Everton

[Vegas Claret]

5 clubs including us threatening to sue them if they are found guilty of breaching the spending rules
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... osses.html

[dsr]

I don't see what Burnley can sue them for. Proving that we are worse off now than if we had stopped up is going to be difficult. Proving loss by being forced to repay a loan is going to be impossible, because we have saved interest and still done literally as well as possible without that cash. (And the loan was taken by the new owners to pay the old owners, so isn't related to relegation anyway.)

It would be good if Everton stopped up (sending Leeds down) and then got hit by a points deduction plus hundreds of millions in damages. I would like to watch that.

[Vegas Claret]

I don't see what Burnley can sue them for. Proving that we are worse off now than if we had stopped up is going to be difficult. Proving loss by being forced to repay a loan is going to be impossible, because we have saved interest and still done literally as well as possible without that cash. (And the loan was taken by the new owners to pay the old owners, so isn't related to relegation anyway.)

It would be good if Everton stopped up (sending Leeds down) and then got hit by a points deduction plus hundreds of millions in damages. I would like to watch that.

I'm pretty darn sure we've taken legal advice on this, if the story is true there would be no benefit to "ah lets just have a go lads" - there will be a confidence otherwise we (and others) wouldn't be doing it

[dsr]

I'm pretty darn sure we've taken legal advice on this, if the story is true there would be no benefit to "ah lets just have a go lads" - there will be a confidence otherwise we (and others) wouldn't be doing it

Tan has taken legal advice on Cardiff's pursuit of everyone who ever met Sala. It doesn't mean there is merit in the case.

The point I'm making is that to successfully sue for damages, you have to prove what the damage was. It is hard, when you are in a better position now than before the alleged tort, to prove that you have been damaged.

[Here's-Johnny]

Naming and shaming em is a start.

[Sproggy]

We lost a year's worth of Prem TV money because Everton cheated. Just because VK has worked miracles with what was left after relegation is irrelevant.

[dougcollins]

Will it be affected if Everton go down this time?

[Vegas Claret]

Tan has taken legal advice on Cardiff's pursuit of everyone who ever met Sala. It doesn't mean there is merit in the case.

The point I'm making is that to successfully sue for damages, you have to prove what the damage was. It is hard, when you are in a better position now than before the alleged tort, to prove that you have been damaged.

absolutely and I get your point 100%, I just be staggered if they can't prove that losing 100 million (random made up example figure) was an issue !

[Sproggy]

The article is a bit vague (it is from the Mail...) but it looks like 4 clubs will sue - the 3 relegated this year plus us - but only if Everton stay up.

[arise_sir_charge]

Surely it’s a straightforward case of lost tv income.
Anything that followed this season for us is irrelevant.

[TheFamilyCat]

Tan has taken legal advice on Cardiff's pursuit of everyone who ever met Sala. It doesn't mean there is merit in the case.

The point I'm making is that to successfully sue for damages, you have to prove what the damage was. It is hard, when you are in a better position now than before the alleged tort, to prove that you have been damaged.

Maybe we should be paying them for doing us a favour?

[ClaretPete001]

Tan has taken legal advice on Cardiff's pursuit of everyone who ever met Sala. It doesn't mean there is merit in the case.

The point I'm making is that to successfully sue for damages, you have to prove what the damage was. It is hard, when you are in a better position now than before the alleged tort, to prove that you have been damaged.

How are we in a better position? We lost £40 - £50 million in cash and are in the EFL Championship after losing £70 million worth of talent.

That Burnley fans enjoyed finger wagging at Rotherham United away fans more than getting mauled by Man City is not objective or financial reality as far as I can see.

[4midable]

Hope they go down
Financial ruin

[Hipper]

Surely it’s a straightforward case of lost tv income.
Anything that followed this season for us is irrelevant.

Would a claim be based simply on lost income or actual profit? We surely didn't spend anywhere as much this season?

