Everton forced to pay one-third of Premier League's legal costs

It's a rich man's world.

Consider it a gratuity, now do one.

That this needed to go to court in the first place is a farce. If the rules are clearly defined and understood by all, then legal advice would not be needed nor the colossal waste of time. Obviously they weren't.

Linklaters are happy though £5M in fees!… (Why the league needed to use a magic circle firm, one of the most expensive, is another matter).

Could we not have originally challenged the Premier League at the European Court of Arbitration for Sport? Didn't Man City do it a few years back?

But how much will Man City be up for on 115 charges? And what did Leicester City have to pay to show they didn't come under the Premier League's jurisdiction? It is almost laughable.

It's probably already in the tens of millions, or more.

The Everton and Forest transgressions were treated inequitably, Forest treated lightly for ‘good behaviour'.
Everton still under scrutiny for ‘interest payments'.

Man Utd escape due to ‘allowable' Glazer sale costs.
Leicester dodge a penalty by moving their financial year end.
Man City will inevitably escape on legal technicalities. Their legal fees will dwarf the Premier League's.

The Premier League spend ridiculous amounts on legal services compared to Everton. This whole thing is deeply flawed and has serious questions.

Guess who are the only real fall guys in this fiasco… wouldn't happen to any of the Sky 6, take Chelsea for example…

Winning at all costs, no matter what. It doesn't matter how much such prosecution costs if you are paying so the resultant distribution of costs awarded by the appeals board has found the costs claim excessive, in doing so has given the Premier League two fingers.

All it highlights is the lengths Masters & Co went to, to shore up their prosecution. Money buys the best and ensures you get the decision you ask for. But no amount of money guarantees justice.

The best league in the world... my fucking arse!!

Big clubs don't roll over and say okay.

I think this may well end up in the too hard basket. It falls into interpretation of allowable expenses, what's reasonable, and what should be determined as acceptable.

Given the extent of use by clubs such as Chelsea in exploiting loopholes without prosecution, indeed actually being praised for their novelty by Masters, it only serves to underline the apparent way different clubs are treated.

Everton are condemned as wilful; Chelsea are novel...

How many of us are becoming wholly disenchanted with Premier League football? I haven't even mentioned the consistent cheating.

Maybe it's time for a reset, with Saturdays and weekday evenings spent watching lower league footie and rediscovering the word "enjoyment".

C'mon, Tivvy Town… C'mon, you Ambers.

(I have seen them win at Wembley twice in the last 25 years; but it's 1984 since I watched those in Blue win once.)

I don't confess to understand legalities, but my simple mathematical head, we seem to have financially bettered the Premier League?

The next match should be interesting. We've been volatile toward the Premier League for a while now, but this is like pouring petrol on the Blue Fire.

Best watch our backs.

His ex could get a job at the FA, she'd fit right in.

The appeals court determined their view on what costs were reasonable and found in our favour.

As Danny said, watch this space, I bet they will be determined to have another bite at the cherry if they can.

I wish I could walk away from this shitshow of an Americanised league. Bring on the lawyers

Thanks, Bill, I really do think this started with you.

The Premier League breach their own rules and thats fine.
No accountability. Charge what they want.

That the so-called independent appeal commission breach the payment rule ceiling, allowing it, is criminal. Bent as a 9-bob note.

The whole thing is an expensive charade. I hate them. They never do a tap for clubs but absorb vast amounts of money from them. For what?

Total Bollocks.

'We are all equal, but the Big 6 are more equal than others.'

Thanks, so we did win after all – I sensed we had but people were moaning again.

Not an indicator of anything, of course, and I really should know better… but there ya go.

I think Man City's case is being reviewed in April. That will be interesting.

Don't hold your breath.

Chelsea hotel sale cleared by Premier League

And the same Linklaters who still represent him on advising on a sale?

As for Chelsea selling off two hotels to another company owned by Boehly and being found okay in doing so… Can some please explain to me why if the the 2nd Boehly company sponsored Chelsea's shirts, the Premier League object? What's the difference between sponsorship money and buying money?

Corruption, the whole stinking mess – that's the Premier League. It's a wonder Masters baiting hasn't ended in us having to wipe his arse. Funt!

ps: What happens if we are £1.5M over the limit next time they take a look. Will the £1.7M be deductable?

Trying it on, given the management of Everton, is to be expected.

The appeal verdict demonstrated the staggering legal resources lavished on these proceedings – for the Everton case the chargeable hours were equivalent to almost five months' worth of 24-hour days. All costs for governance are borne by the Premier League's 20 shareholders, and will be deducted from disbursements of central broadcast rights and commercial funds.

In the appeal verdict over Everton's PSR case costs, the Premier League counsel Jason Pobjoy argued that “the club's unreasonable conduct in the proceedings unnecessarily and significantly increased” costs for the Premier League. He also argued, according to the appeal judgement, that the denial of costs to the Premier League would create an “uncertainty” in future cases.

Everton's appeal against the original 10-point deduction was made on nine grounds upon which it failed in seven. On that basis the Premier League sought 70 per cent of its costs for that appeal. The appeal board disagreed. “We consider that the club clearly “won” the appeal,” it said. “The club's appeal was allowed, and its points deduction was reduced from 10 to six.”

And as a final zinger to the Premier League:

The Premier League was ordered to pay the costs for its appeal on the costs of the original PSR case.

Just compounds the utter madness of it all.

He's an absolute coward, hiding behind Usmanov. Needs to be gone, ASAP.

The Premier League administration at its corrupt best.

To think that right now they are pushing Masters to have another go at giving Everton a further points deduction.

The effect of all this on Everton Football Club is incalculable.
And that is what it has been all about.

