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 they are awarded anything it opens up a right tin 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 Burnleys case but it has cost clubs below them money.