Burnley Case

[Neiler]

This isn’t right.

One of the main contributors to influential evidence had a historical 6 year association with Burnley.

 

[Walken]

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 but the club then loaded the debt on 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.

There's a dark place in hell reserved for private equity firms

 

[Groucho]

Let’s sue the PGMOL for loss of earnings due to the several admitted cases of incorrect VAR decisions. That cost us league places and therefore revenue. Hey, everyone else should too.

 

[Seathestars]

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.

The sporting advantage could not be calculated they said.
Can’t remember the exact words but the amount of advantage, if any, is open to any number of interpretations

 

[coollino]

has anyone in here won the appeal yet?

 

[Gallaeo]

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.

Surely we can point to actual transfer spend each year to show it being split?

 

[everton1953]

Easy solution. Agree to pay Burnley but only in kind. Give them the useless Barry and another similarly awful player.

 

[Gallaeo]

The sporting advantage could not be calculated they said.
Can’t remember the exact words but the amount of advantage, if any, is open to any number of interpretations

They calculated it as 10 points. Later it was recalculated to 6 points. So 2 per season.

 

[Tipp blue]

Let’s sue the PGMOL for loss of earnings due to the several admitted cases of incorrect VAR decisions. That cost us league places and therefore revenue. Hey, everyone else should too.

How many times have we been apologized to? An admission of guilt.

 

[Lanolin]

Could not disagree more with his assessment

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

Playing devil's advocate, that's like saying that if you win a silver medal in the olympics behind someone who was later found to have taken drugs you just should have run faster. We did break the rules and we should own it, if the roles were reversed I'd be fuming to be honest so I don't really understand the whole 'they've got nothing to moan about' line.

Again though, that doesn't mean I disagree that the initial ruling (and the revised one) was overly harsh or that we should keep having to prostrate ourselves for eternity because of what happened. At the end of the day I wouldn't expect us to sign a player for £19.5m and for them to individually improve our performance by 6 points so I don't think the deduction was proportionate, but I do get why a team who followed the rules would be annoyed that they lost out to a team who didn't.

 

[ToffeeTim]

This isn’t right.

One of the main contributors to influential evidence had a historical 6 year association with Burnley.

So they accepted evidence from someone with a long association with the team making the claim?

 

[Tipp blue]

They calculated it as 10 points. Later it was recalculated to 6 points. So 2 per season.

Even if it was left at 10 its 3.3 points a season still not enough to have saved Burnley.

 

[ToffeeTim]

Playing devil's advocate, that's like saying that if you win a silver medal in the olympics behind someone who was later found to have taken drugs you just should have run faster. We did break the rules and we should own it, if the roles were reversed I'd be fuming to be honest so I don't really understand the whole 'they've got nothing to moan about' line.

Again though, that doesn't mean I disagree that the initial ruling (and the revised one) was overly harsh or that we should keep having to prostrate ourselves for eternity because of what happened. At the end of the day I wouldn't expect us to sign a player for £19.5m and for them to individually improve our performance by 6 points so I don't think the deduction was proportionate, but I do get why a team who followed the rules would be annoyed that they lost out to a team who didn't.

I dont really agree with analogy of failing a drugs test. Every week that season it was 11 v 11 on the pitch and no one was doing anything illegal to improve in game performance.

The fact we've got away from the accepted reality that football matches are won and lost over 90 minutes on a pitch, shows the game is in serious trouble and going down a dangerous path.

No one wants legal debates and hypothetical arguments to be deciding football and sporting outcomes. Especially when basically every panel disagrees with each other - which is very clear evidence this is all incredibly subjective.

But my main point comes back to the fact that it's pretty clear there is one rule for so called smaller clubs like Forest and Everton and very clearly different rules for so called bigger clubs. It's not just on the pitch with officiating, it now covers off field decisions and how disciplinary proceedings take place as well.

 

[RD2910]

So they accepted evidence from someone with a long association with the team making the claim?

He's giving their arguments, I'm not sure why that's a problem.

 

[Bedfordblue]

The more things change the more the club stays the same…..
“The commission, though, found Burnley’s evidence to be “more compelling” and was even “lent support” by Everton’s own submissions.”