Independent Commission into Everton breach feels more Show Trial than fair trial

I'm personally boycotting all Premier League sponosrs. Barclays, Budweiser, Nike etc. Won't make any difference but makes me feel better.

Since the judgement dropped, I've been pleased that (and I say this with no real evidence to back it up, just what I read) most impartial observers seem to instinctively feel the punishment is too harsh. Perhaps that means the club would have a realistic chance of persuading a new panel made up of new members to treat it more leniently on appeal.

When they appeal, I hope this time they focus on issues that on the face of it have some validity while avoiding the more embarrassing arguments employed last time, such as claiming part of the transfer levy as youth developments costs, which might do no more than antagonise the commission.

Barret-Baxendale, head of the Premier League review into self-regulation, was a puppet similar to her Everton role. Both her and Kenwright thought they had control of the situation, only to find themselves shafted. The equivalent of a kick in the arse, which it would be hard for Evertonians not to be pleased with.

The opening for compensation shows that there was pressure from a group of Premier League clubs, who had voices in the Commission.

I doubt that the penalty will be overturned and that an attempt at compensation will not be attempted, only to fall down in derision. Then a rule will be passed resulting in Everton being the only ever Club with the largest point deduction in History, with Oumar Niasse being the only player in Premier League history to be suspended for 'successful deception of a match official.'

Seriously it is not a joke, that is what Oumar was officially charged with.

I will not hold my breath for a larger point deduction for any other club. As for compensation for an unfair sporting advantage, that will never happen, because it would be the end of the Premier League.

This whole saga beginning, with the exposure of Everton by its fans, has now moved onto full exposure of the Premier League.

The new era of scrutiny had begun. The Premier League's faceless persona has disappeared.

Thanks for raising the KC background in all this Lyndon. The whole situation from initial charges to findings and punishment stinks of farce. They make the Salem trials seem reasonable in comparison.

It's also the last time I am reassured by anything Simon Jordan has to say! I was actually looking forward this season to mid-table improvement and the potential of a cup final. Back to the fear of relegation.

In an arbitration, I think both sides nominate one arbitrator and those two nominate the third. I don't know if that's the case here, but even if it's just a roll of the dice, perhaps the new panel will share some of the sympathies and prejudices I think I've seen from neutral commentators.

So it turns out that the man the Premier League appointed to head the so-called ‘independent commission' is David Phillips KC.

According to his website page you linked to, “In 2007 David acted for Leeds United in the 15 Point controversy. David represented Leeds in every stage of the matter - from a members' meeting of the Football League through to the final determination by the arbitration panel.”

He is clearly proud of his association with his client, Leeds United.

It is surely a major conflict of interest that David Phillips should be the judge and jury in the hearing on 9 May 2023 between Everton, the Premier League, Leeds United and the other clubs (Nottingham Forest, Southampton, Leicester City and Burnley) all seeking compensation from Everton.

What a surprise then, when David Phillips rules after the hearing:

“I find that if the complaint [against Everton] is upheld, the Commission may wish to award W.51.5 compensation to one or more of the applicant clubs.

“I direct that if the complaint [against Everton] is upheld, the Premier League must provide a copy of the decision to the applicant clubs forthwith. Within 28 days of receipt of a copy of the decision, each applicant club must inform the Commission whether it wishes to pursue a claim for W.51.5 compensation.”

Let that sink in.

–The lawyer who represented Leeds United, is appointed by the Premier League to head the Commission in the case the Premier League brought against Everton.

– That lawyer chaired a case brought by Leeds United and other clubs against Everton.

- That lawyer decided that, if the commission he is heading upholds the complaint against Everton, that same commission may wish to award compensation to one or more of the applicant clubs.

Has there ever been a more obvious stitch-up?

This is a matter that needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

Who will the Premier League appoint to the Appeals Committee?

Anyway, I decided to appeal on the basis that I knew two of the interviewers. Both were former work colleagues who had moved on, and indeed I was very friendly with both, one in fact, was even my line manager at one time. Why would they want to show any kind of prejudice for me, I thought.

The only thing I could think of was my former line manager was a RedShite, so maybe he held the fact I was a Blue against me? Seriously though, my appeal failed because I knew in advance who the interviewers were and could have said something beforehand.

My point being, after all that, is did Everton know who was on the independent commission board? If so, then surely they could have raised a complaint with the Premier League, and asked for a different board? Any way you look at it though, as Steve says, it's clearly stitch-up to beat all stitch-ups!

