Sue or not to sue

[boatshed bill]

I understand the reasoning just not a fan of owners using clubs to sue other clubs where the fans suffer because of the owners decisions.

Just stick to the league's decision, the points deduction.

[Spijed]

I hate this sort of thing because ultimately it’s the fans that suffer due to ownership and things out of their control. Do we really want football owners putting football clubs at risk over petty lawsuits?

How would you punish clubs who break the rules?

Or should clubs just be allowed to cheat?

[Big Vinny K]

Not sure £100m is a “petty” lawsuit tbh.

The Sheff United compensation was an interesting case in point. Took them years to be compensated. That compensation was nothing compared to what they lost through relegation.

West Ham broke the rules by signing Tevez and Mascherano. There is no way in a million years they would have brought 2 players like this to West Ham without breaking the rules - look at the clubs and careers both of these had when they left West Ham.

It’s tough that fans have to suffer when this happens at their clubs - especially when you look at Everton who have spent a fortune anyway and still had little success. But guess you could say they would have suffered even more if relegated.

As fans though look at the success that Man City supporters have enjoyed. A decade of unbelievable success. Same with Chelsea with even longer sustained success.
If this success has been done by breaking the rules - cheating…..then unfortunately then those fans may have to experience some hard times.

That’s what happens when you are fan - you have absolutely no control of what happens at your club and now more than ever the owners give very little of a sh-it how fans are impacted.

[Claretforever]

An interesting Twitter thread by an Evertonian who happens to be a solicitor, giving their thoughts on a compensation claim. Probably one for Chester Perry to share his thoughts on.

https://x.com/levinslaw/status/17259087 ... zJCyLiScQw

[Chester Perry]

An interesting Twitter thread by an Evertonian who happens to be a solicitor, giving their thoughts on a compensation claim. Probably one for Chester Perry to share his thoughts on.

https://x.com/levinslaw/status/17259087 ... zJCyLiScQw

unfortunately 'x' will only let ne se the first post - Elon Musk spent $43 billion dollars and made a popular medium much, much worse - was that the plan

I would be interest to read, that would require you linking the other 11 posts

[Spijed]

"Forest and Southampton have reportedly decided not to pursue any claims. The others will have 28 days to make a decision."

Does that mean they think it's a worthless exercise?

[DAVETHEVICAR]

I have clicked the Link and got all of the 12 links by the Everton supporting Lawyer
However not sure how to link on here

[Jakubclaret]

"Forest and Southampton have reportedly decided not to pursue any claims. The others will have 28 days to make a decision."

Does that mean they think it's a worthless exercise?

The final summary from the lewin opinion indicated it would be difficult for the other teams to claim compensation.

[Spijed]

"In summary, I think it will be difficult for Leeds, Leicester or Burnley to extract any compensation from Everton. Hopefully this will be a crumb of comfort to my fellow Blues. "

[Quickenthetempo]

It might get a little lively at Goodison on Sunday.
There's a lot of anger at the Premier league from fans and 27k has been raised for banners and flares etc...

[NewClaret]

It might get a little lively at Goodison on Sunday.
There's a lot of anger at the Premier league from fans and 27k has been raised for banners and flares etc...

I love a flare, me. If Al wants to make Turf Moor hell he should let a few in

[NewClaret]

"Forest and Southampton have reportedly decided not to pursue any claims. The others will have 28 days to make a decision."

Does that mean they think it's a worthless exercise?

From what I understand, the offences proven took place in 21/22 - the year we were relegated. So the following season is not relevant.

Although not written anywhere, what I can make of it is that we have a potentially huge claim, Leeds have a small one (they’d have finished a place higher - so £2m). Leicester I can’t work out what they’re planning. A pretty weak case, I’d have thought.

[Jakubclaret]

From what I understand, the offences proven took place in 21/22 - the year we were relegated. So the following season is not relevant.

Although not written anywhere, what I can make of it is that we have a potentially huge claim, Leeds have a small one (they’d have finished a place higher - so £2m). Leicester I can’t work out what they’re planning. A pretty weak case, I’d have thought.

If that's the case I don't see what is stopping the rest of the clubs also following suit aside from the bottom 3 if each place is worth £2.2 million, some of the league table will also be affected to some sort of a detriment. You have to separately look at other clubs who experienced negative results as potentially they could have finished higher than they did irrespective of not being relegated.

[NewClaret]

If that's the case I don't see what is stopping the rest of the clubs also following suit aside from the bottom 3 if each place is worth £2.2 million, some of the league table will also be affected to some sort of a detriment. You have to separately look at other clubs who experienced negative results as potentially they could have finished higher than they did irrespective of not being relegated.

I think the answer here is that our argument on causation would be that the additional spending (unfairness) likely caused Everton to score more than 4 points than they would’ve done had they not executed those transfers (to stay within the rules).

