Leeds, Leicester and the other small clubs.

[Tony’s Carp]

This is a really good thread on the compensation thing. Any team wishing to get compensation has to show causation ie without our overspend we’d have had fewer points and finished below them in the table, or even that individual matches would be different.

That’s almost impossible because there’s no conversion rate between spend and points, our own performance shows that but there are plenty of examples (Chelsea recently) with massive spends but declining points totals. Football is a game and you can’t invent alternative outcomes in a court or tribunal.

As this thread points out the justification for the severity of the punishment is that the specific advantage or harm “cannot be quantified”. In other words they cannot make a more specific or targeted punishment because they cannot say what would’ve happened but for our overspend.

So the punishment is severe BECAUSE they cannot specifically compensate others without knowing what would have happened so it has to be a more general punishment in the form of points. If that is the reason for the sanction it follows that they couldn’t follow that by awarding compensation they themselves say can’t be quantified.

 

[blueblueskies]

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.

The comment around the EPL doing a runner is completely wrong. Its their rules re compensation and no action is permitted in the Courts or by CAS

 

[JP5]

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

Er look at their departures for 22-23. They’ve hardly sold messi for £20m.

plus that is unquantifiable (and the committee rejected that kind of argument as a mitigating circumstance).

 

[RD2910]

This is a really good thread on the compensation thing. Any team wishing to get compensation has to show causation ie without our overspend we’d have had fewer points and finished below them in the table, or even that individual matches would be different.

That’s almost impossible because there’s no conversion rate between spend and points, our own performance shows that but there are plenty of examples (Chelsea recently) with massive spends but declining points totals. Football is a game and you can’t invent alternative outcomes in a court or tribunal.

As this thread points out the justification for the severity of the punishment is that the specific advantage or harm “cannot be quantified”. In other words they cannot make a more specific or targeted punishment because they cannot say what would’ve happened but for our overspend.

So the punishment is severe BECAUSE they cannot specifically compensate others without knowing what would have happened so it has to be a more general punishment in the form of points. If that is the reason for the sanction it follows that they couldn’t follow that by awarding compensation they themselves say can’t be quantified.

Makes complete sense. I can't see in any way how anyone is owed compensation because of this.

Going by the original punishment though, I expect they'll order us to give every other club £100m and order the new stadium to be dug up and shipped to Burnley.

 

[Simon Buttle]

 

[jonnyboy316]

This is a really good thread on the compensation thing. Any team wishing to get compensation has to show causation ie without our overspend we’d have had fewer points and finished below them in the table, or even that individual matches would be different.

That’s almost impossible because there’s no conversion rate between spend and points, our own performance shows that but there are plenty of examples (Chelsea recently) with massive spends but declining points totals. Football is a game and you can’t invent alternative outcomes in a court or tribunal.

As this thread points out the justification for the severity of the punishment is that the specific advantage or harm “cannot be quantified”. In other words they cannot make a more specific or targeted punishment because they cannot say what would’ve happened but for our overspend.

So the punishment is severe BECAUSE they cannot specifically compensate others without knowing what would have happened so it has to be a more general punishment in the form of points. If that is the reason for the sanction it follows that they couldn’t follow that by awarding compensation they themselves say can’t be quantified.

Interesting but by his own admission he is not a sports lawyer and is also an Evertonian

 

[Lob]

They got relegated because they were crap. Last time i checked it is 3 teams that get relegated and we were very close to being one of them twice on the run. Good luck trying to convince a court that that we gained a footballing advantage when it has already been stated and recorded there wasn't one.

Play better, don't get relegated, don't blame others for your own crapness, simple innit.

 

[Bebeto]

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.

Plus the precedent this would create if one of those 3 clubs gets compensation from us, it opens the door to many clubs entitled to compensation from city if they end up relegated at some point in the future...its in the league best interest to keep this as it is if not they will destroy the league and we will end up with cases after cases...

 

[Tony’s Carp]

He’s right in the sense that only one team can win relegation compensation. Hence the 300m headlines are false. As many teams as want to can try though.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Plus the precedent this would create if one of those 3 clubs gets compensation from us, it opens the door to many clubs entitled to compensation from city if they end up relegated at some point in the future...its in the league best interest to keep this as it is if not they will destroy the league and we will end up with cases after cases...

Exactly. Say we have to pay Leicester compo. Forest finished one place above us and it’s very possible they will have their own ffp issues the way they have spent. If they get hit for it can we then sue them for the compensation we gave Leicester because we might’ve finished above Forest? Once you get into writing alternative timelines of sporting outcomes how do you stop?

 

[mahermi1]

Exactly. Say we have to pay Leicester compo. Forest finished one place above us and it’s very possible they will have their own ffp issues the way they have spent. If they get hit for it can we then sue them for the compensation we gave Leicester because we might’ve finished above Forest? Once you get into writing alternative timelines of sporting outcomes how do you stop?

Fair point and if say City and Chelsea or anyone else gets a points deduction for a breach, will these same clubs be chasing them, because I'm quite sure the likes of City/ Chelsea, will have taken far more points off Leicester/ Leeds and Co over that period than us.

 

[Simon Buttle]

Fair point and if say City and Chelsea or anyone else gets a points deduction for a breach, will these same clubs be chasing them, because I'm quite sure the likes of City/ Chelsea, will have taken far more points off Leicester/ Leeds and Co over that period than us.

Can you imagine, the RS fans will be marching on parade across Europe all the way from Norway down to the PL offices to demand some sort of ludicrous compensation payout.

 

[Ruairi77]

Exactly. Say we have to pay Leicester compo. Forest finished one place above us and it’s very possible they will have their own ffp issues the way they have spent. If they get hit for it can we then sue them for the compensation we gave Leicester because we might’ve finished above Forest? Once you get into writing alternative timelines of sporting outcomes how do you stop?

And what precedent does it set for clubs missing out on CL because of city

 

[Drico]

Interesting but by his own admission he is not a sports lawyer and is also an Evertonian

True, but he will understand law. Even if sports lawyers could get us to a situation where we would have to pay compensation, I'm pretty certain the Premier League would put a halt to that because the Pandora's box it opens would mean practically every club in the league over the last decade would have a compensation claim against another if City or Chelsea are ever found guilty. Titles, Champions League places, league position prize money, relegation and promotion would all be impacted in a cascading collapse of the game. I can't see that happening.

The case Burnley might have - and it has largely been debunked by the Evertonian lawyer - is that they might have stayed up if we got done for 10 points the season they went down. But even putting the lawyer's debunking aside, that case would surely be against the Premier League - not Everton. Especially as we "worked with the Premier League" throughout that time.

There's a lot of hot air at the moment - a lot of kicking Everton while we are down and prognosticating about the "implications" for City and Chelsea - but it's mainly clickbait during an international window.

One thing I would say is that match at Turf Moor in December is now a must-win for us. Let's ensure we are powering out of the bottom three by then (given the tough enough fixtures before and the fact we play City and Spurs just after).

Dogs of War time!

 

[Tony’s Carp]

And what precedent does it set for clubs missing out on CL because of city

Yeah. Points deductions is already a can of worms but allow enormous compensation claims to fly about on the basis of hypothetical “but for” scenarios and eventually the whole game is tied in knots. You can punish clubs, do it severely if you want, but start rewriting history and it never ends. Ultimately you have to stick with what happened on the pitch because anything else is pure guesswork.