Like a British court using the US Supreme Court as precedent just because they speak (nearly) the same language.

Cherry-picked to justify their point and ignoring other precedents - the Liverpool v Uefa case in 2015, the Leicester v EFL case in 2013, Middlesbrough's administration costing only 9 points...

There's no justification for 10 points at all, no accounting for the mitigating factors set out, no view of a mixed punishment (combo of fines, director bans, transfer embargo and a smaller points deduction or suspension of penalties).

It's a half-arsed job at best.

In any fair assessment, the idea that going bust is less of an issue than overspending a tad is ludicrous. On that basis alone I reckon the points deduction will be reduced.

Great piece, Lyndon

If that is the case, and the Premier League adhere to that arrangement, then the appeals panel will be as independent (sic) as the initial Commission.

Do I read this correctly?

This article / information needs to be put out there into the main media for everyone to know and expose the corrupt Premier League and "independent" commission. The club also need to use it for their appeal.

Lyndon, is that correct? I'm getting confused...

Paragraph 95. "The Commission has no doubt that one of the primary purposes of the sanction is to punish the transgressing club. We must not be swayed by sympathy – for example, the fact that the penalty might make the prospect of relegation greater. We agree with the Premier League that any PSR breach involves a significant overspend. In order to constitute a breach that will be referred to a Commission the club will have failed to achieve the target of no loss, will have crossed the lower threshold of £15 million (a breach of which may result in Premier League imposing conditions); and will have had a loss in excess of the upper threshold of £105 million. The Commission considers the Premier League to be correct to characterise such a loss as being a significant overspend. We also recognise that the inference of a sporting advantage is one that should properly be drawn from the fact of a PSR breach, and that sporting advantage will have been enjoyed for each of the seasons on which the PSR calculation was based – in this case, because of Covid, four seasons.
Determination of the appropriate sanction will always involve consideration of the facts and circumstances of the PSR breach, but it is inevitable that when assessing the sanction the need for punishment will be at the forefront of the Commission's considerations.

Just to add a little bit to the Tevez illegal transfer to West Ham on the final day of the window that season. West Ham also signed Javier Mascherano who like Tevez were both training with the Argentine national side when the deals were done.

No players are allowed to play in the Premier League if owned by a 3rd party, and both Tevez and Mascherano were not owned by their club Corinthians but by a 3rd party company called Media Sports Investment.

The President of the MSI company was non other than Kia Joorabchian, a man well known to our owner and latterly by our fans. Instead of the Premier League blocking the registrations of these players, as should have happened, they didn't. They allowed both Tevez and Mascherano to play for West Ham who managed with the help of the 2 players to get enough points to avoid relegation and send Sheffield Utd into relegation.

This lead to Sheffield Utd threatening to take West Ham to court. Fearing they would lose the case and possible relegation, West Ham settled out of court to the tune of £20M.

But the real question is why didn't the Premier League take any action against West Ham who had clearly broken the rules?

It is rumoured that the so called Big 6 have been asked to up their contributions to pay for rescue packages for the football pyramid. Two or three of that six are under investigation themselves for financial transgressions. So, let's see where that one goes with the Premier League, when they broker deals for that six to pay, but in return for leniency.

Another point that I will make is that Premier League ( via an independent commission… Yeah right!) has directly used Everton as an example of punishment. Therefore, I will urge Everton to undermine the Premier League at every turn, and question their integrity to continue to be in charge and responsible for our showcase league.

I would also suggest that the Big 6 will look at Everton's treatment in the light of what may happen to them and their cases, in particular Man City facing so many charges, that may raise the questions of removing and replacing the Premier League with another governing body, and if that is not possible, I can see once again a breakaway league on the agenda (maybe with Everton included) without Premier League involvement. That would serve the Premier League right!

You reap what you sow!

But the august body which decides PSR doesn't want a level playing field, they want a stacked deck whereby the bigger clubs have a competitive advantage built in, through the ability to spend ten times or a hundred times what we can.

They are literally saying to us that during a time when we spent about £30M in 3 years, that we enjoyed a competitive advantage over our competitors, some of whom were literally spending hundreds of millions.

What befuddles me is that the commission must know what a can of worms the concept of 'competitive advantage' is when you are taking about the Premier League, and how difficult it is to quantify. And yet they specifically entertain the concept, and encourage our rivals to go down that route. This would have been the perfect moment to nip that in the bud, but they have thrown oil on the flames.

