Burnley suing Everton to claim compensation for relegation

"Burnley have brought legal action against Everton over what the Clarets perceive to be a loss of revenue attributable to relegation in at the end of the 2021-22 season, a campaign when the Toffees breached PSR, with the actual punishment coming the following season when the club were hit with a second breach for the 2022-23 accounts."

"Everton’s engagement of Howard was first reported by The Lawyer website, with the hearing set to take place at the International Dispute Resolution Centre for Arbitration and Mediation in London.

The same commission that imposed a ten-point deduction on Everton initially is also deciding on the compensation for any claims for financial damages associated with it by aggrieved clubs. The commission’s chairman, David Phillips KC, had previously stated: “I am satisfied that the applicant clubs have potential claims for compensation.”

This was the same commission that was roundly condemned since wasn't it? By allowing this claim surely its opening floodgates against any clubs to be liable for compensation for any off field transgressions that later come to light? Man City for example?

Should Burnley get promotion, I doubt their team, supporters or management will be welcomed in any way on their return.

It's corruption of the game to allow clubs to sue other clubs for on-field decisions or results. What's next? Clubs sueing clubs for bad tackles to star players or refereeing decisions that cost them points?

This is far bigger than Burnley sueing for compensation, the door should never have been opened for it, but thanks to a corrupt set of points deductions and arbitrary decisions by the commission, the gift that never stops giving will continue.

Burnley should be roundly condemned for taking this action, both morally and legally, opening the door for clubs to sue clubs was a disgraceful decision by the Premier League commission, yet another reminder why Masters and Co should go.

See link: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/everton-make-key-appointment-legal-31186208

We'll be suing Liverpool next for the events of May 1985.

The whole thing really stinks… but I'll think you'll find that the idea of clubs sueing each other for compensation comes from the Premier League Handbook, and thus is the will of the clubs themselves.

The Independent Commission were just doing their job in reading the Handbook and implementing its rules.

Or at least the Old Everton might, hopefully this new lot have a bit more bottle and more importantly – Nouse.

We all know it is a corrupt game run now by a ridiculously insane PL "rule" book. and the victims of such "laws" have been us but equally important, so much is designed to keep PL sellable to other countries/media outlets.

So more more money arrives, we buy or appoint favourite "foreigners" as players or managers and on it goes.

Evertonia?

Bramliousa Docksa. (Beer)

For £xm, seems great for £200m worth of rubbish...if PL allowed it.

Seriously, we love our club but, love the game now?

Umm. Hard.

As that's outside of Everton's control, surely it's the football authorities responsible for the process that Burnley should be suing?

We all forget it now, it seems... me included.

Not sure if the globalization of the Premier League was an objective… or just an organic thing that has happened over time and was (at least it seemed for a period) justified by the 'excitement' the games created for anyone watching, from near or far.

If Moshiri had been remotely competent in anything related to football, we would at the very least be where Villa are – heading for a 6-1 win in the round of 16 of the Champions League.

There was a decision made to delay the first Independent Commission — there was not enough time to get through the process before the end of that season — but I think Everton were more than a party to the decision… they may have even requested it!

Well done with "top commas"!

Hard to work out.

Exciting or did we fall for the money, TV and tabloid idea... IT IS THRILLING?

Wait till Leicester and Leeds join in.

The rules were agreed by all Premier League members, including us…

The Independent Commission findings opened the door to compensation from other teams... explicitly said compensation would be applicable…

Another fine mess you got us into, Moshiri.

Over to the lawyers again…

I do remember a time in the dim and distant past when it was great to watch. Vague memories of a Manchester derby that was brilliant end-to-end stuff… I think it was 3-3 by the final whistle.

That was way back in the mid-1990s I think — and I was indeed watching on TV from a foreign land.

I doubt if they will be successful but, if they were, it would open up a whole can of worms, for more than Everton.

Burnley getting cold feet their successive 0-0 draws won't get them back to the Premier League. Their team and City are a joke.

