Interesting review here

https://stefanborson.substack.com/p/exp ... rton-to-be

Says
Burnley look to have a good chance of establishing on a balance of probabilities that but for Everton’s overspending breaches, it would have survived

it appears the same three-member IC that judged Everton’s breach as a ten point sanction will also assess Burnley’s claim and decide if compensation is warranted, and if so, how much. Burnley will submit evidence of their losses, and Everton will have a chance to respond, all within the IC’s process.

If this is not a W 51.5 case, then the matter will be dealt with under either Rule X or a Rule K FA arbitration. There is likely to be little material difference to the process save that the judgment will not definitively be published and a new tribunal will hear the case.

The article is 5 months old and there is already a thread about this tonight

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=82574

Implications for others

The same article says
Burnley’s compensation bid could have far-reaching consequences. Other clubs may well seek ways to pursue Everton and Nottingham Forest in respect of the PSR breaches already established. If successful (or even if it results in a substantial settlement), it would set a clear example that clubs harmed by a rival’s PSR rule-breaking can seek recourse and can be made whole for their losses, or a proportion of them.

There is no doubt that such claims could open a “huge can of worms” and invite a chain reaction of litigation that could last many years.

The situation with Manchester City illustrates the potential scale of such disputes. Manchester City have been charged with numerous alleged breaches of Premier League financial and other rules in a case spanning multiple seasons. The potential claims could cover loss of league titles, Champions League qualification and other merit payments and the associated revenues that rivals believe they were denied during years when City may have broken the rules. In theory and if proven, there are very many clubs that could argue they were affected by City’s actions. Those claims would be fiercely contested and could take a number of years to resolve.

Its going to get to the point that Sky Sports bring out a new channel just to cover the legal battles of each club

It was supposed to be heard in July, but we’ve heard nothing.

Possible reasons are that the hearing was deferred, is ongoing, it’s been heard awaiting outcome, or has settled before/during the hearing.

Makes me wonder if we’ll never hear about this again. Wouldn’t really shock me if it’s all been wrapped up and swept under the carpet. Don’t think either club has ever commented publicly on the existence of a claim.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 14, 2025 8:43 am

It was supposed to be heard in July, but we’ve heard nothing.

Possible reasons are that the hearing was deferred, is ongoing, it’s been heard awaiting outcome, or has settled before/during the hearing.

Makes me wonder if we’ll never hear about this again. Wouldn’t really shock me if it’s all been wrapped up and swept under the carpet. Don’t think either club has ever commented publicly on the existence of a claim.

If the club succeeds in getting some form of pay out, it will have to document it somehow in the accounts, but we may not find that out until 2027 in the accounts of Everton (who publish theirs before us) or Burnley.

Claret86 wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 14, 2025 8:28 am

Its going to get to the point that Sky Sports bring out a new channel just to cover the legal battles of each club

I'm not entirely sure whether your comment is tongue in cheek, Claret86, but it really wouldn't surprise me, and, of course, that would, in some way, be a bit like looping the loop.

ecc wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 14, 2025 12:25 pm

I'm not entirely sure whether your comment is tongue in cheek, Claret86, but it really wouldn't surprise me, and, of course, that would, in some way, be a bit like looping the loop.

Given that the Premier League has spent well over £100m in legal fees in the last 3 years, it would be one way of recouping the monies

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 14, 2025 8:43 am

It was supposed to be heard in July, but we’ve heard nothing.

Possible reasons are that the hearing was deferred, is ongoing, it’s been heard awaiting outcome, or has settled before/during the hearing.

New claret the article starts by saying Everton have an expensive silk on board and later says
Now that Burnley have lodged a claim, it appears the same three-member IC that judged Everton’s breach as a ten point sanction will also assess Burnley’s claim and decide if compensation is warranted, and if so, how much. Burnley will submit evidence of their losses, and Everton will have a chance to respond, all within the IC’s process. If this is not a W 51.5 case, then the matter will be dealt with under either Rule X or a Rule K FA arbitration. These are explained in the article.

