I would imagine - and again fairly obviously - that they're not suggesting that anything would have led to them winning more, it's that they believe it would have led to us winning less.
catcherintherye
Player Valuation: £80m
I don't know how much interactions you've had with solicitors mate, but nothing ever seems very obvious to them!
Youre obviously an intelligent and logical guy, and I agree with what you say. But my experience of legality would be that it's not always very logical, so I have no idea. I've seen solicitors make more ludicrous counters than what's being outlined.
I suppose you could take the other view, which is if they meant it to be it's immeasurable, they would have said immeasurable. Its left open. Maybe they mean both. I have no idea.
You could make a case, that had Everton for example-sold the women's team, or reduced costs on the new ground by 19 million, impact would have been unquantifiable via insignificance wouldn't it? Or for the purpose of this trial, unquantifiable.
Just for clarity, I am not trying to say no sporting advantage, I'm just trying to say no measurable sporting advantage, "unquantifiable". Which given the case is around what can be quantified, feels a bit of a weakness to me.
If you are taking action against someone, you're not really proving what may be done wrong in an abstract sense, but what is quantifiable to your situation.
But who knows.
catcherintherye
Player Valuation: £80m
That may be true. Maybe we would lose 4-5 games that we drew, but I can't think of the lost of things outlined their would have caused us to lose any additional games. If their argument is as proscriptive as "you would have had to sell someone" it feels a weak argument, because it's just not true.
They may well have a different, and more compelling argument.
catcherintherye
Player Valuation: £80m
Sorry just to add, it looks as if Burnley s case may be that IF a 6 point penalty was placed in that season, simplistically speaking they would have stayed up.
This feels a far more compelling argument. Its not certain, and I would say probably not likely (given the galvanising impact the deductions had) but it feels a stronger case.
They may be weakened by the fact it is the PL not Everton who were at fault (supposedly) in terms of the delay.
Frankly if that is the case, quantifiable, sporting advantage etc would not be strictly relevant.
I've just had a quick look at the commission's findings to see whether you're right that the wording is ambiguous but it's not. It actually doesn't say unquantifiable at all, or anything like it, it says quite clearly that they believe there was a sporting advantage and the idea of the points deduction is to remedy the advantage that they believe we gained. They go on to say that the points deduction should have been applied in the season it happened, but they don't blame us or the PL for that not happening. I assume that's Burnley's case in a nutshell - they're saying that the commission's findings suggest that we should have had a points deduction that would have sent us down instead of them and they want us to compensate them for it.
catcherintherye
Player Valuation: £80m
Yes see post above, where I suggested similar.
That appears to me to be a stronger argument. Its much more difficult to state something may have caused X amount of points additional. There is precedent that a 2-6 point deduction were handed out the following season. That is "quantifiable".
There will be a discussion if any wrongdoing is at Everton for the timing (for example if Everton asked for a delay and it was not reasonable).
Lots of moving parts I suppose.
Based on nothing at all, I suspect it gets settled, with no wrongdoing admitted so no precedent.
badloaf
Player Valuation: £6m
Burnley are a bunch of meffy wools and deserve to be in the same league as Burscough Town (if they’re still going - even more so if they’re not) instead of cosplaying as a Prem outfit.
It’s clutching at straws and they won’t win the case, but the PL will probably insist on adding our legal costs to our outgoings and do us for PSR again anyway.
It’s clutching at straws and they won’t win the case, but the PL will probably insist on adding our legal costs to our outgoings and do us for PSR again anyway.
brieverton
Player Valuation: £50m
Is there any predecent that can be applied in this case?
To a degree it's pointless us arguing the merits for/against Everton here as it will be up to those hearing the case to decide. We will always look at it with blue-tinted glasses.
Both clubs are not lashing out on legal fees and a hearing being constituted for the sake of it. It seems clear we have a liability and what remains to be seen is the extent of it. And how this leaves us open to other claims. That is my main concern here.
So we pay up something and then what? Either that or our lawyers can successfully argue that there is no liability on our part. The issue there is the KC from the initial commission found that we do have a liability for claims. So his expert legal opinion has to be thrown out if Burnleys claim is to be dismissed in full. As a layman I'd say the likelihood of that is very small.
£50m seems like a laugh but a strategy where you ask for it anyway and are happy to settle for £10m. Still that seems like quite a severe punishment to me on top of two points deductions bearing in mind the lost income due to lower league placement and legal fees incurred in facing two hearings already. We are certainly being put through the mill here.
