Initial 10, then reduced to 6 + 2 Point Deductions

[BlueToff]

It’s leading though isn’t it, if the PL had suggested a 6 point deduction, would the commission have given us 10.

“Independent’ though.

The only real thing that can be called into question re. integrity of the original commission, mate, is that there were possible conflicts of interest due to Dave Phillips KC, who chaired the three-person panel, having previously represented Leeds, who were one of the clubs wanting to sue Everton.

However, Dave Phillips KC also - in May 2023 - said Leeds and the other clubs had no right to be involved in the case against Everton, which is what those clubs initially wanted. He dismissed it out of hand. He did however say if Everton were to be found guilty then those other clubs may have a right to pursue compensation.

 

[Dwight K Schrute]

Put it this way. The milisecond the whistle blew for FC Lutonona's 4-0 win over Brighton he sent me a screenshot of the beeb's table (without asterisk ofc) saying GOIN DOWN GOIN DOWN....

Yeah. Just a wry smirk from yours truly. He looks like Michael the garage shop worker from the Alan Partridge series. Wouldn't be out of place in a mugshot for sex tourism in SE Asia.

Don't slag off Michael. The actor (Simon Greenall) is actually an Evertonian!!

 

[BlueToff]

The PL exec board royally messed up the first case but so did Everton.

Everton's defence in large parts was absolutely horrific. There were tons of holes in the PL's charges that even I could say were wrong - for example, the PL claimed, and Everton didn't argue strongly enough against it to sway the IC (who remember simply look at the 'facts of the case' presented to them and agreed upon by both sides at pre-trial hearings), that the Premier League was Everton's biggest market for selling players pre and during COVID.

That is demonstrably wrong. Everton sold more players to European teams, for more cash in total, than they did to Premier League sides during that time. Yes, they did sell to PL sides, but it was 2 players for big sums, and even those big sums did not add up to what they'd brought in from Europe.

That was a key argument for Everton, and it was lost because the PL put a top-class forensic accountant up against - I kid you not - a lecturer from the University of Liverpool.

But the PL's forensic accountant and Everton's (pretend) one, agreed that the PL were actually right, even though publicly available information says they weren't.

Everton also tried the stupid thing with Sigurdsson. Some of their defence/mitigation was horrific and deserved to be laughed out of court.

Some of it was valid and I hope they have done enough to sway the new IC in that direction.

The initial report is clunky and full of holes too. A lack of reasoning or calculation from the IC, basing their decisions on woolly precedents set by EFL cases.

 

[Neiler]

The only real thing that can be called into question re. integrity of the original commission, mate, is that there were possible conflicts of interest due to Dave Phillips KC, who chaired the three-person panel, having previously represented Leeds, who were one of the clubs wanting to sue Everton.

However, Dave Phillips KC also - in May 2023 - said Leeds and the other clubs had no right to be involved in the case against Everton, which is what those clubs initially wanted. He dismissed it out of hand. He did however say if Everton were to be found guilty then those other clubs may have a right to pursue compensation.

It’s a clear choice conflict of interest mate…..it always seemed odd to me that he had jurisdiction to make that recommendation - was that one of the decisions in front of the panel, if so then surely it doesn’t supersede actual company law, which may have given those clubs the right anyway.

 

[Goat]

The PL exec board royally messed up the first case but so did Everton.

Everton's defence in large parts was absolutely horrific. There were tons of holes in the PL's charges that even I could say were wrong - for example, the PL claimed, and Everton didn't argue strongly enough against it to sway the IC (who remember simply look at the 'facts of the case' presented to them and agreed upon by both sides at pre-trial hearings), that the Premier League was Everton's biggest market for selling players pre and during COVID.

That is demonstrably wrong. Everton sold more players to European teams, for more cash in total, than they did to Premier League sides during that time. Yes, they did sell to PL sides, but it was 2 players for big sums, and even those big sums did not add up to what they'd brought in from Europe.

That was a key argument for Everton, and it was lost because the PL put a top-class forensic accountant up against - I kid you not - a lecturer from the University of Liverpool.

But the PL's forensic accountant and Everton's (pretend) one, agreed that the PL were actually right, even though publicly available information says they weren't.

Everton also tried the stupid thing with Sigurdsson. Some of their defence/mitigation was horrific and deserved to be laughed out of court.

Some of it was valid and I hope they have done enough to sway the new IC in that direction.

The initial report is clunky and full of holes too. A lack of reasoning or calculation from the IC, basing their decisions on woolly precedents set by EFL cases.

I consider all of Evertons mitigation fanciful and it was rightly rejected.

 

[Walken]

I consider all of Evertons mitigation fanciful and it was rightly rejected.

Shocker...

 

[BlueToff]

It’s a clear choice conflict of interest mate…..it always seemed odd to me that he had jurisdiction to make that recommendation - was that one of the decisions in front of the panel, if so then surely it doesn’t supersede actual company law, which may have given those clubs the right anyway.

