6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Iana]

Also, presumably Burnley’s sporting advantage argument is based on the fact we should have sold a player to comply with PSR, which would have resulted in us getting fewer points.

However, as it turns out, we could have sold our women’s team to ourselves for the amount of the overspend? Us, Chelsea and Villa have all done it subsequently.

Also, let’s say we sell DCL in January 2022 for £45 million. That’s not too crazy when you think Gordon left for £40 million 12 months later and DCL was in the Euro squad 12 months earlier. That’s £45 million pure profit.

Yes DCL scores the winner against Palace, but we would presumably have replaced DCL. Under PSR, we could have flipped DCL for £45 million, bought a new striker for £45 million, and still been in profit in terms of PSR, given amortisation.

So even in the argument, we should have sold someone else in January, I’m not sure I follow the argument it would have cost us on the pitch. It’s literally impossible to quantify.

All we needed to do was sell someone by the end of June 2022 for £15-20m and we would have been PSR compliant using the PLs revised definition of what was able to be excluded from the calculation eg loan interest for stadium construction.

The club believed that they were compliant and hence no further sales beyond Richarlison in June 2022.

The club was used as the scapegoat by Masters and the PL to try and ward off an independent regulator hence the ridiculous conclusions in the original “Independent” commission. To state publically that Everton should have foreseen the Russian invasion of Ukraine in Jan 22 and the sanctioning of USM and Asimov is unbelievable.

This is not a good situation for the PL and let’s hope the commission that will hear the case will have had some pointers in advance from Tricky Dicky Masters on what the outcome should be.

 

[kenada_blue]

The Football league doesn't have this problem. It reviews finances before the season starts and if there are any breaches the clubs start with the points deduction already applied. The problem lies with the ineptitude of the Premier League.

EFL have robust policies and procedures they've implemented for years to make it work.

The EPL made there's up and got caught out when they actually had to administer any punishments and watch as clubs either made them look silly in court, or drove a bus through their PSR compliance regulations.

We on the other hand were the canaries in the coalmine.

 

[kenada_blue]

City and Chelsea bend the rules.

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

So did Forest to a worse extent with zero mitigating circumstances (ie knew exactly what they were doing) and got less of a punishment because a different panel decided ours was too harsh.

 

[kenada_blue]

It becomes all too subjective, different panels, different ideas.

Example - our benchmark was higher than Forest and you only get one appeal. Forest went in, bigger more arrogance breach, at a lower level from the off.

We also were thankful and apologetic, we actually thanked the league for the deduction - other clubs had the front to argue the toss which helped them.

Always said we were the test case all the other clubs jumped on after and knew how to navigate.

If i recall the majority of Forests case was them saying "well, Everton did this"

 

[catcherintherye]

If you know it's a fact, why did you tell me it didn't say it?

Yes valid point.

I should have stated while the commission did point this out, it wasn't just what was pointed out. Apologies for that, you were correct.

They also stated no quantifiable sporting advantage was gained.

The part about breaches or sporting advantage isn't the key part of this, it's whether it is quantifiable and can be quantified in a manner to show that it damaged Burnley.

Lots of companies break rules, but if you can't demonstrate/quantify the damage it had on you, you will not be able to win damages against them.

I have no idea if Burnley will be able to do this successfully. All the best.

 

[kenada_blue]

We finished 4 points and two places ahead of them, if this is the season they are moaning about. So many ifs, buts and maybes in football. How can they say that we would have 100% finished below them if we had been deducted points? It may have galvanised us and we may have finished further ahead. How does this not get laughed out of court?

View attachment 325545

They also made more money in parachute payments that they then gave to Kompany to spend...who got them relegated again.

 

[brettangellnightporter]

In my opinion, the most logical reason for all of this is Burnley seeing an opportunity with our new owners. They probably believe that an out of court settlement is what will happen. I hope we bleed them dry.

 

[RichCee123]

If JA was still about, I wonder if he’d have reported the police to the police for wrongful arrest of GS and threatening a law suit for Everton for his lost wages and transfer fee. That would have made us compliant too.

Russia and a player suspended for something never charged with has ultimately screwed us over (along with complete incompetence may I also add!).

 

[Lanolin]

Yes valid point.

I should have stated while the commission did point this out, it wasn't just what was pointed out. Apologies for that, you were correct.

They also stated no quantifiable sporting advantage was gained.

The part about breaches or sporting advantage isn't the key part of this, it's whether it is quantifiable and can be quantified in a manner to show that it damaged Burnley.

Lots of companies break rules, but if you can't demonstrate/quantify the damage it had on you, you will not be able to win damages against them.

I have no idea if Burnley will be able to do this successfully. All the best.

I'm not sure whether it's deliberate or not but I think your continued use of 'no quantifiable advantage' is a bit misleading. That wording makes it sound like the commission was saying 'there was no advantage or if there was it was so small as to be unquantifiable' whereas what they were clearly saying was actually 'there was an advantage, but there's no way of us quantifying exactly what that advantage was'. There's a big difference between the two.

 

[micknick]

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

Not sure if people knew this but Mark Howard is Vince McMahon

Everton make key appointment as legal case looms that could cost millions

Burnley are seeking compensation for loss of revenue due to relegation in 2021/22

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

 

[bluerobert]

The deduction couldn't have been applied for that season as the season in question is one of the 3 in which rules were broken, we were found guilty after that season.. I think they are calming that we were found guilty of cheating in the season they went down and they would have stayed up if we weren't cheating..

