13/06/2026
31comments | Jump to last
Everton's Fan Advisory Board have issued a statement expressing serious concerns about the Independent Commission's decision ordering Everton to pay £26M, plus interest, to Burnley.
The sum was awarded as compensation for losses sustained as a result of Everton's first PSR breach across the four seasons ending in 2021-22:
The Everton Fan Advisory Board (FAB) has serious concerns about the Independent Commission's decision ordering Everton to pay £26 million, plus interest to Burnley for a historic PSR breach. This ruling raises major questions about fairness, consistency and the process that produced it. We fully support the Club's appeal.
Evertonians will need no reminding that the same Commission panel issued Everton's original 10-point deduction in 2023, a decision later reduced to 6 points, after significant errors were identified. The same panel has now ruled again on a related compensation claim. Allowing a panel already found to have misjudged the case to sit a second time undermines confidence in both the decision and the wider process.
The Commission previously accepted that any "sporting advantage" from a financial breach is almost impossible to measure, yet built this ruling on exactly that: imagined points, imagined league positions and imagined outcomes. Football is decided across 38 matches by form, injuries, refereeing decisions, mistakes and pressure — not by retrospective modelling. Burnley were five points ahead of Everton going into May 2022. To now attribute their relegation to a single financial breach is not credible or proportionate.
This ruling means Everton has effectively been punished three times for one breach: a points deduction, its own costs, and now a multi-million pound payment to Burnley. If upheld, it risks encouraging more retrospective claims between clubs, creating instability across the league.
These concerns sit within a wider issue. Enforcement across the Premier League has LACKED TRANSPARENCY, been inconsistent, and recent cases have not inspired confidence in the current system. With the Independent Football Regulator now in place, there is a clear need for independent oversight and consistent standards in such matters. The Everton FAB has been consistent in calling for this from the outset.
This matter predates the Club's current ownership. Everton cooperated fully with the original process and has strengthened its governance and compliance since. The Club has confirmed that this ruling does not affect football operations or summer planning, and we note the Premier League's written support regarding any future PSR impact.
The FAB supports the Club's appeal and expects this ruling to be tested thoroughly. Evertonians accept the need for financial rules, but those rules must be applied in a way that is fair, consistent, proportionate and rooted in footballing reality.
Everton Fan Advisory Board — 12 June 2026
Read more - When will it ever end?
Reader Comments (31)
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer ()
Karl Jones
2 Posted 13/06/2026 at 11:03:02
2 Posted 13/06/2026 at 11:03:02
The Premier League have clearly got it in for Everton and are making them scapegoats at every opportunity.
Who knows what's going on in the background. It's massively corrupt with a two-tier system. Surely football cannot go on like this.
Who knows what's going on in the background. It's massively corrupt with a two-tier system. Surely football cannot go on like this.
Dave Abrahams
3 Posted 13/06/2026 at 11:21:54
3 Posted 13/06/2026 at 11:21:54
There is a lot of money involved in this appeal so it's imperative that is heard as quickly as possible.
One reason being Everton have got to pay this fine now, before the appeal has reached it's conclusion.
One reason being Everton have got to pay this fine now, before the appeal has reached it's conclusion.
Shaun Parker
4 Posted 13/06/2026 at 11:25:11
4 Posted 13/06/2026 at 11:25:11
Offer to pay the bunch of inbreds £10 a week.
Steve Brown
5 Posted 13/06/2026 at 11:51:37
5 Posted 13/06/2026 at 11:51:37
Michael @ 1, a balanced post on the complexities involved in this case given you wrote the following on another thread yesterday:
“No matter, cos rules is rules and everything to my knowledge has been done in accordance with the rules.”
Strange, as it all seemed so straightforward and simple/ simplistic to you 24 hours ago.
“No matter, cos rules is rules and everything to my knowledge has been done in accordance with the rules.”
Strange, as it all seemed so straightforward and simple/ simplistic to you 24 hours ago.
John Collins
6 Posted 13/06/2026 at 11:56:14
6 Posted 13/06/2026 at 11:56:14
Devil's advocate?
Mark Taylor
7 Posted 13/06/2026 at 12:22:01
7 Posted 13/06/2026 at 12:22:01
I still think (hope) that, given this was a known liability at the time of sale, TFG would have had a clawback clause on this, so Moshiri pays, not the club.
You then just need a bit of clever accountancy to make sure any compensation paid does not impact our revenue.
If I am correct, I suspect the terms of such a clawback would require us to use best endeavour to minimise compensation costs, hence an appeal.
You then just need a bit of clever accountancy to make sure any compensation paid does not impact our revenue.
If I am correct, I suspect the terms of such a clawback would require us to use best endeavour to minimise compensation costs, hence an appeal.
Jack Convery
8 Posted 13/06/2026 at 12:40:11
8 Posted 13/06/2026 at 12:40:11
Lisa Nandy, where are you? Your Department needs to be all over this asap. Andy won't forgive you if you don't give the due attention and care. Paying £35M for what might have been in hindsight is no proof of guilt.