Probably too late now but we absolutely should have!
Kagsefoot

These Stone Age tools continued to be of use to Sean Dyche tactically well into the 21st Century.

Leeds and Leicester can't “Join in”, because they've dropped their case, and I'm pretty sure they can't just decide to open it again.

Burnley got relegated because they were even worse than us, because they had Sean Dyche at the helm. They need to take responsibility and just own how shit they were, and accept that they deserved to be relegated.

I see the Steua flag was on display last night. We should plan a Justice For The 39 protest for the derby – see how the cunts like that.

I've never ever hated them as bad as I do these days… Twats.

The Independent Commission deemed there to be an inferred sporting advantage.

Everton received a waiver from the Premier League in respect of the costs they incurred before approval of planning permission.

I too don't expect them to get too far with their claim but not for the reasons you're giving.

What next? Financial claims because a club's player injured another club's player that may have cost them the league?

Can we sue Derby for Esteban Fuertes's goal in '99?

Or played better.

Burnley are grasping at straws.

If Burnley disagreed with it, then they should have taken remedial action at the time rather than now chase the money.

Does it make any difference if they accepted any "parachute" payment?

Same as Chelsea who didn't get done for the bad accounting during the Russian's ownership.

I'm not really surprised by this.

On the positive side, we may get an update on Moshiri and what he is at. He will have a job a while longer while this is going on. We may even get to see his moon face as if he knows what is going on. He always had a stoned look IMO. Bet he has a red one of those piped things at home.

Next, Southampton, Ipswich and Leicester will be suing the teams above them cos it's not fair they got relegated.

Once you get lawyers involved, it never ends. My experience of civil courts is that whoever gets the best, ie,. most expensive lawyers, usually wins.

Everton might have got the advantage in bumping the case down a year, but they don't set the rules of the competition or enforced this happening. The Premier League allowed this to happen, and could easily have made the case stick on the season under question.

My other thought was nothing existed in the rules that stated this would be the case. They quickly had to redraft the rules to prosecute Everton, so I would expect that this retrospective action will weaken a civil case against Everton.

Football is sadly going this way, and it is certainly more dog eat dog. Cardiff are still trying to sue for £130m in damages for the footballer killed in the light plane. Tragic, but the lengths they're going to doesn't feel right either.

After all, if the points deduction had been implemented, and you had stayed up, then you wouldn't have received the parachute payment.

Fortunately our being a soft touch for an out of court settlement looks very unlikely under TFG. Hopefully this desperate case simply results in significant legal costs for Burnley. Shameless grifters.

Interesting that no other media is running with this story other than the Liverpool Echo. I know they say they got that from The Lawyer, but strange no other media has picked it up and verified what the Echo says?

So if Burnley were to win the case, and logically any parachute payments be repaid, and if it meant Everton should have gone down, then perhaps we can qualify for the parachute payment instead.

It's so much nonsense and, as others have said, opens up a can of worms... it could turn into a free-for-all if and when the Man City charges and any punishments are set...

I remember football when it was football. Danny has the right idea, watching lower-league matches such as Bromley...😀

I make no apologies for bringing our former owner and chairman back into your theory that Moshiri was responsible for the way we were run.

He bought the club off Kenwright then handed the control of it back to him, so we were run pathetically by Kenwright and his chosen clique who were more interested in their own wellbeing than Everton FC.

I was struggling with the authenticity of this story too, Christine. The change in KC was odd, to say the least. I registered at The Lawyer but still can't get the story to show.

I think we might have missed this story last November in the Echo from the same Dave Powell, Chief Business of Football Writer:

Everton compensation case could take a year to reach outcome

But shows how bad my memory is getting as we did in fact report on The Times story he referenced:

Everton's PSR nightmare casts a long shadow

Ian @45,

"They quickly had to redraft the rules to prosecute Everton"

Which rules were those that were redrafted, Ian?

There is a great post, to me anyway, by Barry Williams (22) on your “ Everton's PSR nightmare casts a long shadow” thread from last year.

