I’ve made a formal complaint to the bar standards board about David Phillips KC. Feel free if anyone wants to do the same
David Phillips KC was selected by the Premier League to lead an “independent” enquiry into the finances of Everton Football Club. Everton were charged with one case of breaching the Premier Leagues “profit and sustainability rules”. The finding of this were made public on Friday 17th November, when the club were deducted 10 points on the advice of Mr Phillips. The punishment metered out by Mr Phillips is the harshest penalty ever dealt out in the Premier League and has no precedent. Its worth noting that other clubs charged with profit and sustainability rules before Everton have not had their cases heard yet. I am aware that in this case, my complaint will have no outcome on the findings. However, I make the claim that due to his multiple previous instructions by the Premier League, his previous relationships with Leeds United (one of the potential beneficiaries of any compensation claim), that Mr Phillips is in no way independent and should not have accepted a role in this hearing. He has also acted for the Premier League against Everton before and handed out record fines of £300,000 for pitch invasions, versus other cases of significantly less fines for the same or worse infractions. He has a clear conflict of interest in this case, and not only should have excused himself from chairing the proceedings in the first place, but he should also be removed from the follow-on panel where he will hear claims of compensation against Everton. The independent panel by its nature is not independent, and with the ethical code he is bound by Mr Phillips should have excused himself. Any situation where the claimants pick the chair and the other two members of the panel, cannot be independent or fair. Never mind one where Mr Phillips has acted for the claimant multiple times. How can that be independent? During the commission hearing it was provided that the Premier League that they had no governance procedures by which Everton should be fined points for any breach. The following day they returned with a formula that was rejected out of hand by Mr Phillips, yet co-incidentally was the same points deduction that was landed on Everton when the matter was resolved. There was no precedent set in Premier League terms, indeed teams found guilty in UEFA and other bodies have been fined or had suspended sentences handed out. The EFL to which he refers in his finding is an entirely separate competition with separate rules, the same as any UEFA competition and should not be relied upon for precedent. Everton have been found guilty of a technical infraction of the regulations and a non-sporting breach but been hit by a sporting sanction. Mr Phillips chose against a fine because Everton have a wealthy owner, as do all premier league clubs. Mr Phillips has chosen an arbitrary and quite frankly inappropriate, disproportionate and unethical punishment that is highly suspicious when viewed alongside the Premier Leagues request for a 10-point penalty in the middle of the process. There are currently no plans in place to introduce this punishment structure into the Premier League, which whilst that is a Premier League matter, further calls into question the severity and appropriateness of how Mr Phillips has dealt with this matter. It also calls into question the appropriateness of how the proceedings were conducted by Mr Phillips Everton were denied nearly all mitigating circumstances in the hearing including the loss of our key sponsor worth £20 million a year which would have seen us the right side of the lines financially. How could Everton possibly foresee a war and sanctions against a key sponsor? In summary Everton have been the victim of a kangaroo court presided over by David Phillips KC, who not only has a track record of working for the Premier League but has a track record of acting for interested parties in claims for compensation and has a reputation of punishing Everton disproportionately.
