Burnley Case

[b-rad]

I see your point, but Everton followed rules set by the Premier League at the time. They have since changed their "rules" to have accounts assessed in time to take action same season. This wasn't in place in 2022, so the Premier League couldn't apply any PSR breach punishment that season. That's no fault of Everton, yet we are being sued for their failure. If Burnley want compensation (and why wouldn't they), I don't see how Everton are accountable. You cant follow rules, then a few years later the rules change, and suddenly you've broken rules a few years previous. It dosent work like that.

That's not it either.
Burnley were relegated, 4 points and 2 placed behind us, in 2021/22
Our PSR breach (first time) was for the 3-year rolling period to the end of the 2021/22 season.
It could be argued our points deduction should have happened in the 2022/23 season - it couldn't happen in the 2021/22 season because the accounting period doesn't end until 30 June, and acounts aren't generally published for quite a few months after that
We got points the 10 (reduced to 6) deduction in the 23/24 season.

The bit in bold is the important part. The rules were since tightened a little to ensure any points deduction happens in the season immediately following the breach, i.e. the one in which the accounts were published and show evidence of a breach. However, under any working of the PSR rules, a points deduction could never have applied during the season Burnley went down.

Burnley's case (and what Everton are presumably arguing against) is that during the season Burnley went down, we were gaining a sporting advantage from the overspend that was happening, but hadn't been evidenced in accounts yet. i.e. if we hadn't been overspending, they might have finished above us. Not that if the points deduction had occurred then, they would have survived.

 

[TheFinnFan]

We will win our appeal and Burnley end up paying the legal fees.

 

[b-rad]

It’s mad the same panel who said there was no sporting advantage are now saying there was.
Making it up as the go along ffs.

But they didn't say that at all.

i.e. they decided there definitely was a sporting advantage, but said it's not possible to quantify exactly how much advantage was gained.

 

[RD2910]

It’s mad the same panel who said there was no sporting advantage are now saying there was.
Making it up as the go along ffs.

Oh god, it's so annoying.

 

[Lob]

The club is probably only worth about 150 million in its current state and they want us to pay them about a quarter of their worth.

Just as if.

 

[Timhowardsswearbox]

I genuinely don't know any more if the "panel said there was no sporting advantage" is like the "Dele Alli being on loan" thing we've had for so long now

 

[st.domingo]

The Merseyside club will likely argue that their breach technically came on June 30, at the end of that PSR cycle, and therefore months after Burnley’s relegation. They may also seek to challenge the view that Burnley’s relegation was solely caused by Everton’s breach, and that the Lancashire club also played a role in their own demise.

WTAF that this is even a point of contention

Everton’s £35m legal bill to Burnley could be a ‘watershed’ for football. This is why

The implications of the judgment handed down on Wednesday could transform the Premier League's legal landscape

www.nytimes.com

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Wish these greedy [Poor language removed] owners woukd all sell up and [Poor language removed]. Really do hope there is day of reckoning of this greed soon!

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

We need to take legal action against the PL. For the sake of argument lets just say that Burnley are correct & rightly feel that they got shafted. Well their issue is with the PL, not us. We got punished more then harshly for ultimately, at most, a minor infarction. Its not our fault that we got deducted points at an inconvenient time for Burnley! If we can't fight and beat this, then we need better lawyers.

 

[Tipp blue]

But they didn't say that at all.
View attachment 356701

i.e. they decided there definitely was a sporting advantage, but said it's not possible to quantify exactly how much advantage was gained.

So the only thing we can go on is the punishment 10 points (later reduced) divided by 3 (the rolling accounting period in years) Gives you an inferred sporting advantage of 3.33 (at 10 points deducted) per season, not enough to save Burnley.

 

[Jebus_lives]

We just never met there valuation, guess it could linked to the sale with Moshiri to TFG. Not enough funds to cover what they want so battled it in court???

No idea but we were always guilty from the off when the original judgement hinted at sporting advantage.

The original judgement, from memory, inferred that we gained a sporting advantage but we didn't provide evidence to refute that.

 

[Jebus_lives]

We need to take legal action against the PL. For the sake of argument lets just say that Burnley are correct & rightly feel that they got shafted. Well their issue is with the PL, not us. We got punished more then harshly for ultimately, at most, a minor infarction. Its not our fault that we got deducted points at an inconvenient time for Burnley! If we can't fight and beat this, then we need better lawyers.

There issue is with us, as we breached.

 

[Furey1878]

Reading independent panel and less than 3 hours later reading that it was the same panel that deducted 10 points off us genuinely made me laugh out loud.

 

[Jebus_lives]

The club is probably only worth about 150 million in its current state and they want us to pay them about a quarter of their worth.

Just as if.

As I said. Burnley are absolutely on their arse. Just buy Burnley.

 

[RD2910]

So the only thing we can go on is the punishment 10 points (later reduced) divided by 3 (the rolling accounting period in years) Gives you an inferred sporting advantage of 3.33 (at 10 points deducted) per season, not enough to save Burnley.

Everton argued that the overspend shouldn't be applied exclusively to the 21/22 season, Burnley's 'experts' argued that it could be and ultimately that argument won out. You say that's the only thing we have to go on but obviously you haven't considered a load of lengthy, boring and, to me anyway, fundamentally flawed statistical analysis to come to a conclusion.