Leeds, Leicester and the other small clubs.

[Simon Buttle]

If they do sue, surely only one team gets paid out.

They couldn’t have all stayed up we can only occupy one space in the league and it can only be for one season.

Can’t say that 6 clubs would have stayed up or 6 went down because of us

Surely given it's a legal case they would look at everything and that includes team form, the likes of Leeds for example were well out of it anyway and were already long gone, they had had a shocker.

 

[Blue peter]

Can't we sue some of the clubs we bought awful players from?

Oh deary me….it’s going to turn into sue-nami

 

[Blue peter]

Leeds are up there with Geordies. Avoid them at all costs on holiday.

That’s a bit difficult, I go on holiday to Leeds

 

[BullensRoad]

Why are these clubs suing us? It's not our fault this ridiculous points deduction is this season and not last season. It's down to the PL.

Because they're owned by sociopaths.

 

[Quadvod]

If city and chelsea get done they can compensate us for the seasons we finished 5th and missed out on champions league revenues. Would never end!

 

[brieverton]

Still waiting for our Heysel compensation money here.

 

[yakublue]

If city and chelsea get done they can compensate us for the seasons we finished 5th and missed out on champions league revenues. Would never end!

This is why it can't make any sense for them to be able to sue. Where would you draw the line?

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Also teams we beat could say “well Everton beat us which stopped us getting a europa spot”

Exactly and the moment you start to allow courts and tribunals to start altering sporting results and create alternative timelines it would never end. That's not what they're there to do.

For example: a tribunal might say that without our spend we'd have gone down instead of Burnley in 21/22, so we have to give Burnley compensation. But then that means Leicester can't claim compensation as we wouldn't have been in the division in 22/23. But then Leicester might claim that had Burnley been in the division instead of us then they'd have finished ahead of Burnley. But then we'd say fine, but if Burnley go down in 22/23 instead how can we owe them compensation as they'd have lost that income a year later anyway. Do you end up with Burnley suing Leicester over which of them would've stayed up in 22/23? Do Leeds steam in and argue they'd have somehow stayed up ahead of both? The whole situation would be a total farce.

 

[Ozwell]

Exactly and the moment you start to allow courts and tribunals to start altering sporting results and create alternative timelines it would never end. That's not what they're there to do.

For example: a tribunal might say that without our spend we'd have gone down instead of Burnley in 21/22, so we have to give Burnley compensation. But then that means Leicester can't claim compensation as we wouldn't have been in the division in 22/23. But then Leicester might claim that had Burnley been in the division instead of us then they'd have finished ahead of Burnley. But then we'd say fine, but if Burnley go down in 22/23 instead how can we owe them compensation as they'd have lost that income a year later anyway. Do you end up with Burnley suing Leicester over which of them would've stayed up in 22/23? Do Leeds steam in and argue they'd have somehow stayed up ahead of both? The whole situation would be a total farce.

Equally we could say the like of Bournemouth and forest breached EFL rules to get to the premiership and we would potentially win more games and finished higher up the league. It all pure conjecture. It is a farcical state of affairs, like you say.

 

[brieverton]

If it can go against us, it probably will.
That's the lesson to be taken.
We are the prime target, with bullets in our back now.

 

[Tipp blue]

Exactly and the moment you start to allow courts and tribunals to start altering sporting results and create alternative timelines it would never end. That's not what they're there to do.

For example: a tribunal might say that without our spend we'd have gone down instead of Burnley in 21/22, so we have to give Burnley compensation. But then that means Leicester can't claim compensation as we wouldn't have been in the division in 22/23. But then Leicester might claim that had Burnley been in the division instead of us then they'd have finished ahead of Burnley. But then we'd say fine, but if Burnley go down in 22/23 instead how can we owe them compensation as they'd have lost that income a year later anyway. Do you end up with Burnley suing Leicester over which of them would've stayed up in 22/23? Do Leeds steam in and argue they'd have somehow stayed up ahead of both? The whole situation would be a total farce.

Beginning to sound like an Avengers plot.

 

[efcfanwirral]

The biggest concern here is whether its another independent commission like the Mail article suggests. That doesn't seem fair considering it's a decision that could lead to the club going out of business entirely

 

[tommytowne]

Can't sue other clubs, surely.

Why sue anyone who hasn't got the money to pay out?

 

[jinkyali]

I don't think clubs will ultimately sue each other as it is too greater risk to the rule of 14 getting things thru.

 

[Kraken]

It’s madness! If 3 clubs can sue Everton, then every club in the premier league can.

Then 19 other clubs can sue Chelsea and man city if they are found guilty.

Then every club who lost a cup game to Everton Chelsea and man city can sue too.

Then every club who played city or Chelsea in Europe can sue them aswell.

The fact is the findings say Everton got no sporting advantage immediately ends the chance of any case to be answered to the relegated clubs.

Chelsea and Man City though, they 100% got a sporting advantage.
If 1 ffp breach/case = 10 points, then 115 = 1150 points and they gained a sporting advantage, meaning every club Man City played were cheated against and lost out financially. They should be finished professionally and financially.