Teams trying to argue that they suffered loss as a result of individual results would have to demonstrate that the players purchased had a significant impact on the matches in question. Which is a much tougher argument.

[Claretforever]

unfortunately 'x' will only let ne se the first post - Elon Musk spent $43 billion dollars and made a popular medium much, much worse - was that the plan

I would be interest to read, that would require you linking the other 11 posts

IMG_6809.jpeg (493.25 KiB) Viewed 2310 times

IMG_6810.jpeg (573.75 KiB) Viewed 2310 times

IMG_6808.jpeg (424.62 KiB) Viewed 2310 times

[quoonbeatz]

Impressive straw clutching from the solicitor. Mind you, I read an article by the esk in the guardian earlier proclaiming that the non-punishment Everton have received for cheating is somehow harsh on them.

[boatshed bill]

How would you punish clubs who break the rules?

Or should clubs just be allowed to cheat?

How about this:
10 point deduction with no appeal.
Loss of entire PL income for the relevant season to be taken from the current season's figure?

[NewClaret]

Those tweets are interesting. Thanks for posting. It seems to rule out a legal argument that I suggested yesterday as being plausible - that if the 10 point deduction had taken place in the year the offences committed, Everton would’ve been relegated. Not quite sure I understand why, but let’s go with it.

So on the causation point, I assume transfers would be limited to those made in the offending year (21/22).

That year they signed 11 players totalling €39.5m. I won’t list them all. Most were loans/frees.

Only three incurred fees. The most expensive was Mykolenko (€23.5m) second most Nathan Patterson (€16m) and finally Demari Grey (at a bargain €2m).

Now if we needed to prove that these signings played a significant part in Everton surviving over us, I’d say we should have a pretty good case.

Mykolenko scored in a 1:0 win vs Chelsea. +3pts. Patterson didn’t play.

Demari Grey however scored 5, assisted 4. Goals vs Leeds, Brighton, Us, Liverpool, Arsenal. 4 out of 5 they secured points. He assisted vs Norwich, Watford, Chelsea, Palace. In 3/4 they secured points.

I’d say it’s a very strong case that he played a significant role in securing more points than us. Albeit he was cheap. Someone should ask Levins their views on that.

I haven’t looked at all the loans/freebies performances, but Rondon scored in a loss and assisted in a win at Leicester. Donny Van Der Beek scored twice in two losses.

[Funkydrummer]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... menubutton

[Jakubclaret]

Those tweets are interesting. Thanks for posting. It seems to rule out a legal argument that I suggested yesterday as being plausible - that if the 10 point deduction had taken place in the year the offences committed, Everton would’ve been relegated. Not quite sure I understand why, but let’s go with it.

So on the causation point, I assume transfers would be limited to those made in the offending year (21/22).

That year they signed 11 players totalling €39.5m. I won’t list them all. Most were loans/frees.

Only three incurred fees. The most expensive was Mykolenko (€23.5m) second most Nathan Patterson (€16m) and finally Demari Grey (at a bargain €2m).

Now if we needed to prove that these signings played a significant part in Everton surviving over us, I’d say we should have a pretty good case.

Mykolenko scored in a 1:0 win vs Chelsea. +3pts. Patterson didn’t play.

Demari Grey however scored 5, assisted 4. Goals vs Leeds, Brighton, Us, Liverpool, Arsenal. 4 out of 5 they secured points. He assisted vs Norwich, Watford, Chelsea, Palace. In 3/4 they secured points.

I’d say it’s a very strong case that he played a significant role in securing more points than us. Albeit he was cheap. Someone should ask Levins their views on that.

I haven’t looked at all the loans/freebies performances, but Rondon scored in a loss and assisted in a win at Leicester. Donny Van Der Beek scored twice in two losses.

It could well turn out to be a bittersweet moment after all not signing gray, I can remember when he went there there was lots of talk on here suggesting it's the sort of signing we should have gone for, it was far from envisaged back then actually not signing him a couple of years later down the line it could work in our favour & potentially hand us a massive stroke of luck if his contributions are counted leading to a successful claim if it's pursued.

[Jakubclaret]

So to "go back" "retrospectively* is to actually go forward.
A bit unfair to expect you to realise that, I guess.
Dumbass.

Every dictionary I've come across seems to disagree with you but please feel to find one which defines retrospectively as going forward, you are going back & considering past events you can update past events but you are going back & in no way progressing with anything, anything retro is old & in the past.

[CrosspoolClarets]

This solicitor has reached deep into the cognitive bias handbook and is clutching at straws. I reckon if roles were reversed he would come out with plenty of ideas how the loss could be proven.

It does tally with my own thinking though that only we have a viable large claim.

