15/04/2024 16comments  |  Jump to last

Updated Everton have formally lodged their appeal against the decision by the second Premier League Independent Commission to deduct them two more points this season.

Following the ruling by the first Commission to penalise the club with the loss of 10 points last November, later reduced to six on appeal, the Blues were hit with an unprecedented second sanction earlier this month which they will appeal before a fourth independent panel.

Sky Sports News say Everton will restate their desire that half of the deduction, one point, be deferred until next season as part of their argument against being punished twice in the same seasin.

That appeal hearing is expected to take place early next month. A hard deadline of 24 May is still in place but the Premier League are now pushing to have a verdict in before the final game of the season on 19 May, "for clarity and certainty for all clubs and fans". 

Article continues below video content

Nottingham Forest, docked four points for their own breach of Profitability and Sustainability Rules, will have their appeal heard starting next Monday.

The two clubs meet next weekend when, depending on Everton's result at Chelsea this evening, there could be just one point separating the two clubs in the battle to avoid relegation.

Source: @giuliabould

Reader Comments (16)

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 ()

John Wilson
1 Posted 15/04/2024 at 13:01:35
It's said appealing this latter 2 points deduction is not wise.

Everton should have initially gone for disclosure of evidence and not accepting liability save Premier League burden of proof whilst also not selling Richarlison and Gordon and took the points; as Order for Disclosure, lawyers know all about, by analogy must be proportionate in the courts: civil, family, criminal courts.

Now, trying to appeal 2 points is like calling back a ship that has already left the dock. Why did we have lawyers that are not instructed strategically and tactically aware?

The alternative key defence should have been that we need players to be and to stay competitive in the Premier League, in addition to further mitigating where and when required proportionately. Rocks for brains.

Forest learned from Everton's incompetence but Everton never gained wisdom from Man City's shrewd lawyers.

Si Cooper
2 Posted 15/04/2024 at 13:10:20
“The alternative key defence should have been that we need players to be and to stay competitive in the Premier League.”

Isn't that like claiming we have a divine right not to be relegated?

Mal van Schaick
3 Posted 15/04/2024 at 14:07:52
Double Jeopardy. Plain and simple.

The Premier League should concentrate on the real culprits, the breakaway six.

Michael Kenrick
4 Posted 15/04/2024 at 14:58:34
As reported by Sky Sports News, Everton are looking for 1 point of this latest deduction to be deferred to next season. No explanation provided.

That seems odd to me. Well, maybe worth a try… but the whole business of the Special Directions and all the hullaballoo with the other Premier League clubs who may be 'damaged' by Everton's breach was to have the deductions applied in the season during which the breach is detected (unless your name is Manchester City).

Mal @3, double jeopardy was taken into consideration by the second hearing and our punishment reduced by 50%. So I don't see much traction for anything more there. In fact, I worry that we are endangering the munificence they showed by reducing our penalty for good behaviour. What if they stick that back on because we are now forcing an appeal?

And I know it's hard to stomach but the so-called breakaway six did nothing that was against Premier League rules (at the time) — so they couldn't be punished. To punish them would have been corrupt.

Oh, wait a minute. That can't be right. Coz they are punishing us and we did break the rules… and the fans say that is corrupt and the Premier League "don't know what they are doing".

Nick Page
5 Posted 15/04/2024 at 16:04:15
I’ve just read we might face another deduction. What is this bullshit?
“The Merseyside club could yet face a further points deduction in relation to interest costs associated with the building of the club's new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock, though that issue is unlikely to be resolved before the end of the season.”
Ben King
6 Posted 15/04/2024 at 16:19:07
Michael #4

The fans are aggrieved because EPL changes the rules midway: interest payments were permitted to be capitalised by Spurs but not us.

Also, Chelsea can sell a hotel (which has nothing to do with anything) back to itself as part of PSR!!

Forest get 4 points deduction v Everton having 8 points ….for similar levels of breach.

Finally, charges v Man City still in the ether despite the EPL proving unresolvable issues can be set aside for a later date (see Everton capitalisation of interest payments)….so why the desperation to charge Everton but not City???

Finally (again): EPL recommended 17 point deduction to an Independent’ Commissions.

Are you starting to get a drift or sense of why Evertonians are upset and suggest the EPL don’t know what they’re doing?

Ben King
7 Posted 15/04/2024 at 16:24:06
Also Michael #4

It’s the EPLs own framework with unclear guidance as to proportionality of penalty, size of penalty nor consistency

They can say the clubs votes for it but what value does the administrative party bring to not even suggest alternatives??

They don’t even have a rule re double jeopardy!!! The whole thing is a nonsense.

Why points deductions and not fines??? The former impacts fans and players….innocent parties. It didn’t happen to West Ham. Please explain

Ted Roberts
8 Posted 15/04/2024 at 16:33:47
Sorry, but this appeal appears to be a bit awkward to me… maybe I am just not getting the significance of it.

