Initial 10, then reduced to 6 + 2 Point Deductions

[DOMNOLAN]

We'll go to the arbitration thing, we'll agree an undisclosed settlement and that'll be that. If that's what it takes to draw a line under all this nonsense, then so be it. As unedifying as that might be.

It won’t be the end. We have to draw our own line under it.

 

[Lanolin]

We are talking millions, tens of millions here, it just cant be circumstantial there needs to be proof that we actually caused what they are accusing us of causing. If they cant prove what they are accusing us of then it will be thrown out.

I doubt it’s that simple. As I said to you earlier, Sheffield United could not prove that West Ham stayed up solely because of tevez, it’s simply not possible to do. West Ham could of course argue that they wouldn’t have been playing with 10 men and there’s absolutely no way of knowing what results they’d have got with somebody else in place of him but they still ended up paying the money didn’t they? There’s clearly no way of definitively proving what advantage - if any - we gained from our breach, but you’d have to assume they and their lawyers aren’t completely stupid and are aware of that I think. It would be a little strange to think we have a better understanding of what their chances than they do you’d have to say.

I mean if it was me I’d be saying if ‘player b’ was branthwaite and the figures people have quoted about the difference in the points we accrue when he’s playing compared to when Keane is are true then there’s a reasonable shout that our decision not to sell him could have been the difference between us staying up and going down, but again, I’m not one of the country’s top QCs or a judge so who knows.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Why couldn't this burnley stuff have turned up over the international break last week? It would have displaced the toe-curling boredom of fantasy transfers and fantasy Moyes replacements quite handy.

 

[Moomin]

We were shafted and treated disproportionately to the apparent offence and any one can see it.

Turning a blind eye is what they have done to Man City and Chelsea.

How were we shafted? we clearly broke the rules and even admitted it.

The treated disproportionatelty we can argue with the premier league about.

No blind eye has been done with Man City, they have unlimited funds and are spending a fortune to prolong the case because they can afford to do it with a massive team of legal experts.

 

[catcherintherye]

No I don’t think this is their argument, that strand of the conversation had gone off slightly to cover the idea that we weren’t necessarily the innocent victims of a witch hunt.

I think you’re slightly off on the ‘no quantifiable benefit’ thing. What the commission said was effectively that it was reasonable to assume we had gained a sporting advantage but there was no way of knowing exactly what that advantage would equate to. On that basis Burnley could obviously argue that any advantage at all gained due to breaking the rules was detrimental to them, they don’t necessarily have to ‘prove’ the unprovable, just introduce the idea that they were disadvantaged by our actions - they aren’t trying to have the positions officially reversed, just be compensated for their perceived losses.

As with the original case, it seems like a load of people with absolutely no knowledge or understanding of how cases like this work are confidently stating ‘this should be thrown out’ or ‘their case is clearly against the PL’ while people who do are taking it quite seriously. I have no idea of the ins and outs of it but the fact it’s got this far suggests it’s got a lot more merit as a case than some people think.

I agree with most of that. It may be that they launch a case against Everton to try and get a pay out out of court.

I do see your point with the sporting advantage, but it did say unquantifiable. That is difficult when your case is based around or being quantifiable, and having a distinctive value to attach to it.

Its not the be all and end all. A judge may take the view there is a quantifiable value and the commission are wrong. I'm not not sure how they can arrive at 4+ points for saying 19 million. It feels a bit out to me (it would be akin to saying our say 130m spend now would be worth 26 more points) but there's certainly a path to doing it.

On a subjective point, I think it would be truly ridiculous for courts to start determining how PL games may or may not have gone based on spending. But you can't rule anything out.

FWIW I think the PL made a huge mistake charging us, and it's partially why it's stopped happening, but that's another story.

 

[catcherintherye]

They do have to prove the unprovable, they simply cant just say "we were disadvantaged" how much they were disadvantaged by is highly important, to claim loss of earnings there needs to be proof positive that Everton's wrongdoing actually caused the loss of earnings, we might have stayed up doesn't cut it in court because that leaves the counter argument You might not have stayed up.

That is true. I mean it's debatable they were inconvenienced, but they could try to make that point.

They would have to prove this was caused by the breach, and it was so big it presumably caused them to get relegated.

Id assume it's logical to assume they got relegated because they weren't good enough and didn't get enough points.