There were two hearings heard by the same panel.

The first one, held last May, was from the 5 clubs (Forest, Leeds, Southampton, Burnley, Leicester). Those clubs were represented by Nick Di Marco, who will now be representing Forest in their upcoming hearing against the PL's charge.

Phillips did a bit of a halfway house, sure, but the report of that meeting shows he was pretty firm that those clubs could not get involved in the hearing.

It's also worth noting that the IC also sided with Everton on a few things. They were the ones who said it would be unfair for the case to be pushed through between March and May 2023, which is what the PL exec board wanted.

I just think calling the integrity of top class operators in their fields into question is too far but Murray Rosen KC, who appoints the panels, should probably not have picked anyone who could have any links to impacted clubs. However, as we've seen in the news today, there's only a finite amount of these people. The PL's judicial committee is around 15-20 people, and they aren't paid full time to work for that committee. They are lawyers and accountants etc with other jobs/cases.

What can be called into question is process. The PL and Masters should never, ever have included a recommendation for punishment in Masters' witness statement. In a legal/criminal court I'd imagine that could be even as far as in contempt of court. But they did have every right to make a submission as de facto 'prosecutor' for what a sentence may be. They shouldn't have done it in the way they did though so due process IMO wasn't followed.

 

[Goat]

Shocker...

We screwed around and we found out.

 

[Neiler]

The PL exec board royally messed up the first case but so did Everton.

Everton's defence in large parts was absolutely horrific. There were tons of holes in the PL's charges that even I could say were wrong - for example, the PL claimed, and Everton didn't argue strongly enough against it to sway the IC (who remember simply look at the 'facts of the case' presented to them and agreed upon by both sides at pre-trial hearings), that the Premier League was Everton's biggest market for selling players pre and during COVID.

That is demonstrably wrong. Everton sold more players to European teams, for more cash in total, than they did to Premier League sides during that time. Yes, they did sell to PL sides, but it was 2 players for big sums, and even those big sums did not add up to what they'd brought in from Europe.

That was a key argument for Everton, and it was lost because the PL put a top-class forensic accountant up against - I kid you not - a lecturer from the University of Liverpool.

But the PL's forensic accountant and Everton's (pretend) one, agreed that the PL were actually right, even though publicly available information says they weren't.

Everton also tried the stupid thing with Sigurdsson. Some of their defence/mitigation was horrific and deserved to be laughed out of court.

Some of it was valid and I hope they have done enough to sway the new IC in that direction.

The initial report is clunky and full of holes too. A lack of reasoning or calculation from the IC, basing their decisions on woolly precedents set by EFL cases.

Its peak knife to a gunfight Everton isn’t it mate.

While I have a lot of anger toward the PL, the thing that annoys me and I’ve said it a few times - is how arrogant we were around this process, expecting a finger wagging, my take is we never really took it seriously beyond the minimum.

You can see that in the second charge, we absolutkey thought we’d get away with the first and so the second would be irrelevent.

 

[GN!]

You can see that in the second charge, we absolutkey thought we’d get away with the first and so the second would be irrelevent.

Look running on the assumption that it was a genuine allocation or interpretation issue this is a great point.

We didn't find out our interpretation on addbacks was knocked back until after lodging the second set of books.

I think the biggest issue is that we should have ensured the addbacks were kosher with the league. I work in tax here in Australia and generally if we think there is a chance that a particular treatment is open to interpretation and a significant feature of the tax assessment, we would apply to the Australian Tax Office for what they call a private ruling.

Genuinely i believe that the mitigating factors we presented were in good faith and I do think the application of these rules have been tested for the first time and there is scope to assess the inefficiencies of the rules.

 

[Bwana]

Let's hope next week it's "turned out nice again mother."

Yes. It's certain that our situation is somewhat dark b/c PL makes it's decisions in the shadows. Those shadows make our Royal blue colour seem almost black.

Where are we sleeping tonight mother? On father's grave? We tried to hide but it claims us in the end! The gulls have plucked out my eyes!

 

[Bluerover]

Don't slag off Michael. The actor (Simon Greenall) is actually an Evertonian!!

There seem to be a lot of Blues from Cumbria. I remember meeting a load of them from Carlisle in the Winslow when I was over for a match in the 80s, and they were passionate Evertonians. They told me there were loads of Blues inCumbria.

 

[Exeter_Gently]

Eye Eye..all the Judge Judy's are out.

 

[Somerset Blue]

Yes. It's certain that our situation is somewhat dark b/c PL makes it's decisions in the shadows. Those shadows make our Royal blue colour seem almost black.

Where are we sleeping tonight mother? On father's grave? We tried to hide but it claims us in the end! The gulls have plucked out my eyes!

Yes, that character sums up being an Evertonian! They’re destroying our club!

 

[navidson]

Get on with it you administrative knobheads