"You can only have the concept of it being fair to remove a 'sporting advantage' when you start with a level playing field. But the august body which decides PSR doesn't want a level playing field, they want a stacked deck whereby the bigger clubs have a competitive advantage built in",

I was just about to make the point that we have an annual turnover/revenue of £181M. Our next opponents have one of approximately £630Mn. That is a difference of £450M! Or, to put it another way, three and a half times as much as us.

I'd like as many people as possible to make that point in the run-up to the Man Utd game. Although please doublecheck my figures. The difference is so big, it seems hard to believe.

Nick, 2, aye, I was also shaking my head at the transfer levy argument.

Lyndon, Thanks for this article. It shows this lot up for what they are. They have different rules for different occasions... and different clubs!

Will the ‘Diamond League' replace the Premier League?!

Is it no wonder that our once beautiful game has slumped and succumbed to the culture we now live in? Money talks but it talks louder and louder with every passing year.

Do us supporters really care if Premier League games are shown abroad? I know I don't. All that we supporters want is to watch our team on a Saturday afternoon and travel to away games if we can afford it.

Since the inception of the Premier League – let's not forget we were at the forefront of that, along with Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal et al. We helped create a monster and, like Frankenstein, the creation has turned on us.

We have been treated shabbily not only by this board and the Premier League but also by our owner and a board who didn't have a clue. We Evertonians deserve better.

Sod the Premier League. EFC is what matters and I want our club back and the culture of fans first, not a TV company that plays its favourites because some fans in a far way place buy their shirts.

That's a wonderful piece you have written, Lyndon. It now needs to be spread far and wide. Can you put it on X / Facebook etc and let people see what we know — Corruption.

When you read the full report of the hearing, it highlights that this was just another one of Bill's half-truths. We gave the Premier League limited information at the time to show we were compliant but, once the fully audited accounts were published and the Premier League dug a little deeper, it became obvious to them that we had been a little too creative in what we could write off.

The purpose of the loans is clear, they were not taken out to fund the stadium build, with clauses in each specifically stating this. The Board tried to include the interest charges as a disallowable cost, the Premier League quite rightly disagreed with this assessment.

Similarly our other “mitigating” offsets were stretching credibility, so it was little wonder they were dismissed. Clearly before the commission had concluded, we accepted we had breached the upper limit, thereby tacitly agreeing that our “mitigation” arguments were not 100% correct (as our previous Chairman had always insisted).

On the other thread, I have read far more compelling arguments for our overspend than those put forward by the club, presumably on the legal advice they were receiving. Surely a much bigger argument could have been made regarding the loss of the USM sponsorship deals which were more than just the naming rights on the stadium.

Also, when USM were ditched, the world was still recovering from Covid so other replacement sponsorship deals were either deflated or non-existent. Surely a stronger case could have been made for this.

Similarly with the Sigguson issue. The report says the FA banned him. The case against him was subsequently dropped. This denied Everton of the chance to sell what was then a £20M asset. This was unforeseen.

As Lyndon says, this was a show trial to try to show the Premier League did not need an independent regulator. This episode probably indicates that they do.

We cannot escape that we have been disastrously run for many years and that we have breached the financial boundaries but the deduction of 10 points is both unjust and draconian.

It's a Kangaroo court by any definition looking at the course of events. So fan rebellion and protest is the best action so long as the club support this with a robust legal challenge.

There are so many examples of prior indiscretions by other clubs to draw from. But without doubt, the past and present actions of the Super Six must be called out big time in our dissent of this commission; sling some mud and some will stick.

I know financially it would hurt short term, but the club would adjust.

I worked with a Wigan fan years ago, he hated being in the Premier League. He never wants to come back. Happy watching proper footy in League One or the Championship.

To answer my own question: No, I wouldn't miss this corrupt league. I hate everything about it.

Its report states that both parties sent replies effectively trying to rewrite the report. The news of the Premier League demand for 12 points broke on 25 October, firmly pointing the finger (someone check the Premier League response) at this action precipitating the leak.

The 'Independent' Commission should have been set up as if at an inquest – solely looking to establish the facts, with no need for a Prosecution and a Defence. Instead, the Premier League is making a case against us, suggesting aggravating factors, testifying against us, making accusations, and suggesting a harsh sporting penalty based on a selective and self-serving reading of precedents.