Simply Burnley were worse than us and we were crap but pulled off a minor miracle through the whole fan base and team coming together, when it was needed most.
Did any shops sell out of Claret Smoke? Did they gather outside the training ground to cheer their heroes, when they set off for an away game? Is the fact that all that, which was done by us fans and the noise and support at Goodison was raised to new heights, come in to the calculation of how Everton fared?
Total Bollocks, the whole thing. More chance of winning the Lottery than forecasting a season's games.
Simply Burnley were worse than us and we were crap but pulled off a minor miracle through the whole fan base and team coming together, when it was needed most.
Did any shops sell out of Claret Smoke? Did they gather outside the training ground to cheer their heroes, when they set off for an away game? Is the fact that all that, which was done by us fans and the noise and support at Goodison was raised to new heights, come in to the calculation of how Everton fared?
Total Bollocks, the whole thing. More chance of winning the Lottery than forecasting a season's games.
Martin Farrington
9 Posted 13/06/2026 at 13:43:59
9 Posted 13/06/2026 at 13:43:59
I think that the whole debacle of the so called PSR / FFP etc was massively flawed from its inception. Looking in between the lines it appeared to be designed to prevent the smaller clubs developing in the Premier League whilst preserving the favoured Top 6.
That teams have broken into that elite few, has angered the Premier League hierarchy. However, the Premier League clubs had to agree to implement the rule and did so. Probably because there was no alternative.
The reason that Man City and others are now struggling is because of Uefa changing its rules, not the Premier League. Without conforming to Uefa's rules, English clubs can't play in Europe. That said, many have breached Uefa regs and nothing too extreme has occurred to any Premier League sides.
Yes, the Premier League have been forced to change its rule, to align with Uefa but they have not done so completely.
Rewind to Everton's draconian punishment. Breaching PSR for exceeding the limit because of high interest rates or incorrectly structured repayments on the new stadium (something which, as far as I am aware, has been rescinded as calculating towards PSR) which had nothing to do with playing matters, something PSR / FFP was brought in for.
So Everton's punishment was, in most minds, absurd and wrong. However, despite appeals, knives were out.
CAS, established in 1984 and headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, acts as the final legal recourse for athletes, teams, and federations worldwide. But the first hearing is held by the host country, in our case the Premier League and after any appeal, the decision of the Panel is pretty much final.
The same three-man panel that deducted us points (reduced on appeal) also heard Burnley's case for compensation. Phillips, Greenwood and Igoe. Alarmingly, it was Phillips who at the time of his points deduction decision, encouraged a host of Premier League Clubs to sue Everton for compensation.
Everton have paid Leeds an out of court undisclosed amount and documents are sealed. Now, an extraordinary injustice has occurred. The head of the panel, Phillips, was found to have been excessive in his original points deduction decision.
Phillips however, also originally put into court record his unsolicited legal opinion regarding a matter not before the court, civil litigation by 5 clubs he named. This comment should (on appeal) have been struck from Court records, but wasn't. Another injustice.
For the Premier League to declare an independent panel, comprising the same three see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil executioners was against all natural law, perverting justice. Thus the result was written in blue blood on the wall way before the plaintiffs set confident foot over the legal threshold.
Who knows what private discussions were also held between Burnley and Phillips (self servant or agent)? Everton should sue Nottingham Forest, Chelsea and Man City, quoting this stated case, and use Phillips's own words against him.
That teams have broken into that elite few, has angered the Premier League hierarchy. However, the Premier League clubs had to agree to implement the rule and did so. Probably because there was no alternative.
The reason that Man City and others are now struggling is because of Uefa changing its rules, not the Premier League. Without conforming to Uefa's rules, English clubs can't play in Europe. That said, many have breached Uefa regs and nothing too extreme has occurred to any Premier League sides.
Yes, the Premier League have been forced to change its rule, to align with Uefa but they have not done so completely.
Rewind to Everton's draconian punishment. Breaching PSR for exceeding the limit because of high interest rates or incorrectly structured repayments on the new stadium (something which, as far as I am aware, has been rescinded as calculating towards PSR) which had nothing to do with playing matters, something PSR / FFP was brought in for.
So Everton's punishment was, in most minds, absurd and wrong. However, despite appeals, knives were out.
CAS, established in 1984 and headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, acts as the final legal recourse for athletes, teams, and federations worldwide. But the first hearing is held by the host country, in our case the Premier League and after any appeal, the decision of the Panel is pretty much final.
The same three-man panel that deducted us points (reduced on appeal) also heard Burnley's case for compensation. Phillips, Greenwood and Igoe. Alarmingly, it was Phillips who at the time of his points deduction decision, encouraged a host of Premier League Clubs to sue Everton for compensation.
Everton have paid Leeds an out of court undisclosed amount and documents are sealed. Now, an extraordinary injustice has occurred. The head of the panel, Phillips, was found to have been excessive in his original points deduction decision.
Phillips however, also originally put into court record his unsolicited legal opinion regarding a matter not before the court, civil litigation by 5 clubs he named. This comment should (on appeal) have been struck from Court records, but wasn't. Another injustice.