The logic though seems wooly. We can clearly prove a loss. What is less obvious is causation. But civil cases are judged on the balance of probabilities, so I thought, not proving beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal courts. It seems easy to prove a typical PL “Pts per £ Spent” figure and use this to demonstrate that had they spent within the rules they would have been 4 points or more worse off. There is a good correlation between spending and points in this division.

e.g. for us spending about £4m may have got us 1 point in seasons like that. 40 points being about £160m. So £20m+ overspending above the upper threshold is surely worth 4 points or more to keep them up.

[evensteadiereddie]

Every dictionary I've come across seems to disagree with you but please feel to find one which defines retrospectively as going forward, you are going back & considering past events you can update past events but you are going back & in no way progressing with anything, anything retro is old & in the past.

Christ, I'll spell it out.
Just as Mick Jagger's " I Can't Get No Satisfaction" means, because of the double negative, " I Can Get Satisfaction".
Your use of "going back" and doing it "retrospectively" has exactly the same effect, actually meaning the opposite of what you meant.
"Reversing back" is another.
Don't worry though, bud, there's plenty more who make similar mistakes.
Hope this clears things up for you.

[boatshed bill]

So to "go back" "retrospectively" is to actually go forward.

A bit unfair to expect you to realise that, I guess.
Dumbass.

I think he'd have been ok with "retrospectively" or "in retrospect"

[evensteadiereddie]

Exactly.

[Jakubclaret]

Christ, I'll spell it out.
Just as Mick Jagger's " I Can't Get No Satisfaction" means, because of the double negative, " I Can Get Satisfaction".
Your use of "going back" and doing it "retrospectively" has exactly the same effect, actually meaning the opposite of what you meant.
"Reversing back" is another.
Don't worry though, bud, there's plenty more who make similar mistakes.
Hope this clears things up for you.

Type in google- “retrospectively go back” & see what the search results throw up, this is my last post on this thread because you are trying to derail this into an argument & it’s not fair on the other posters, so I’m politely declining the bait & leaving you to stew in your own nonsense.

[evensteadiereddie]

No argument whatsoever, pal.
I'm glad you've given up.
You usually drag your nonsense out until the thread's ruined.
Just think on for next time you over reach when trying to make a point.

[boatshed bill]

Type in google- “retrospectively go back” & see what the search results throw up, this is my last post on this thread because you are trying to derail this into an argument & it’s not fair on the other posters, so I’m politely declining the bait & leaving you to stew in your own nonsense.

I wouldn't trust google with any degree of correctness where the English language is concerned

[evensteadiereddie]

Absolutely.

[Chester Perry]

The Athletic looks at the relative merits to this clubs success in this pursuit

Analysing Everton’s rivals’ potential compensation claims – who will blink first?
https://archive.li/7mGTh

Includes some specific detail to note
- The original commission, will determine which clubs claims are worthy
- A second, separate commission will determine a final compensation value

as a result this is not going to be a swift process

[AfloatinClaret]

This solicitor... I reckon if roles were reversed he would come out with plenty of ideas how the loss could be proven.

That's what Solicitors and indeed several other professions are trained and paid to do.

[bfcjg]

The Athletic looks at the relative merits to this clubs success in this pursuit

Analysing Everton’s rivals’ potential compensation claims – who will blink first?
https://archive.li/7mGTh

Includes some specific detail to note
- The original commission, will determine which clubs claims are worthy
- A second, separate commission will determine a final compensation value

as a result this is not going to be a swift process

Very interesting read, it is a minefield really and it could cost a lot in legal fees.
Not knowing much about case law if a claim was successful this would open the floodgates for claims against City, cup wins, championships, relegation even ( in our case they always stuff us ) I think law firms will keep pushing as the work generated would be phenominal.

[NewClaret]

The Athletic looks at the relative merits to this clubs success in this pursuit

Analysing Everton’s rivals’ potential compensation claims – who will blink first?
https://archive.li/7mGTh

Includes some specific detail to note
- The original commission, will determine which clubs claims are worthy
- A second, separate commission will determine a final compensation value

as a result this is not going to be a swift process

Very interesting read, thanks for posting CP & the link.

CP (or anyone actually) - have you seen anywhere a breakdown of the losses by year with the accepted stadium/womens/youth/Covid deductions applied to see how they calculated the £125m total? That article doesn’t provide a post-reduction breakdown.

I was expecting to see a table that broke down the reported losses (£370m) to their assessed losses (£125m) by year, but can’t see one in a quick scan of the report. I’m trying to work out if Leicester, Leeds & Southampton have a case at all.

Quite the contrary to the solicitors commentary in this article, I don’t think they stand a chance unless they are subsequently proven to have breached PSR in 22/23.