If this were an independent and fair process, they would have submitted their factual evidence to the Commission and awaited their findings. The appeal should focus not only on the decision and poor process of the appeal but also the actions and role played by the Premier League in my opinion.

Even if we don't get an honorable review we will be doing the right thing while accepting our fate. We are still there to fuck them up into the future. Keep it going.

A sensible thread will only get spoiled by concentrating on what a liar once said, Russelll @24, and I'd prefer to get educated by some of the intelligent people who have already posted on this thread, which has already made me feel a little bit better regarding our chances of being sued by other clubs.

I don't like the Premier League, but thought some of the shouts about it being corrupt only made us look stupid, because whatever way you look at it, Everton have been found guilty, but not by independent people, it now seems.

Yes, the club is guilty of poor fiscal management but there have been worse examples in Premier League history, before FFP was brought in, and I believe that the sanction is disproportionate for the offence.

Nevertheless, I believe that we will survive this season if there are no more surprises waiting down the road. COYB.

I had similar thoughts on Saturday afternoon as I watched Harrogate Town v Swindon in a crowd of 3004.

Supporters at that level enjoy the game far more than we do. Their match day experience is not tainted by the travesty of VAR and they enjoy facilities which are often more comfortable than those in the Premier League. The food and the beer are usually better as well.

A sporting competition where the same teams play year after year, with zero actual competition of danger of financial or other jeopardy is not worth watching and would have rapidly died the same death that Disney's Marvel garbage is now suffering.

But the best thing about all of this is that the Premier League is now going to have to render the same outrageous and disproportionate punishment on any team which transgresses, whether accidentally or deliberately, or face endless claims of running a publicly rigged competition.

Whether it is the objectively bankrupt Manchester United or Liverpool teams, the teams financed by Arab money that may suddenly decide that "sportswashing" has become "sportsdirtying" and that this is not a way of gaining respectability and withdraw wholesale, and all the American owners are discovered to have been laundering drug money or similar.

Perhaps we'll get back to a real competition with great managers (Clough, Kendall – maybe Ferguson and Wenger even though funding was clearly an issue) building teams with limited funds and good tactics rather than unlimited funds for a few (the others being picked off as unwanted interlopers cutting into the oligopoly's rewards).

I would echo that as well - football in the Premier League isn't particularly interesting to watch, we're just told it is as we're sold the product.

I've watched and a lot of lower league and non-league football over the years and it's actually a lot more fun to be involved in, in many ways so I think you're bang on.

Supporting a football team isn't really about winning trophies anyway, if it was there would only be about 6 teams in the country. It's about the love of your team, and the fellowship that goes with it that counts.

We haven't won anything for 28 years but we all still follow the club with the same passion, which is really the point.

The potential for claims from one or two other clubs is a worry especially as the outcome seems preordained; a punitive financial award. That could punch a crater through the club's accounts for the current 23/24 year.

Of more immediate concern is the state of our accounts for 22/23. Paul Joyce in today's Times has highlighted the need for a strong set of results and that although publication is not required until March the Premier League require visibility by the end of December. I think the club's fans deserve early visibility to allay fears of further sanctions being imposed.

Everton should now rally to the cause and begin to question the PL integrity by raising questions of impartiality, and being even handed, when dealing with PL clubs across the board.

In doing so, Everton should point out to all PL clubs that they too, could be subjected to PL punishment, by stealth.

Call an extraordinary meeting of all PL clubs without the PL in attendance and start to bang the drum on a breakaway league in retaliation to our excessive and bias punishment and let's wait and see how the PL react to that.

There is one possible answer. We know the PL is being leaned on by the government, what if this is what the government would like. ie the nasty ruskies to lose all their money, the hundreds of millions they've put in to Everton. Who knows, maybe the Americans are putting pressure on, after all we are effectively at war with Russia. And we are the ultimate sacrificial lamb. if we went bust, buried in fines and litigation, that's one of Putin's mates with a very nasty bloody nose.

You are correct— the ruling does suggest Everton gained a sporting advantage but not through a deliberate intention to circumvent the rules. I've amended the article accordingly.

I found this in relation to the Man City situation...'The statement goes on to list said breaches with five separate points made on the rulings, before adding: "Commissions are independent of the Premier League and member clubs. The members of the Commission will be appointed by the independent Chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel in accordance with Premier League Rules W.19, W.20 and W.26.