Most odd, is it or isn't it? Perhaps of most concern is the fact that the original commission is the one which sets the level of compensation… shoul the matter be deemed in favour of Burnley.

As it's reported to be going to arbitration, I hope Everton fight this tooth and nail, however. Or does the mere fact that it has gone to arbitration indicate agreement in principle to pay and that its about how much rather that get stuffed? Or do I read that wrong? Still in dispute? I hope so.

"The hearing set to take place at the International Dispute Resolution Centre for Arbitration and Mediation in London."

Edit, Just seen Rob's post 47 - Great point.

Clubs cannot sue each other or the Premier League in the courts, Rule X in the Premier League Handbook states that any dispute is heard by an arbitration and disputes tribunal and its conclusions are binding on all parties.

However, should the the tribunal find in Burnley's favour, the level of compensation is determined by the original independent (my arse!) commission whose findings were held is so much disrepute.

Now, if memory serves us correct, the reason the furore as too "Premier League Corrupt as..." came about was the fact that this independent commission was perceived as anything but. That this was a deliberate baring of teeth by the Premier League in an attempt to circumvent the appointment of an independent regulator. They wanted a Patsy, and Everton were it.

Frankly, with the independent commission finding against us and confirming other clubs could seek compensation, they effectively undermined any defence against any claim. It was a stitch-up. It was political. It was a joke.

If the arbitration starts from the perspective of "we were found guilty of gaining a sporting advantage", then the only discussion is how much. This is not right.

If Everton stopped existing, I'd totally give up football and concentrate on Rugby League.

I love my Rugby League, Paul, as you do, but I'm not so sure that the governance of it at the moment is much better than the Premier League. So bad in fact that I believe there's talk of the NRL taking over our Super League.

What with all this business over Salford, it seems in a pretty poor state at the moment.

It's the Premier League who decided this, and nothing to do with Everton. And as said in other posts, they were compensated with a parachute payment, which they accepted.

A total farce.

I think you're talking apples and apricots there.

For starters, Manchester City challenged the APT rules on 24 counts, I think. The bench found they had a case on 3 out of 24. 21 were thrown out.

The Premier League went back to its members with an adjustment of the rules to address the 3 points – which significantly included ending interest-free (or low) shareholder loans from owners/shareholders by 11 January 2025.

Everton were not deducted points in relation to APT directly… in fact, if the revised APT rules had been backdated to Everton's PSR calculations of unadmissible losses, we would have been in far deeper doo-doo than we were with the 10 points deducted.

The Orangutan high council, thank Christ we ‘escaped from the planet of the apes’.

Just saying……..

Well done for doing some digging. Not sure I agree fully with your follow-on claims though.

The Premier League knew there were problems with our finances and worked with us for something 2 years before realising that the dopes in charge were so stupid they were not going to do anything to avoid the PSR charges.

The bit that was unfair… yes, corrupt really, was the arbitrary and capricious dismissal of the various mitigations we put forward. So that could have been a deliberate ploy (PL briefing to the Commission?) to make sure the y found us guilty of the PSR breaches as a result, and gave them the patsy who needed slapping into place, in a show that an independent regulator was not needed. (Hmmm... how's that worked out?)

In my book, though, the primary cause of our troubles was not the Premier League; it was the gross incompetence of the Everton senior management (Kenwright, Barrett-Baxendale, Ingles) in failing to make sure we never even got close to that situation after getting more than fair warning from the Premier League.

Warnings that they repeatedly and stupidly, defiantly ignored.

I just want to give you some context as it appears some may have got the wrong end of what is happening. Here is how I see it from the other side.

The timeline matters – which is that Burnley and Leeds wrote to the Premier League in the 2021-22 season and asked if the Premier League were going to look at Everton's figures as they appeared to have breached PSR or FFP – all Premier League clubs have access to others submissions and the two clubs raised these concerns.

The Premier League wrote (that's important) to both Leeds and Burnley and stated, in essence, they had looked at Everton's submissions and there was nothing to see. So Burnley reserved the right to challenge that later, Leeds dropped their legal action.

