Rehnman
Player Valuation: £750k
Ha, that’s true! Tho Tim has form for having random values placed on him and then being moved from club to club to solve their problems, so it could be his thing
dixiesdisciple
Player Valuation: £8m
So, if the claim is that Everton gained a “sporting advantage” simply by spending money, doesn’t that imply the league is inherently biased in favour of clubs like Liverpool, who are allowed to spend far more and therefore enjoy a much greater sporting advantage? That seems pretty revealing, doesn’t it?
I think this is a reasonable assessment.
Their argument isn’t that our “illegal” overspend caused them to be relegated, you can’t prove that, but that the overspend increased their chances of being relegated hence the “loss of chance” angle.
So any compensation won’t be the full amount of their losses but an estimate of how much the overspend altered their chances of relegation. Given the nature of sporting results this is impossible to quantify so they either say “no this is inherently impossible” and throw out the claim, or they put a reasonable estimate on it.
So for example if they say relegation cost them 50m and the commission estimates our overspend increased their relegation chances by 20% they could award 10m, which is I assume why Borson thinks it would that or less, because given how impossible it is to quantify how much our “cheating” altered the probabilities they would likely be quite conservative.
Iana
Player Valuation: £6m
There are a few procedural issues that Burnley have to overcome first.
1. The PL rules at the time did not specify that an in season penalty had to be applied for any PSR breach.
2. The PL rules at the time stated that the independent commission could apply one of a number of sanctions ranging from financial penalties to points deductions.
If the IC had applied a financial penalty instead of a points deductions then would Burnley be pursuing a case against us?
3. The legal principle of having being punished once surely we can’t be punished again for the same offence.
In addition, Burnley need to quantify their loss caused by PL rules and their own incompetence. They also need to factor in their perceived financial loss was offset by the parachute payment when they were relegated.
1. The PL rules at the time did not specify that an in season penalty had to be applied for any PSR breach.
2. The PL rules at the time stated that the independent commission could apply one of a number of sanctions ranging from financial penalties to points deductions.
If the IC had applied a financial penalty instead of a points deductions then would Burnley be pursuing a case against us?
3. The legal principle of having being punished once surely we can’t be punished again for the same offence.
In addition, Burnley need to quantify their loss caused by PL rules and their own incompetence. They also need to factor in their perceived financial loss was offset by the parachute payment when they were relegated.
Ring master
Player Valuation: £90m
Yep. As i said yesterday it was reported in a number of places a while back if they were to win. That it was only suppose to be for 5mil. Again as i said yesterday no idea how that figure came about
Think it’s a misconception that this is anything to do with the 6 point punishment. I don’t think they are arguing it should have been retrospectively applied.
Their argument (I think) is more simply that we were guilty of “cheating” and that because of that their chance of relegation increased, in turn causing them financial harm.
Like I said above the difficulty is in quantifying any of it but on the face of it they do at least have some sort of claim to present.
With my legal hat on I can address a couple of the points you make Bri.
Firstly I am not well enough acquainted with the rules that were in place at the time to give a valued opinion on the likely outcome. As with most cases - ask 2 lawyers and both will give a different answer and that is likely to be the case here with what is almost certainly the case from KCs representing Burnley and Everton. I'm pretty sure that Burnley would not have gone down what is a very expensive road in terms of legal fees without advice that they have a reasonable chance of success.
However to address specifically 2 points that you raise
1. Opening a can of worms.....
This is actually a thing in law particularly where the law is uncertain on a particular point. In legal terms it is called " opening the floodgates". If there is doubt on a legal point and ruling in favour of a claimant would lead to a huge amount of new claims judges are often loathe to find in favour of the claimant.
2. Appeals......yes it is highly likely that whatever the outcome there will be an appeal and this issue could drag on for years.
Time and cost are usually the factors that drive parties to the negotiating table.
We signed upto the rules and broke them.
The Premier League tried there best to get us off when they wiped off a few hundred million losses to covid.
For years we had the highest wages to turnover ratio in the Premier League. Moshiri took a gamble and hoped we could get into Europe to grow the revenue. The gamble failed and then Russia invaded Ukraine.
Hi guys just to politely point out that you’re not a top line barrister and this thread isn’t the actual courtroom.
Although I most certainly am the judge.
Although I most certainly am the judge.
dixiesdisciple
Player Valuation: £8m
Yeah, I go along with all of that
however my point was that the sporting advantage we were not allowed is allowed for the top 6 clubs which means the whole competition is well, not really a competition!
So did Forest, Leicester, Man City, Chelsea etc.
Punishment for rule breaking need to be issued consistently. They're not.
Our owner at the time Mosh, saying we had to break the rules to sign midfielders is seen as the sporting advantage.Yeah, I go along with all of that
For me, there are two possible arguments Burnley could have:
1. If the points had been deducted the season they went down, we would've been relegated instead.
2. Breaking the rules gave us a sporting advantage that resulted in us finishing above them.
I think argument 1 is out instantly - we didn't choose the dates of our punishment.
Argument 2 requires them to prove we gained a sporting advantage. The independent commission themselves said we did not break the rules in order to gain a sporting advantage, and we'd spent peanuts in the years leading up to the sanction.
I just don't see how they win this. I also think any judge would be reluctant to set a precedent like this.
1. If the points had been deducted the season they went down, we would've been relegated instead.
2. Breaking the rules gave us a sporting advantage that resulted in us finishing above them.
I think argument 1 is out instantly - we didn't choose the dates of our punishment.
Argument 2 requires them to prove we gained a sporting advantage. The independent commission themselves said we did not break the rules in order to gain a sporting advantage, and we'd spent peanuts in the years leading up to the sanction.
I just don't see how they win this. I also think any judge would be reluctant to set a precedent like this.
I'd have also thought point 1 would be towards the Premier League, as you say, Everton didn't get to decide when punishment was applied.
I'd have also thought that if Burnley are successful. Everton could do a Burnley to Man City given they had a sporting advantage that season and if proportional punishment was applied, then they'd have gone down rather than Burnley so give us money back.
It's all come from Burnley, Leeds and co getting in a preemptive claim in - coinciding at a time when the Premier League needed a scalp to fend off regulation to fend off super league reform.
Ultimately though, none of us really have a clue.
I blame Masters for it all, more than I do Moshiri.
One hundred percent agree, we handled our case badly.
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
