I think that the Premier League’s independent commission looking into the Everton case looked at the wrong precedent.
The Sheffield Wednesday (SW) case was incorrect to use as the EFL acknowledged that SW had spent 48% over the EFL’s £35M limit and that SW derived a clear sporting advantage. Additionally, not only did SW admit their guilt to the case brought against them, they too admitted that they derived a clear sporting advantage from their overspend. That remorse, and acknowledgement is what helped get the penalty halved.
A much better precedent for the IC to use to my mind, would have been the EFL vs Leicester City FC case brought in 2015;
See here; Leicester versus the EFL
(Reuters) – Leicester City will pay £3.1 million ($4.3 million) to settle a dispute with the English Football League (EFL) over the club’s financial results for the 2013-14 season.
The club, owned by Thai-based company King Power, were deemed to have breached EFL’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations when they won the second-tier Championship to secure promotion to the Premier League.
Leicester had recorded a loss of £20.8 million but said at the time they had reduced their costs and increased their revenue streams to submit a return which was in compliance with FFP rules.
“In reaching a settlement, the EFL acknowledges that the club did not make any deliberate attempt to infringe the rules or to deceive and that the dispute arose out of genuine differences of interpretation of the Rules between the parties,” Leicester said in a statement.
“All relevant matters were taken into account when determining the quantum of the settlement.”
The proceedings were pending with Queens Park Rangers challenging the FFP rules in 2015.
British media reported QPR were fined in the range of £58 million. The case is still ongoing.
As stated in the LCFC case;
“”Leicester had recorded a loss of £20.8 million but said at the time they had reduced their costs and increased their revenue streams to submit a return which was in compliance with FFP rules.”
(Sound familiar to within £1.3m?)
“In reaching a settlement, the EFL acknowledges that the club did not make any deliberate attempt to infringe the rules or to deceive and that the dispute arose out of genuine differences of interpretation of the Rules between the parties,” Leicester said in a statement. (Again, does this not sound familiar?)
“All relevant matters were taken into account when determining the quantum of the settlement.””
Which is pretty much what Everton were alleged to have done, was it not?
I presume that the difference was that the EFL were satisfied with the logical arguement presented by Leicester and determinded a financial penalty satisfied a financial breach; whereas the Premier League saw what is coming over the hill in term of the Government-appointed ‘Independent Regulator’, and decided to try and make a statement by hammering Everton with a 10-point ‘sporting sanction’.
Notwithstanding the fact that they did not proceed with punishing West Ham Utd for fielding two ineligible players and definitely gaining a sporting advantage (eg, Tevez scoring, etc), and allowing West Ham Utd to settle.
Then, to further rub salt into the wound, by not giving a sporting sanction (eg, a transfer embargo or some such), points deduction, suspension, or expulsion to the six clubs involved in attempting to form an alternative league, in a ‘breakaway competition’, to the detriment of the Premier League.
Instead, they handed the six clubs a collective fine of £22.3m which to this day has still not been levied by the Premier League, as far as the public domain is aware?
Just makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
A selective ‘badly aligned precedent’, and a completely over-weighted sporting sanction for a genuinely minor financial indiscretion. (Yes, I acknowledge and know it was in fact a £124.5m overspend according to the PSR calculations, but…) which bear in mind the EPL back-tracked on regarding the eligibility of the interest to be deducted, despite knowing prior to the commission being appointed, how the loans were structured by virtue of Everton’s willingness to divulge their financial position.
It would seem to me to just be an attempt to truss up a sacrifice, and try and delay the inevitable aforementioned Independent Regulator.