Burnley Case

[mikel_88]

Surely we win this argument? Laughable

Not sure win as feel still will end paying something but is plenty of reasons we can argue on.

 

[Street end man]

 

[Jokerdan]

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.

He could always have gone to the Bank of Dave and saved us all this aggro.

 

[pfim]

Surely we win this argument? Laughable

That's actually a pretty ridiculous assertion. It's not just selling players that could have rectified the situation either, though that is the most obvious and simplest way.

Having said all of that, if you can rectify the gap in profit between the end of the season and June 30, how can you characterize the breach as a sporting advantage during the season?

 

[Furey1878]

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.

That's a can of worms we probably don't want opened, mate. Had punishment been dished out to us in 21/22 or 22/23, the club would have went down and likely have went into administration. For me, the PL didn't necessarily want Everton to be relegated as a result of a points deduction as it would have been a nightmare, but giving us a severe points deduction when they did looks like they're serious without upsetting the apple cart too much.

The original commission stated that we did have a sporting advantage to a degree, however unquantifiable. Now it seems a bit mad to me that this sporting advantage can specifically be applied to 21/22 when the financial breach was a rolling 3/4 year average.

 

[Furey1878]

That's actually a pretty ridiculous assertion. It's not just selling players that could have rectified the situation either, though that is the most obvious and simplest way.

Having said all of that, if you can rectify the gap in profit between the end of the season and June 30, how can you characterize the breach as a sporting advantage during the season?

Mental, mate.

 

[kenada_blue]

Cant get my head around how the panel were convinced by manufactured probabilities based on data set and modelling.

Its not real.

 

[pfim]

That's a can of worms we probably don't want opened, mate. Had punishment been dished out to us in 21/22 or 22/23, the club would have went down and likely have went into administration. For me, the PL didn't necessarily want Everton to be relegated as a result of a points deduction as it would have been a nightmare, but giving us a severe points deduction when they did looks like they're serious without upsetting the apple cart too much.

The original commission stated that we did have a sporting advantage to a degree, however unquantifiable. Now it seems a bit mad to me that this sporting advantage can specifically be applied to 21/22 when the financial breach was a rolling 3/4 year average.

Add to the fact that it's the same 3-person panel. They got skewered on our appeal and found a way to get their 4 points back.

 

[charlie atkins]

As we are compensating them,
Do they pay the relegation compensating fee back ?

 

[AndyC]

This article presents the grounds for appeal and adds to the debate over the appalling decision by the Commission.

Everton & other writings by Paul Quinn, The Analysis Series, Talking the Blues & the esk PodcastsThe Analysis Series: Grounds for appeal, Burnley FC v Everton FC, PLJP 2023/3

Prepared 11 June 2026 BURNLEY-v-EVERTON-Compensation-Decision-with-Attachments-Redacted Previous Article (September 17, 2025) Sources: PLJP 2023/3 (290pp, June 2026) | theesk.org (Quinn, Sept 2…

theesk.org

 

[Iana]

That's actually a pretty ridiculous assertion. It's not just selling players that could have rectified the situation either, though that is the most obvious and simplest way.

Having said all of that, if you can rectify the gap in profit between the end of the season and June 30, how can you characterize the breach as a sporting advantage during the season?

The sage known as Daniel Baldwin asserted in his evidence that Everton remaining compliant could only have come from selling a player as the cost base did not allow for any significant saving anywhere else.

The whole thing is a mess and we are being penalised for calculations using our spend per point over 12 seasons rather than the PSR period of 4 seasons which refutes Burnley’s claim.

 

[kenada_blue]

Id also appeal against the panel as being compromised in their decision process having (on appeal) unfairly judged on our first review that gave us a 10 point deduction

 

[Wat Tyler]

 

[Ray Purchase]

Relax everyone, we have a top legal mind handling our appeal.

The lad himself. Anthony Aloysius St John Hancock.

 

[tsubaki]

That's actually a pretty ridiculous assertion. It's not just selling players that could have rectified the situation either, though that is the most obvious and simplest way.

Having said all of that, if you can rectify the gap in profit between the end of the season and June 30, how can you characterize the breach as a sporting advantage during the season?

The answer to this - if it survives an appeal - is for us to sue Chelsea.

They after all were, using this new definition, presumably in breach of PSR themselves and gained a sporting advantage during the two seasons before the PL allowed them to sell their hotels and women's team (which they sold to themselves lets not forget) and thereby make up the PSR deficit twice.