Leeds, Leicester and the other small clubs.

[ClausThomsen]

It’s complete whataboutism and has no grounds to stand up in court.

I’d laugh about it, but after the ten point deduction for 19.5m and being honest and open throughout the process who knows what might happen.

Is there an issue that Everton said they were being honest and open but a bit further down the line it turned out they weren't being entirely honest and open? Or possible that more than 10 points would have been deducted if Everton weren't being honest or open.

It's hard to say as until further judgements are made we've little to compare it to. Previous punishments were many years ago and things can change over that time. Until the Citeh and Chelski cases are resolved the points deduction we received currently stands as a precedent for others rather than something we can shout whataboutery at.

 

[Shibbywiggles]

Is there an issue that Everton said they were being honest and open but a bit further down the line it turned out they weren't being entirely honest and open? Or possible that more than 10 points would have been deducted if Everton weren't being honest or open.

It's hard to say as until further judgements are made we've little to compare it to. Previous punishments were many years ago and things can change over that time. Until the Citeh and Chelski cases are resolved the points deduction we received currently stands as a precedent for others rather than something we can shout whataboutery at.

My understanding is that we were completely honest and open but they didn’t like our writing off of some fees

 

[hallamblue]

My understanding is that we were completely honest and open but they didn’t like our writing off of some fees

I think they're miffed as we were warned we were sailing close to the wind and still went over. I understand the Premier League being annoyed with us, but that doesn't justify the severity of the penalty.

 

[peteblue]

Leicesters argument will be that if we should have been related the year before… we wouldn’t have been in the league when they got put down and a weaker, newly promoted team would have been there instead

Or they could say that they had a penalty to win the game against Everton at Leicesters ground and Maddison kicked it straight to Jordan Pickford who didn’t even move and the game was drawn…it was their own fault and no amount of crying will change that…they should sue Maddison……

 

[cantlivewithem]

Leicesters argument will be that if we should have been related the year before… we wouldn’t have been in the league when they got put down and a weaker, newly promoted team would have been there instead

No It would mean that burnley were there instead of us. The same teams promoted would still have been Forest, Bournemouth and Fulham. Leicester would have to argue that Burnley would have got relegated last season instead of Leicester which negates Burnleys claim that they lost money as they would be in the championship this season instead of last season, so they would have been no worse of financially

 

[Tel001]

But where do you draw the line? I work in Claims, and there is a principal called remoteness of loss…basically, the loss has to be fairly close in proximity to the actual event which has created some loss….otherwise the chain effect would be endless.

I agree , and this is where the 3 year rolling period thing comes into play.

Which season did we lose the most money or actually breach the rule?

Is it in year 3 ? Was that the year they went down?

If so then burnley can’t claim etc