For the Premier League to declare an independent panel, comprising the same three see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil executioners was against all natural law, perverting justice. Thus the result was written in blue blood on the wall way before the plaintiffs set confident foot over the legal threshold.
Who knows what private discussions were also held between Burnley and Phillips (self servant or agent)? Everton should sue Nottingham Forest, Chelsea and Man City, quoting this stated case, and use Phillips's own words against him.
Michael Kenrick
10 Posted 13/06/2026 at 14:05:39
10 Posted 13/06/2026 at 14:05:39
I think both can be true, Steve.
This is all in the broader context of many Evertonians claiming they are "making it up as they go along", that the Premier League is corrupt, that they had an agenda to get Everton relegated, "The Premier League have clearly got it in for Everton and are making them scapegoats at every opportunity" etc etc.
No one ever offers any proof of this other than the widely favoured whataboutery, comparing with cases that are not directly comparable and have their own issues.
The bit that rarely gets any publicity is the degree to which the Premier League worked with Everton over years previous, when someone determined they were on a slippery slope, well before they were charged with actual breaches... remember that?
My suspicion (unprovable) is that relations soured seriously over this period, to the extent where the Premier League became exasperated that those in power and control at Everton would not listen or would not change their ways... and made everything much worse through complete incompetence.
This possibly explains the otherwise inexplicable animus shown against Everton in all subsequent proceedings. Particularly egregious was the way the first Independent Commission flatly rejected the eminently reasonable and highly cogent mitigations put forward by Everton.
Everton talk of mounting a robust defence all the way through this but they have been hopeless based on results. That may be why the long-serving Pinsent Masons group have finally been ditched for Slaughter and May in the appeal... and a lovely prospect if they live up to their name!
But I maintain, and no one seems to challenge this, that rules is rules and everything to my knowledge has been done in accordance with the rules.
This is all in the broader context of many Evertonians claiming they are "making it up as they go along", that the Premier League is corrupt, that they had an agenda to get Everton relegated, "The Premier League have clearly got it in for Everton and are making them scapegoats at every opportunity" etc etc.
No one ever offers any proof of this other than the widely favoured whataboutery, comparing with cases that are not directly comparable and have their own issues.
The bit that rarely gets any publicity is the degree to which the Premier League worked with Everton over years previous, when someone determined they were on a slippery slope, well before they were charged with actual breaches... remember that?
My suspicion (unprovable) is that relations soured seriously over this period, to the extent where the Premier League became exasperated that those in power and control at Everton would not listen or would not change their ways... and made everything much worse through complete incompetence.
This possibly explains the otherwise inexplicable animus shown against Everton in all subsequent proceedings. Particularly egregious was the way the first Independent Commission flatly rejected the eminently reasonable and highly cogent mitigations put forward by Everton.
Everton talk of mounting a robust defence all the way through this but they have been hopeless based on results. That may be why the long-serving Pinsent Masons group have finally been ditched for Slaughter and May in the appeal... and a lovely prospect if they live up to their name!
But I maintain, and no one seems to challenge this, that rules is rules and everything to my knowledge has been done in accordance with the rules.
Ian Wilkins
11 Posted 13/06/2026 at 14:24:11
11 Posted 13/06/2026 at 14:24:11
Like everything else, we have become a scapegoat first, this will probably be the one and only time this happens. The ‘Premier League club' will vote to change its own rules to prevent further nonsense.
Premier League success and failure is earned over the full course of a season, not based upon spurious sporting advantage (this was a mis-accounted interest payment) rule breaches. Proper football clubs understand this.
There is no chance of Government intervention, the new regulator isn't interested. I wrote to them for their views on the Chelsea debacle, they didn't have any views.
Premier League success and failure is earned over the full course of a season, not based upon spurious sporting advantage (this was a mis-accounted interest payment) rule breaches. Proper football clubs understand this.
There is no chance of Government intervention, the new regulator isn't interested. I wrote to them for their views on the Chelsea debacle, they didn't have any views.
John Collins
12 Posted 13/06/2026 at 14:50:25
12 Posted 13/06/2026 at 14:50:25
Michael 10.
Do you always conform to rules and regulations?
Surprised me your posts being honest.
I had you down as someone who would challenge.
Do you always conform to rules and regulations?
Surprised me your posts being honest.
I had you down as someone who would challenge.
Dave Abrahams
13 Posted 13/06/2026 at 15:01:43
13 Posted 13/06/2026 at 15:01:43
Michael (10) Michael you criticise Everton fans for going against The Premier League officials with their many actions against Everton FC but then say those same officials are acting against Everton FC out of spite— Which is it Michael — are these officials right or wrong?
Josh Horne
14 Posted 13/06/2026 at 15:29:42
14 Posted 13/06/2026 at 15:29:42
What can be diirectly compared on a like basis is that Forest had 6 fewer points deducted than Everton for a PSR overspend that was nearly twice as much.
At that point, the unfairness of the process was clear and laid the foundations for Evertonians to justifiably feel that the club were being victimised.