The Premier League then, for some reason, did a U-turn and looked at Everton's case again and sanctioned them, deducting the points they should have deducted for the 2021-22 season, which would have seen Everton relegated, and all the financial turmoil that would have caused.

Instead, Burnley were relegated and had to sell in excess of £100M worth of players, who were contracted and probably would have stayed – not to mention those that left on a free. For example, Tarkowski, who you subsequently signed, he may have stayed at Burnley if they had stayed up. If he hadn't, I doubt he would have gone to an Everton side in the Championship, and Burnley then had to restructure the whole squad.

The Laaarticle says that the barrister has been appointed by Everton; we don't know the terms of the case. It could be Burnley suing the Premier League for not enforcing its own rules. This was also commented on by the panel, the same panel that indicated that those clubs affected could seek compensation. Burnley because they were relegated, while Everton broke the rules, the rules they and Burnley had voted for, rules which Burnley stuck to!!

So, now you have a different side and context, can you see why Burnley are suing?

1) Because the Premier League said Everton hadn't broke the rules, they investigated and decided they had and didn't apply the sanction in the correct season and Burnley were relegated as a consequence.

2) The Premier League then sanctioned Everton, which Everton accepted, they had breached the rules and were deducted 6 points on appeal (similar to pleading guilty at court then appealing the sentence as too harsh).

3) The independent commission stated that affected clubs would have a case for compensation, but they didn't say who from — could be Everton, could be the Premier League… could be both.

If you also recall, this potential legal action was a stumbling block to the takeover of Everton that had just happened and there was a suggestion that the new owners had mitigated an amount of money they thought may have to be paid. They wouldn't do that if they felt there was no case to answer.

As for the previous Sheffield Utd case, it is more similar than you first think. Sheffield Utd sought compensation as a result of relegation when West Ham broke the rules by signing a player with 3rd party ownership, for which they were sanctioned. They paid Sheffield Utd in excess of £20M but that was around 20 years ago.

So, adding inflation and the cost of players etc, if they find in Burnley's favour, it could be well north of £70M. But who knows… we may never know, but I suspect that Everton may try and settle before it gets to the tribunal, as maybe will the Premier League.

In closing, imagine for a moment that Burnley had broken the rules, stayed up, and Everton had been relegated; would you want your club to sue for compensation? Of course you would — and you would be right behind them all the way!!

The hearing was delayed at Everton's request.

So, based on the Independent Commission, we were guilty, and KC ruled compensation could be claimed.

Most clubs would have the good grace not to pursue this and the Premier League shouldn't allow it, but they do.

Legal wrangle, possible settlement likely.

Should we have to pay compensation, let's say £30million, will this have to be included in PSR?

And could this then cause an issue again and risk further failure?

From the Burnley accounts:

Season ending 2021 turnover (excluding player sales): £115M.
Season ending 2022 turnover (excluding player sales): £123M.
Season ending 2023 turnover (Championship): £64M before player sales.

When we talk about sport and sportsmanship, Burnley are acting most unsportsmanlike.

It was their own incompetence that got them relegated — not Everton's spending.

The commission said Everton breached the allowed losses and therefore — without any justification or basis — they were deemed to have had an unfair sporting advantage, and therefore must be punished with a points deduction.

Yet, if the very reasonable and entirely justified multiple mitigations had been allowed, Everton's spending would have been exactly the same — but they would have not breached the PSR rules, and therefore would not have gained a sporting advantage. The entire case really hung on the acceptance or dismissal of Everton's mitigations.

Shows how completely arbitrary it all was. And avoidable. That's what sticks in my craw. Avoidable by the club numpties who were handsomely rewarded for their services to the club — because they should have headed the warnings and should have never allowed it to get to that stage.

