Just wondering whether this may effect the outcome of the decision in the case with Burnley, not sure whether it’s a private civil suite or done other form of sports arbitration hearing.
Chelsea’s sanction and the inconsistency of it with ours surely shows that a points deduction was not appropriate in our case which in turn effects Burnley’s case that it should have been applied in the season they went down. Not only were we doubly punished at the time, we will have potentially been triple punished given Burnley’s follow up action, if found guilty.
I’d imagine Everton are trying to review exactly that. Given that our case concluded sporting sanctions were appropriate and the unprecedented step of allowing another club to sue us (contrary to PL rules), I imagine we’re trying to drive a bus through the judgement and inequality in the rules
A lot of people are shouting “self referral” and “compliance” on Chelsea’s part, however that’s the bare minimum. If they hadn’t disclosed it, they’re on the wrong side of law when it comes to an acquisition of a business and their duties of directors.
This idea that they’re some sort of separate ownership group too also doesn’t stand. It’s the same football club, a continuing trading entity etc. They’ve been massively helped out here by a flawed system and inadequate rules, which I’m pretty sure Everton will try and prove
www.bbc.com