Whilst the subsequent ruling against Chelsea and continuing silence over Man City may be focused on completely different issues, they are both relevant and neither has offered any evidence that contradicts assumptions that we have been convenient scapegoats. This is summarised well in the FAB statement.
At that point, the unfairness of the process was clear and laid the foundations for Evertonians to justifiably feel that the club were being victimised.
Whilst the subsequent ruling against Chelsea and continuing silence over Man City may be focused on completely different issues, they are both relevant and neither has offered any evidence that contradicts assumptions that we have been convenient scapegoats. This is summarised well in the FAB statement.
Mike Gaynes
15 Posted 13/06/2026 at 16:35:29
15 Posted 13/06/2026 at 16:35:29
Michael #10, you overlook the most egregious offense of all -- that the three-clown panel that assessed the ten-point penalty later found excessive was the same three-clown panel that decided the Burnley case. The bias and bad faith are obvious and glaring.
A new panel will hear our appeal.
Here are some excerpts from The Athletic's article about the case today:
At each stage in this process, the belief at the club has been that they have been guinea pigs in this new era of litigation. With no precedent on which to rely, severe verdicts, like the initial 10-point deduction, have been handed down and reduced on appeal. Ironically, given Everton’s ‘club of firsts’ nickname, they were the first team to breach, have points deducted and be sued by a fellow side as a result of their overspend.
The unprecedented nature of this verdict, in a new era of litigation, is hard for the club to accept, with the lack of clarity and precedents. It is a test case that will almost certainly shape what is to follow, unless the appeal materially changes things.
At times, there has been a sense from those working on the cases, including from those one step removed from the club, that Everton were harshly treated, and that there was a curious level of animus in some of those early dealings.
The league made the case for a 12-point deduction in Everton’s first hearing, but maintains that the latest proceedings were a club-to-club dispute with a ruling handed down by an independent panel and that they had no real involvement.
There is a general acceptance that the club, in a financial sense, was badly managed under previous owner Farhad Moshiri, to the point where they breached PSR on two separate occasions. And a feeling, from some, that the Everton of that period had their heads in the sand right up until it got serious.
The relationship with the league is said to have improved since the Friedkin Group (TFG) replaced Moshiri at the helm in December 2024 and a new executive team was installed; something reinforced, all parties believe, by the decision not to count the compensation owed to Burnley against Everton’s future PSR/SCR position.
But the latest news has left a sour taste and led Everton to believe they have been harshly treated again, certainly in comparison to other clubs.
Chelsea were only handed a £10.75m fine for illicit payments to agents, helped by the fact that their new owners self-reported the issue. The same level of grace did not apply to TFG over Everton’s past misdemeanours during Moshiri’s tenure.
Manchester City’s case, in which they strenuously deny breaching 115 of the Premier League’s financial rules, remains ongoing, while so far no other club that has broken the PSR rules — Leicester City and Nottingham Forest among them — have been subject to damages claims from rival teams.
Everton are particularly aggrieved with how things panned out in certain areas, and feel they have scope to make inroads in their appeal.
Their case was heard by the same panel that deducted them the initial 10 points, and they sought to have those individuals removed from this hearing because the first decision was considered both harsh, with their punishment later reduced by an appeals board. A new committee will hear their appeal over the £40m payment to Burnley.
Then there is also the level of stock placed by the commission on the testimony of former Burnley chief executive Dave Baldwin, acting as an expert witness for the Lancashire club.
Baldwin, whose partiality was not really called into question, argued that his “lived experience” suggested Everton’s overspend over the four years would “probably” have been worth “at least four points” across that one season.
His testimony, during a back and forth between experts on both sides over the statistical impact of the breach on Premier League placings, raised eyebrows on Merseyside in particular.
Burnley’s own modelling had suggested the chances of Everton’s breach resulting in their relegation — they finished four points behind the Merseyside club that season — to be slightly better than 50 per cent.
The committee found that Everton had inferred a sporting advantage throughout the season as a result of their breach. It was argued by Everton that clubs are not technically in breach until the end of the financial year (June 30, for most), months after Burnley’s relegation, but this fell on deaf ears.
The league also has not had any mechanism for punishing breaches in the same season, which could work to Everton’s advantage in the appeal.
There is also frustration at Everton at the near 12 per cent interest they will have to pay, totalling around £9million up to June 2025 and potentially rising as high as £14m depending on when the sum is paid, on top of the £26m in compensation. That was calculated by assessing Burnley’s own interest rates, which sit on the higher end of the spectrum, and is also likely to be challenged.
Everton also suggested they were so concerned over the Lancashire club’s ability to repay the money in the event of an overturn on appeal that they wanted to delay payment, or at least place the sum in escrow.
Everton are in the fortunate position where TFG will be able to weather the consequences of this outcome, but would have struggled during more difficult financial times. Not every club would be able to withstand such a financial hit, with the monies to be paid within 28 days of the ruling.