If this was the case, then I don't think Everton would have appealed, and as much as I think Burnley have a case, it's going to be interesting now Everton have new owners, for a couple of reasons:

Firstly, it looks like it was the Premier League who messed things up by not punishing Everton in the initial time-zone. And secondly, when Chelsea's new owners took over from Abramovich, the Premier League accepted that some of the dodgy things that had gone on before should just lie on file because the new owners hadn't been part of what had gone on before.

I think that's what happened anyway, and regards Evertonians kicking up a fuss if the boot was on the other foot, then I don't think anyone could argue with that, mate.

Burnley are close to returning to the Premier League once again, John, so good luck. From a supporter's point of view, which is the better league when it comes to value for money?

I don't know what Burnley are playing at other than to syphon money from us. And not just with Everton, where would it stop?

Let's see how our new owners deal with this. I would expect they'll be a bit more challenging and robust if (if) anything comes of this.

I don't see the basis for clubs suing each other and it will be a slippery slope if your legal case becomes a precedent.

You state that “the independent commission stated that affected clubs would have a case for compensation.” The only things consistent in the way the independent commissions interpreted P&S rules in the cases of Everton and Forest was the inconsistency.

If your club feels that the rules regarding P&S were wrongly applied, then it is the Premier League that you should sue. That would not be sensible, so Burnley would be better to move on.

I commend you for you stating your perspective; however, you fail to acknowledge a number of points that are relevant, as some posters have pointed out:

1. This case was the first time any club had been charged with a PSR breach. There was no precedent.

2. Everton's appalling management over the previous years led to poor financial decision-making – especially with relation to the building of the new stadium. The alleged (at the time) breaches of PSR were compounded by the refusal to offset certain costs and interest payments for the new stadium, a highly contentious view that was further compounded when the very first independent commission ruled that this constituted sporting advantage.

3. The Premier League and all its member clubs set the rules; how they are applied and to whom and when is down to its management. This ruling was not done in isolation either, the very first of its kind, done so when the Premier League management was under threat from the government.

4. In the article, it's clear that the two parties in the dispute are Burnley and Everton, not the Premier League. In reality, it should be the Premier League facing the questions and trying to justify "sporting advantage" or how and why subsequent independent commissions ruled appeals justified, that undermined both the previous commissions' perspective on the already contentious view of perceived sporting advantage.

5. As previously pointed out it was the Premier League, not Everton, who decided when and how such referral to a commission would take place. Natural justice would dictate the right to appeal and there was no case for a retrospective application of its findings.

6. Burnley were relegated not because of Everton but because they deserved to be after failing to amass points. They were justifiably relegated because of their performances, not because of anything Everton did on the pitch.

John, this dispute hinges around the perceived "sporting advantage" Everton are alleged to have gained. Yet other clubs, Chelsea, Man City, Leicester, etc have clearly gained significant advantage through clever use of financial loopholes. Condemning Everton for disputed accounting practices citing sporting advantage, yet clearly allowing the above clubs significant, real sporting advantage on the pitch for all to see, goes on unabated.

Any dispute should be with the Premier League as they have managed a flawed system badly and applied its rules inconsistently. PSR was and is a bad system if it cannot be applied correctly to all clubs.

Sporting advantage is subjective: spend a billion and it's clear you have a sporting advantage, but the level of sporting advantage cannot be down to just money, it's better facilities, management and dedication. Everton FC won more points on the pitch than Burnley, that's why Burnley went down. Not the subjective notion of perceived sporting advantage.

My apologies for the length of this rambling reply.

I don't get this, the initial 10-point deduction was applied last season which was 2023-24. Yes, it should have been applied the season before which was 22-23 and that was the year that Leeds, Leicester and Southampton went down. Burnley went down the year before in 21-22 with Watford and Norwich.

What exactly are they arguing?

Before the 10 points were deducted, it was unclear if it would be a fine, transfer ban, or a points sanction. The fact that we got a 10-point deduction, for what was a minor miss, truly shocked football.

That was deliberate by the football authorities to make an example of a big team, but not a media darling. A further fine, and then they provide less points deducted for Forest despite a bigger relative miss, and fail to catch Leicester at all.

