I'm coming more to the view that the club was poorly represented at the hearing even though there was a determination at the outset for a heavy punishment.
The lack of consideration for mitigating factors and the absence of any defined method for applying a sanction, known in advance, are the main issues as I see it. The club admitted a breach, co-operated with the league, and were met with the most severe punishment. Based on days of hearings and scrutiny, they were in effect done on an accounting technicality.
The threat of government regulation, and I'm guessing, the constant agitation of the Burnleys et al has resulted in the perfect storm. Everton are now the scapegoat for all the dirty business ills of football, at a time when there is widespread sportswashing and questionable accounting.
Fundamentally, how can a system designed to protect clubs from the worst excesses of profligate and irresponsible financial management turn out via its sanctions, and push a club very significantly further down the road to possible administration?
There is too much in the way of prior agendas, and smoke and mirrors here. The makeup and background of the commission is another factor. The club has to defend its historic reputation as well as the severity of the punishment.