 

[Tipp blue]

I doubt it’s that simple. As I said to you earlier, Sheffield United could not prove that West Ham stayed up solely because of tevez, it’s simply not possible to do. West Ham could of course argue that they wouldn’t have been playing with 10 men and there’s absolutely no way of knowing what results they’d have got with somebody else in place of him but they still ended up paying the money didn’t they? There’s clearly no way of definitively proving what advantage - if any - we gained from our breach, but you’d have to assume they and their lawyers aren’t completely stupid and are aware of that I think. It would be a little strange to think we have a better understanding of what their chances than they do you’d have to say.

I mean if it was me I’d be saying if ‘player b’ was branthwaite and the figures people have quoted about the difference in the points we accrue when he’s playing compared to when Keane is are true then there’s a reasonable shout that our decision not to sell him could have been the difference between us staying up and going down, but again, I’m not one of the country’s top QCs or a judge so who knows.

As far as I'm aware west ham handed over the money before going to court, "here take it and go away". There has to be proof for a court to convict..

 

[Iana]

The accounts for season 21-22 were only closed on June 22 after the season finished so a points deduction could not have been applied retrospectively after the season ended for the 3 year PSR threshold in question.

Everton believed they were compliant at that stage and could have sold more players alongside Richarlison by June 30th to stay within PSR limits if necessary.

It was only when the PL said the interest claims for the stadium loans were not eligible(due to our own incompetence in the paperwork) that Everton admitted they were in breach and this was after the end of the season 21/22.

The rejection of the mitigation around player X was also a contributory factor to the size of the points deduction.

Our KC must be able to point out how subsequent problems by other clubs have been treated to show that Everton were harshly treated and should never have been deducted 10 points before appeal(4 points reduced on appeal because we did act in good faith).

 

[catcherintherye]

I must say this Burnley stuff just shows how farcical the system is. How anyone can work out how many points Everton may have gained through signings is absolutely baffling. You just can't have something so subjective and flimsy being used to try gain multiple millions.

May as well bring back that octopus and get it to work out our advantage.

Its truly ludicrous, but you can't wholly rule out a court may do something daft.

Of course you can't state how many points 19m in transfers or wages would have. Its pure guess work. It may have even disadvantaged us. Such a range of possibilities.

 

[Lanolin]

As far as I'm aware west ham handed over the money before going to court, "here take it and go away". There has to be proof for a court to convict..

And they just did that for a laugh did they? They thought was no possible way they could lose the case because it couldn’t be proven, but they’d give Sheffield United £20m anyway, just to be nice? Interesting take.

 

[Nymzee]

Its truly ludicrous, but you can't wholly rule out a court may do something daft.

Of course you can't state how many points 19m in transfers or wages would have. Its pure guess work. It may have even disadvantaged us. Such a range of possibilities.

Oh I fully expect some idiot to say they’ve cracked it and we benefited by X points. They’re all dumb enough to try.

 

[catcherintherye]

And they just did that for a laugh did they? They thought was no possible way they could lose the case because it couldn’t be proven, but they’d give Sheffield United £20m anyway, just to be nice? Interesting take.

I wonder if they have brought it because they might be able to get a pay off at arbitration?

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

How were we shafted? we clearly broke the rules and even admitted it.

The treated disproportionatelty we can argue with the premier league about.

No blind eye has been done with Man City, they have unlimited funds and are spending a fortune to prolong the case because they can afford to do it with a massive team of legal experts.

The initial ten points deduction imposed was the highest in the history of the Premier League, even more than clubs who went into administration.

Nobody was even thinking about a single point being deducted at all let alone ten which sent shockwaves through the game not just in this country

If you can't see that as being shafted then god help your eyesight.

 

[catcherintherye]

Oh I fully expect some idiot to say they’ve cracked it and we benefited by X points. They’re all dumb enough to try.

I'm sure there will be a lot of idiots trying to do exactly that. But there's also an argument we may have got more points without Doucoure, or Allan, or Delph or whatever.

Or without having to pay interest on a stadium.

Its guesswork. Logically judgements shouldn't be made on guesswork.

 

[Tipp blue]

And they just did that for a laugh did they? They thought was no possible way they could lose the case because it couldn’t be proven, but they’d give Sheffield United £20m anyway, just to be nice? Interesting take.

It matters not.. it was still out of court, going to court requires proof, I don't know West Ham's reason for not pushing on, whatever it was it was their decision.. It didn't go to court so proof wasn't required either way.. This one is going to court so proof is required.