Leeds, Leicester and the other small clubs.

[Tony’s Carp]

So many papers trotting out this 300m number. Once again:

There may well be three clubs who claim compensation for their relegation. But these are COMPETING claims.

Compensation has to be based on an actual “but for” scenario and there is no realistic “but for” scenario where more than one relegated club stayed up. We could only occupy one slot.

So at MOST it’s one 100m claim that can realistically succeed. 3 claims for 100m does not equal 300m.

Three competing clubs sort of makes our point for us, that if there all sorts of alternative timelines presented, including one where it makes no difference and we stay up both seasons anyway, it’s impossible to say what WOULD have happened and therefore award any compensation at all.

 

[kenada_blue]

So many papers trotting out this 300m number. Once again:

There may well be three clubs who claim compensation for their relegation. But these are COMPETING claims.

Compensation has to be based on an actual “but for” scenario and there is no realistic “but for” scenario where more than one relegated club stayed up. We could only occupy one slot.

So at MOST it’s one 100m claim that can realistically succeed. 3 claims for 100m does not equal 300m.

Three competing clubs sort of makes our point for us, that if there all sorts of alternative timelines presented, including one where it makes no difference and we stay up both seasons anyway, it’s impossible to say what WOULD have happened and therefore award any compensation at all.

I don't see how you can claim compensation on hypotheticals.

I could've been in a car accident when I saw 2 cars crash. If I was 5 minutes earlier that could've been me it crashed into. I want compensating.

 

[Yarrgh]

Absolutely zero way to prove we'd have gone down before any of them..
Them: "Everton gained a sporting advantage and caused us to get relegated".
Everton "OK prove it"
Imigine bringing alternate timelines to a court.

M'lud, I call the first witness for the prosecution... the Alternative Premier League compiler for rsawk.com

Cheech, KC to Chairman Chong: we're f##£Ed man.

 

[Wat Tyler]

We are fooked

 

[irishtony1878]

What happened to they can only sue the Premier League, what happened overnight?

 

[jonnyboy316]

So many papers trotting out this 300m number. Once again:

There may well be three clubs who claim compensation for their relegation. But these are COMPETING claims.

Compensation has to be based on an actual “but for” scenario and there is no realistic “but for” scenario where more than one relegated club stayed up. We could only occupy one slot.

So at MOST it’s one 100m claim that can realistically succeed. 3 claims for 100m does not equal 300m.

Three competing clubs sort of makes our point for us, that if there all sorts of alternative timelines presented, including one where it makes no difference and we stay up both seasons anyway, it’s impossible to say what WOULD have happened and therefore award any compensation at all.

£100m or £300m it does not make much difference. Both would finish us

 

[jonnyboy316]

Realistically, only Burnley can have a strong case for compensation as the charge is from that season. The others can claim compensation from the PL for the deduction only taking place this season, but that was not down to us.

West Ham and Sheffield agreed 20m compensation when Sheffield got relegated so that is the precedence. That was 15m spread over 5 years and and extra 5m if the club was sold during that time. So 3m a year for 5 years.

That was 2007 so those numbers can’t be used as a precedent. If I recall the £20m was the cost of 1 year out the PL. this has now gone up several multiples

 

[Jamo Martinez]

Absolutely zero way to prove we'd have gone down before any of them..
Them: "Everton gained a sporting advantage and caused us to get relegated".
Everton "OK prove it"
Imigine bringing alternate timelines to a court.

''It's clear your honour, that without Neal Maupay's goals, Everton would have...... err, One moment your honour, we haven't thought this one through.''

 

[Marius57]

That was 2007 so those numbers can’t be used as a precedent. If I recall the £20m was the cost of 1 year out the PL. this has now gone up several multiples

That was the settlement they agreed on. Sheffield wanted £45m. West Ham suggest £5m. you can’t prove how much 1 year out of the PL is worth. And actually, parachute payments negate a lot of that anyway.

 

[Toffeelover]

What happened to they can only sue the Premier League, what happened overnight?

Think the PL are trying to keep their heads down to avoid having to pay out. So give these clubs permission to go after us.

 

[Neiler]

They wont get a penny out of this club. Hope they waste a fortune on legal fees.

Youd pity them, cringey behavior.

 

[cantlivewithem]

If Leicester City when leading 2-1 against Everton had not missed their penalty to go 3-1 up, on the balance of probabilities they would have won the game and stayed up. Leicester didn't miss the penalty because we overspent on our new stadium by 19.5 million.

There are 380 games played in the Premier League each season. They all influence each other and with things like var decisions, poor decisions, missed chances, bad passes, individual errors, injuries, suspensions and so on.

With all those possible connotations influencing the outcome of matches, to say this small overspend on the balance of probabilities affected the final league placings over all of those other factors is ludicrous.

 

[JP5]

£100m or £300m it does not make much difference. Both would finish us

£100m doesn’t make sense either.

Burnley’s total revenue for 21-22 was only £123m. The following season in the championship it was £80m.

£100m would imply that they expected revenues to go up to c£190m if they have stayed in the premier league for 22-23. That’s an increase of 55% yoy.

Which is highly unlikely imo.

 

[Kev The Rat]

They’ve literally been told by David Phillips KC (the chair of the commission) that they can apply for compensation as per rules within the PL. There is a report published by the PL about this decision around that dated 9th May.

I’m also taking my information from media outlets who have stated clubs cannot go the law courts or to CAS. For example: https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...e-came-to-its-decision?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The EPL have likely done a runner from this compensation issue and told the aggrieved 3 they’d be happy to let the courts deal with it.

In actual fact we’d likely get a fairer hearing in the law courts than the EPLs own panel, for reasons that aren’t hard to fathom.

 

[jonnyboy316]

£100m doesn’t make sense either.

Burnley’s total revenue for 21-22 was only £123m. The following season in the championship it was £80m.

£100m would imply that they expected revenues to go up to c£190m if they have stayed in the premier league for 22-23. That’s an increase of 55% yoy.

Which is highly unlikely imo.

If you had asked a Burnley fan at the start of the season most would have told you the reset they had through relegation a new young manager with a change of approach and turnover of the playing squad was best thing that could have happened to them. They have obviously had a bad start to the season.

It is not just about revenue they could argue they were forced to sell players below market value due to relegation for one