For now, Everton’s focus will be on an appeal, which is usually limited in scope, and there are some obvious areas where they can look to gain ground. A new verdict is not expected to come until the new year.
A new panel will hear our appeal.
Here are some excerpts from The Athletic's article about the case today:
At each stage in this process, the belief at the club has been that they have been guinea pigs in this new era of litigation. With no precedent on which to rely, severe verdicts, like the initial 10-point deduction, have been handed down and reduced on appeal. Ironically, given Everton’s ‘club of firsts’ nickname, they were the first team to breach, have points deducted and be sued by a fellow side as a result of their overspend.
The unprecedented nature of this verdict, in a new era of litigation, is hard for the club to accept, with the lack of clarity and precedents. It is a test case that will almost certainly shape what is to follow, unless the appeal materially changes things.
At times, there has been a sense from those working on the cases, including from those one step removed from the club, that Everton were harshly treated, and that there was a curious level of animus in some of those early dealings.
The league made the case for a 12-point deduction in Everton’s first hearing, but maintains that the latest proceedings were a club-to-club dispute with a ruling handed down by an independent panel and that they had no real involvement.
There is a general acceptance that the club, in a financial sense, was badly managed under previous owner Farhad Moshiri, to the point where they breached PSR on two separate occasions. And a feeling, from some, that the Everton of that period had their heads in the sand right up until it got serious.
The relationship with the league is said to have improved since the Friedkin Group (TFG) replaced Moshiri at the helm in December 2024 and a new executive team was installed; something reinforced, all parties believe, by the decision not to count the compensation owed to Burnley against Everton’s future PSR/SCR position.
But the latest news has left a sour taste and led Everton to believe they have been harshly treated again, certainly in comparison to other clubs.
Chelsea were only handed a £10.75m fine for illicit payments to agents, helped by the fact that their new owners self-reported the issue. The same level of grace did not apply to TFG over Everton’s past misdemeanours during Moshiri’s tenure.
Manchester City’s case, in which they strenuously deny breaching 115 of the Premier League’s financial rules, remains ongoing, while so far no other club that has broken the PSR rules — Leicester City and Nottingham Forest among them — have been subject to damages claims from rival teams.
Everton are particularly aggrieved with how things panned out in certain areas, and feel they have scope to make inroads in their appeal.
Their case was heard by the same panel that deducted them the initial 10 points, and they sought to have those individuals removed from this hearing because the first decision was considered both harsh, with their punishment later reduced by an appeals board. A new committee will hear their appeal over the £40m payment to Burnley.
Then there is also the level of stock placed by the commission on the testimony of former Burnley chief executive Dave Baldwin, acting as an expert witness for the Lancashire club.
Baldwin, whose partiality was not really called into question, argued that his “lived experience” suggested Everton’s overspend over the four years would “probably” have been worth “at least four points” across that one season.
His testimony, during a back and forth between experts on both sides over the statistical impact of the breach on Premier League placings, raised eyebrows on Merseyside in particular.
Burnley’s own modelling had suggested the chances of Everton’s breach resulting in their relegation — they finished four points behind the Merseyside club that season — to be slightly better than 50 per cent.
The committee found that Everton had inferred a sporting advantage throughout the season as a result of their breach. It was argued by Everton that clubs are not technically in breach until the end of the financial year (June 30, for most), months after Burnley’s relegation, but this fell on deaf ears.
The league also has not had any mechanism for punishing breaches in the same season, which could work to Everton’s advantage in the appeal.
There is also frustration at Everton at the near 12 per cent interest they will have to pay, totalling around £9million up to June 2025 and potentially rising as high as £14m depending on when the sum is paid, on top of the £26m in compensation. That was calculated by assessing Burnley’s own interest rates, which sit on the higher end of the spectrum, and is also likely to be challenged.
Everton also suggested they were so concerned over the Lancashire club’s ability to repay the money in the event of an overturn on appeal that they wanted to delay payment, or at least place the sum in escrow.
Everton are in the fortunate position where TFG will be able to weather the consequences of this outcome, but would have struggled during more difficult financial times. Not every club would be able to withstand such a financial hit, with the monies to be paid within 28 days of the ruling.
For now, Everton’s focus will be on an appeal, which is usually limited in scope, and there are some obvious areas where they can look to gain ground. A new verdict is not expected to come until the new year.
Mike Gaynes
16 Posted 13/06/2026 at 17:11:31
16 Posted 13/06/2026 at 17:11:31
When this dispute started, it was Burnley and the PL versus an amiable incompetent with comparatively shallow pockets in Moshiri.
Their opponent now is a very angry Yank with $11 billion who is eagerly going to legal war with a league barely bigger, in terms of enterprise value, than he is. Friedkin is committing £10m to this brawl.
I speculated last night in another venue that this is gonna end with a lot of scorched earth.
I'd also speculate that if he wins the appeal, Friedkin will sue to recover the club's legal fees.
Their opponent now is a very angry Yank with $11 billion who is eagerly going to legal war with a league barely bigger, in terms of enterprise value, than he is. Friedkin is committing £10m to this brawl.
