The Friedkin Group

[Cereal Killer]

This is why it won't win - it will cause utter chaos for the league and the courts, where every club will start suing one another for any breach of the rules, for which they have already been punished.

And it won't just be relegation. It will be for not getting in the CL, not winning the title. The FA Cup. Where would it stop.

We didn’t sign player X for £5m as we didn’t get enough money from finishing higher, and he was later sold for £60m so we want £55m compensation, thanks

[superpull]

The problem with the above examples is that the mechanism by which we are being "sued" for this doesn't care for setting precedent. It has no real reason to consider how it disrupts/effects current rules - it only cares on the material result of the case in front of it.

If we can be considered to blame - even in the smallest part - for Burnley going down through unfair means. Then they will say that and try to proportion how much we were responsible.
FWIW, i think it will likely just be settled before a decision - but i think any decision would be massively in our favour if we went ahead with it.

[Toddacelli]

The thing I can’t get my head around is that there are so many elements as to why Burnley went down. We contributed, but so did every team who took points off them that season. So did the manager and the players and the coaching staff. What about the physios and medical team - could certain players have been back earlier in time for crucial games? What about diet and training methods? What about how much money was invested into the club? Who was in charge of revenue and marketing? Could they have secured better deals that made them more able to compete in the transfer market? What about recruitment decisions? What about how the club has been run for the last decade with management complaining and falling out with the board over lack of investment?

This absolute plethora of myriad reasons why the shithole of Burnley FC were relegated feels to me more like the straw that broke the camel’s back, not the reason they went down.

[Shogun]

Does that mean every team that didn't take 6 points off us can sue as well?

[superpull]

Both legit lines of thought Todd, Shogs - but not quite what is being asked in this case.

Did the sporting advantage Everton gained by breaking the agreed upon rules have anything to do with us being 4 points ahead of them.
So, did the money we spent over and above the rules "gain us" 4 points (we had a worse goal difference, so one win and on draw out of 38 due to our illegal spending).

From my point of view, when it came to player trading and wages, we weren't drastically over. Our punishment came because of shit accounting that meant we included build costs for infrastructure that is only today benefitting us. so it feels like we shouldn't worry at all.

But, because of the huge can of worms this *could* open, i expect we are under quite a lot of pressure from the Premier League to settle this case before a ruling.

[Cereal Killer]

Both legit lines of thought Todd, Shogs - but not quite what is being asked in this case.

Did the sporting advantage Everton gained by breaking the agreed upon rules have anything to do with us being 4 points ahead of them.
So, did the money we spent over and above the rules "gain us" 4 points (we had a worse goal difference, so one win and on draw out of 38 due to our illegal spending).

From my point of view, when it came to player trading and wages, we weren't drastically over. Our punishment came because of shit accounting that meant we included build costs for infrastructure that is only today benefitting us. so it feels like we shouldn't worry at all.

But, because of the huge can of worms this *could* open, i expect we are under quite a lot of pressure from the Premier League to settle this case before a ruling.

Prove the sporting advantage of our overspend

They can’t

[superpull]

Prove the sporting advantage of our overspend

They can’t

I mean, obviously they and their lawyers think they can.

[777Kidnappings]

The problem with the above examples is that the mechanism by which we are being "sued" for this doesn't care for setting precedent. It has no real reason to consider how it disrupts/effects current rules - it only cares on the material result of the case in front of it.

If we can be considered to blame - even in the smallest part - for Burnley going down through unfair means. Then they will say that and try to proportion how much we were responsible.
FWIW, i think it will likely just be settled before a decision - but i think any decision would be massively in our favour if we went ahead with it.

We received a sporting punishment though. I don't understand how it can go beyond that. Especially they seem to want two bites or the cherry. The compensation for the year we didn't get the deductions and then the advantage in the season we got the belated deduction

I always revert to the same question what if we'd stayed up by 20 points without the deduction then been relegated the season they took the points? Could we have sued?

Ultimately we could have had to pay the cost of relegation twice

[777Kidnappings]

Both legit lines of thought Todd, Shogs - but not quite what is being asked in this case.

Did the sporting advantage Everton gained by breaking the agreed upon rules have anything to do with us being 4 points ahead of them.
So, did the money we spent over and above the rules "gain us" 4 points (we had a worse goal difference, so one win and on draw out of 38 due to our illegal spending).

From my point of view, when it came to player trading and wages, we weren't drastically over. Our punishment came because of shit accounting that meant we included build costs for infrastructure that is only today benefitting us. so it feels like we shouldn't worry at all.

But, because of the huge can of worms this *could* open, i expect we are under quite a lot of pressure from the Premier League to settle this case before a ruling.

Of course it did but we received a sporting punishment for that offence. Did that professional foul cause teams to lose a game?

I don't understand how burnley have a claim. We did something against the rules and received a punishment

If we have to pay burnley because that punishment didn't come quickly enough then we've had the punishment twice.