To a degree it's pointless us arguing the merits for/against Everton here as it will be up to those hearing the case to decide. We will always look at it with blue-tinted glasses.
Both clubs are not lashing out on legal fees and a hearing being constituted for the sake of it. It seems clear we have a liability and what remains to be seen is the extent of it. And how this leaves us open to other claims. That is my main concern here.
So we pay up something and then what? Either that or our lawyers can successfully argue that there is no liability on our part. The issue there is the KC from the initial commission found that we do have a liability for claims. So his expert legal opinion has to be thrown out if Burnleys claim is to be dismissed in full. As a layman I'd say the likelihood of that is very small.
£50m seems like a laugh but a strategy where you ask for it anyway and are happy to settle for £10m. Still that seems like quite a severe punishment to me on top of two points deductions bearing in mind the lost income due to lower league placement and legal fees incurred in facing two hearings already. We are certainly being put through the mill here.
AsiaAsia82
Player Valuation: £35m
I think we’re looking at this wrong.
When the points deduction was given, it galvanised the team and we won games on the bounce.
Therefore we can only assume the same would have happened to us the previous season, that Burnley are referring to.
Therefore we should really be sueing the PL for not giving us our points deduction at the right time as we’d of galvanised the team, won more games and increased our end of season position.
That seems to be the only sporting advantage evident and we should want to quantify how much would a points deduction of resulted in us improving our performances in the previous season.
When the points deduction was given, it galvanised the team and we won games on the bounce.
Therefore we can only assume the same would have happened to us the previous season, that Burnley are referring to.
Therefore we should really be sueing the PL for not giving us our points deduction at the right time as we’d of galvanised the team, won more games and increased our end of season position.
That seems to be the only sporting advantage evident and we should want to quantify how much would a points deduction of resulted in us improving our performances in the previous season.
Last edited:
Charles Hawtrey
Player Valuation: £50m
If it is correct that the reason we breached PSR in 21/22 was becasue we incorrectly accounted for stadium build costs, then how can that be impactful to our performance on the field in 21/22? surely the benefits of the stadium costs are only being delivered this season? I do not think Burnley's ability to stay in the EPL was impacted by filling in a dock and some drone footage. There is no sporting advantage in that season. Case closed.
You obviously can't say that for sure - but uncertainty is exactly the problem with Burnley's bogus complaint.
You might be right in what you've written, you might be wrong. It might be that our overspend resulted in 4 more points than we might have won, but it might not.
If it was possible to say that we'd definitely have been relegated instead of Burnley, then it'd be a fair cop.
It's not even just binary unknowns like that - Burnley literally have to prove that we gained 4 or more points than we otherwise would've.
I just can't see any way that can be proven - and the independent panel who punished us so severely even agreed with that.
This is a major surprise to me.
Why do they accept a majority verdict then (10 out of 12 jurors, I believe). Genuine question.
Why arent they sueing Forest for thier breach and Burnleys relegation.
Sheff Utd Vs WHU may be the closest with the Tevez and Mascherano affair - that ended with an out of court settlement.
www.skysports.com
We must be confident if we haven't gone that route.
Sheff Utd Vs WHU may be the closest with the Tevez and Mascherano affair - that ended with an out of court settlement.
Sheffield United, West Ham and the Carlos Tevez saga
Watch Sheffield United vs West Ham live on Friday Night Football from 7pm on Sky Sports Premier League; kick-off 8pm
We must be confident if we haven't gone that route.
toffeeblue9
Player Valuation: £35m
So - I'm a little unclear here on how this works.
It would have been impossible to apply the points deduction in the season "it happened", because our financial year ends a month after the season ended. The 3 year rolling period ending 21/22 is the one in question and yes, Burnley were relegated that season, but our financial year ended 30th June and realistically it would take until well into the new season before our accounts were audited etc. In other words there's no way that 6 point penalty could have been applied in the season in which Burnley were relegated.
In 22/23, the season in which we *could* have had the penalty applied, we would have been relegated with a 6 point deduction, but it was Leicester City who would have stayed up, not Burnley.
So I think that Burnley's case has nothing to do with the actual points deduction and more the sporting advantage we had during the season 21/22 that they were relegated where we were in breach of the rules.
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