I speculated last night in another venue that this is gonna end with a lot of scorched earth.
I'd also speculate that if he wins the appeal, Friedkin will sue to recover the club's legal fees.
Michael Kenrick
17 Posted 13/06/2026 at 17:39:35
17 Posted 13/06/2026 at 17:39:35
Yea, I read that piece by Boyland too. I think he overstates things a little.
The same three clowns? It would have made sense from the Premier League's perspective that the same panel looked at this given their familiarity with the case. Everton failed to get them removed...
And sadly that kinda gives a clear indication just how much extra sway Friedkin's billions will bring to proceedings. That sort of thing might work well in Trump's America, but things are a little different over this side of the pond.
Still, the switch to a different law firm in Slaughter and May could be significant... or it might be yet another mistake by Everton in a mounting list of legal failings across all these proceedings.
Perhaps we should celebrate the little wins? Burnley claimed £51.7M in damages; they were awarded barely half in 'only' £26M.
Also, Burnley were given all the paperwork on Everton's PSR breach and they said the losses in excess of £105M over the four seasons in question were a lot more than the £19.6M figure from Round 1 of this fiasco. They tried to expand the size of the breach on this basis but that attempt was knocked back by the three clowns.
There's probably more such instances I could find by reading the whole thing, but surely the bias and bad faith from the three clowns would have prevented such things being adjudicated in Everton's favour?
The same three clowns? It would have made sense from the Premier League's perspective that the same panel looked at this given their familiarity with the case. Everton failed to get them removed...
And sadly that kinda gives a clear indication just how much extra sway Friedkin's billions will bring to proceedings. That sort of thing might work well in Trump's America, but things are a little different over this side of the pond.
Still, the switch to a different law firm in Slaughter and May could be significant... or it might be yet another mistake by Everton in a mounting list of legal failings across all these proceedings.
Perhaps we should celebrate the little wins? Burnley claimed £51.7M in damages; they were awarded barely half in 'only' £26M.
Also, Burnley were given all the paperwork on Everton's PSR breach and they said the losses in excess of £105M over the four seasons in question were a lot more than the £19.6M figure from Round 1 of this fiasco. They tried to expand the size of the breach on this basis but that attempt was knocked back by the three clowns.
There's probably more such instances I could find by reading the whole thing, but surely the bias and bad faith from the three clowns would have prevented such things being adjudicated in Everton's favour?
Michael Kenrick
18 Posted 13/06/2026 at 18:01:54
18 Posted 13/06/2026 at 18:01:54
You criticise Everton fans for going against The Premier League officials.
Careful, Dave @13. I listed specific statements that are admittedly made more out of anger and frustration -- but which include varying measures of falsehood that happen to fit the mood but don't I think reflect well on Evertonians when they are not based in fact.
The consensus is that Everton have been treated harshly but I have struggled to find anywhere that the rules themselves (on which all this is based) have been subverted or applied incorrectly... which should surely be easy to show if the Premier League are indeed 'corrupt'?
Careful, Dave @13. I listed specific statements that are admittedly made more out of anger and frustration -- but which include varying measures of falsehood that happen to fit the mood but don't I think reflect well on Evertonians when they are not based in fact.
The consensus is that Everton have been treated harshly but I have struggled to find anywhere that the rules themselves (on which all this is based) have been subverted or applied incorrectly... which should surely be easy to show if the Premier League are indeed 'corrupt'?
David West
19 Posted 13/06/2026 at 20:14:15
19 Posted 13/06/2026 at 20:14:15
Michael if all rules & processes were followed correctly, why is this an issue?
Was there a rule that stated the point deduction must be applied in that season? If so, why didn't they? If not then that's not the club's fault, it's the Premier League's fault.
This whole compensation claim should be against the Premier League for not applying the deduction in that season.
Was there a rule that stated the point deduction must be applied in that season? If so, why didn't they? If not then that's not the club's fault, it's the Premier League's fault.
This whole compensation claim should be against the Premier League for not applying the deduction in that season.
Brendan McLaughlin
20 Posted 13/06/2026 at 20:29:26
20 Posted 13/06/2026 at 20:29:26
David #19
No, there was no such rule.
But the majority of clubs, including Everton, voted to accept this.
Pretty sure the Premier League wanted to fast track Everton's case so the decision could impact the current season but we wisely declined.
No, there was no such rule.
But the majority of clubs, including Everton, voted to accept this.
Pretty sure the Premier League wanted to fast track Everton's case so the decision could impact the current season but we wisely declined.
David West
21 Posted 13/06/2026 at 21:37:14
21 Posted 13/06/2026 at 21:37:14
Brendan. So if it was applied in that season, and they still went down, I'd assume we'd still be getting sued?
So the timing of the deduction isn't important? \
So the timing of the deduction isn't important? \
Brendan McLaughlin
22 Posted 13/06/2026 at 21:49:04
22 Posted 13/06/2026 at 21:49:04
Probably not David #2
Breaking the rules matters more...
Breaking the rules matters more...