That extract demonstrates how that, although we have to foot some of the costs, the Premier League came out worse.

As I've said, let's just watch our backs now.

Maybe they'll move onto another target, but I'm not confident that we are still not in their sights.

Christmas Bonus time?

Truly the English game stinks the place out.

The instigators of this crime should be the ones to pay the bill.

So you think Everton should pay the whole bill? If they had either kept costs under control to follow the rules, or paid more to better lawyers to plead their case, it could perhaps have been avoided, but Everton where given a shitload of warnings by the Premier League and failed to right the listing ship.

Or perhaps you really think the Premier League 'instigated' the whole fiasco? But we've been through all that loads of times already.

Danny @44,

I think you're right: this goes down as a fairly significant win for the club, which many on this thread don't seem to get? Perhaps because they are more focussed on the negativity of the big picture?

Ed @45,

The Premier League are guilty of trying to implement rules that their member clubs voted for. Yeah, okay... I suppose that does sound a bit like the mafia.

Paul @46,

I think the costs incurred by both Everton and the Premier League will have reflected the determination and commitment on each side to secure a result, free of any 'cost plan' or prior agreement, but perhaps limited by the club's need to be frugal. Hence why the costs ended up 'eye-watering' and very different between the parties.

Agree Everton were guilty of breaking PSR rules as voted for by Premier League clubs.

It’s not in dispute, they pleaded guilty.

But the treatment of all Premier League hasn’t felt equitable throughout. Everton were originally awarded 10 points ( more than administration), they had to follow the Appeal route to get some sanity to prevail.

Masters et al then followed exactly the same route for the 2nd charge, despite the fact there was clear double jeopardy and mitigation. Fortunately the 2nd Independent Commission agreed with us, not the PL.

Indeed mitigation applies for Chelsea ( hotel accounting) and for Man Utd ( Glazer share sale accounting) but not for Everton ( interest payment accounting).

Forest were applied leniency for good behaviour ( admitting guilt- as did Everton). Masters called out their exemplary behaviour- all changed when they Appealed and called the PL a pile of crooks.

As I said, Everton were guilty of breaking the rules, and due appropriate punishment.

The problem is there was no standard for appropriate punishment ( how would you not have a punishment tariff- leaves the whole process open to abuse and misinterpretation), and thereafter ( in the words of Andy Burnham), they made it up as they were going along.

The whole thing has felt inequitable and disingenuous, and moreover very pointed towards Everton.

Everton FC has the lowest PL net player spend over the last 3 seasons, by a country mile. We are on a different planet compared to Liverpool, United, Chelsea etc.

Admittedly we paid a price for what went before but there comes a time when some modicum of fairness must prevail.

Any relation to the idiot who was Headmaster at Quarry Bank which was the first Liverpool school to abolish the cane, and corporal punishment, but allowed teachers to belt kids around the head?

If you can accept that the rules were voted for by the clubs, well, the whole hearing process – independent commissions, appeals, and the inevitable different rulings depending on what each independent commission thought – are also written into the rules.

I know there's only me in this camp but the claim that it was the Premier League on some unfair vendetta against Everton – corrupt, with Masters determined to get us relegated – was simply not true and did not fit with the facts of the cases.

The Premier League gave Everton more than fair warning in the years leading up to this, seemingly ignored. It was entirely Everton's fault that they ended up with excess losses, and they gave up far too easily on the mitigations that should really have got them off.

If there was a shred of truth in that narrative, then surely Everton would be paying every penny of the £4.9M legal costs?

I accept some of your points, we are not completely at odds, but I can’t accept that PSR is a fair and reasonable process and it is simply Everton’s incompetence ( tho we all accept some Everton incompetence) that they have fallen foul of it, in a way others have not.

They fell foul of the £105m over 3 years and admitted guilt, albeit Everton dispute the PL warnings, moreover claimed complete transparency with the PL throughout. Only those closest will know the truth.

Accepting guilt however, the PLs aiming for 10 points ( effectively twice), their failure to agree any mitigation, their differing treatment of Everton compared to Forest, Chelsea etc has never felt like a level playing field to me.

I’m not going to call it a vendetta, but it has felt disingenuous.

You talk about PSR rules but apart from the most basic of frameworks (£105m over 3 years, an Independent commission ( appointed by the PL), a right of Appeal ( to an Appeal body appointed by the PL), there is nothing…

No rules, no allowables/ disallowables or tariff for punishment, it’s each case on its merits, no two cases treated the same. You will never deliver fairness if that’s the approach.

Only the legal framework around it got us to 8 points instead of 18. 18 being the PLs directive.

To me this has not appeared a clear, transparent process, anything but.

We have not had to pay the £5m, despite the PL billing us for it, because lawyers once again judged the PLs take on events and approach to be wrong and unjust. They have apportioned cost fairly, at odds with the PL chiefs.

History repeating itself.

It's a bit like the new offside rules, overly complicated, unclear, inconsistent and no longer does what the rule was designed for.

Rather than make it simpler and easier to understand, to referee and comply, the game's rulemakers have done the exact opposite.

Again, a lot of money for...

Everton's naive stupidity in all of this is obvious. They thought and were probably led to believe if they admitted guilt they would receive a fine.

Unfortunately, Bill is no longer here to confirm or deny. But surely you can see the Premier League have done everything they can to help other clubs receive no punishment while ignoring obvious and viable mitigations for Everton confirmed by appeals.

It has been a completely vindictive stitch-up.

We'll continue to get the shit end of everything. Until such a time a new owner comes in and sweeps away the failed.

How clubs who become caught up in any Masters FFP disputes this season are treated will be interesting.