Burnley Case

[Jebus_lives]

"The Appeal Board added that the IC (......): "did not in terms say that the inference was irrebuttable; but, in any event, there was no evidence to rebut the inference." In short, even Everton did not make this argument when it had the opportunity. As such, the idea of sporting advantage looks well entrenched in this case".

The 'well entrenched in this case', can easily become unentrenched as it was Moshiri that didn't challenge this, 'sporting advantage'. Our new owners will wipe the floor in a court of law with that argument. Any Premier League football issue will invariably end up in the courts, and more likely US courts, seeing that most of the owners are American, which also runs FIFA and therefore world football. The start of this was the shambles at lfc, which ended at a Texan court, even though the UK courts gave a ruling on ownership/selling the club, which was initiated to stop them going into administration.

Any wrong decision by the ref., VAR officials can automatically give other teams a sporting advantage, and could end up in court. A 'sporting advantage' is also gained by tapping up youth players from other teams or hacking the computers of other clubs (lfc both) and selling players for millions that is then invested in other players.

How far our owners are prepared to take this issue on, may very well determine how long the Premier League lasts in it's present format. Or maybe they'll be offered a behind the scenes deal.

This decision has opened a can of worms.

Pretty sure this is dealt with under UK law. Not sure how it would migrate to the U.S just because are owners are.

 

[Tipp blue]

So basically you can just spend as you wish and say get to for instance, 60 points.
Then near the end of the season or financial year you just say we are for example 70million short for PSR, so lets sell 70 million worth of players.

To make absolutely certainly no one has broken PSR you would have to check every clubs finances at the end of every single day?

Or have I misunderstood it

Yes you have misunderstood it as it was always based on your submitted accounts... There's enough hypothetical arguments in this farse without adding more.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Was Danny Murphy on this panel too by any chance

3 man panel

Danny Murphy
John Aldridge
Slippy G

 

[Davideeyore]

Just saw a comment on the BBC website in the comments, saying "the Premier League really don't like Everton do they?"

I'm an Evertonian and I don't fuggin like them either.

 

[Mozza1987]

Absolute farce. And yet City still have nothing against them with all the charges and nothing will happen.

 

[Somerset Blue]

I think this means this will now go against our current position within the new PSR system. So basically if we could spend 80m this year, we can now only spend 40m? Simple terms? Yet again holding Everton back from doing anything

At this point, just fold the club…it’s the footballing equivalent of water torture!

 

[Seathestars]

Yes you have misunderstood it as it was always based on your submitted accounts... There's enough hypothetical arguments in this farse without adding more.

So the rules are a farce then, and you could be way over in December but cook your books so you are fine at the end of the financila year?
I don't think I have misunderstood it.

The Everton statement seems to say the same

"This ruling sets a dangerous and unworkable precedent for English football, given it is constructed on a principle that a club can be in breach of financial rules at any point in a financial year.

 

[AndyP94]

It’s effectively saying that a £19.5m overspend is a 4 point sporting advantage as anything less wouldn’t have impacted Burnley being relegated.

So £5m per point. I guarantee that the team that won the league that season had a squad that cost significantly more than £5m per point.

Yeah, it's just guesswork, a bit like saying that the more money spent means you're going to get more points that season.

 

[Jebus_lives]

So basically you can just spend as you wish and say get to for instance, 60 points.
Then near the end of the season or financial year you just say we are for example 70million short for PSR, so lets sell 70 million worth of players.

To make absolutely certainly no one has broken PSR you would have to check every clubs finances at the end of every single day?

Or have I misunderstood it

It would seem so.

Because PSR works on a rolling 3-year assessment, so you could sell players before the accounting cut-off to improve your PSR position but you'd essentially still get a sporting advantage.

 

[Lanolin]

But it wasn't possible, it still isn't possible now, so how can it be a consideration in a court case?

Well I would imagine that Burnley's argument was that if we hadn't broken the rules we would have gained less points and so they wouldn't have gone down, and so they've brought the claim against us on that basis, using the commission's findings to support it. They wouldn't be claiming that the PL should have punished us earlier, just that we broke the rules and gained a sporting advantage and the commission itself had agreed that remedying that advantage should ideally happen in the year of the breach in order to be fair to the other teams in the league.

I'm not agreeing with the decision, I think the punishment was too harsh in the first place and the inconsistency in decision making is disgusting but the fact is lots of the things people say about it simply aren't true. Loads of people say that it was just the stadium costs being calculated incorrectly and that the commission said we gained no sporting advantage but those are both completely false. We told the commission that we'd budgeted to finish 6th and had actually finished 16th so we had less money than we thought. It was 7 years since we'd finished as high as 6th and we'd swapped Demarai Gray and Andros Townsend for James Rodriguez from a side that had finished 10th the season before. Budgeting to finish 6th was absolutely appalling financial mismanagement and entirely of our own making.

 

[Seathestars]

It would seem so.

Because PSR works on a rolling 3-year assessment, so you could sell players before the accounting cut-off to improve your PSR position but you'd essentially still get a sporting advantage.

Yes thats what I meant but you put it much better than me. I was never much good with words, even worse with accounts.

 

[PhilRegan]

At this point, just fold the club…it’s the footballing equivalent of water torture!

It is peculiar, what was the incident that caused the fallout with the club and Premier league. Reckon it was its inception in 92 ? We weren't exactly delighted and onboard with ut all.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Yes thats what I meant but you put it much better than me. I was never much good with words, even worse with accounts.

I think the difference is -

One action affects the accounting aspect but there is also the sporting aspect that is considered.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Christ, I hate football finance.

 

[Bedfordblue]

So the rules are a farce then, and you could be way over in December but cook your books so you are fine at the end of the financila year?
I don't think I have misunderstood it.

The Everton statement seems to say the same

"This ruling sets a dangerous and unworkable precedent for English football, given it is constructed on a principle that a club can be in breach of financial rules at any point in a financial year.

I read it the way you have I think.
We were basically saying the season the £20m over spend was done, was within a 3 year PSR period so it didn’t matter that in that individual season we were over as it could have been balanced with in the 3 year rolling PSR period.

Not saying that’s correct, just that’s my understanding (and quite possibly wrong)