John Pickles
23 Posted 13/06/2026 at 22:00:56
23 Posted 13/06/2026 at 22:00:56
Can we (should we) now sue Chelsea? They finished just 3 points above us and got fined, so 'clearly' had a sporting advantage.
Without it we would have got the prize money for 12th not 13th.
Without it we would have got the prize money for 12th not 13th.
Ian Wilkins
24 Posted 13/06/2026 at 22:10:11
24 Posted 13/06/2026 at 22:10:11
There are no grounds for suing Chelsea or anyone else.
The PL panel said that Everton had gained a sporting advantage and invited others to sue.
They said, incredulously, that Chelsea had not gained a sporting advantage. Therefore no grounds to sue….
The PL panel said that Everton had gained a sporting advantage and invited others to sue.
They said, incredulously, that Chelsea had not gained a sporting advantage. Therefore no grounds to sue….
Michael Kenrick
25 Posted 13/06/2026 at 22:25:27
25 Posted 13/06/2026 at 22:25:27
David and Brendan,
My take on the timing of the point deduction is not so much that it 'should' have been applied in season 2021-22, but the counterfactual that, if it were applied in that, the last of the four seasons comprising the PSR calculation that Everton were charged with breaching, what would have been the outcome? Would Everton have been relegated? That was the key question for the Independent Commission
In practical terms, there is no way that the deduction could have actually been applied in 2021-22. This is where several fans seem to have got the wrong idea about Burnley's complaint. They were never saying that the points deduction should have been applied in that season, as there is no way that could ever have happened.
Everton were not charged with a breach until March 2023, so 10 months after the end of that season. The timing couldn't be any different because the club's accounts need to be used to develop the final PSR calculation.
What did become an issue was why didn't they do the hearing immediately and at least have any deduction applied in the 2022-23 season? Part of the reason why that didn't happen was because the panel had to consider a request from the five clubs (including Burnley) who believed they had been impacted, and who wanted to be parties to the original hearing of the first Independent Commission.
This delayed the first hearing while the panel (Philipps) sorted out the stance they needed to take on this, blocking the clubs from being active parties in the hearing in a decision issued on 9 May 2023. He also made it clear at that time the hearing would not be completed and a decision reached until well into the next season, so there was never any way in which the points deduction could have been applied in the (last) season of the PSR period.
My take on the timing of the point deduction is not so much that it 'should' have been applied in season 2021-22, but the counterfactual that, if it were applied in that, the last of the four seasons comprising the PSR calculation that Everton were charged with breaching, what would have been the outcome? Would Everton have been relegated? That was the key question for the Independent Commission
In practical terms, there is no way that the deduction could have actually been applied in 2021-22. This is where several fans seem to have got the wrong idea about Burnley's complaint. They were never saying that the points deduction should have been applied in that season, as there is no way that could ever have happened.
Everton were not charged with a breach until March 2023, so 10 months after the end of that season. The timing couldn't be any different because the club's accounts need to be used to develop the final PSR calculation.
What did become an issue was why didn't they do the hearing immediately and at least have any deduction applied in the 2022-23 season? Part of the reason why that didn't happen was because the panel had to consider a request from the five clubs (including Burnley) who believed they had been impacted, and who wanted to be parties to the original hearing of the first Independent Commission.
This delayed the first hearing while the panel (Philipps) sorted out the stance they needed to take on this, blocking the clubs from being active parties in the hearing in a decision issued on 9 May 2023. He also made it clear at that time the hearing would not be completed and a decision reached until well into the next season, so there was never any way in which the points deduction could have been applied in the (last) season of the PSR period.
Phillip Warrington
26 Posted 13/06/2026 at 23:25:55
26 Posted 13/06/2026 at 23:25:55
So what happens if we don't win the appeal? Does that mean clubs that were close to relegation and were relegated in the 2-year period could now sue Everton because they could have had better league positions because of our so-called breach.
And does it mean also we could sue Man City and Chelsea for games we lost against them that could have increased our league position?
And why hasn't Everton been extremely vocal in why Man City and Chelsea have not been legitimately dealt with?
And does it mean also we could sue Man City and Chelsea for games we lost against them that could have increased our league position?
And why hasn't Everton been extremely vocal in why Man City and Chelsea have not been legitimately dealt with?
David West
27 Posted 13/06/2026 at 23:51:25
27 Posted 13/06/2026 at 23:51:25
Michael. A bit clearer.
But wouldn't the point deduction being applied in the same season ( I know it wouldn't or couldn't) be the punishment for the sporting advantage?
Therefore eliminating the need for this counterfactual argument?
The timings of all this isn't our fault, it's the PLs, the reason a point deduction come later, the difference in timing, of filing accounts, delaying hearing and blocking clubs.
All these issues should have been known beforehand, so no clubs found themselves in this legal shitshow.
That's before you even try to convert £s spend to points gained in the PL.
Yet Chelsea do all they can to gain a sporting advantage by making illicit payments, illegal agent fees to literally gain advantages over competitors in the transfer market and it's a 10m fine.