That makes me think the solicitor hasn’t really thought through what he is saying. Reaffirmed by his argument that because we came back up we don’t have a strong case because relegation benefitted us in some way. Wtf?!? Conveniently overlooking - or maybe not knowing - there’s a £50m difference in parachute payments:sky PL money, our commercial revenues will’ve been decimated and we likely had to sell players we didn’t want to, for less than we wanted. Also ignoring that the sale of experienced players is likely hindering our performance this year as well.

The argument about probability is a really good point and underpins my thinking that we will have gathered masses of data on how the players they signed impacted their points tally, with various analysis on the probability they’d have been relegated had they not signed them.

I also agree with the point that Everton might be open to settlement talks and that is what all parties should be doing while there is risk on all sides. Although it’s a nonsense argument that they’d do so under the guise that otherwise they’ll go in to admin and we’d all get nothing. Firstly I’m not sure that’s true as we’d presumably be a football creditor and don’t they get preferential treatment? Secondly, regardless, the off-field consequences of admin will be so severe for them that there’s no way they’d ‘threaten’ potential claimants with that outcome. And that’s before you consider the further points deduction, which again they don’t mention. We’d all just say “okay then, so it, see you sometime never”.

There is risk on all sides for all parties at the moment and usually that’s the best time for talks and compromises.

[bfcjg]

https://twitter.com/EFCdaily_/status/17 ... ap61A&s=19
Might be nothing left to sue.

[Chester Perry]

https://twitter.com/EFCdaily_/status/17 ... ap61A&s=19
Might be nothing left to sue.

more detail on the Genoa situation

Josimar Football again, this time another report in their great unravelling of the web that has been constructed by 777 Partners. This report relates to one of their clubs - Genoa and it's huge debts to the Italian tax authorities, the question is do 777 Partners plans for repayment stack-up.

Note 777 Partners did not create the original financial mess, they saw the financial distress of the club as an opportunity to make money

On the brink
Genoa CFC owners 777 Partners are attempting to re-structure their club’s debt to the Italian tax authorities, which currently stands at over 106 million euro. The Italian club faces bankruptcy if the Court of Genoa does not agree to the operation, while other creditors of the club are still owed an extra 160 million.
https://josimarfootball.com/2023/11/22/on-the-brink/
https://archive.ph/JP8an

[Chester Perry]

Very interesting read, thanks for posting CP & the link.

CP (or anyone actually) - have you seen anywhere a breakdown of the losses by year with the accepted stadium/womens/youth/Covid deductions applied to see how they calculated the £125m total? That article doesn’t provide a post-reduction breakdown.

I was expecting to see a table that broke down the reported losses (£370m) to their assessed losses (£125m) by year, but can’t see one in a quick scan of the report. I’m trying to work out if Leicester, Leeds & Southampton have a case at all.

Quite the contrary to the solicitors commentary in this article, I don’t think they stand a chance unless they are subsequently proven to have breached PSR in 22/23.

That makes me think the solicitor hasn’t really thought through what he is saying. Reaffirmed by his argument that because we came back up we don’t have a strong case because relegation benefitted us in some way. Wtf?!? Conveniently overlooking - or maybe not knowing - there’s a £50m difference in parachute payments:sky PL money, our commercial revenues will’ve been decimated and we likely had to sell players we didn’t want to, for less than we wanted. Also ignoring that the sale of experienced players is likely hindering our performance this year as well.

The argument about probability is a really good point and underpins my thinking that we will have gathered masses of data on how the players they signed impacted their points tally, with various analysis on the probability they’d have been relegated had they not signed them.

I also agree with the point that Everton might be open to settlement talks and that is what all parties should be doing while there is risk on all sides. Although it’s a nonsense argument that they’d do so under the guise that otherwise they’ll go in to admin and we’d all get nothing. Firstly I’m not sure that’s true as we’d presumably be a football creditor and don’t they get preferential treatment? Secondly, regardless, the off-field consequences of admin will be so severe for them that there’s no way they’d ‘threaten’ potential claimants with that outcome. And that’s before you consider the further points deduction, which again they don’t mention. We’d all just say “okay then, so it, see you sometime never”.

There is risk on all sides for all parties at the moment and usually that’s the best time for talks and compromises.

I suspect you are overthinking this - remember there were 28,000 documents submitted during the hearing process - there will have been a breakdown, in fact it will have been submitted to the Premier League when the accounts were.

[NewClaret]

I suspect you are overthinking this - remember there were 28,000 documents submitted during the hearing process - there will have been a breakdown, in fact it will have been submitted to the Premier League when the accounts were.

What will have done CP? I don’t follow?

[Chester Perry]

What will have done CP? I don’t follow?

The breakdown of exceptions

[NewClaret]

The breakdown of exceptions

The break down of exceptions would be interesting. I was more wanting the £125m year by year though. Trying to understand whether there is also a loss of more than £105m over the three years leading to 22/23.