We apparently made an £11 million operating profit in the relegation season. Will we make an operating profit or loss this season?

Or could a claim be based on status and other intangibles such as player opportunities - someone like Connor Roberts not progressed as well in his career because of playing at a lower level perhaps making his saleable value less?

[ClaretLoup]

I'm pretty darn sure we've taken legal advice on this, if the story is true there would be no benefit to "ah lets just have a go lads" - there will be a confidence otherwise we (and others) wouldn't be doing it

Vegas, lawyers like court cases, as even if they lose they still make money even if it is the equivalent of shooting from 25 yards.

[beddie]

Burnley have bounced back to the Premier League immediately but remain bitter about going down last year.

As well as losing TV revenue, the club suffered an additional financial penalty, with relegation triggering an early-repayment clause in a £65m loan from MSD Capital.

[ClaretPete001]

Would a claim be based simply on lost income or actual profit? We surely didn't spend anywhere as much this season?

We apparently made an £11 million operating profit in the relegation season. Will we make an operating profit or loss this season?

Or could a claim be based on status and other intangibles such as player opportunities - someone like Connor Roberts not progressed as well in his career because of playing at a lower level perhaps making his saleable value less?

It can't be based on operating profit ... Everton aren't responsible for how much we spend on stationery.

There is clear loss of TV revenue leading to players sales and issues with other commercial contracts etc, which are linked to relegation.

Nor are Everton responsible for appointing VK. If we had appointed Chris Wilder and had to fire him, subsequently failing to gain promotion we would have been in a situation with huge debt and MSD able to claim three quarters of the parachute money.

[martin_p]

It can't be based on operating profit ... Everton aren't responsible for how much we spend on stationery.

Well, apart from the cost of all those letters we write complaining about them.

[Cirrus_Minor]

I think there is a good case for the Premier league to impose penalties on Everton but I am not sure how the benefit of cheating on this can be actually proved in a court of law to have negatively affected Burnley, or any of the other clubs quoted.

[RVclaret]

Why isn’t the suing aimed at the PL for failing to regulate their member club rather than the club itself?

[Colburn_Claret]

Surely it’s a straightforward case of lost tv income.
Anything that followed this season for us is irrelevant.

Proving a case isn't too difficult, a court is going to be far more open minded to any claims than the biased, blinkered EPL.
If it achieves nothing else other than force the EPL to enforce their own rules, it will have been worth it. They have, and continue to bend over backwards to protect clubs like Everton. The Brand, outweighing what is right.
Linking the Prem to any claim is a clever move, especially as Everton can't pay their debts, never mind any fine. Making the EPL culpable is the surest way of preventing it happening again.

[Lancasterclaret]

Anyone see this being settled quickly?

I don't see how we'd not win if Everton are proven to have broken FPL rules, but I can't see Everton not fighting it

Could be years

[Quickenthetempo]

Punishment should come from the league.

If you start suing clubs who have advantages, it just becomes a legal minefield rather than about football.

Do you sue the referees group for any bad decisions?

[Dark Cloud]

Punishment should come from the league.

If you start suing clubs who have advantages, it just becomes a legal minefield rather than about football.

Do you sue the referees group for any bad decisions?

I tend to agree with this. Clubs who break the rules are punished by the league (in theory, unless you're Man City?) Without checking I'm not certain what Reading's sins were, but if they'd stayed up or if their transgressions went back a couple of seasons or more, would there be a queue of Championship clubs trying to sue them? It doesn't happen.

[nil_desperandum]

Surely it’s a straightforward case of lost tv income.
Anything that followed this season for us is irrelevant.

Didn't we also lose our Academy status, which could be considered a significant tangible long term loss?

[Big Vinny K]

Everton’s Covid defence was ridiculous.
The amounts they claimed Covid cost them were completely out of line with their own turnover and with every other club in terms of impact.