It's a different set of circumstances of course, but their motivation is clear, obviously to gain a sporting advantage.
This is where it's left people feeling we are targeted unfairly.
Chelseas new owners where given grace as it was a previous regime, will our new regime get the same grace ?
Me thinks them not the rules !
But wouldn't the point deduction being applied in the same season ( I know it wouldn't or couldn't) be the punishment for the sporting advantage?
Therefore eliminating the need for this counterfactual argument?
The timings of all this isn't our fault, it's the PLs, the reason a point deduction come later, the difference in timing, of filing accounts, delaying hearing and blocking clubs.
All these issues should have been known beforehand, so no clubs found themselves in this legal shitshow.
That's before you even try to convert £s spend to points gained in the PL.
Yet Chelsea do all they can to gain a sporting advantage by making illicit payments, illegal agent fees to literally gain advantages over competitors in the transfer market and it's a 10m fine.
It's a different set of circumstances of course, but their motivation is clear, obviously to gain a sporting advantage.
This is where it's left people feeling we are targeted unfairly.
Chelseas new owners where given grace as it was a previous regime, will our new regime get the same grace ?
Me thinks them not the rules !
Charles Ward
28 Posted 14/06/2026 at 10:50:36
28 Posted 14/06/2026 at 10:50:36
David surely the same mitigation must apply to us as Chelsea?
The malpractices were committed under a previous administration both of which were thrown into chaos by Putin's war of aggression, yet Chelsea seemed to use Abramovich's forced exit as a Get Out Of Jail card.
Whereas we received no credit for Usmanov's exile nor Moshiri's rank incompetence.
The malpractices were committed under a previous administration both of which were thrown into chaos by Putin's war of aggression, yet Chelsea seemed to use Abramovich's forced exit as a Get Out Of Jail card.
Whereas we received no credit for Usmanov's exile nor Moshiri's rank incompetence.
David West
29 Posted 14/06/2026 at 12:12:20
29 Posted 14/06/2026 at 12:12:20
Charles. Exactly.
I'm not someone who thinks the Premier League is actually out to get Everton, or is targeting us, or have an agenda against us... but I do believe we are not being treated equally; we are being disproportionately punished compared with Chelsea for example.
In my mind, the Chelsea blatant disregard for rules, their underhand tactics, basically fraud & money laundering, is a much more obvious case of gaining a sporting advantage.
This is where fans' distrust comes from.
I'm not someone who thinks the Premier League is actually out to get Everton, or is targeting us, or have an agenda against us... but I do believe we are not being treated equally; we are being disproportionately punished compared with Chelsea for example.
In my mind, the Chelsea blatant disregard for rules, their underhand tactics, basically fraud & money laundering, is a much more obvious case of gaining a sporting advantage.
This is where fans' distrust comes from.
Dave Abrahams
30 Posted 14/06/2026 at 14:05:20
30 Posted 14/06/2026 at 14:05:20
Michael (18),
I think we have been treated very differently to other clubs but I will leave the argument there and wait for the findings of the appeal.
It will be heard by different people than the Independent Commission who considered our case previously.
I think we have been treated very differently to other clubs but I will leave the argument there and wait for the findings of the appeal.
It will be heard by different people than the Independent Commission who considered our case previously.
John Collins
31 Posted 14/06/2026 at 14:49:18
31 Posted 14/06/2026 at 14:49:18
I don't think anyone knows the parameters of this, reading the comments. We are all using our intuition.
Mine is that we seem to be picked on disproportionately.
Mine is that we seem to be picked on disproportionately.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.
How to get rid of these ads and support TW
© ToffeeWeb
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
1 Posted 13/06/2026 at 09:11:31
The Commission’s decision appears significant because it goes beyond a sporting sanction imposed by the Premier League and recognises, at least at first instance, that a club may recover compensation where it can establish that another club’s regulatory breach caused compensable loss. That conclusion will now be tested on appeal.
Clubs monitoring other financial-regulation disputes, including proceedings involving Manchester City, will therefore be watching closely, although any future claim would still turn on its own facts, the applicable rules, causation, and proof of loss.
Everton have strongly criticised the decision, describing it as “fundamentally flawed in both law and fact” and warning that it sets a “dangerous and unworkable precedent for English football”.
Burnley, by contrast, can characterise the ruling as confirmation that Premier League rules may, in appropriate circumstances, support compensation where a breach is found to have caused a rival club’s loss. The appeal will be central to determining whether that reasoning survives further scrutiny.
The ruling also underlines the increasing legal and commercial significance of financial regulation in football. Breaches may now expose clubs not only to sporting sanctions such as points deductions, fines or registration restrictions, but potentially also to compensation claims from competitors who can demonstrate a legally recognisable loss caused by the breach.
Until the appeal is determined, it would be premature to say that the decision has opened the floodgates. Nevertheless, the case is likely to encourage clubs and advisers to look more closely at whether financial-rule breaches can support claims for loss of chance, lost revenue or other consequential losses.
The outcome of Everton’s appeal may therefore become an important reference point for future disputes arising from Premier League financial regulation.