Burnley suing Everton for £50M in PSR impact claim

Any one got any more on this and how likely Burnley are to win the case? Being heard behind closed doors — why?

Haven't we been punished more than enough by the unprecedented points deductions and the unfair treatment of valid mitigations?

Jack, it's probably constituted as a hearing under the Premier League's rules and these are always held in private because 'sensitive' commercial interests and business matters are involved.

How can you sue an individual team for their failings?

This is a load of crap. Burnley were relegated for their failure to gain sufficient points over the course of 38 games, not because of Everton.

They didn't play us every week did they?

The doors for it were opened by the Premier League legal adjudicators when handing out the initial 10-point penalty to Everton (subsequently appealed). The lead KC said that there were legal grounds for other clubs to pursue compensation claims.

Interestingly, I believe the same Premier League legal team sit again on this matter. You would assume therefore that they lean towards Everton's guilt.

Everton admitted PSR breaches but assert they complied with Premier League rules on timing of cases; the rules have since changed to insist that cases are now heard sooner.

Burnley are claiming loss of revenue from relegation that would have been avoided if the case had been heard sooner, and Everton relegated. It's not Everton's fault re timing of case, that's down to Premier League rules.

It's messy. A lawyers goldmine.

As Michael says a successful claim by Burnley would open the floodgates to other claims against Man City and Chelsea if they have breached rules.

If Everton are found guilty then it will likely be a hefty financial bill (Burnley claiming upwards of £50M). I would expect Everton will claim mitigation, or seek a compromise to reduce any claim.

Who knows what the outcome of this will be…

I also expect that TFG factored this potential liability into the cost of acquisition from Moshiri.

I would argue that that is not necessarily the case. Situations such as point deductions and being in the drop zone change mindset and tactics. We've seen that.

This will set a very dangerous precedent. But if there's one club to make an example of — one club in the whole land — we know who it is.

1) Given the breach happened over 3 seasons, not one, then hypothetically one could argue the nominal points deductions should be over 3 seasons, not just one. And that ends Burnley's case.

2) But the above is hypothetical because the rules state points deductions apply in the season where the case is finalised — which wasn't 2021-22. It was only afterwards that the Premier League moved to shorten timeframes. Premier League clubs would have signed up for these rules.

3) Burnley might have had a shred of a case had there been any unequivocal proof that the overspend was a) deliberate and b) clearly conferred a sporting advantage. Neither likely to be proven.

On the former, the main issue was the manner in which the stadium was financed and to the extent a bigger stadium confers a sporting advantage, it will be in the future not the past.

To the extent players were signed in 2021-22, these were Patterson, Dele and Van der Beek, none of whom are comparable in influence to Tevez and Mascherano which in any case was a case on different grounds to this.

£50M is a pipe dream and, even if somehow Burnley can persuade the hearing of a 'butterfly effect', there would still be (low) probability applied to the possible loss. £0-£10M would be a more realistic range. I wouldn't rule out a settlement somewhere in this range, just to move on.

Send the message: we won't go gently into the night.

If the points deductions becried by Burnley where to have been implemented early enough, we could have clawed our way back.

This is all pure speculation on Burnley's part, in my view, but I am interested to see how it is brought to a conclusion, if any.

Wouldn't they have to repay that if successful?

I absolutely hate this era of, boring, biased and full of cheating, diving,sneaky buggers footie!

I can't even watch it nowadays... or remember the last time I sat through a whole half!!!

Enough is enough.

This is not true though is it? Everton got a 10-point reduced to 6 and we went on a remarkable run that got us to safety. What's to say that wouldn't have happened then?

Fuck off, Burnley.

Am I wrong in thinking that the overspend was solely to do with the stadium costs, so no sporting advantage was gained from it?

Last season, we could all have worried that it may have tipped us into bankruptcy, but now it will be with the lawyers, and something will get thrashed out. Burnley might get £5M if they're lucky.

If they are awarded anything it opens up a right can of worms.