The club wish to appeal the 2-point deduction to get it reduced by 1 point, to 1 point now and 1 point next season, decided after this season has finished.

Wouldn't that be jeopardising our league positioning for this season if that were to be the difference to staying up or going down?

Say we don't achieve the points we need from our remaining games to be safely free from relegation, whereas now we know where we stand and can put the situation in our own hands.

This appeal seems to be a bit suicidal to me and, given our luck (or lack of it), we are just shooting ourselves in the foot. Am I right, or totally way off the mark with this?

Michael Lynch
9 Posted 15/04/2024 at 16:38:34
Michael, they broke rule of the time, rule L9 that stated "Except with the prior written approval of the Board, during the Season a Club shall not enter or play its senior men's first team in any competition other than (followed by list of approved competitions)".

Sure, you could argue that they declared intent to break the rules, rather than actually breaking them. In retrospect we should have let the ESL go ahead, and then thrown out the Sly Six, but hey-ho.

Brent Stephens
10 Posted 15/04/2024 at 17:09:14
Nick #5

"I've just read we might face another deduction. What is this bullshit?"

All this was in the Commission's report on the previous case, and reported on in the press.

Tom Bowers
11 Posted 15/04/2024 at 17:29:59
There shouldn't be any points deductions for this kind of offence — fines, yes, but not this palava. It's getting out of hand.
John Flood
12 Posted 15/04/2024 at 17:45:38
The double jeopardy has been dealt with in the report. They concluded that 48.4% of the total rolling figure had already been sanctioned so they reduced our 5 point punishment by this percentage. This comes to 2.42 points which they chose to round down to 2 points for that mitigation, so it could be argued that we are owed 0.42 points to be combined with other mitigation?

The other 2 mitigations accepted was the loss of the Finch Farm USM sponsorship and the early guilty plea and in both these areas the commission was pretty dismissive of the PL arguments. Having this mitigation accepted against the PL’s unwarranted, overstated, or both allegations it is somewhat surprising we only received 1 point point back for theses two combined mitigations, especially when we are effectively owed 0.42 points for the double jeopardy mitigation as well.

Therefore I think there should be a good case to get at least 1 more points back.

As for the unresolved argument around £6.5M capitalisation of interest associated with the new stadium, if that is found against us using the formula in our latest hearing that would result in a further deduction of 1 more point to be applied next season (not 6 more as some of the media are reporting).

We will however definitely need to reduce our 23/24 PSR figure significantly if we are not to be charged for a 3rd year running. Realistically the only way we are going to achieve this is through player sales which will inevitably mean Jarrard Braithwaite being sold before 30th June (as he will bring the highest profit)

Martin Farrington
13 Posted 15/04/2024 at 17:47:27
Without any significant, experienced and respected leadership the Comedy of Errors continues.

I have said it before and I will say it again..Everton should take legal redress in a legally established court of law, not the Masters monkey tea party.

Chelsea have gotten away with creative accounting this term by selling a fooking hotel ???!!! WTF.

Man City and West Ham were given 'free' stadiums. Therefore they should be penalised retrospectively at todays costs for the seasons accounts to make matters fair.

If not, building costs should have nothing to do with fair play.

All clubs should have to be on a level playing field at the start of each season.

So it should either be a set sum that ALL clubs are allowed to spend and those who are at a previous advantage because they built up ridiculously high paid squads before these rules were invented, should start on negative points at the beginning.

I strongly believe that owners who have financially mismanaged clubs and led them into such economic horrors (like we are in) should be barred from the premier league and any english football ties.

This includes conglomerates or countries.

A team that is left in such a position should be sold via an insolvency court order for a nominal fee ie £1.

Only the proven, legitimately financed can bid. A lottery would be used to pick out the successful bidder if there is more than 1.

No team should have points taken away because of matters outside of actual football.

Sadly because we are owned by a banned and sanctioned Russian crook and have no capital nor credence and are completely vulnerable we are a punching bag for the Masters boot boy.

Brendan McLaughlin
14 Posted 15/04/2024 at 18:49:59
Premier League have announced the appeal is to be done and dusted before the last game of the season.
Michael Kenrick
15 Posted 15/04/2024 at 23:41:07
Michael @9,

"They broke rule of the time, rule L.9..."

You're right, my bad. But although that rule was in place, two other considerations: (1) they never actually broke the rule, just indicated that they were planning too... before it all fell apart. (2) there was no punishment specified anyway, the 30-point deduction being added subsequently,

My point remains. For the Premier League to have punished them would have been corrupt as no mechanism existed for them to be punished.

Eric Myles
16 Posted 16/04/2024 at 03:27:39
Michael #15, and didn't a European Court rule that the EPL were wrong to prevent clubs from playing in other non-sanctioned competitions and now have to change their rules to allow it?

Which is probably why the clubs involved have never paid their derisory 'fines'.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

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