Burnley Case

[Seathestars]

I still can believe we got done in the first place after what we did for Iceland who later had no case to answer.
This is that 3 man panel own words.

Player X
120. Everton maintains that it is entitled to credit for not pursuing an economically viable claim against Player X. Despite the fact that it had received advice from solicitors and from leading counsel that the claim could be pursued it chose not to bring proceedings. Its case is that that decision was made out of concern for the player’s psychological wellbeing.

 

[ClausThomsen]

I would have thought the compensation should be linked to the profit on the revenue lost not the total loss of revenue.

I think it would be loss of revenue - that's the only directly affected issue. Revenue and profit are two different things. The judgement appears to be that Burnley lost out on £40M of income/revenue by being relegated. How well they would have used it is neither here nor there.

Profit is linked to operating expenses and a whole host of other variables. For instance a player performing well in the PL would have a greater market value than the same player performing well in the Championship. But that same player might have got his leg broken playing a different match against different players had they stayed up so you can't really address variables such as profit when it comes to compensation around lost revenue.

Whereas the loss of revenue, be it TV money or commercial deals where payment is based on being a Premier League team, is a demonstrable difference in fixed income that is defined in clear terms by whether a team stays up or goes down.

 

[Walken]

has anyone in here won the appeal yet?

@matty1878

 

[Iana]

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

The words were sporting advantage must be inferred but is difficult to quantify the extent of the advantage.

I have just read the first 50 pages of the latest judgement and the commission appear to have gone with a conclusion that Everton’s spend on players/wages is linked to points gained and have accepted the effect is cumulative over 12 years!!

Everton’s argument that it should be limited to the 4 years up to 21/22 was dismissed.

Burnley’s expert witnesses were all involved in football to varying extents(including betting) whilst Everton’s “expert” had no football expertise or experience and worked for a financial consultancy.

It seems that Daniel Baldwin is being lauded as some sort of soothsayer by the commission or he is Burnley’s answer to Eileen Drewery.

 

[riddick]

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.

Not with the premise of "clear and obvious error" being the only way to recommend VAR. The fact they had a weekly "yeah, we messed this up" mea culpa BS is the direction that the Premier League has set.

 

[coollino]

@matty1878

He'd be like that Kremlin PR guy where he confused people so much he'd just win it

 

[Iana]

Everton has not helped itself in its defence ever since the first IC.
The shambolic first hearing where Moshiri shot his mouth off and other witnesses were poor keeps on raising its head in this latest judgement so we are effectively “hoist by our own petard”.

 

[Joey66]

That's the problem in law settle with another club like Leeds shows you were responsible in some way - The Mosh balls it all up again ....

hence we lost the case yesterday - damage limitation to get the fine reduced now .....

 

[Jebus_lives]

has anyone in here won the appeal yet?

 

[Jebus_lives]

That's the problem in law settle with another club like Leeds shows you were responsible in some way - The Mosh balls it all up again ....

hence we lost the case yesterday - damage limitation to get the fine reduced now .....

No it doesn't.

 

[Iana]

That's the problem in law settle with another club like Leeds shows you were responsible in some way - The Mosh balls it all up again ....

hence we lost the case yesterday - damage limitation to get the fine reduced now .....

We lost the case because their experts were able to convince the IC that our £19.5m breach over 4 years was entirely attributable to a points advantage of between 4-7 points solely in the 21-22 season.

The analysis they relied on is deeply flawed but our case to rebut it was not strong enough.

 

[Seathestars]

The words were sporting advantage must be inferred but is difficult to quantify the extent of the advantage.

I have just read the first 50 pages of the latest judgement and the commission appear to have gone with a conclusion that Everton’s spend on players/wages is linked to points gained and have accepted the effect is cumulative over 12 years!!

Everton’s argument that it should be limited to the 4 years up to 21/22 was dismissed.

Burnley’s expert witnesses were all involved in football to varying extents(including betting) whilst Everton’s “expert” had no football expertise or experience and worked for a financial consultancy.

It seems that Daniel Baldwin is being lauded as some sort of soothsayer by the commission or he is Burnley’s answer to Eileen Drewery.

12 years, I wonder where they got that little nugget from.
Confused. Com here

 

[Tipp blue]

Am i correct in thinking that if Burnley have successfully argued that if Everton got the points deduction they might have stayed up, We can now argue that if the points deduction was given in the 21/22 season then it couldn't have been given 23/24 and this means that we lost out on merit payment that season, 15 million the PL owe us, covers near half of the money Burnley are claming.

 

[Tin-Tin]

Surely we win this argument? Laughable

 

[RD2910]

Am i correct in thinking that if Burnley have successfully argued that if Everton got the points deduction they might have stayed up, We can now argue that if the points deduction was given in the 21/22 season then it couldn't have been given 23/24 and this means that we lost out on merit payment that season, 15 million the PL owe us, covers near half of the money Burnley are claming.

No, as Burnley haven't argued that.