Everton compensation claim

[aggi]

Seems this is still ongoing judging by this headline on The Lawyer
https://www.thelawyer.com/the-hearing-s ... ley-claim/
I don't subscribe to it so no idea what the content is.

[NewClaret]

Update on this is that Laurence Rabinowitz KC will represent Everton in our claim for compensation and the trial will start by the summer.

Could be a lot riding on it from our perspective if not promoted.

My gut feel is it will settle before going to trial.

[Scampi]

Any idea who our barrister is?

[NewClaret]

Any idea who our barrister is?

May’ve got that wrong. Theirs may be Mark Howard.

No idea whose ours is. Think we hired a good one for the initial PSR claim if memory serves.

[Bigvince]

Any idea who our barrister is?

Apparently he’s from Cafe Nero

[TheFamilyCat]

Any idea who our barrister is?

Solly Ackwell.

[Claret Till I Die]

Any idea who our barrister is?

Cathy Pickup

[Claretnick]

I hope the board know what they are doing. The club could face huge legal costs, ours and Everton's, if we lose this claim....

[NewClaret]

I hope the board know what they are doing. The club could face huge legal costs, ours and Everton's, if we lose this claim....

Not sure that’s true (that we would also incur Everton’s). It will depend what the premier leagues rules are on claims for costs as they’re effectively governing this hearing themselves so it’s not via the normal legal system.

[bobinho]

Any idea who our barrister is?

Sir Hugh Massenburgh-Massenburgh. If he’s not available, then Lieutenant The Honourable George Colthurst St Barleigh will do the job.

[Swizzlestick]

pushpinpussy has been quiet...

[gawthorpe_view]

Any idea who our barrister is?

Lionel Hutz.

Probably.

[Ilkley claret]

Apparently he’s from Cafe Nero

Had to log on to laugh at this

[ArthurNohair]

Any idea who our barrister is?

Rowley Birkin QC

[ClaretTony]

Have we given up on going legal now on the Luton equaliser last year?

[NewClaret]

Have we given up on going legal now on the Luton equaliser last year?

I think that was dropped last week after we smashed 4 past them

[ClaretTony]

I think that was dropped last week after we smashed 4 past them

As much as we moan about poor referees and bad decisions, that was embarrassing.

[fidelcastro]

As much as we moan about poor referees and bad decisions, that was embarrassing.

Suing and legal action are very much part of American culture.

[martin_p]

As much as we moan about poor referees and bad decisions, that was embarrassing.

I’m glad we didn’t pursue that. However, I suspect it’s only a matter of time before a club does. The financial differential of success v failure is far too high in football, it’ll push a club to the desperate measure of legal action over an on field decision sooner or later.

[ClaretOfMancunia]

Good write up on WHY here https://stefanborson.substack.com/p/exp ... rton-to-be

[Row x]

I’m glad we didn’t pursue that. However, I suspect it’s only a matter of time before a club does. The financial differential of success v failure is far too high in football, it’ll push a club to the desperate measure of legal action over an on field decision sooner or later.

It was obviously said in the heat of the moment, I probably said a lot worse that night, along with many others
But I agree that when mega bucks are at stake, clubs will eventually go to extreme lengths in the future to protect those mega bucks.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Good write up on WHY here https://stefanborson.substack.com/p/exp ... rton-to-be

Outstanding write up and well worth reading. It is why I would always have taken the same action if I were our owners, and I said that at the time.

The one area I would differ is what he says about “the loss of a chance”, what some may refer to as opportunity cost albeit that is a financial not a legal term.

I would argue that it extends to further seasons, the yo yo effect that has resulted (by the trial we will know if we have yo yo’ed back again), the way the whole value of the club was affected and the way it affects risk of a permanent decline.

Of course for more speculative things a lower value would be assigned, so how Everton’s choices in 21/22 affect us in 2025 would have a lower number given to it. But the guy suggests something like £10m could be a realistic outcome. I would go higher for these reasons.

[bfcmik]

Have we given up on going legal now on the Luton equaliser last year?

I don't think there is a legal recourse re in-game decisions. I'm sure that in the FA laws of The Game there is a law specifically preventing clubs doing that - or, at least there used to be.

[aggi]

Outstanding write up and well worth reading. It is why I would always have taken the same action if I were our owners, and I said that at the time.

The one area I would differ is what he says about “the loss of a chance”, what some may refer to as opportunity cost albeit that is a financial not a legal term.

I would argue that it extends to further seasons, the yo yo effect that has resulted (by the trial we will know if we have yo yo’ed back again), the way the whole value of the club was affected and the way it affects risk of a permanent decline.

Of course for more speculative things a lower value would be assigned, so how Everton’s choices in 21/22 affect us in 2025 would have a lower number given to it. But the guy suggests something like £10m could be a realistic outcome. I would go higher for these reasons.