Clubs have got wise to it now, hence Anderson, Iroegbunam, etc.

And I still dispute the 'near miss' theory. There are 3 'gates' at zero losses, £15 million losses, and £105 million losses. We overshot the top gate by nearly 20%!

I'm sure it was easier for the Premier League that it was us and not one of their darlings, but it's a bit rich to complain that we got punished for clearly breaking rules (and risking the ongoing viability of the club – that often gets forgotten).

I also still think we should count our good fortune that the inept Premier League managed to botch our case so badly that we are still in the league. We did get a massive break there.

I think many fans could not understand why there was no set punishment for a breach, and interpreted the Independent Commission coming up with the punishment themselves as a corrupt rewriting of the rules, or worse, "making it up as they went along".

In truth, the Independent Commission looked at what they were required to do, per the Premier League Handbook… and did what they thought it required, while justifying whatever discretionary decision-making was done on their part, as allowed/required by the rules.

Maybe it's naive of me to think that all this was done without a word in their shell-like from Masters, but the process had to be a clear and transparent application of the agreed rules. Despite what lots of fans claimed, I could never find anything to indicate that it was not.

As I recall, there's a long discussion of exactly how they came up with the 10-point deduction, which they claimed was not influenced by the Premier League's submission (in their role as 'prosecutor') that it should have been 12 points.

It's crazy that it got to this stage, that such ridiculous rules were voted in by the clubs, that the 'smaller' clubs all agreed to give such a huge advantage to the 'bigger' clubs… but there you are. Rules is rules.

It was convenient that Everton were the test case. I highly doubt Liverpool or Man Utd would have a similar outcome. That's for sure.

Fanciful, not really, Hicks & Gilette nearly crashed Liverpool and Uncle Jim had United running out of cash in November if it wasn't for him.

The P&S rules are a joke as it is. It's creating a situation where the promoted 3 are going straight down. If you made a mess of your transfers, Man Utd, Everton, then you're non-competitive for the next 4-5 years. Aston Villa & Newcastle Utd having to sell to buy.

The Premier League, which was once competitive at all levels, is quickly turning into a zombie league of half the teams potentially treading water.

Good question. I think because the breach is calculated over three (or four) successive seasons, then (by the dubious logic involved) the sporting advantage applies equally over all those seasons.

So, in any of those seasons where Everton stayed up but someone else didn't, the teams that didn't can try to argue that they were damaged and relegated due in part to Everton's unfair sporting advantage.

Highly tenuous... and there could be a host of clubs claiming compensation off us on that basis, so I'd better just delete this without pressing 'Send'!

It was interesting when Masters and Parry both went before the Select Comittee, Ian, because Parry was arguing that the EFL don't agree with the parachute payments because they are giving the relegated clubs a major advantage. But Masters said the Premier League needed to keep them so it helped the promoted clubs become more competitive.

Has it created a bit of a yo-yo system, or was it always like this?

Masters maintaining the status quo, Parry pushing for the independent regulator.

I think you've always had a bit of a yo-yo, but now it feels more pronounced. The Bottom 3 struggling to get to 25 points, that's a fair way from the old 40-point level.

Southampton on 9 points, 3 from us, is not what the Premier League should want.

That would mean that the 4-point gap between ourselves and Burnley in the season they are cribbing about would still be too big a gap and they'd still go down.

If they come back up this season, then they will only go back down again next season. An irrelevant club!!

By the sound of it, Burnley should be suing the commission which dishes out the penalties, not Everton. Everton has no control of when the points deduction happens? What if Burnley stays up? What if Burnley gets into the Champions League and win it? What-ifs???

Perhaps I'm getting the seasons wrong but I saw Burnely staying up on goal difference?

I see it: Season 1... 2 points; Season 2... another 2... making a cumulative of 4.

On that basis, why not carry forward the previous season's goal difference when Burnley were –22 to Everton's –1?

The punishment was 6 points. It wasn't multiples!

So, over the three seasons that would equate to 12 points if carried over in the way you suggest, doubling the original 6-point deduction.