[brap2]

Of course it did but we received a sporting punishment for that offence. Did that professional foul cause teams to lose a game?

I don't understand how burnley have a claim. We did something against the rules and received a punishment

If we have to pay burnley because that punishment didn't come quickly enough then we've had the punishment twice.

All anyone can say to you here is - hope you are right.

[superpull]

Of course it did but we received a sporting punishment for that offence. Did that professional foul cause teams to lose a game?

I don't understand how burnley have a claim. We did something against the rules and received a punishment

If we have to pay burnley because that punishment didn't come quickly enough then we've had the punishment twice.

We received the punishment, Burnley's case is that they lost out on £50m. It's the difference between going down and staying up that year.
Us being punished doesn't change the material financial loss they incurred.

To try and put it in criminal terms, so everyone has an idea:

If I broke into your house and stole something.
There would be two elements to the case (and you could prosecute each element in different types of court):
- the illegal act of burglary. (This is the breaking of PSR in our example). I can be punished with a period of incarceration for this. (Docked points in Everton's case)
- the idea that I have deprived you of something of value. (Difference between TV money and parachute payments in Burnley's case). A criminal court isn't necessarily concerned with you being reimbursed for this (unless certain criteria are met/included). But you can go through a civil claims court and sue me for the monetary value of you wanted to.

Burnley are just exercising their legal right to have this looked into.
The type of court they're using is very simply going to see if any of our "wrong doings" gained us an on-field advantage for that season and if it did, did it translate to us gaining the 4 points required for Burnley to have stayed up.

It's a near impossible thing to prove and I just can't see how it could be determined. But they absolutely have the right to have a go at finding out.

[777Kidnappings]

We received the punishment, Burnley's case is that they lost out on £50m. It's the difference between going down and staying up that year.
Us being punished doesn't change the material financial loss they incurred.

To try and put it in criminal terms, so everyone has an idea:

If I broke into your house and stole something.
There would be two elements to the case (and you could prosecute each element in different types of court):
- the illegal act of burglary. (This is the breaking of PSR in our example). I can be punished with a period of incarceration for this. (Docked points in Everton's case)
- the idea that I have deprived you of something of value. (Difference between TV money and parachute payments in Burnley's case). A criminal court isn't necessarily concerned with you being reimbursed for this (unless certain criteria are met/included). But you can go through a civil claims court and sue me for the monetary value of you wanted to.

Burnley are just exercising their legal right to have this looked into.
The type of court they're using is very simply going to see if any of our "wrong doings" gained us an on-field advantage for that season and if it did, did it translate to us gaining the 4 points required for Burnley to have stayed up.

It's a near impossible thing to prove and I just can't see how it could be determined. But they absolutely have the right to have a go at finding out.

But our punishment was 1 they benefitted from.

There's a world in which they stay up at our expense 2 seasons later because of the deduction. So we pay for relegation twice and they are rewarded twice in that situation?

The points gives them and everyone else an advantage over us. That is the compensation. That might end up being worth 100m or zero. You don't then claim the difference after the fact

[777Kidnappings]

We received the punishment, Burnley's case is that they lost out on £50m. It's the difference between going down and staying up that year.
Us being punished doesn't change the material financial loss they incurred.

To try and put it in criminal terms, so everyone has an idea:

If I broke into your house and stole something.
There would be two elements to the case (and you could prosecute each element in different types of court):
- the illegal act of burglary. (This is the breaking of PSR in our example). I can be punished with a period of incarceration for this. (Docked points in Everton's case)
- the idea that I have deprived you of something of value. (Difference between TV money and parachute payments in Burnley's case). A criminal court isn't necessarily concerned with you being reimbursed for this (unless certain criteria are met/included). But you can go through a civil claims court and sue me for the monetary value of you wanted to.

Burnley are just exercising their legal right to have this looked into.
The type of court they're using is very simply going to see if any of our "wrong doings" gained us an on-field advantage for that season and if it did, did it translate to us gaining the 4 points required for Burnley to have stayed up.

It's a near impossible thing to prove and I just can't see how it could be determined. But they absolutely have the right to have a go at finding out.

The difference with your example is a prison sentence would not compensate the home owner. The points deduction at the time it was implemented absolutely benefitted Burnley

[777Kidnappings]

If burnleys compliant is we cheated then what's the point of a points deduction if then anyone who isn't happy with their finishing position then sues?

If the compliant is the timing or harshness of the punishment then it's not a compliant against us and again that timing both cost them and benefitted them.

Ultimately us paying burnleys relegation could have means us paying for relegation twice for 1 infaction

[AjaxAndy]

I've said ever since this was proposed that they should be suing the Premier League not us, as we have been punished by the ruling body accordingly. If that punishment wasn't enough or they didn't punish us when they should have, that's not on us it's on the Premier League.

I still fail to see in what world we would be due to pay compensation for a non legal infraction that the governing body punished us in accordance with their rules.