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.

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.

Any idea who our barrister is?

Scampi wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 12, 2025 12:22 pm

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.

Scampi wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 12, 2025 12:22 pm

Any idea who our barrister is?

Apparently he’s from Cafe Nero

Scampi wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 12, 2025 12:22 pm

Any idea who our barrister is?

Solly Ackwell.

Scampi wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 12, 2025 12:22 pm

Any idea who our barrister is?

Cathy Pickup

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....

Claretnick wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 12, 2025 12:49 pm

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.

Scampi wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 12, 2025 12:22 pm

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.

pushpinpussy has been quiet...

Scampi wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 12, 2025 12:22 pm

Any idea who our barrister is?

Lionel Hutz.

Probably.

Bigvince wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 12, 2025 12:44 pm

Apparently he’s from Cafe Nero

Had to log on to laugh at this

Scampi wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 12, 2025 12:22 pm

Any idea who our barrister is?

Rowley Birkin QC

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

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 13, 2025 10:26 am

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

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 13, 2025 10:36 am

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.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 13, 2025 10:37 am

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.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 13, 2025 10:37 am

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.

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

martin_p wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 13, 2025 10:41 am

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.

ClaretOfMancunia wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 13, 2025 1:05 pm

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.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 13, 2025 10:26 am

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.

CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 13, 2025 1:31 pm

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.

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.

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

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.