Yer I get that what I’m saying is they think it should have been dealt with the season they went down which was the season after the 3 year period when it could have been assessed. But the rules at the time weren’t clear for the people enforcing it to have to deal with it the season of. We knew it was coming. I’m saying how can Burnley blame us for the FA not having a rule in place that said it had to be dealt with the season the charges were brought against us. Surely that’s between Burnley and the FA

 

[catcherintherye]

I'm not sure whether it's deliberate or not but I think your continued use of 'no quantifiable advantage' is a bit misleading. That wording makes it sound like the commission was saying 'there was no advantage or if there was it was so small as to be unquantifiable' whereas what they were clearly saying was actually 'there was an advantage, but there's no way of us quantifying exactly what that advantage was'. There's a big difference between the two.

Oh nothing I do is ever clever enough to be deliberate!

I suppose I'm using the word unquantifiable an annoying amount, just because it was the word that was used previously. And words matter, specifically with legalism.

I haven't read the report in enormous depth, so maybe they provide that clarity. My impression was it was a little opaque what they meant. But yes, it effectively has the two meanings you outline:

1) So small/negligible it would not be able to be seen
2) Too complex to be able to put a figure too for a legal person.

Obviously both of these are very bad for Burnley's case, but one is worse than the other for them.

Do you think the commission sided with the latter?

There is also a 3rd outcome to all of this, which is a court would discard the unquantifiable bit alongside the sporting advantage bit and start again. The PL commission may have had legal people involved, but it's not a legal court, and hasn't established precedent. Again that could benefit either party, Everton could argue that sporting advantage wasn't gained, and Burnley could argue that it was, and it can be quantified and would suggest it was quantifiable on a manner that shows damage to them.

Like the commission isn't l gal precedent, and while the judge may take it as a guide, they're under no obligation to have to follow it.

Thats how I see it objectively.

Subjectively I think it's a bit of a farce that judges feel they can make judgements as to the outcomes of football games, based upon how much profit or loss someone made. I mean if you could do that, anyone could become a millionaire. But I doubt the case will be fought on that basis.

 

[rxyzyxr]

some absolute weirdos in here. Almost seem to take pleasure in how we were treated

 

[Lanolin]

Oh nothing I do is ever clever enough to be deliberate!

I suppose I'm using the word unquantifiable an annoying amount, just because it was the word that was used previously. And words matter, specifically with legalism.

I haven't read the report in enormous depth, so maybe they provide that clarity. My impression was it was a little opaque what they meant. But yes, it effectively has the two meanings you outline:

1) So small/negligible it would not be able to be seen
2) Too complex to be able to put a figure too for a legal person.

Obviously both of these are very bad for Burnley's case, but one is worse than the other for them.

Do you think the commission sided with the latter?

There is also a 3rd outcome to all of this, which is a court would discard the unquantifiable bit alongside the sporting advantage bit and start again. The PL commission may have had legal people involved, but it's not a legal court, and hasn't established precedent. Again that could benefit either party, Everton could argue that sporting advantage wasn't gained, and Burnley could argue that it was, and it can be quantified and would suggest it was quantifiable on a manner that shows damage to them.

Like the commission isn't l gal precedent, and while the judge may take it as a guide, they're under no obligation to have to follow it.

Thats how I see it objectively.

Subjectively I think it's a bit of a farce that judges feel they can make judgements as to the outcomes of football games, based upon how much profit or loss someone made. I mean if you could do that, anyone could become a millionaire. But I doubt the case will be fought on that basis.

I would say quite the opposite, you're not using the word 'unquantifiable' enough. You keep saying 'no quantifiable advantage' which effectively means 'no advantage', whereas what you mean is 'an unquantifiable advantage'. You're saying words matter, but using the wrong ones.

Personally I think it's really obvious that what they meant was 'you'd have to assume that they gained a sporting advantage but obviously we have no way of knowing what that advantage would equate to in terms of points'. I think it's very disingenuous to suggest otherwise. If they'd meant that there was no advantage or that it was so small as to be irrelevant they'd have said so, because words are important.

 

[catcherintherye]

Also, presumably Burnley’s sporting advantage argument is based on the fact we should have sold a player to comply with PSR, which would have resulted in us getting fewer points.

However, as it turns out, we could have sold our women’s team to ourselves for the amount of the overspend? Us, Chelsea and Villa have all done it subsequently.

Also, let’s say we sell DCL in January 2022 for £45 million. That’s not too crazy when you think Gordon left for £40 million 12 months later and DCL was in the Euro squad 12 months earlier. That’s £45 million pure profit.

Yes DCL scores the winner against Palace, but we would presumably have replaced DCL. Under PSR, we could have flipped DCL for £45 million, bought a new striker for £45 million, and still been in profit in terms of PSR, given amortisation.

So even in the argument, we should have sold someone else in January, I’m not sure I follow the argument it would have cost us on the pitch. It’s literally impossible to quantify.

If that is their argument, I would say it would be easily quashed. Sure we could have sold a player, or we could have:

1) Sold property (a hotel,.training ground) etc
2) Added another sponsorship(s)
3) Continued to capitalise the interest on the stadium as we had previously did (before the PL changed the goalposts)
4) Paused the stadium build to not incur costs
5) Reduced the spec/size of the new stadium
6) Sold a player who was not involved (such as Sigurdsson)
7) Sold out women's team

None of these things would have impacted in any way in any game during that season. There will be a plethora of other options. I would be very open to hear how any of the above would have helped Burnley win more games to stay up?