What of the other clubs who have got in trouble with PSR, are they too to be sued because they finished higher than they should have.

Not as serious as in Burnley's case, but it has cost clubs below them money.

What is the time on accusations, two, three, five ten seasons? Will Burnley open the flood gates, or will the Premier League quickly close the doors on this as surely, they are themselves complicit in this.

Also, as they will say it's our fault, can the lynch mob, headed by Mr Masters, have another go at Everton as far as taking more points from us?

Looks like we may need Clint Eastwood and Co to get us out of Dodge this time.

A friend of mine sold a company to Americans. He found himself at a meeting by himself, with the purchaser and two of their top managers and three of their lawyers.

He would not be on your own nowadays, for sure, he now tells me.

This is not brought by the Premier League, it's another club seeking compensation.

Otherwise, who do we sue for..?

The rule change that allowed LFC's admission into the Champions League, attracting greater income and better players that have given them a sporting advantage over us ever since?

EFC's point deductions where others who transgressed far, far further go unpunished?

Coventry's disallowed FA Cup 'winner' that eased Arsenal's purchase of Gyökeres that strengthens their attack against us in the future?

Clive Thomas for changing our history?

So, it would be interesting in how they came to a figure of £50M? In theory - if other clubs are found guilty of financial transgressions - Burnley should sue them too.

Les Callan - 11 - Yes, it seems odd.

Their owner saddled them with over £100M of debt using a leveraged buyout. Now after a grifter's payday.

Burnley - and only Burnley seem to have a genuine claim for compensation, albeit probably not as much as £50M because of parachute payments etc, but they should be suing the Premier League, not us, for not applying the points deduction in the correct season.

God knows how much the RS will claim by way of lost championships if Man City ever get found guilty!

Huge can of worms!

This is why I doubt they could claim loss of revenue. This is exactly what the parachute payment is for. But I don't think the PL ever thought it would be used as a business plan.

It doesn't equate to the full amount of lost earnings, nor does it prevent relegated clubs from having to prune their wage bill and possibly sell their best players to do so.

But apparently a bit more softening from Everton is required.

Had we been relegated, we would have got the parachute payment. So if found against us, we should pursue the Premier League for that, surely?

The crux here is what the Plaintiff (Burnley) have said in their complaint against the Defendant (Everton). Here, it appears that the claim for compensation is based upon the fact of points deduction.

Burnley are aggrieved that Everton were not deducted points for the season 2021-22. Meaning Everton would have been relegated and not them.

They want Everton to compensate them for perceived losses for the following season, where demotion had a direct effect upon their business.

They are looking at the rule that, by breaching PSR, Everton gained an unfair sporting advantage as cited by league rules.
League rules also state, guilty clubs can sue the culprit.

Okay, so, IMO, legally, Burnley don't have a leg to stand on.
Looking at the Premier League rules, they can say what they want. It doesn't make them legal in the eyes of the law.

Recently the Premier League rules were bought into court (by Man City) whereby it was deemed they were poorly drafted and required rewriting. That part anyway.

Clearly, in this case, the rules don't hold up. The Premier League denied Burnley access to the hearing and then say they have a case to litigate. Contradiction.

Then you have the reason for the breach, a loan on a stadium not yet built, and breaching because the interest on the loan took them over.

This was later rectified to stop further breaches after the second one occurred. The breach was a financial mistake on a building and had no direct influence on the pitch nor gaining the club an advantage.

Finally, Everton are not responsible for when points are deducted. Nor the process by which it is brought to a completion. In fact, Everton complied at every turn, even requesting the governing body for assistance. Unlike other clubs (Man City and Chelsea) who refused to show the league paperwork relating to players, transfers and hidden accounts.

Burnley, if they have a complaint, should be bringing an action against the Premier League. They are the judge and responsible body for implementation. If they failed to apply their own rules fairly and in good time, then Burnley's losses (if believed) are with them.

