6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Lanolin]

This was a provable accusation, the goals Tevez scored were documented, in our case nobody can say how many points we gained overspending by 6.5 million a year over 3 years..

The same principle would apply though wouldn't it. It was provable that Tevez had scored goals but not provable what would have happened if they didn't have him. They couldn't just assume that West Ham would have ended the season with the exact same results, minus any points picked up from games Tevez scored in, because that isn't how football works. Same thing here.

 

[ForeverEverton]

Everton had loses of around 380m over a 3 year period, the limit is 105m.

The PL accepted our covid story telling and in the end we breached by 16.6m.

Financial losses don't equate to PSR losses, they are very different although the higher the loss the higher the PSR loss.

Being as the womens team are a seperate entity we will have no outlay or costs for womens team, their stadium etc. and I suspect we would have a cheeky PSR boost in the sale of the womens team.

If it was me I'd be charging them and the Academy their portion of any lease or R&M on Finch Farm.

 

[brieverton]

Burnleys claim is for £50m (!) and that Borson guy (yes I know) is saying £10m could be the final figure.

Even if it was half that, it would be a very significant payout. I imagine the legal fees are substantial too.

Unless the case is thrown out, it's hard to see us not being stung for a tidy sum here. I'm sure that TFG have been very well briefed and advised on this, it's still a concern though.

Do these costs and any associated liability come out of a different pot as far as PSR regulations are concerned?

 

[Charles Hawtrey]

Don’t worry we’ve got mark Howard KC on it View attachment 325635

Given that we now have somewhat more litigious American owners I supect Burnley to come out of this owing us money!

 

[allen]

There are some lunatics on the Burnley forum that think the real figure will be £100 million.

They have absolutely no reason for thinking that. They just do.

Everton compensation claim - Page 2 -

www.uptheclarets.com

Christ, I don’t for a second imagine this is going to result in any significant penalty for us - but I hope these goons come away with a big fat nothing.

 

[micknick]

Don’t worry we’ve got mark Howard KC on it View attachment 325635

 

[Goat]

View attachment 325637

Lets hope he does a better job than the other clown we hired.

 

[Tipp blue]

There are some lunatics on the Burnley forum that think the real figure will be £100 million.

They have absolutely no reason for thinking that. They just do.

Everton compensation claim - Page 2 -

www.uptheclarets.com

Christ, I don’t for a second imagine this is going to result in any significant penalty for us - but I hope these goons come away with a big fat nothing.

That's some mental stuff..

 

[alwaysblue]

One of the things I find very strange is that 2 of their staff in this matter were in similar positions at Everton during the time in question. Surely this can't be allowed? Conflict of interest? Almost like insider trading.
Very far from my area of expertise though.

 

[Iana]

Feels slightly disingenuous.

Three days later, we beat Man Utd. When we had played the same amount of games, they were still 1 point behind. They were hardly in pole position.
I accept that we weren't favourites to beat Man Utd, and it's definitely true that our end-of-season form was much better than theirs, but you are being very selective with what date you are choosing to put them as favourites to stay up.

Not being disingenuous at all.

Who thought after that Turf Moor defeat we would stay up with our run in?

We had to play the teams who finished 2nd, 3rd,5th and 6th that season in that run-in whilst they played Spurs as their highest placed team(4th) in their final fixtures plus they had both Norwich and Watford to play as well.

The average finishing position of our run-in teams was 10th and theirs was 13th.

 

[RomanReigns]

Offer them 1 penny

 

[catcherintherye]

I assume (ignorantly i mean, I haven't checked this) the suggestion is that we artificially inflated the amount that could be written off, and that we can't actually justify why it is so much higher than everybody else, rather than just that the amount is higher in itself.

I would be surprised if this is Burnley's argument (I'm not sure if it is?) but that would surely be a case against the PL if it were. For accepting the write downs.

Our accounts, signed off by independent professionals signed them off.

The case for Burnley would surely be that we ought to have been punished in that season, but I'm not entirely sure why that is Everton's fault?

Id also be interested to know what benefit they could prove when the panel (I believe) stated that there was no quantifiable benefit for the breach of the rules.

 

[NeilMorepies]

Could we not just give them Patto and call it quits?

 

[catcherintherye]

They probably don't need to 'prove' it exists (i'm not a lawyer, i'm just applying logic not knowledge). Their claim is effectively that we cheated and they didn't and so they were deprived of a fair chance to stay up. As I said earlier, it seems strange to me that this is happening and it could potentially open a massive can of worms, but the indications are that there is a case there so we can all sit here and say what they need to do and how it won't stand up but it appears that it isn't quite that clear cut.

Oh it's not clear cut at all, either way. Hence why Leeds dropped their case and Burnley pursuing.

I am basing this on absolutely nothing, but you would imagine the following points would contradict any legal action:

1) It opens a huge can of worms
2) They would have to prove a "quantifiable" advantage (of at least 4 points). Given an independent commission has said there is no "quantifiable" advantage, you'd imagine that would contradict the commission.
3) Isnt there an agreement PL clubs do not take legal action against one another?
4) Everton were punished for their offences. There is nothing on the rules that say it should be that season. So that would surely be a case against the regulator for not doing it (maybe that might follow).

It should be thrown out, but I have very little faith in our justice system. I also think it's a huge conflict of interest then employing our former legal council.

 

[catcherintherye]

Burnley don't need to prove Everton had a sporting advantage, the independent commission said we did, they'll just point to that.

The independent commission didn't say this. They said there was no "quantifiable" advantage. They need to be able to quantify the advantage to being greater than the points difference to be relegated. Given it's been deemed as unquantifiable (either too small to merit a value, or impossible to state) I can't see how that can be done.

If I was a judge, my follow up question to them pointing it out would be- "would you be able to quantify the value of the advantage they gained".