Leeds, Leicester and the other small clubs.

[Blue Smoke]

Leeds and Southampton were relegated no matter what happened to us. Had we had 10 points, 50 points or even thrown straight out of the league. They were going down anyway. Where and how exactly is this even getting a story? Only Leicester can feel hard done by.

 

[cantlivewithem]

Leeds and Southampton were relegated no matter what happened to us. Had we had 10 points, 50 points or even thrown straight out of the league. They were going down anyway. Where and how exactly is this even getting a story? Only Leicester can feel hard done by.

Its Burnley who have the case as last years figures having been taken into account yet, they don't get released until February. How Leeds and Leicester can argue that we have overspent before the rolling 3 years that include last season have been determined

 

[Blue Smoke]

The can of worms of allowing other clubs to sue each other is massive.

Let's say for example there is a season that City won the league, where they are found guilty of enough charges that they would have been relegated....presumably the third lowest team that got relegated that season could sue them for 100 million. Up to 19 teams that season would demand a million (roughly) each for lost league position payments. 5th placed team that season can sue for loss of champions league money and team that missed out on Europa placement could also ask for loss from European competition.??
If found guilty over all those years they are charged, their legal claims would be into the billions.

 

[formerly manx toffee]

I don’t think Leeds, Leicester and Soton are small clubs btw.

 

[witchdoc187]

I don’t think Leeds, Leicester and Soton are small clubs btw.

Yeah title should be changed. Disrespectful

 

[cantlivewithem]

These three clubs are all competing against each other

Burnley are going to argue that had we not cheated then we would have gone down instead of them in 21-22

Leicester by claiming regarding last season, will have to refute Burnley's claim to compensation by arguing that had Everton gone down instead of Burnley in 21-22 then Leicester would have been safe the following season in 22-23 as they would have finished 4th bottom as Burnley would have got relegated instead. Which means Burnley would have still only got two years premiership money out of three so therefore haven't lost out

Leeds are going to have refute both Burnley's and Leicester's claim by arguing had Everton got relegated in 21-22 instead of Burnley, Leeds would have taken 6pts off Burnley the following season instead of the two they took off Everton and as a result stayed up at the expense of Leicester and Burnley.

 

[pfim]

Its Burnley who have the case as last years figures having been taken into account yet, they don't get released until February. How Leeds and Leicester can argue that we have overspent before the rolling 3 years that include last season have been determined

They can try and argue that but there’s a defined testing period and Leeds suffered little to no loss during the end of the third year.

The question I think it which period is EFC liable for? The season when the supposed advantage was gained (Burnley) or the season when the sanctions could have reasonably been enforced (Leicester).

It’s why theirs open-ended punishment is so problematic.

 

[cantlivewithem]

They can try and argue that but there’s a defined testing period and Leeds suffered little to no loss during the end of the third year.

The question I think it which period is EFC liable for? The season when the supposed advantage was gained (Burnley) or the season when the sanctions could have reasonably been enforced (Leicester).

It’s why theirs open-ended punishment is so problematic.

But if its based on saying that the sanctions should have been forced last season then that is not Everton's responsibility.

 

[pfim]

But if its based on saying that the sanctions should have been forced last season then that is not Everton's responsibility.

Which is the issue. Leicester would be filing this in a completely different venue than the independent panel. The PL can’t backdate the punishment but a court definitely could.

The PL should have had contingencies for all of this but wanted to pass the buck.

 

[HowardsWay]

These three clubs are all competing against each other

Burnley are going to argue that had we not cheated then we would have gone down instead of them in 21-22

Leicester by claiming regarding last season, will have to refute Burnley's claim to compensation by arguing that had Everton gone down instead of Burnley in 21-22 then Leicester would have been safe the following season in 22-23 as they would have finished 4th bottom as Burnley would have got relegated instead. Which means Burnley would have still only got two years premiership money out of three so therefore haven't lost out

Leeds are going to have refute both Burnley's and Leicester's claim by arguing had Everton got relegated in 21-22 instead of Burnley, Leeds would have taken 6pts off Burnley the following season instead of the two they took off Everton and as a result stayed up at the expense of Leicester and Burnley.

I was speaking to a Leeds fan earlier today and he was quite adamant that if Everton hadn't received a sporting advantage by way of spending outside of the said limit, that the 4 pts we took off them last year wouldn't have happened and that we'd have gone down instead of them. Interesting perspective... my only answer was that if you couldn't beat a team as dog poo as ours, then you deserve to go down. Hard to argue a sporting advantage when the team is crap anyway.

 

[lieneverton]

Yeah title should be changed. Disrespectful

Agreed. We're rightly furious about things but proper lowering ourselves there.

 

[Dogmanpaul]

Leicester were fined by the EFL in 2013/14 season for being in breach of FFP. They were fined 3.1m, seems a bit sick that they are sueing us as they cheated to get into the Premier league in the first place. They overspent by 21m

 

[Tony’s Carp]

I was speaking to a Leeds fan earlier today and he was quite adamant that if Everton hadn't received a sporting advantage by way of spending outside of the said limit, that the 4 pts we took off them last year wouldn't have happened and that we'd have gone down instead of them. Interesting perspective... my only answer was that if you couldn't beat a team as dog poo as ours, then you deserve to go down. Hard to argue a sporting advantage when the team is crap anyway.

It’s a laughable claim because it’s based on the idea that but for our 19.5m overspend we’d have lost every single game. That’s the only way you can claim the four points we took off them would have been zero.

 

[AndyRJ]

It’s a laughable claim because it’s based on the idea that but for our 19.5m overspend we’d have lost every single game. That’s the only way you can claim the four points we took off them would have been zero.

There are numerous examples of teams spending big money in the transfer market and that not equating to results on the pitch. We're a prime example of that. If anything we were more competitive when we were broke under Moyes/ Kenwright so this whole idea that we'd have been relegated had we not overspent by £19.5m is absolutely absurd.

 

[HowardsWay]

There are numerous examples of teams spending big money in the transfer market and that not equating to results on the pitch. We're a prime example of that. If anything we were more competitive when we were broke under Moyes/ Kenwright so this whole idea that we'd have been relegated had we not overspent by £19.5m is absolutely absurd.

I agree... and you can look at the Chelsea example as being the classic case of absolutely absurd spending and then going backwards.