Everton have no fault in this matter. Case dismissed.

I peer at it... "That's never!" -- but it is. I see a liver bird.

The reason we didn't is because, at that point, we had no idea we were £19.5M over because the case hadn't been heard. In other words, strictly speaking, we had not transgressed at the point Burnley were relegated and were not provided a chance to mitigate for the reasons above.

I still think, for this case to have any merit, it would have to be on 'loss of chance' where the threshold for proof is lower, but then so is the payout.

A similar case might be Derby County v Middlesbrough, where Gibson sought c £40M but eventually settled for £2.7M. In other words, a pretty small fraction of what was claimed. Hence we might look for a settlement point of £2.5M to £5M.

This is only in the red Echo and the stated time period does not count.

If Burnley get a penny from us, I will.

Apparently the woman leading Burnley's claim was Everton's lead counsel at the time we breached PSR. Conflict of interest?

Considering the actual points deduction we got was imposed in season 2023-24, it's nigh on impossible to determine who would have gone down and who would have stayed up in 2021-22.

We could argue that “Okay, the deduction could have been imposed at the start of the season, giving us plenty of time to make those points up” while Burnley, naturally would want the points deduction at the end of the season.

It's all hypothetical anyway, as there's absolutely no way of knowing what could have happened. Also, we should sue them for the loss of the parachute payments we would have received, or are they going to pay that back?

Burnley, the place where the family trees have no branches.

I'm guessing that they are “only” claiming £50M, being the difference they perceive between the actual loss and the parachute payment.

But you know that... of course you do.

Send them back to the Championship where they belong.

They have never been a Premier League club: shit ground, shit fans, shit manager.

Not good enough to the core, so they try to sue another Premier League club.

Get the fuck out of town and back where you belong.

Chelsea got away with certain offences because they had nothing to do with their new owners, because they had been committed before they arrived?

I might not be wrong but I'm sure something like this happened?

The new owners self-reported but the club will still be punished if found guilty.

Although it will be interesting to see how leniently Chelsea are treated due to their "good behaviour".

If true, she will have insider knowledge.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/amywells1/

A lawyer will be along in a bit to explain why there is no conflict of interest.

2022-23
Everton 36
Leicester 34
Leeds 31
Southampton 25

2021-22
Everton 39 goal diff -23
Leeds 28
Burnley 35 goal diff -19
Watford 23
Norwich 22

So Burnley need to persuade the commission that 4 of the 8 points deduction decided on and applied in season 2023-24 should apply to season 2021-22.

Everton were only found guilty of breaching PSR after Burnley were relegated.

So we were docked 6 points the season after the season they went down... someone needs to explain their case to me.

Eight points?

To hell with being nice, play by the rules, Everton. They can sod off!

There's no reason she has to operate in our best interests once she was no longer employed by Everton.

Brendan (55), if the overall duration of the overspending (by which we supposedly ended up with a competitive advantage) includes the season they were relegated, why would it matter that we were only found guilty after Burnley were relegated? What we were found guilty of occurred in the past, as is the normal state of affairs.

Doesn't mean I agree they have a case. The responsibility for any ‘damage' to Burnley rests with the Premier League for not having a system that worked in a suitable timeframe to prevent it.

Colin (58), we simply don't have the power that Trump has to bend the US legal system to his will... so no, we shouldn't act like he does.

We are a shining example of how just spending money is no guarantee of sporting advantage, if you look at our performances relative to spending, and I'm sure there must be others.

If those presiding do simply accept the notion that the overspend made us better on the pitch, then I will accept there is clear and obvious bias against us.

Jake (16), sorry but I just think you are wrong. How could we claim the overspend only went on part of what we spent money on overall? It would be like saying your overdraft was only because of what you spent on the basics and nothing to do with the luxuries you also spend money on.

The Amy Wells link is interesting???

