Latest article from today’s Times. It looks like the PL are doubling down…
FOOTBALL
Premier League fires back at Mark Carney over Everton points penalty
League tells trio of prominent fans they were wrong to question integrity of process and rejects claim it should have deducted points from Super League plotters
exclusive
Everton fans protest against the ten-point deduction by the Premier League for breaking financial rules
PETER POWELL/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Paul Joyce
, Northern Football Correspondent
Tuesday January 30 2024, 7.30am, The Times
The Premier League has strongly denied suggestions that the integrity of the independent commission that docked Everton ten points was compromised, and said the imposition of a sporting sanction was fair because of those clubs who abide by the rules.
The league also explained that the complexities surrounding Manchester City’s alleged breach of Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) meant their case could not be heard before Everton’s, despite the charge against them being levelled earlier.
In addition, the conduct of the six clubs who sought to join a European Super League in April 2021 was deemed regrettable but different to Everton’s breach of the spending rules — which allow for losses of no more than £105 million over three years — because “no sporting advantage was gained” and the situation was over within “a matter of days”.
The points are made in a joint letter from the Premier League chief executive, Richard Masters, and its chairwoman, Alison Brittain, in response to one sent to them by a trio of high-profile Everton supporters who branded the club’s points deduction as “draconian”. That punishment is subject to an imminent appeal.
The correspondence from Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of England, Sir Brendan Barber and Dame Sue Owen was viewed and
reported on by The Times, which has now seen the Premier League’s counter.
ADVERTISEMENT
The reply predates last Friday’s letter to Masters from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) asking him to provide the full version of the witness statement he gave to the independent commission that heard Everton’s case, together with the minutes of the Premier League board meeting from August 10, when it agreed a formula for sanctions, which was also presented to the panel.
Carney, pictured at Everton’s game against Burnley last month, had called the punishment “draconian”
PAT SCAASI/ALAMY
The six-page correspondence from Masters and Brittain addresses the range of issues raised by Carney, Barber, a former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, and Owen, who was permanent secretary at the DCMS for six years. Among them was an alleged “lack of transparency” over how the ten-point deduction was calculated.
At a pre-hearing, Masters outlined sanctions starting at a six-point deduction with a further point for every £5 million above the £105 million loss limit. The breach by Everton was alleged to have been £124.5 million. The commission said it rejected that view, but then delivered a punishment that mirrored what had been outlined and which has caused consternation at Everton.
The league says it informed Everton about its view two months before October’s hearing and writes: “We completely reject the suggestion that the judicial panel and the commission that heard this case is anything other than absolutely independent of the league. The suggestion that these individuals are somehow compromised is entirely without merit or foundation. Its perpetuation in your letter, published in the press, is damaging and unhelpful.
SPONSORED
“Everton was provided with complete transparency as to the board’s view on the appropriate sanction in this case. So as to provide as much notice and clarity as possible, it was communicated to the club two months before the hearing with detail of not only the ultimate sanction that the board considered appropriate but how it had got to that answer.
“The club was then given opportunity in written and oral evidence and submissions, in advance of the hearing and at the hearing itself, to explain why it disagreed with it and make its own submissions on the appropriate sanction.
“In the event, as you can see from the decision itself, the commission disagreed with the board [and the club] and came to its own view.”
The Premier League says the complexities of City’s case meant it could not be heard before Everton’s
LEE SMITH/ACTION IMAGES VIA REUTERS
With regard to the 115 charges that remain outstanding against City —
although a date has now been set for a hearing — the league said that case was far more complex.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Everton’s case represented a single breach of the PSRs, which was ultimately admitted by the club, leaving the commission with the sole task of deciding on sanction,” the letter reads. “Given these points, and given the importance of resolving rule breaches as soon as practically possible to provide certainty for fans, stakeholders and other clubs, it would not have been appropriate to await the conclusion of other cases before resolving Everton’s admitted breach.”
In other excerpts the league states it has not acted because of the prospect of government legislation and dismisses any comparison between Everton’s case and the conduct of the six clubs — Manchester United, Liverpool, Manchester City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur — who wanted to join a European Super League.
“While the publicly stated intention by six clubs to join the ESL was an extremely regrettable and damaging period for the league, no sporting advantage was gained by those clubs, the episode was concluded within a matter of days [following the justified and understandable negative fan reaction] and the clubs each agree to make voluntary payments to the league as a gesture of goodwill in response,” the letter says.
“By contrast, PSRs are a clear, long-standing and transparent financial control applicable to all clubs on an annual basis, breach of which confers a sporting advantage on the club concerns. For those reasons, we do not consider the two cases to be appropriate comparators and neither did the commission.”
A points penalty would not have been appropriate for the clubs who plotted to join a European Super League, according to the Premier League, because “no sporting advantage was gained”
YUI MOK/PA
The fairness of a sporting sanction has been the crux of the fallout, with Everton, who are a point above the relegation zone after the penalty, labelling it as disproportionate.
On this, Masters and Brittain write: “As to whether or not a sporting sanction was appropriate in this case, the view of the Premier League board, aligned with the EFL and endorsed by multiple decision-making bodies, is that a breach of the PSRs does confer a sporting advantage on the club concerned for which the only appropriate sanction is a sporting one in the form of a points deduction.
“Unfortunately, the Premier League had held concerns about the level of Everton’s transfer and salary outgoings for some time. These concerns were expressed to the club over many months and yet, despite those warnings, Everton continued to spend significantly on transfer fees and wages, whereas other clubs remained within the relevant threshold.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Elsewhere, the letter expresses that Everton is a “valued member of the Premier League” and that it is continuing to “support and understand the challenges that it is facing”.
A submission from Everton’s Fan Advisory Board regarding the impact of a sporting sanction has also been submitted by the league to the appeal board.
Since the commission met,
Everton have admitted a second PSR breach, for the financial year 2022-23. Nottingham Forest have been charged for the first time. Both cases are scheduled to be heard before the end of the season in accordance with timetable changes to the long-standing rules, which were approved by the majority of the clubs.
