6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Moomin]

The initial ten points deduction imposed was the highest in the history of the Premier League, even more than clubs who went into administration.

Nobody was even thinking about a single point being deducted at all let alone ten which sent shockwaves through the game not just in this country

If you can't see that as being shafted then god help your eyesight.

We agreed to the rule changes and signed up to them.

We quite clearly broke the rules. You can deny it but they tried there best to help us out by signing off 220 million worth of losses to Covid.

Other than PSG we had the highest turnover to wages ratio in Europe. It was at 98 and 97% for two seasons straight. We lived beyond our means and gambled about getting into Europe. It failed.

Simple question, did we break the rules?

 

[Hinchcliffe's Corner]

City and Chelsea bend the rules.

We didnt bend the rules, we broke them, we then admitted we broke them.

And thanked them for punishing us.

 

[Iana]

And thanked them for punishing us.

From memory I think we thanked them for recognising that we had acted in good faith throughout and accepted our argument.

I think it was also a tactical play in advance of the next PSR breach hearing to try and reduce or avoid another points deduction.

 

[catcherintherye]

I covered that in my post? The punishment was too harsh and the fact it wasn't applied consistently was ridiculous, but it doesn't change the fact that we did actually break the rules, that's all i'm saying.

This is true. Whether we broke the rules, and the level of punishment is sort of irrelevant to the case (the breaking the rules bit less so).

The question will be, was our rule breaking the cause of Burnley losing too many games, and was it such a big cause that it can be a cause for them to have lost so many that they then got relegated (I assume this is their case).

There is probably a partial case for Everton to say we were punished as per the PL rules, accepted our punishment and behaved well etc. Its part of a defence and probably helps a bit, but it's not the core point.

The court could look at it and say on Burnley, we find in their favour on the above 2 points, but it's the PLs fault for not dealing with the case that season.

 

[catcherintherye]

City and Chelsea bend the rules.

We didnt bend the rules, we broke them, we then admitted we broke them.

I mean Chelsea have broken UEFA rules, and the PL believe City have broken rules.

 

[Walken]

Christ here come the filofaxes, as if grown men are reading the finer print of a football leagues financial rules

 

[Hellerad]

Lawyer here. As plenty have stated, it will be very difficult for Burnley to prove proximate causation for actual damages relating to relegation.

Had Everton used a player who was ineligible and gained a sporting advantage, you could tie that to a specific win and, therefore, points in the table.

PSR violations are a “sporting advantage” but are not easily quantifiable to points gained in the table. And Burnley’s own performances are intervening causality for its relegation.

Everton may settle to avoid attorney’s fees or the remote risk of the lawsuit, but it won’t be for remotely close to 50M and will almost certainly be undisclosed.

 

[Goat]

I mean Chelsea have broken UEFA rules, and the PL believe City have broken rules.

Its not what you know, its what you can prove.

 

[matty1878]

Lawyer here. As plenty have stated, it will be very difficult for Burnley to prove proximate causation for actual damages relating to relegation.

Had Everton used a player who was ineligible and gained a sporting advantage, you could tie that to a specific win and, therefore, points in the table.

PSR violations are a “sporting advantage” but are not easily quantifiable to points gained in the table. And Burnley’s own performances are intervening causality for its relegation.

Everton may settle to avoid attorney’s fees or the remote risk of the lawsuit, but it won’t be for remotely close to 50M and will almost certainly be undisclosed.

why do we need to “settle”

we’ve done nothing wrong

and that’s admitting guilt

 

[Ring master]

All these little bits and pieces about other teams, may if they can go after us depending if Burnley won. If we did actually settle with them for whatever reason, would that still make it look like we were guilty and have other clubs have a go at us. Or would that be it done and over with for other clubs

 

[catcherintherye]

Lawyer here. As plenty have stated, it will be very difficult for Burnley to prove proximate causation for actual damages relating to relegation.

Had Everton used a player who was ineligible and gained a sporting advantage, you could tie that to a specific win and, therefore, points in the table.

PSR violations are a “sporting advantage” but are not easily quantifiable to points gained in the table. And Burnley’s own performances are intervening causality for its relegation.

Everton may settle to avoid attorney’s fees or the remote risk of the lawsuit, but it won’t be for remotely close to 50M and will almost certainly be undisclosed.

This is basically my own, strictly none legal interpretation.

It not really about proving wrongdoing, it's about proving wrongdoing caused you to lose games, beyond any reasonable level of doubt (I suspect there's some balance of probabilities stuff).

Let's put it another way, the Amortisation + wage costs of Gylfi Sigurdsson would have been close to 19m (maybe say 15/16m) for that season. Can we say that without his contribution Burnley wouldn't have been relegated? That's a very concrete example, based on balance of probabilities that would wholly dispute the basis of their case.

If there was a strict spend v points arrangement, how are Brighton finishing above Manchester United, or Bournemouth above Tottenham etc.

 

[Hellerad]

why do we need to “settle”

we’ve done nothing wrong

and that’s admitting guilt

Settling is not admitting guilt and settlements always contain language that the matter is disputed and there is no admission of fault. Anything beyond that is public perception and isn’t worth anything.

People settle while denying wrongdoing all the time. It’s a cost-benefit analysis. Lawsuits cost real money and there is, unfortunately, always risk of a bad decision going against you.

Settlements weigh risk vs gain. Even if we win, we are out large outlays for legal bills. Settling avoids the legal fees and the risk of an unlikely, but still real, risk of a bad decision.

 

[matty1878]

Settling is not admitting guilt and settlements always contain language that the matter is disputed and there is no admission of fault. Anything beyond that is public perception and isn’t worth anything.

People settle while denying wrongdoing all the time. It’s a cost-benefit analysis. Lawsuits cost real money and there is, unfortunately, always risk of a bad decision going against you.

Settlements weigh risk vs gain. Even if we win, we are out large outlays for legal bills. Settling avoids the legal fees and the risk of an unlikely, but still real, risk of a bad decision.

i’m no legal eagle

but to me why would you pay anything if you’ve done nothing?

 

[Hellerad]

This is basically my own, strictly none legal interpretation.

It not really about proving wrongdoing, it's about proving wrongdoing caused you to lose games, beyond any reasonable level of doubt (I suspect there's some balance of probabilities stuff).

Let's put it another way, the Amortisation + wage costs of Gylfi Sigurdsson would have been close to 19m (maybe say 15/16m) for that season. Can we say that without his contribution Burnley wouldn't have been relegated? That's a very concrete example, based on balance of probabilities that would wholly dispute the basis of their case.

If there was a strict spend v points arrangement, how are Brighton finishing above Manchester United, or Bournemouth above Tottenham etc.

That’s a good explanation. It’s hard to quantify what Burnley’s table position would have been “but for” Everton’s overspend.

Also, to be pedantic for a second, the legal standard for civil cases is typically “more likely than not” which is sort of like “we’re 51% certain” whereas “beyond a reasonable doubt” is 100% certain.

It’s way easier to prove the first. The latter is the standard for criminal charges.

 

[Hellerad]

i’m no legal eagle

but to me why would you pay anything if you’ve done nothing?

If somebody says you can pay £10 to avoid the risk of paying £1000 plus £300 in legal fees, you’d be wise to consider it.

It’s not justice, but it’s prudence.