"The proceedings before the Commission will, in accordance with Premier League Rule W.82, be confidential and heard in private. Under Premier League Rule W.82.2, the Commission's final award will be published on the Premier League's website. This confirmation is made in accordance with Premier League Rule W.82.1. The Premier League will be making no further comment in respect of this matter until further notice."

So...does that mean that City's situation is currently under review and is it right to assume that the same people involved in the Commission conducted ours.

Apart from our case being alot smaller than Man City, would be interesting to see whether the Premier League are using us to see how far they can go in relation to penalties to dish out.

Regarding, other clubs being 'invited' to entertain the chance to sue us, if Man City were to be found guilty, I wonder if certain teams would be named in the report with an indication that they could also seek action against City.

Interesting times ahead

There's even a probable chance that even when the season has concluded out on the pitch and Everton have done enough to survive the drop, that due to more penalties, successful compensation claims from rival clubs etc that Everton could still end up being relegated.

It's like being involved in the longest ever VAR decision, waiting, waiting, waiting and then the decision made is appallingly stupid but not totally unexpected. We all pay for this, to be entertained, are we all, just a little bit crazy?

If it was clear right now, that whatever Everton did out on the pitch, no matter how many points they accrued, in the remainder of this season, that they would, due to a variety of circumstances, punishments etc end up in the Championship, I would advocate a boycott of every Premier League match that involves our club.

Profit and Sustainability: Section E47-E52.

Disciplinary [procedures, sanctions etc and appeals process]: Section W.

Link

Why didn't the Premier League have a formal method of sanctions, written into its rules, in order to deal with transgressions of its Profit and Sustainability rules as soon as Profit and Sustainability became part of its rules?

How come the Premier League only managed to publish its formal sanctions in August of this year?

It merely copied and pasted the Football League's rules and used a Football League example of punishment to justify the penalty that Everton received. Was there a formal meeting of all of the Premier League's members to discuss and vote for this change?

The problem is, as is the case with many of our institutions, is that they don't like anything formally written down, it's far better to have everything informal, then they can't be sued for not implementing penalties, or it becomes very difficult to ascertain whether the body made a genuine mistake or if it was swayed by various off the record arguments, to the benefit of the most persuasive and powerful actors that may be affected by breaking the rules and regulations.

Most criminals know what the likely punishment will be should they carry out a particular crime, it would seem that any club breaking the Premier League rules prior to August, might expect one type of sanction, but to their shock and horror, receive something quite different.

A fairer point would be whether 10 points is appropriate. One could argue the toss on that because there is no set tariff nor in truth, any meaningful precedent that could be applied to our case. The truth is, we are the precedent, the first proper case under the modern P&S regime. An appeal on these grounds alone might be successful but we shouldn't bank on it. I don't think we can present any serious evidence to say it's wrong and I assume there is no onus on the commission to prove it's right (because they would clearly struggle to).

In any case, we can likely survive 10 points. The very much bigger question is whether our planned sale can. Here, we can only rely on media reports and speculation. I read in the Telegraph that 777 have a compensation clause in the sale agreement that is substantial. Hence any financial penalties are going to be at Moshiri's expense, which sounds a suitably just outcome. So in theory, nothing to stop the sale, unless the agreement hasn't actually been signed and/or there is a mechanic by which either party (especially Moshiri) could pull out. No idea about that but it's critical.

It's critical because we continue to need month to month funding and how likely are 777 to do this, if the sale can be cancelled? I take some comfort from the fact they have already put £50-80m in, which suggests there is no leeway for Moshiri to go cold.

Finally, two questions I don't know the answer to, do we face further trouble for 22/23? More points deducted? And if we are found to have to pay compensation to one or more clubs, is that amount excluded from P&S, or is it included, in which case we face potential issues in 23/24, albeit possibly with some time to fix that.

On another point I'm surprised that the FA can suspend a player, presumably under their safeguarding rules (again, not documented as far as I can find) but then has no financial responsibility when the player isn't charged. Instead, completely passing the buck and leaving the club to pursue any damages.

Coming up on
@SkySportsNews
in the next 10 mins
@IanByrneMP
on his Early Day Motion to Parliament on the “Grossly unjust points deduction imposed on Everton Football Club”

I was wondering if an MP would get involved. But at the same time aren't there rules about politics meddling with football?

1985: English teams banned after Heysel
The Football Association has banned English clubs from playing in Europe following the Heysel stadium tragedy two days ago in which 39 fans died.

The Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, supported the ban which was announced by FA officials outside Number 10 Downing Street and called for tougher sentences on convicted football hooligans.

"We have to get the game cleaned up from this hooliganism at home and then perhaps we shall be able to go overseas again," she said.

The Labour leader of the Opposition, Neil Kinnock, said the ban of English teams would only benefit those who caused the "murderous riot" in Belgium.

On This day 31st May 1985

According to the survey they had attached to the article:

Is Everton's 10-point deduction for FFP breaches fair?
Yes 50%
No 50%

Of course I have no way of knowing how many responded to the question and therefore how valid or widespread those opinions would be, but I find it a little disappointing.

We did wrong, so we need to get on with it. Just need an even playing field.

...from the former Bayern Munich footballer and ex-FC Bayern München AG executive chairman Karl-Heinz Rummenigge who addressed the ESL as follows:

“In football, you need to realize when the game is lost, and your game is lost forever”

Seems to me, as some have mentioned above, that football at the lower levels is like it used to be no doubt until Man City get chucked down the leagues.

But in simple terms the EPL, and the governance of the game is corrupt.

I hope Evertons legal team, take the EPL, to hell and back, and Everton's charges are dropped, to a fine.

The game stinks and the EPL, needs to be overhauled, purged of its jobs, and restructured.
Hopefully the politicians may rouse the government to take the EPL, to court, but perhaps not, but could it be the MPs are also complicit, directly for some and for others indirectly, for the dirty running, of the EPL?

The game truly stinks, history will judge.

UTFTs!

Another poster, if not on this thread, but the other big one, looked into the timeline.

It appears the hearing had finished before the leaks happened. And it seems the likeliest scenario is that it seems the findings were sent to all interested parties to comment on and for amendments to be made as needed. However there wasn't consensus on any significant changes. It appears this process took the best part of 4 weeks. I guess once the draft was released in this manner, it was always going to leak.

I think this one might be a red herring..

You may be right but I'm not so convinced as you are. I assume, rightly or wrongly, the PL wanted to have people on its commission who have experience of football, not just general legal and/or finance expertise. In that sense, it is bound to include people with past football connections. Whether it is a good idea or not to seek this expertise is another matter.

If you take the Leeds guy, my own impression is that it is another red herring. He represented Leeds 15 years ago. Lawyers are for hire and will pretty much make anyone's case who asks them. It doesn't imply close affinity with their clients. If he had current or very recent commercial arrangements with Leeds, then you may have a point. All he did in the May hearing was 1) say the clubs wishing to pursue compensation could not be party to the panel's hearing but 2) state the obvious that if we were found to have transgressed, they would be entitled to pursue compensation (not that they were guaranteed or certain to prevail)

I though the published findings were pretty fair. I'm afraid we came across as making any number of 'dog ate my homework' excuses. It was stressed (and this I didn't know) that the target is zero loss for the period. Anything over £15m loss counts as a breach. Anyone suspected of being near to the £105m loss is investigated. The latter is regarded as a hard ceiling, big enough to accommodate moments of misfortune. The problem is, we approached it as though it was a target to aim for and then fell foul of it. I thought our defence was frankly embarrassing. No wonder it was filleted.

Where we might have a case is the scale of the punishment, because it has no precedent nor is there a relevant tariff as a guideline. We are the precedent here.

In article 133 of the report the commission refer to the PL relying on a precedent from a lower league, Sheffield Wednesday vs. EFL.

In that case then our appeal should be based on the precedent set in the same league, that of Leicester and their £3.1 million "fine" which was a negotiated settlement after Leicester threatened to go to court on the grounds that the PSR was illegal.

They can't turn round and say lower court / league rulings don't apply as they have already relied on one.

Also, as Lyndon points out the Tevez West Ham affair where they we found to have had a sporting advantage but only had to pay a fine, not points deductions for a deliberate sporting advantage.

I would hope that our team would focus on these precedents when arguing that the punishment is excessive.

Also right that the IC has opened up the EFL as a fair and reasonable reference point for precedent themselves, by citing the EFL's Sheffield Weds case to assist their reasoning on sanction.

Our first focus has to be on showing the arbitrary disproportionate nature of the ruling . Then go for more.

Obviously we are beset by a combination, emotion and a a feeling of being let down.

By the club and the Premier League.