I'll occasionally do the numbers for "consequential loss" claims, where claimants were deprived of money that they would have invested in their businesses due to things such as interest rate swaps mis-selling.

The claim tries to set it back to what would have been the position if it hadn't happened. Obviously in this case it is pretty difficult with Burnley still being one of the favourites for relegation in 22/23 but I'd have been making the argument that an "established" seven season Premier League team is much more stable than a team that was turned into a yo-yo club through no fault of its own.

[NewClaret]

That’s a good write up. There are parts I disagree with, but won’t clog this thread up with those minor points.

Per Crosspool and aggi’s points, I think our claim will be astronomical in size and include the costs of the yo-yo effect felt when having to sell your best players and rebuild on demotion.

The “loss of a chance” rule, if applicable in a commission hearing, only strengthens our chances but I expect it’ll settle before it gets to the hearing.

[The Shire Claret]

Anything that gives us an advantage if we don't go up this season would be Grand

[dougcollins]

The EPL fought tooth and claw to keep media darlings Everton.

They'll be made to toss us a few quid and the status quo will prevail.

[Tricky Trevor]

In court today.

IMG_4815.jpeg (282.85 KiB) Viewed 8098 times

[mybloodisclaret]

Anyone have any updates on this? Weren't we supposed to be after about £40 mill in damages?

[NewClaret]

Anyone have any updates on this? Weren't we supposed to be after about £40 mill in damages?

The claim will be for a lot more than £40m. £100-£150m would be my guess.

We’ll claim for every conceivable cost associated with relegation, from the loss of TV money to the fees associated with squad turnover, we’ll probably argue players values decreased and there will be some hefty interest charges in there too to be ‘made whole’.

[bobinho]

Everton can go to the wall for me…

[NewClaret]

Anyone have any updates on this? Weren't we supposed to be after about £40 mill in damages?

Sorry, I only answered part of your question.

In answer to your other part, the update above is the update. There’s been a hearing today. This will be a pre-hearing hearing that sets the date and agrees the list of issues to be heard, etc. They suggest the full hearing is likely to happen in July. My bet is that it’ll settle some time very shortly before or even during the hearing.

[mybloodisclaret]

Sorry, I only answered part of your question.

In answer to your other part, the update above is the update. There’s been a hearing today. This will be a pre-hearing hearing that sets the date and agrees the list of issues to be heard, etc. They suggest the full hearing is likely to happen in July. My bet is that it’ll settle some time very shortly before or even during the hearing.

Thanks NewClaret. Would be absolutely amazing if we got anywhere near £100 mill. Wow, would give us a decent chance of complying with PSR and having a good tilt at the Prem next season.

[NewClaret]

Thanks NewClaret. Would be absolutely amazing if we got anywhere near £100 mill. Wow, would give us a decent chance of complying with PSR and having a good tilt at the Prem next season.

I don’t think we’ll get anywhere near what we claim for. It’s complete guesswork for us because this is all done behind closed doors but I’d say your £40m may be closer to the mark in terms of what is actually paid.

It’s complex, but there’s something in English law callex “loss of a chance” which in English might mean we only have to prove that they’re was a “chance” their PSR breaches caused our relegation. The hearing can then determine what that chance was, so say 40% of a £100m claim would be £40m.

But I think it’ll settle as Everton won’t want to run the risk our entire claim is successful, we won’t want to risk walking away with nothing if it fails, and I think the Premier League will want it sorting without any precedents being set!

[Tricky Trevor]

As usual in these cases if they make an offer that we refuse and the judges settlement figure is less than their offer we stand costs. I’m not sure if that is ours or both but somebody on here will. This rule has bankrupted many individuals in the past.

[NewClaret]

As usual in these cases if they make an offer that we refuse and the judges settlement figure is less than their offer we stand costs. I’m not sure if that is ours or both but somebody on here will. This rule has bankrupted many individuals in the past.

This isn’t a court, it’s a private hearing, so I’m pretty sure they won’t have powers to rule on costs unless the premier league rules cover this.

I’d be 99% sure both parties will cover their own costs regardless of the outcome.

[ecc]

£40m would come in handy.

[wilks_bfc]

Can a clause in the settlement include “will not bid for any Burnley players for next 5yrs”

[morninbob]

Let's not forget how much west ham payed Sheffield utd years ago.

[Fretters]

Let's not forget how much west ham payed Sheffield utd years ago.

How much was that?

[Inchy]

How much was that?

£20m according to the guardian

If we have a case you suspect it would be a bit more than that given the increase in premier league payments

[Hibsclaret]

20m

[Garnerssoap]

I don’t think we’ll get anywhere near what we claim for. It’s complete guesswork for us because this is all done behind closed doors but I’d say your £40m may be closer to the mark in terms of what is actually paid.