Reminds me of that famous play by William Shakespeare: 'Much Ado About Fuck All'. :-)

https://images.newrepublic.com/efad7c68056b9089d1a2ae5ed01a2639b3dbe02b.jpeg?auto=format&fit=crop&crop=faces&ar=3%3A2&ixlib=react-9.10.0&q=65&w=768&dpr=2

The dark side are even trying to infiltrate the FBI - or is that an oxymoron?

His answer was: "Don't shake hands with The Devil"!

Most culpable in all of this is the Premier League, firstly for making an example of us in deducting points, not having a system, process, to make a symbolic case against us, without due care, due time frame to allow the charge to be refuted, heard and finalized in a timely manner. Hardly the fault of the club.

Secondly, inviting clubs to sue us for compensation as a result of their "independent" commission.

But the cat will be out of the bag should any decision be found against us. What then, those clubs such as Man City, who we played and lost several times in the period whilst they were in breach? Are those results to be examined! Would we be awarded points, would that torpedo Burnley's attempt to sue us?

Would all Man City's winning results be null and void?
Because they should be, would we sue Man City as a result?
Laugh you might but it's as laughable as Burnley's alleged case against us.

This is a direct result of actions taken by the Premier League wanting to make an example for purely self-serving reasons.
Where is the independent commission review into Chelsea, Man City, Nottingham Forest... in fact anyone who used dubious accounting practice to fudge accounts and without any shadow of doubt, gain a competitive advantage?

Personally I hope we fight this every step of the way. Bankrupt Burnley, why? Because, had we not had TFG and still Moshiri, this case would have bankrupted us into liquidation. So I have no bad feeling about doing the same to Burnley.

It is the first charge that Burnley claim would have relegated us had it been applied in the season when the offence occurred. I'd have thought therefore that their case should've been brought against the Premier League not us.

Since then, I believe the Premier League has brought the PSR reporting date forward to avoid the same thing happening again.

Moyes won't try to beat the RS on Saturday, he will do his best not to get beat. Fair enough, because we have been dumbed down to accept a draw as a moral victory.

If we do manage to get ahead in the game, the cheats will no doubt do their dirty deeds to stop us having a victory.

Regardless of the outcome of the hearing, this will go on for a long time and the lawyers will be the ones who profit.

Litigation for failing to qualify for Europe; litigation for any defeat by Man City, Chelsea, Forest, Everton; relegation because of defeats by those teams... the list goes on.

It would be chaos! One which would see the demise of the Premier League or a completely new governing entity. It cannot be allowed to succeed. That's the truth?

If that's the outcome, then I hope Burnley win.

I can't see how Everton can be held responsible for the Premier League's decision.

Bob Lord told me to fuck off once when I was trying to convince him to buy a rosette I was selling at the Burnley 3-1 loss cup game.

I did some talking though and wouldn't leave him alone ‘til he bought one, gave me half a crown and said “ Now fuck off and keep the change.” They were two shillings each.

Perhaps I'm reading it wrongly but the thing that struck me is that the article suggests Everton were found guilty of breaching PSR and if the points deduction had been applied in a timely fashion Everton would have been relegated and Burnley would have stayed up.

That's simply not true because Burnley were relegated the season before Everton were deemed to have breached PSR not the season before the points deductions were applied.

As to Burnley's claim itself, the PSR limit is £105M so a team doesn't "gain" any "sporting advantage" until they exceed this figure. Everton had not exceeded the limit and by extension had gained no sporting advantage in the 3-year period ending the season Burnley were relegated.

Make no mistake, had it happened the other way round, they would definitely have sued us.

The Tory Government were, diplomatically, anti-football at that time. A working-class sport that stood against everything they believed in and were pushing for.

When the sanction was placed by Uefa, they made it clear it was indefinite, and the RS would be subject to an additional 3 years when the ban was lifted. That was quietly dropped, I think they served an additional year and can't recall if they would've qualified anyway as a resurgent Man Utd were in "Operation knock them off their perch" mode.

