Burnley Case

[MikeyMike]

I assume this judgement leaves it open for clubs to sue the PL if an accumulation of wrong VAR decisions contributes to them finishing in a lower position, thus losing place money, or getting relegated? It kind of plays into the litigation-crazed society that we've become, where people constantly seek to find someone to blame for their own misfortune or mistakes.

In some ways, I welcome this kind of chaos if it hastens the demise of the current system. It's certainly bringing it into disrepute when we get fined so much money while other clubs get a slap on the wrist for much clearer law-breaking. It's all a bit "whatever" now, clickbait nonsense on a weekly basis to keep the Sky money flowing. Let's face it, VAR was only brought in to add extra jeopardy to the armchair viewers experience of watching footie on Sky and TNT.

As Johnny Rotten said - Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

 

[Jebus_lives]

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.

Yes, but a bit more nuanced (which I suspect you know, but might be useful for broader discussion). The tribunal position was that our breach created a sporting advantage relevant to Burnley's relegation and that Burnley suffered a compensable loss as a result.

 

[Jacko93]

Yes, but a bit more nuanced (which I suspect you know, but might be useful for broader discussion). The tribunal position was that our breach created a sporting advantage relevant to Burnley's relegation and that Burnley suffered a compensable loss as a result.

The nuance being of course that we had not breached a single thing until the very moment that our accounts were submitted.

Teams can run a massive breach of £100m or more for an entire season, then just prior to account submission, make a sale of something. It doesnt even have to be a sporting sale.

 

[Neiler]

Pile of crap that, an owner that’s leveraged his club to hilt, then hit them up he loan repayments.

Virtue seeking B.S. hypocrisy.

 

[Jebus_lives]

I assume this judgement leaves it open for clubs to sue the PL if an accumulation of wrong VAR decisions contributes to them finishing in a lower position, thus losing place money, or getting relegated? It kind of plays into the litigation-crazed society that we've become, where people constantly seek to find someone to blame for their own misfortune or mistakes.

In some ways, I welcome this kind of chaos if it hastens the demise of the current system. It's certainly bringing it into disrepute when we get fined so much money while other clubs get a slap on the wrist for much clearer law-breaking. It's all a bit "whatever" now, clickbait nonsense on a weekly basis to keep the Sky money flowing. Let's face it, VAR was only brought in to add extra jeopardy to the armchair viewers experience of watching footie on Sky and TNT.

As Johnny Rotten said - Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

Maybe, but probably not. You'd have to say the league owed you a duty and that it failed in it's administrative duty, to provide competent administration of the league, but refereeing is inherently a discretionary thing.

 

[Jokerdan]

I reckon we jumped the gun with our admission of gaining a 'sporting advantage' but having done so ought to have caveated it under a denial of liability and on a 'without prejudice' basis enabling us to revisit the allegations should any future fiscal actions arise.

I can understand that by admitting early in the process the Club maybe felt it would attract a lesser penalty - ironically, one of the few times the PL have ever given us a penalty! - but by doing so we left ourselves wide open to claims like this. Now we can't even contest the original charge(s) if only to serve to muddy the waters and force the hand of Burnley to see how willing they would be prepared to go in pursuit of compensation.

Our nievety - or more so that of our legal 'advisors' - has put us in this situation.

 

[RD2910]

Yes, but a bit more nuanced (which I suspect you know, but might be useful for broader discussion). The tribunal position was that our breach created a sporting advantage relevant to Burnley's relegation and that Burnley suffered a compensable loss as a result.

Yeah, what I posted is an argument within an argument essentially.

The nuance being of course that we had not breached a single thing until the very moment that our accounts were submitted.

Teams can run a massive breach of £100m or more for an entire season, then just prior to account submission, make a sale of something. It doesnt even have to be a sporting sale.

That's a core part of the decision, the commission has decided that we were breaching the rules throughout the 21/22 season, rather than just at that end point. That looks to be the part that Everton are most angry with and that the appeal will focus on.

 

[Lapeno77]

I assume this judgement leaves it open for clubs to sue the PL if an accumulation of wrong VAR decisions contributes to them finishing in a lower position, thus losing place money, or getting relegated? It kind of plays into the litigation-crazed society that we've become, where people constantly seek to find someone to blame for their own misfortune or mistakes.

In some ways, I welcome this kind of chaos if it hastens the demise of the current system. It's certainly bringing it into disrepute when we get fined so much money while other clubs get a slap on the wrist for much clearer law-breaking. It's all a bit "whatever" now, clickbait nonsense on a weekly basis to keep the Sky money flowing. Let's face it, VAR was only brought in to add extra jeopardy to the armchair viewers experience of watching footie on Sky and TNT.

As Johnny Rotten said - Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

Was going to say this on the basis that they have apologised and admitted liability for errors.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

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

It does my head in. It’s there in black and white that they said there was a sporting advantage. But you have the likes of Giulia Bould, an actual journalist, still perpetuating the exact opposite myth and it just misleads people.

 

[ToffeeTim]

Pile of crap that, an owner that’s leveraged his club to hilt, then hit them up he loan repayments.

Virtue seeking B.S. hypocrisy.

Could not disagree more with his assessment

His team were relegated because they couldn't win football matches.

 

[Walken]

Pile of crap that, an owner that’s leveraged his club to hilt, then hit them up he loan repayments.

Virtue seeking B.S. hypocrisy.

Wouldn't his leveraged buy out actually be illegal now under the new rules?

 

[Lob]

Pile of crap that, an owner that’s leveraged his club to hilt, then hit them up he loan repayments.

Virtue seeking B.S. hypocrisy.

Just like he accepted the other 4 times they were relegated from the PL including this season which is because they are crap.

Looking forward to seeing this smug git taken to task. Complimenting a panel that were shown to be incompetent in previous investigations. They basically just pluck things out of their ass. No surprise to see them do the same thing again.

 

[Neiler]

Wouldn't his leveraged buy out actually be illegal now under the new rules?

It would be now mate, Burnley were debt free before Paces takeover and he used the clubs own money and high interest loans he himself was involved in to buy the club then loaded the debt on to the club.

One of the loans was triggered when Burnley went down and they had to pay in and around what our settlement is with them and a whopping amount of interest.

Arguably we’ve helped him buy Burnley with this settlement.

 

[Jebus_lives]

The nuance being of course that we had not breached a single thing until the very moment that our accounts were submitted.

Teams can run a massive breach of £100m or more for an entire season, then just prior to account submission, make a sale of something. It doesnt even have to be a sporting sale.

A potential line for the appeal could be that you cannot quantify the advantage of a 3 year accounting period on a single season.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Yeah, what I posted is an argument within an argument essentially.

That's a core part of the decision, the commission has decided that we were breaching the rules throughout the 21/22 season, rather than just at that end point. That looks to be the part that Everton are most angry with and that the appeal will focus on.

Yep. I think that will be a big part of the appeal. Based on our statement yesterday.