There's cumulative and then there's doubling....

Fine lines but massively different.

Otherwise your point relating to goal difference is moot. Burnley would be 2 points short of goal difference having any relevance.

Season 0 + Season 1 + Season 2 = Good
Season 1 + Season 2 + Season 3 = Breach

Hmmm, but now I've written it down it's mathematically possible that it was one or both of the prior two seasons that caused the breach.

Maybe our KC could make an argument that we didn't get the sporting advantage in the season Bolton went down but the season before? Or better still prove that we had no sporting advantage at all.

Easy to confuse Eric, to be fair. Those Lancashire cotton/mill town often seem to merge into one in a desolate landscape of waste and things that were once buildings, made liveable by the odd hen night/stag night in Liverpool.

Burnley is a fecking dump surrounded, admittedly, by eye-catching scenic stuff. But if anyone has the time here is Burnley:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUyadG_FlBA

Burnley went down because they had a shite manger and coaches in the hard-boiled eggs and because they are a basement team who will always go up down like a hovis cobble clog flat-cap yo-yo.

If, IF, Burnley make it to the Premier League, their fans will gaze in wonder at Everton Stadium, happy in the thought that they will see it once every two years.

I still find it nutty to see that failure Kompany – who squeezed out 24 points while coaching Burnley to relegation – in the Bayern dug-out with his juvenile baseball cap on. It doesn't look right.

Also I do wish we would not stoop to the written criticisms of other football towns, Paul 102, there is plenty about our City which is less than wonderful. And can I also put the record straight re our joint former manager, and player Michael Keane.

Yes, they are both not perfect, but I remember how in the most difficult of times they played their part in the most difficult of circumstances.
So let the lawyers sort this mess out and welcome Burnley, back to the Premier League when it happens.

"But that's what your doing Brendan"

Not just me Dennis. It went to 8 points deducted in total when we were docked points a second time.

It wasn't Everton decision nor responsibility to apply the deduction that season rather than the season before. It's the Premier League they should take this up with, not us. Maybe that's why the original link was removed? ie, it's incorrect?

Anyway, Burnley can fuck right off… and when they've fucked off, they can keep on fucking off until they've fcuked right off for good. Inbreds!

I fully understand the point of view being put across about sporting advantage. The commission said there was some: if for example Everton had stayed within the rules, they they may not have gathered the points required, hence the sporting advantage.

The point I raised initially and how all this came about was this, Burnley and Leeds flagged up to the Premier League that they thought that Everton had breached the rules in that season and asked for the Premier League to look at it. Had they done so then, the points deduction (6 as it turned out) would have been applied in the correct season and Everton would have been relegated and not Burnley.

The Premier League wrote to both Burnley and Leeds and said there was no case for Everton to answer then proceeded to investigate them for the breach. This I think is what annoys Burnley Fans, the Premier League basically didn't do their job properly, then tried to recover the situation in the threat of a independent regulator, basically saying ' we don't need one, look we are putting our house in order' but that just shows their incompetence in the first place.

Relegation has a massive financial impact, as we all know, and the gap is getting bigger. I want you to imagine for a minute if the sanction had been applied and Everton had been relegated, where would your club be?

Fortunately for Burnley, we have been a very well run club for years and Everton, by your own admission, haven't been… so it is difficult to think what the consequences would have been for your club. In one respect, you could say Everton were lucky that it turned out like it did as, if they had been relegated, who knows.

Everton pleaded guilty to breaching the rules and appealed the 10-point deduction, which was reduced to 6 points, therefore admitting they had breached the rules by pleading guilty. They weren't found guilty, they admitted it. In essence, they knew they had breached the rules. The points were then applied in a different season to when Burnley first raised the issue with the Premier League.

The Nottm Forest breach for overspending was applied in the season to which the breach occurred, albeit their breach happened in the summer transfer window and was ultimately sanctioned in the first season that it applied, so the argument that it should have been the season after is a non-starter.