Of course, to make light of their faux pas, those jovial japesters had a banner for years in the Kop, proclaiming Steau Bucarest (the Eurropean Cup Winners in 1986) - knowing many felt we would win that year.

That banner was only removed fairly recently, when the connection was pointed out to the hierarchy. Which is unbelieveable. If only there were more Evertonians in the media who could highlight these lamentable acts.

Bitter? You better effing believe it. Yet one bad VAR decision and they expect a national day of mourning.

I'd like to think it is out-of-town morons. But even so, reds need to tell them it isn't acceptable.

The blues were there when it matters with Hillsborough, but this and murderer Juve chanting is out of order.

We can argue about the severity of the punishment, the fact that others are getting away with sanctions, the legitimacy of Burnley's claim etc, etc but the one think we can't protest about is our innocence.

I wrote to half a dozen news outlets this year, and LFC, asking what they proposed to do to commemorate 40 years since Heysel. I got one reply, from North West News, who said they would report on it if there was anything to report!

I had a similar (non-)response when I did the same for the 25th anniversary. LFC said they were putting a plaque on the wall. No other response either time. And that included the Red Echo.

I've never claimed we didn't breach PSR?

I apologise if I've misunderstood you but I don't get your last sentence then.

Hopes which have now been dashed.

If you persuaded Mr Lord to buy a rosette for two bob, and he gave you a tanner tip into the bargain, I suggest you contact Mr Trump while he's in the country and seek a consultancy with him.

Bob Lord would have made mincemeat out of Trump, he had been giving Everton supporters plenty of grief that week before we played Burnley and I was gently winding him up over it.

He got exasperated with me before ending our little talk with his outburst... in fact, he might not have even taken the rosette but gave me the money just to shut me up!

What we might be able to argue is our belief in our innocence, certainly at the time the 2020-21 season ended. Presumably we had that belief (albeit incorrectly) because we fought the case, with much of it around how the stadium was financed.

This is relevant because I argued elsewhere that Burnley's case would have more merit had we knowingly transgressed. They will struggle to prove that, not least because we actually had time to mitigate.

At the end of the 2021-22 season, we had not breached PSR. We only did that when the books closed at the end of June. Had we sold players for a player trading profit of £19.5M in those weeks, then no breach, no advantage would have occurred.

In other words, one could argue that the breach actually impacted the 2022-23 season because we retained players we should not have done.

The other aspect here is that Burnley are arguing the whole 6 points deduction (or at least 4 of them) should apply to the 2021-22 season. While all these arguments are effectively made up hypotheticals, one could certainly argue that the subsequent points deduction implies a 'per season' application of 2 or 3 points per season at most. And with the rules as they applied at the time, there was never any chance the full points deduction could have applied to the season ending the 3-year period.

As I've said elsewhere, my sense is that the case is mostly without merit and a settlement in the low millions is the most likely resolution.

Brendan: Everton had not exceeded the PSR limit and by extension had gained no sporting advantage in the 3-year period ending the season Burnley were relegated.

I think we can all agree that Burnley were relegated at the end of the 2021-22 season. As I recall, the Premier League's case against Everton was that a proper PSR calculation for the 3 years up to and including season 2021-22 demonstrated losses of £124.5M, which exceeds the sum of £105M permitted by Rule E.51 by £19.5M.

So Everton's first breach occurred in the 3-year period up to and including Burnley's relegation, even though they were not charged until much later. If (Big 'if') Everton's breach did confer a real sporting advantage, that would be the grounds on which Burnley could seek compensation.

But Everton were not charged with a breach for that 3-year period until March 2023. They could not have been charged any earlier because the accounts for the last financial year of that period would not have been finalised much before then.

The issue in terms of timing for the first hearing, is that it did not take place for another 7 months after Everton were charged. But the delay was partly because Burnley and four other clubs petitioned to be included as parties to Everton's hearing. As I said above, this was denied, but their right to sue for compensation if Everton were found to have breached PSR was set in stone.