The one thing that sticks out to me was the indication the the "independent" commission, wasn't necessarily independent. That now makes sense given the leak not long before the announcement.

As well as exercising our right to appeal, we should challenge the legitimacy of the quasi-independent commission.

Meanwhile, Manchester United Sunday. That is the closest crocodile to the blue canoe. Let's go and ram it in their faces and win our next few matches.

On a serious and less emotive note. We can overcome 10 points but if we get it down to 6, it will make it a smoother ride.

The people given the privilege of running our club have a lot to answer for. They have mismanaged and ultimately betrayed us.

But that can wait for now. All I care about in the immediate term is the team, results and above all else, the supporters.

You are raising much wider questions there about the governance of football. My focus was more on whether the commissions findings were defensible based on their remit, and I think they were. We came out of the process appallingly. We as fans are being punished for the truly abject performance of our then board and owner.

If we are to get into the wider issues briefly, then for example I'd actually question the intention of P&S in the first place. We know there is a big gap emerging between the teams at the top. You reference new distribution of proceeds which strike me as being likely to further entrench that. If the EPL are to constrain investors in clubs being able to make the large investments required to break this glass ceiling, then we will have stasis. It is in reality anti competitive and a case of pulling up the drawbridge. I wonder if that is the real intent and a sop to those clubs who threatened to break away.

It is in such areas, rather than the commissions actual findings, that push me closer to the conspiracy theorist position. I am suspicious and like very many others on here, I have no faith that the same treatment will be meted out to more powerful clubs. But we digress

First of all, to the extent we have a prospect of a successful appeal, I think you are right, it will be on the basis that the punishment is too harsh.

However I think there are two seperate issues to deal with here. Firstly, is a points deduction the correct sanction and that is where the PL used an EFL case. It is about the principle, where a sporting advantage has been gained- which I think it is pretty clear it has, otherwise there is no point at all to P&S rules. I don't think we will have much luck challenging that.

The more promising ground is the extent of the deduction. The commission makes it quite clear this is in their discretion alone, as the current rules state. With regard to your suggested precedents, Leicester was a negotiated settlement for a different league and I'm not sure the expected sanctions at that point was points deductions, it was a fine. The Tevez affair was a long time ago and was a matter of third party ownership long before P&S and I'm not sure how that could relate to our position.

All that said, while the findings flow smoothly and logically until article 138, concluding there was a serious breach with limited mitigation, the choice of 10 points outlined in 139 is not exactly replete with justifications. That is because in my view there aren't any. Why not 6 points? Or 9? Or 20 for that matter? On a different day, with 'judges' in a better mood, might we not have got a different result? Very possibly so. The only fly in the ointment is that while the commission would possibly be hard put to explain why 10 points is 'exactly right', I think we might be hard pushed to prove it is 'exactly wrong and I'm not sure where the onus lies with that.

Can you outline in some detail, how breaching the P&S rules, whilst simultaneously trying not to, by selling players and making our squad weaker in the process, resulted in any sporting advantage?

As a regular match-goer, I saw nothing on the field of play that suggested Everton had an unfair sporting advantage in any of the games I watched, in fact quite the opposite as it seemed that our club was at a distinct disadvantage to many of our opponents.

I'm not a lawyer (though have some exposure to their way of thinking) but I suspect the argument here rests on the existence of the overspend in the first place, and its de facto potential to lead to sporting advantage. As I say, that is supposed to be the point of P&S, a supposed level playing field (F1 have similar financial rules).

I think you are basically putting up a defence that because our executive teams were so useless, we obtained no advantage at all. Indeed maybe we could add that we actually conferred advantage on those clubs who received excessive fees for useless players?

I like the idea. Maybe you are being ironic? I grant you it has the ring of truth but just because our burglary failed and we ended up with the garden gnome and not the Ming vase, doesn't mean the burglary didn't happen.

As to F1's financial rules, they're just as corrupt as the EPL, for example Ferrari get paid a fee for participating in F1 that no other team receives.

And the supposed cap on spending only seems to affect the lower teams, just like EPL.

Jordan Pickford £150,000

Idrissa Gueye £130,000

Dominic Calvert-Lewin £120,000

Abdoulaye Doucouré £120,000

André Gomes £120,000

James Tarkowski £100,000

Dele Alli £100,000

Everton - 2023 Player Wages

Another site has considerably different figures:With the top earner being Abdoulaye Doucoure on £130k per week.

How to get rid of these ads and support TW