Nottm Forest also admitted a breach as they didn't meet the rules, they admitted the breach and gained a sporting advantage. Their case hinged on the sale of Brenan Johnson to Spurs; they argued if they had sold him before the end of June (I think it was), then they would have lost money.

Instead, they sold him for £20M more than they could have done before the cut-off date… what happened to that £20M? They spent it on other players, so they gained an advantage by being able to spend an extra £20M. It's quite easy to see the sporting advantage in that context.

Granted, it's not as clear-cut with Everton but, if you spend more money than you are allowed, what are you spending it on? Not infrastructure, that's outside of the rules. It's players' wages and the like – and the players give you the sporting advantage. Or you have to sell players who then don't play for you, and they probably play for a rival.

As for the compensation case itself, it has only come to light that it is happening because of an article within a magazine about legal representation. None of us knew that legal action was happening before that article; I suspect both clubs didn't want it to be known either.

What we don't know is: Are Burnley suing the Premier League, as – and I think quite a lot of Everton fans have stated this as well – Burnley seem to have a case against them as well. I wouldn't be surprised if this is also happening.

Also, the independent commission said that Burnley, although they didn't name them, probably had grounds to seek compensation. Don't tell me you wouldn't want Everton to seek compensation if you thought they had been wronged in the same way. Of course you would.

I suspect, as many above do, that it is likely it will get settled before the case gets to the tribunal. I guess we will only find out when the clubs' accounts come out in a couple of years, or if Burnley suddenly spend £200M in a transfer window as they have got say an extra £100M in compensation.

If this has shown one thing, it's how incompetent the Premier League are at marking their own homework – an independent regulator is needed more than ever.

Burnley got relegated primarily because they weren't good enough. Everton got a points deduction primarily because the club was run appallingly badly (not helped by clear favouritism, inconsistency and corruption by the Premier League).

Burnley's beef should be with the Premier League. When working class towns in the north start sniping at each other like Tory smallminded snobs, it makes us all look like twats, frankly.

That said, if I was Burnley, I'd be doing the exact same thing because they were shafted here.

On the train tomorrow, amongst the travelling West Ham supporters, I'm expecting the usual classics, such as "sign on", "we pay your benefits" not to mention shouts of "mind your wallets".

I just smile and end up having a laugh with them.

What we shouldn't accept is any ridiculous Suing from Burnley who were relegated because they were shite, not because of anything we did, or in the case of the Premier league, didn't do, when imposing the points deduction the following season. When I say anything we did, what I mean is buying players to help in our quest for premier league survival, unlike Forest who well overspent on god knows how many players. No, we simply made a payment towards the new stadium, a payment which the premier league said was above board, only to change their mind later on.

So yes, we most certainly do have a leg to stand on, and Burnley can go and Fuck themselves.

Our city has its own awful areas, as you rightly say, but also too many to count other things that make it a truly great city where, for instance, the Dingles come for their stag/hen nights and days out.

Surely Everton will argue against the same panel whose ruling was reduced from 10 to 6 points on Appeal.

Difficult to see why it wouldn't affect our PSR.

Unfortunately I do believe they may have a case for compensation but not to the level that they think.

As previously stated, only Barristers are winning here and we may possibly have pay £5 mill for potential loss of income from advertising etc. Any other losses we should fight are negated by parachute payments.

Believe most prem teams will treat Burnley and its six fingered fans as pariahs when they visit, us included, and would suggest we approach the Prem if they are promoted not to give them any tickets for BMD for their own safety, not that I believe there is a direct threat to supporters but to give us a sporting advantage over then. They will not reciprocate as they struggle filling their barn and need the 6000 we will take there!

If they wish to open the can of worms then they want to think long and take advice from Pandora and her box.

One other thing before the "trial" Premier League were stating what the punishment should be (12 points) so much for innocent until proven guilty.

I doubt any Prosecuting Barrister has ever got to his feet before a trial starts and say to the Judge I expect the death sentence to be given to Mr X riding a bike without lights is serious and the implications had it been dark don't bare thinking about...