Martin: The Premier League denied Burnley access to the hearing and then say they have a case to litigate. Contradiction.

I can't agree with that characterization, Martin. The Chair of the Independent Commission (not the Premier League) rejected the bid by five possibly impacted clubs to be parties to Everton's first hearing, and the reasons are very clear.

But he at the same time made it clear that, if Everton were to have breached the rules, then those possibly impacted clubs could have recourse to sue Everton for compensation -- all under the rules of the Premier League. There is no contradiction.

It seems like there is sufficient reason here for me to pull together a Timeline that tracks the whole sordid business. It may help to straighten out some serious misconceptions that seem to have understandably developed. It is a pretty complex story, not help by the visceral persecution complex it triggers, and the cries of "corruption" freely bandied about.

Plus, despite what the Premier League claimed, the £24.5M interest costs should have been allowed against the stadium development costs, as Spurs were.

Last point: Premier League rules are to take the 3-year period into account during the following season so, as others have said, sue the Premier League -- not Everton.

There are so many legal defenses that I can see this getting settled out of court for a few million.

My impression is that the dates probably don't support the idea of a conflict of interest but it is odd that she went to Burnley of all places, and I'm not sure how much this was known about among key management in 2022 -- at least the potential of legal action -- if not to the public.

Anyone who wants Man City or Chelsea to be docked points are effectively supporting this ridiculous system and making the Premier League look crap.

Man City and Chelsea and anyone else who wants to invade the Top 4 clique have to spend big. Spend what you want... unless you go bust!

If we weren't charged until after the 2021-22 season, how can we be responsible for Burnley's relegation?

But only Everton and Forest have suffered penalties despite bigger transgressions from other clubs that have been either ignored, brushed under the table or delayed so long as to fade from scrutiny.

They may have got a settlement out of Moshiri, but I think TFG are a whole different kettle of fish.

I think Moshiri might have paid TFG a sum to cover a possible compensation payment.

She joined Burnley in April 2024, so well after the petition Burnley failed with to be a part of the first hearing against Everton.

I would be speculating but the problematic issues Everton were having while she was there were of a financial nature, not legal, although loan deals, contracts, etc would have all had a (typically boiler-plate) legal component.

In all likelihood, she would have had to sign an NDA and surrender all her files, documents and electronic communications records when she left Everton... although the management of EFC at the time was so incompetent, they may not have been that thorough.

She may be able to attest to her Burnley colleagues how things worked inside EFC while she was there... but hopefully there has been a root-and-branch regime change instigated by TFG's arrival in that time, and therefore her institutional knowledge of EFC is probably outdated?

I don't really see this as an issue.

However, I doubt TFG will be in any hurry to part with any funds that they're not obliged to hand over, regardless of their arrangements with Moshiri.

How we didn't get relegated, I'll never know... but a scorched-earth policy because we suffered unjustly isn't right. Man Utd £2bn in debt and our neighbours will be fine.

So, you sold the infamous Burnley Butcher a rosette, got a tip out of the deal, and at the end of the transaction still had your product to sell again?

We are in the presence of genius.

I personally believe that this is the case, and that spending too much money was bad for us on the field, but I'm not sure it would be much of a legal argument.

Yes, it's quite possible Bob Lord never took the rosette but not sure about that. Anyway, my father-in-law, a real character, didn't think I was a genius the next day, I got bladdered and half the Burnley rosettes that I didn't sell, bleedin' brass hinges those Burnley fans, went missing. Me and my mate missed the last train home and slept in a freezing cold rail wagon all night.

So I had to face my father-in-law who didn't like losing 25 rosettes and my wife's face wasn't smiling when I got home either— worse of all Everton lost, that made him smile a little bit he was a non-going Red.

Give Burnley the money and take Liverpool to court over all that unpaid rent, all the television money they have received, plus all the money from the gate receipts!