It’s complex, but there’s something in English law callex “loss of a chance” which in English might mean we only have to prove that they’re was a “chance” their PSR breaches caused our relegation. The hearing can then determine what that chance was, so say 40% of a £100m claim would be £40m.

But I think it’ll settle as Everton won’t want to run the risk our entire claim is successful, we won’t want to risk walking away with nothing if it fails, and I think the Premier League will want it sorting without any precedents being set!

There’s a snail in a ginger beer bottle that says different

[nig1954]

By heck, Donoghue v Stevenso (1932).That takes me back over 50 years to when I was studying Contract Law as part of my Foundation Course towards the ICAEW exams.
Mind you the World’s moved on a lot since then. However, the basic principles still stand.
Took me some time to master Obiter Dicta and Ratio Decidendi. The Good Old Days !

[IanMcL]

£40m would have to be justified, as we received Parachute payments. However, as there is clear loss of a place in the Prem table, that would be known amount. Also, assumption that we would have strengthened and retained our position next season. Difference between parachute and that position.

Destruction of squad and lost value.
World exposure/status greatly diminished. Loss of commercial growth.

Difficulty in establishing a team to compete, in rhe Prem, owing to the original squad decimated and ongoing financial rules.

That big loan, which had to be paid up, via new loan at higher interest. Other loans too.

Halt to progress in ground development, which Everton obviously gained from retaining their status.

Probably a million other things.

[NewClaret]

£40m would have to be justified, as we received Parachute payments. However, as there is clear loss of a place in the Prem table, that would be known amount. Also, assumption that we would have strengthened and retained our position next season. Difference between parachute and that position.

Destruction of squad and lost value.
World exposure/status greatly diminished. Loss of commercial growth.

Difficulty in establishing a team to compete, in rhe Prem, owing to the original squad decimated and ongoing financial rules.

That big loan, which had to be paid up, via new loan at higher interest. Other loans too.

Halt to progress in ground development, which Everton obviously gained from retaining their status.

Probably a million other things.

I’ve seen this posted elsewhere, so just picking this up as there seems to be a misconception that parachute payments cover TV money, which is not true. I think the deficit is £60m or so.

But you’re right that we won’t be able to claim for the total loss of TV revenue, just the delta to the parachute payments.

Then every other conceivable cost that resulted from relegation, from agent fees to financing charges will be pumped in. Imagine we’ll claim some costs from the second relegation too, although suspect they’ll be pre difficult to argue.

My view is it’ll settle, but if it doesn’t and we win (I think we stand a good chance because the hearing has already determined we have potential valid claims to compensation- it’d have said we didn’t otherwise), the hearing is going to have many days work dissecting our schedule of loss and deciding which are valid claims and which are not.

[Quickenthetempo]

If the opening post article is right, then Burnley would have to sue the Premier league as they set the rules. Or are we claiming Everton decided which season to take the points loss?
I can't see a court saying legal proceedings should happen far quicker either.
The only other sport I can think where punishment could be straightaway or afterwards is formula 1.
They get 5 second penalties, sometimes served at the pit stop and sometimes after the race.

Has any driver/team took legal action over punishments and what would benefit them?

[Quickenthetempo]

Another scenario thinking out loud.

What, if on Monday our best player elbowed a Sheff Utd player in the 6th minute but the ref didn't see it. Said player scores two goals and we win and get promoted.

After the game the fa charge our player with violent conduct and ban him for 3 games.

Sheff Utd decide it doesn't benefit them him being suspended and the decision cost them the game and Premier league riches.
They take legal action and the court decides Burnley have to play in the prem but have to pay Sheff Utd all TV and prize money.

Stupid isn't it.

[NewClaret]

Another scenario thinking out loud.

What, if on Monday our best player elbowed a Sheff Utd player in the 6th minute but the ref didn't see it. Said player scores two goals and we win and get promoted.

After the game the fa charge our player with violent conduct and ban him for 3 games.

Sheff Utd decide it doesn't benefit them him being suspended and the decision cost them the game and Premier league riches.
They take legal action and the court decides Burnley have to play in the prem but have to pay Sheff Utd all TV and prize money.

Stupid isn't it.

The difference between this scenario is that one is sporting and therefore subjective, one is financial and therefore not. Plus also admitted, as it happens in this case.

I don’t particularly like being involved in these disputes and do have some sympathy for Everton given City and Chelsea seem to be routinely avoiding charges for their obvious financial doping. Plus I’m not sure PSR is in clubs best interests as things stand and, even if it were, has been well implemented by the premier league.

But this is what will happen as long as there are rules and clubs don’t abide by them.

[willsclarets]

I don't really understand this. It's not in Everton's powers to decide if they're deducted points or not? Why is the claim against Everton, and not the powers that enforced the points deduction the following season?

Apologies if I'm completely misunderstanding!