This has now been proven that they were fabricating the impact but yet the authorities still fail to punish them. Even if they eventually do when was the last time a Premier League club faced a points deduction ?

Compare this to what happens in the football league where every single season multiple teams are deducted points for financial breaches. Clubs like Everton (and Man City etc) face nothing for breaches of hundreds of millions of pounds whilst the far poorer football in the football league will often be demoted for breaches for a fraction of this.

And in the football league the punishments happen quickly whilst the Premier League they seem to go on for years to the extent the clubs can often be in a completely different financial position or have been taken over. If Everton stay up - then move into the new ground and double their capacity by the time they get fined (they won’t get points deducted) they could easily be pulling in an extra £30m a year in match day revenue. It’s almost like the league are waiting till they are in a better financial position before their token gesture punishment

[Guppyspotter]

Proving our losses will be impossible. The value of beating them lot twice and winning the league at theirs is priceless.

[martin_p]

Proving our losses will be impossible. The value of beating them lot twice and winning the league at theirs is priceless.

Why will it be impossible? Surely it’s just guaranteed minimum income from the Premier League - guaranteed minimum income from being a just relegated team in the Championship?

[dsr]

Why will it be impossible? Surely it’s just guaranteed minimum income from the Premier League - guaranteed minimum income from being a just relegated team in the Championship?

They take expenses into account as well. Damages recovery, same whether it's by insurance or by civil court action, is based on gross profit not pure income, so they would look at the expected costs (ie. wages) that we didn't incur.

[daveisaclaret]

Everton have very clearly broken the rules but it'd be interesting to know, if this is true, what has changed since last summer when the Premier League gave us "assurances" that made us drop the suggested legal action. If they've cheated more this season it doesn't really have anything to do with us.

[Rick_Muller]

Our complaint and subsequent request for any monies from this are clearly exaggerated as an opening gambit. Of course we lost out because of this, so we’re opening with £100M, what will likely happen is we’d accept much less and that’s how it will be resolved from a club perspective. The league though may well punish them severely and that would be deserved.

[aggi]

Would a claim be based simply on lost income or actual profit? We surely didn't spend anywhere as much this season?

We apparently made an £11 million operating profit in the relegation season. Will we make an operating profit or loss this season?

Or could a claim be based on status and other intangibles such as player opportunities - someone like Connor Roberts not progressed as well in his career because of playing at a lower level perhaps making his saleable value less?

At one point I was doing a lot of consequential loss claims for people who were tied into dodgy interest rate swaps when they took out a commercial loan or had tenancy agreements breached and similar.

What we did there was prepare alternative scenarios for what could have happened if they had been able to spend that money on the business rather than service the swaps/stay in the property they were using.

In our case it would be a scenario of staying up, I would suspect still unloading high earners but for higher transfer fees (as less necessary to sell), pointing at our championship performance for an indicator of how well we'd do this year (maybe 10th or something) and the TV money we'd lost out on, but coupled with lower wages from a clear out, and the profit we may have made.

[gtclaret]

It's not just TV losses, it's net losses. So for example, we didn't have to pay bonuses due for staying up. This figure would be deducted from the TV revenue we lost

[martin_p]

It's not just TV losses, it's net losses. So for example, we didn't have to pay bonuses due for staying up. This figure would be deducted from the TV revenue we lost

But will that be offset by the bonuses we’ll be no doubt paying for getting promoted?

[Woodleyclaret]

Everton have as much chance of getting punished for their rule breaking as Ivan Toney

[Claret53]

The measure of damages is to put the victim in the same position as if the action complained of (whether tort or breach of contract) had not taken place.
Thus, the examination will be of the net loss. That may be complicated to quantify, but it should be do-able by a decent accountant.
Any breach of the rules this season would be irrelevant to a claim by Burnley.
The question for the Court would be whether a breach of the league rules is actionable, or merely a matter for the League disciplinary procedure. In terms of causation, could it be shown, for example, that the extra expenditure was the cause of Everton staying up? That might be quite difficult to prove.
What is a shocker is that it takes the PL so long to deal with these matters. They obviously see a merit in delay as it avoids difficult questions. The EFL is more robust.

