Burnley Case

[Jacko93]

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.

If that is the ruling then it changes the entirety of the regulation and would require real-time reporting for it to have been enforced.

We believed that we were within the rules when we published. We were later informed by the PL that we were not due to accounting differences. We later accepted that we breached when considering the accounting practices put forward by the PL. Had we known prior of these differences then we'd have been able to take action the day before submitting which then makes us non breaching for the entirety of the season and infact, 4 year period. Would.be interesting to know if any other clubs were close to breaching through that season but miraculously escaped just prior to submittal through a sale of something or someone. This ruling seems to suggest that at no point throug the season can your financial position be in breach, whereas the governance of it can only measure it at a single point of time.

Another way is, had we have taken a financial hit of £20m during April/May, we would have also breached, but cannthat realistically be proven to have given us a sporting advantage?

 

[Jacko93]

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.

We signed one for £45m last year and he offered absolutely zero.

 

[Tipp blue]

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.

I don't think it was stated that Chelsea got a sporting advantage, Just a little get out of jail card for Chelsea, I expect City will get that too with a fine of half a million or a million per breach..

 

[cahill 17]

How was an ex Burnley employee allowed anywhere near the case it’s unbelievable

 

[Joey66]

No it doesn't.

Pay one club out - leave yourself legally wide open = fact

 

[evertony]

How was an ex Burnley employee allowed anywhere near the case it’s unbelievable

It was Evertons fault that he was employed by Burnley by virtue of the fact that on probability (calculated over 12 years) we wouldn't have offered him a job....irrespective of the fact that he never applied for a job with us.

It's all quite simple and straightforward.

 

[evertony]

Just a thought.....would Everton have recourse to counter-sue members of their own board at the time for dereliction of duty in not knowing what the hell was going on? DBB has been very, very quiet since her departure.

 

[arch stanton]

Just a thought.....would Everton have recourse to counter-sue members of their own board at the time for dereliction of duty in not knowing what the hell was going on? DBB has been very, very quiet since her departure.

her throat is still a bit iffy after headlockgate

 

[Trout Masked Replica]

Right or wrong, what ever. This seems implausible.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Pay one club out - leave yourself legally wide open = fact

Nope.

 

[Jebus_lives]

I don't think it was stated that Chelsea got a sporting advantage, Just a little get out of jail card for Chelsea, I expect City will get that too with a fine of half a million or a million per breach..

I think, looking at our statement, we will be making that point very clearly.

 

[Swartzy]

Pay one club out - leave yourself legally wide open = fact

Pay one club out and you're admitting knowledge of the misconduct or whatever it's called.
You have to stand by your case whether you lose or not.

 

[Seathestars]

Pay one club out - leave yourself legally wide open = fact

It doesn’t.
It was a 1.9 million payment to Leeds.
They argued they were right and short of 1.9 million.
We argued we were right but because the costs of Lawyers and the rest we said we will pay you the 1.9 million to save the mess.
It’s not an admission of guilt.

 

[Evertonthat]

For an football club whose major sponsor is a large legal firm, our record in the courts does little to inspire confidence.

 

[Seathestars]

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

Some read that and well worth 15 minutes to go through it.
The Esk used to get a lot of stick on here but he makes some good points here.