.
Click to expand...

I have been mulling this. If there are going to be thousands of PL Corrupt signs on the seats, the club must be complicit in that. PL will not like that at all. There is no way you could distribute thousands before the match, outside GP. Like, I would love it if the whole ground held signs up, inc the United fans, but the logistics do defeat me IMHO.
 
roydo said:
I have been mulling this. If there are going to be thousands of PL Corrupt signs on the seats, the club must be complicit in that. PL will not like that at all. There is no way you could distribute thousands before the match, outside GP. Like, I would love it if the whole ground held signs up, inc the United fans, but the logistics do defeat me IMHO.
Click to expand...

They're getting distributed outside the ground mate not inside.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top