6 + 2 Point Deductions

[catcherintherye]

That Stefan financial fella has just been talking about this on TalkSPORT. Said Burnley do have a case but not for anywhere near £50m. Said he expects it to be settled for under £10m. More likely around the 5-6m mark.

He's a d rate lawyer. Basically whatever he says, think the opposite.

 

[mahermi1]

That's some mental stuff..

Six fingered mutants, hope they get laughed out of court and relegated again, wonder who they'll blame this time...

 

[chopper6]

Rather than suing other clubs, counter suing blah blah blah.

Every premier league club should just sue the Premier League for a lack of clear rules & consistent governance.

Can guarantee all these individual law suits go away…and worst case they don’t, but it kicks the Premier League into financial oblivion…

 

[Tipp blue]

Six fingered mutants, hope they get laughed out of court and relegated again, wonder who they'll blame this time...

Up and down like a yo-yo for their entire existence but apparently this one time is Everton's faut, despite them getting lower and lower points totals year on year before eventually going down.

 

[Lanolin]

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.

No I don’t think this is their argument, that strand of the conversation had gone off slightly to cover the idea that we weren’t necessarily the innocent victims of a witch hunt.

I think you’re slightly off on the ‘no quantifiable benefit’ thing. What the commission said was effectively that it was reasonable to assume we had gained a sporting advantage but there was no way of knowing exactly what that advantage would equate to. On that basis Burnley could obviously argue that any advantage at all gained due to breaking the rules was detrimental to them, they don’t necessarily have to ‘prove’ the unprovable, just introduce the idea that they were disadvantaged by our actions - they aren’t trying to have the positions officially reversed, just be compensated for their perceived losses.

As with the original case, it seems like a load of people with absolutely no knowledge or understanding of how cases like this work are confidently stating ‘this should be thrown out’ or ‘their case is clearly against the PL’ while people who do are taking it quite seriously. I have no idea of the ins and outs of it but the fact it’s got this far suggests it’s got a lot more merit as a case than some people think.

 

[Tipp blue]

No I don’t think this is their argument, that strand of the conversation had gone off slightly to cover the idea that we weren’t necessarily the innocent victims of a witch hunt.

I think you’re slightly off on the ‘no quantifiable benefit’ thing. What the commission said was effectively that it was reasonable to assume we had gained a sporting advantage but there was no way of knowing exactly what that advantage would equate to. On that basis Burnley could obviously argue that any advantage at all gained due to breaking the rules was detrimental to them, they don’t necessarily have to ‘prove’ the unprovable, just introduce the idea that they were disadvantaged by our actions - they aren’t trying to have the positions officially reversed, just be compensated for their perceived losses.

As with the original case, it seems like a load of people with absolutely no knowledge or understanding of how cases like this work are confidently stating ‘this should be thrown out’ or ‘their case is clearly against the PL’ while people who do are taking it quite seriously. I have no idea of the ins and outs of it but the fact it’s got this far suggests it’s got a lot more merit as a case than some people think.

They do have to prove the unprovable, they simply cant just say "we were disadvantaged" how much they were disadvantaged by is highly important, to claim loss of earnings there needs to be proof positive that Everton's wrongdoing actually caused the loss of earnings, we might have stayed up doesn't cut it in court because that leaves the counter argument You might not have stayed up.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Face reality, we had the highest turnover to wages ratio for a number of seasons.

They allowed us to put over 200 million pound of losses against Covid which was the most in the Premier League.

it was 5 times more than Aston Villa and Newcastle posted. Please explain how we lost more than every club in the league due to Covid? They turned a blind eye to it as its bad publicity for the Premier League.

We were shafted and treated disproportionately to the apparent offence and any one can see it.

Turning a blind eye is what they have done to Man City and Chelsea.

 

[Lanolin]

They do have to prove the unprovable, they simply cant just say "we were disadvantaged" how much they were disadvantaged by is highly important, to claim loss of earnings there needs to be proof positive that Everton's wrongdoing actually caused the loss of earnings, we might have stayed up doesn't cut it in court because that leaves the counter argument You might not have stayed up.

Well yes, obviously there will be argument and counter argument, that’s how court cases generally go. Neither you or I can say what Burnley definitely have to do, because we’re not legal professionals and have virtually no knowledge of the case.

 

[Nymzee]

I must say this Burnley stuff just shows how farcical the system is. How anyone can work out how many points Everton may have gained through signings is absolutely baffling. You just can't have something so subjective and flimsy being used to try gain multiple millions.

May as well bring back that octopus and get it to work out our advantage.

 

[Jacko93]

Rather than suing other clubs, counter suing blah blah blah.

Every premier league club should just sue the Premier League for a lack of clear rules & consistent governance.

Can guarantee all these individual law suits go away…and worst case they don’t, but it kicks the Premier League into financial oblivion…

But clubs are the PL. They just have people acting as intermediaries on their behalf, like a chairman. The power or the responsibility of the PL doesn't lie with Masters, it lies with the clubs. If we sued the PL, we would have to pay a portion ourselves.

In terms of terms whole thing, my thoughts are... Burnley have a case, not a win. They can take it to court to be batted about but I think they have the weaker position. It is up to them to prove quantifiable sporting advantage. If they were to do so, and it came out as anything other than 10 points, then surely the validity of the IC findings can be called into question. The whole thing then becomes a laughing stock.

Football is quickly becoming the snake who's next meal is its own tail.

 

[windymiller]

We'll go to the arbitration thing, we'll agree an undisclosed settlement and that'll be that. If that's what it takes to draw a line under all this nonsense, then so be it. As unedifying as that might be.

 

[Charles Hawtrey]

Why doesn't the EPL just ask google and see what AI suggests?

 

[Tipp blue]

Well yes, obviously there will be argument and counter argument, that’s how court cases generally go. Neither you or I can say what Burnley definitely have to do, because we’re not legal professionals and have virtually no knowledge of the case.

We are talking millions, tens of millions here, it just cant be circumstantial there needs to be proof that we actually caused what they are accusing us of causing. If they cant prove what they are accusing us of then it will be thrown out.

 

[coollino]

At least it means all the faux accountants stay in here for a bit

 

[Charles Hawtrey]

I answered my own question.... the answer seems somewhat circuiotous using burnley suing us as a positive example.

AI Overview



Yes, it is possible to sue a football club for breaching Profitability and Sustainability Rules
(PSR), as demonstrated by Burnley's ongoing £50 million compensation claim against Everton for alleged loss of revenue due to Everton's breach of the rules. These claims are permitted under Premier League rules, which allow affected clubs to pursue compensation from a breaching club.
How to Sue for PSR Breaches

1. Establish a Breach and Impact: A club must first establish that the offending club breached Premier League's PSR regulations, resulting in a tangible loss for the suing club.
2. Seek Compensation through Premier League Rules: Clubs can pursue a claim for compensation directly under the Premier League's rules.
3. Submit the Claim: Affected clubs have a window to assert their claims for compensation after the decision on a PSR breach is made.

Key Considerations

• Precedent: Burnley's lawsuit against Everton sets a significant precedent, potentially opening the door for other clubs, such as Manchester City or Chelsea, to bring similar claims for damages.
• Financial Advantage: The basis for a compensation claim is that the breaching club gained a financial advantage that came at the direct expense of another club.
• Limited to Direct Losses: Compensation claims are limited to the direct financial impact on the affected club, rather than a wider "butterfly effect" of potential outcomes.
• Hearing Under League Rules: Compensation claims are handled through the Premier League's own internal procedures and hearings, which are often private due to commercial sensitivities.