For Burnley to win this case, they would likely need to prove ‘loss of a chance’ claim. This legal doctrine, which is expected to be part of their argument, offers a party the chance to claim damages for a loss of opportunity. Burnley would not be required to prove they would definitely have survived if Everton had not overspent, but rather that they had lost the opportunity to stay up.

“Burnley will need to have a two-pronged approach in this case, firstly arguing that Everton gained a competitive advantage in the 2021-22 season which was enough to earn the four league points which separated the two teams, and, alternatively, that a sanction of at least four points would have been applied in that season for the PSR breach had it been dealt with,” says Daniel Gore, senior associate at Withers.

“Neither case is clear-cut, as Everton’s breaches were not directly related to a single player or specific playing action, but included items like infrastructure costs. Burnley’s case does have the great advantage of the finding against Everton in the 2023-24 season that it did breach the PSR rules in the 2021-22 season, which is a strong starting position.”

There is a question mark around how they will show a lower spend from the Merseyside club would have directly resulted in improved performance from Burnley.

“With the even bigger financial and regulatory breach cases coming down the line, there is so much potential for litigation for players, managers and clubs to stake a claim for losses arising from the failures of clubs to stick to the rules in play at any particular time.”

One thing I feel is being misstated is that Burnley are pursuing a "What-if" strategy regarding the timing of the points deduction, and that it 'should' have applied to the 2021-22 season, when they happen to have been relegated.

Even with the change in the subsequent Premier League rules on getting these cases heard in the following season, this does not provide for points deductions to be applied within the 3-year polling PSR period, merely that the case must subsequently be completed and any punishment applied in the season after the end of the 3-year rolling period in question.

Everton's first deduction was applied two seasons later. Part of the reason for this slow legal process is ironically the added time taken by the Independent Commission in Spring of 2023 to hear, assess, and rebut the request that was made by Burnley and the other four clubs that they be present at and made parties to the Independent Commission hearing on Everton's breach. This was denied and should be something that the rules prevented anyway... but this was an unprecedented case so I suppose we can let that pass.

The points deduction can never be done "in real time", in the season of the breach, because the accounts close, then must be audited, and the PSR calculation done, all taking months after any relegation is decided at the end of the last season.

More likely that Burnley's case has to hinge on Everton's alleged "sporting advantage" and how that translates to Burnley being relegated. Bearing in mind that the advantage should logically be spread across not 3 but 4 seasons as the Covid years were averaged out: the PSR calculation for FY 2022 was the total of the adjusted earnings before tax figures for FY 2019, the average for FYs 2020 and 2021, and for FY 2022.

So perhaps you take the head-to-head results over that period to quantify this sporting advantage? In those 4 seasons, 2018-19 through 2021-22: Everton Won 4, Drew 1, Lost 3 of their Premier League encounters with Burnley. And for comparison, the Premier League era before that? Won 4, Lost 4.

Hmmm... so our sporting advantage mounts to one draw and 1 point gained? Er not conclusive.

If PSR cases could in fact be done in real time, so we were also aware of the breach in real time, then as I say above, we could have remedied it simply by sales that made a £19.5m player trading profit, after the season finished.

Granted that would have left us weak for the following season, but that is irrelevant to the case Burnely are bringing.

Hence, given the fact (and it is a fact) that PSR cases cannot be handled in real time – or at least not yet – then there has been negative impact for both parties, ours in the case of loss of opportunity to mitigate.

As I said in my earlier posts, loss of chance is a more attainable case to pursue but the precedents for that indicate very low payouts unless you can create direct and demonstrable links, eg, to player impact, which simply don't exist here.

As others have said, a low millions settlement might be the sane outcome. Maybe the clubs who would be mightily exposed to even a 'part win' for Burnley might like to chip in.

Jesus this is a long thread and there's only 106 posts. 🥱

No time line required I made a schoolboy error..and apologies to the rest of the posters.

The case is not due to conclude until mid-October, with no timeline over a subsequent verdict.

Leeds and Everton reached settlement over 2021-22 profit and sustainability rules breach