[No Ney Never]

It would be better for us that Everton stay up and are next season, punished with a points deduction. I recommend a minimum of 12.

[Vegas Claret]

Vegas, lawyers like court cases, as even if they lose they still make money even if it is the equivalent of shooting from 25 yards.

obviously, but like others have mentioned it's pretty factual we have missed out on a wedge of cash by being relegated at the expense of a team that allegedly cheated the system, shouldn't be hard to prove if we go down that line. It's a sad state of affairs either way

[CrosspoolClarets]

A few of us have said it already above but the key is to separate the event itself from everything else, if BFC mitigate that event by clever moves subsequently that doesn’t diminish the consequential loss from the event itself, e.g. somebody is conned, but on losing their savings they then go out and seek more work to put food on the table, ending up better off, that doesn’t remove the loss from the con itself.

So when we factor in the TV income drop, the penalty from the loan, the “fire sale” of players at a cheaper price, lost commercial income, and in general having worse players to compete next year than we would have if VK had strengthened as a PL side, the risk of relegation due to that and the lower ceiling for future player sale profits (logically he would have attracted even better players had we stayed up) - that could be argued to add up to a lot of money.

I would guess somewhere in the £50m-£100m mark.

So given that we are run by some ex bankers, I’d be amazed if they let that kind of thing drop. An out of court settlement for a lower value could pay for an entire new stand for example to up the capacity to 25,000, in that it would be fortuitous income and maybe the best way to grow the club in ways that would have seemed unaffordable before.

Finally, even if the PL finds Everton not at fault, it doesn’t mean a court would agree on the balance of probabilities. It may not end in the summer.

[Jakubclaret]

If dyche keeps everton up they'll just say we contributed to our downfall by making the wrong sort of decisions.

[evensteadiereddie]

Unlikely.

[Jakubclaret]

Why it's a valid argument especially if he keeps everton up he succeeded somewhere else & it's unproven he couldn't have done the same here with 100% certainty, that's the first line of defence Everton will be deploying.

[Big Vinny K]

Whether Dyche keeps Everton up or not is completely irrelevant to Burnley.
Everton broke the rules before SD arrived.
They blamed it on COVID but it’s clear that was just a fabrication in terms of the extent it impacted their finances.

[Jakubclaret]

It's very relevant it demonstrates his ability & the potential that our outcome could have been far different, it's something everton will use against us arguing that the decision to part company with dyche was instrumental in our relegation & not them breaking the rules.

[equinox]

They're even sh1t at cheating.

[martin_p]

It's very relevant it demonstrates his ability & the potential that our outcome could have been far different, it's something everton will use against us arguing that the decision to part company with dyche was instrumental in our relegation & not them breaking the rules.

I pretty much guarantee they won’t use that.

[Jakubclaret]

I pretty much guarantee they won’t use that.

No doubt we will see in time if a claim is raised never mind challenged.

[TheFamilyCat]

I can see this one going to the public vote for Everton's punishment.

[Cleveleys_claret]

It's very relevant it demonstrates his ability & the potential that our outcome could have been far different, it's something everton will use against us arguing that the decision to part company with dyche was instrumental in our relegation & not them breaking the rules.

Are you actually serious?

How can you even compare the two, a whole set of different players

I think you need give your head a wobble if you seriously believe what you are saying

[Big Vinny K]

Everton defence lawyer “Mr Dyche kept Everton up which proves beyond doubt he would have kept Burnley up”

Judge Pickles “But Everton have overspent by hundreds of millions of pounds whereas Mr Dyche was allowed to spend 250 quid on Dale Stephens”

Everton lawyer “oh yep sorry I forgot about that - can you give me 15 minutes please to think of something else”