I suspect the silk is trying to get this heard by a new tribunal under rule X, not those that gave them the 10point sanction as a W51.5 or maybe he’s trying for arbitration. Any legal experts out there?

Corway wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 14, 2025 2:48 pm

New claret the article starts by saying Everton have an expensive silk on board and later says
Now that Burnley have lodged a claim, it appears the same three-member IC that judged Everton’s breach as a ten point sanction will also assess Burnley’s claim and decide if compensation is warranted, and if so, how much. Burnley will submit evidence of their losses, and Everton will have a chance to respond, all within the IC’s process. If this is not a W 51.5 case, then the matter will be dealt with under either Rule X or a Rule K FA arbitration. These are explained in the article.

I suspect the silk is trying to get this heard by a new tribunal under rule X, not those that gave them the 10point sanction as a W51.5 or maybe he’s trying for arbitration. Any legal experts out there?

I'm making the assumption 'silk' is in-house slang for King's Council?

dougcollins wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 14, 2025 5:22 pm

I'm making the assumption 'silk' is in-house slang for King's Council?

Correct.

Corway wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 14, 2025 2:48 pm

New claret the article starts by saying Everton have an expensive silk on board and later says
Now that Burnley have lodged a claim, it appears the same three-member IC that judged Everton’s breach as a ten point sanction will also assess Burnley’s claim and decide if compensation is warranted, and if so, how much. Burnley will submit evidence of their losses, and Everton will have a chance to respond, all within the IC’s process. If this is not a W 51.5 case, then the matter will be dealt with under either Rule X or a Rule K FA arbitration. These are explained in the article.

I suspect the silk is trying to get this heard by a new tribunal under rule X, not those that gave them the 10point sanction as a W51.5 or maybe he’s trying for arbitration. Any legal experts out there?

True. Read that article a while ago but missed those points. Well noted. Sounds like they have a potential route to it being heard by a different panel (which sounds reasonable to me).

I think any such arguments would’ve needed to be put forward and heard before the hearing date was set though. I think that was reported by the Times as being in July, so who knows what’s going on.

dougcollins wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 14, 2025 5:22 pm

I'm making the assumption 'silk' is in-house slang for King's Council?

Sorry Doug

Article says
big hitting, £1,200-£1,500 per hour Leading Counsel, Mark Howard KC has been appointed to defend Everton against Burnley FC’s claims in a private hearing due to commence in the next few weeks.

Seems to have not achieved anything
https://www.footballinsider247.com/ther ... gal-twist/

Corway wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 22, 2025 7:03 pm

Seems to have not achieved anything
https://www.footballinsider247.com/ther ... gal-twist/

Have you read the article? It doesn't give any more information, it just tells you that an “expert” is surprised that we’ve not reached a settlement.

wadeswondergoal wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 22, 2025 7:21 pm

Have you read the article? It doesn't give any more information, it just tells you that an “expert” is surprised that we’ve not reached a settlement.

Yes

Inside Sport understands that the case is not due to conclude until mid-October, with no timeline over a subsequent verdict.

Corway wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 22, 2025 8:17 pm

Inside Sport understands that the case is not due to conclude until mid-October, with no timeline over a subsequent verdict.

Crikey. That would be some significant KC fees if the hearing is going to go on so long.

Like the article above says, I’m amazed it hasn’t settled although could have done or still might if the case is going to take that long to hear.

Appears that Leeds have settled out of court for their claim againstEverton - though it was not a big one anyway

from The Athletic

Leeds and Everton reached settlement over 2021-22 profit and sustainability rules breach
https://archive.ph/kKXrv

That is really interesting. I assume the only reason our case hasn’t settled is that they think they’ll be awarded a much lower compensation figure than we expect to be granted, so no compromise could be reached.