Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

Financial Fair Play investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
gwladysnight said:
The whole point of arbitration is to reduce the likelihood of legal action. To that end, the professionals appointed as arbitrators are experts at following the rules of evidence, natural evidence and due process.

As for challenging on a point of law the problem with that is that the Independent panel will make a judgement based on the balance of probabilities. To overturn that you would have to show that the panel had made a fundamental error.
Click to expand...
Yes Gwladys.

I am simply pointing out that the process could be challenged through the legal system if it fails to follow the requirements of natural justice. There seems to have been some confusion on this issue from posters.

Arbitration does not mean that a party must roll over and put its figurative paws in the air, regardless of the conduct of the process, and meekly accept whatever decision made.

There are legal remedies available in the event that the panel/appeals body fails to comply with NJ etc.

The potential damages to the legal person that is EFC from the decision of this arbitration panel are massive. Having splurged hundreds of millions on dross the Club is now facing the fight of its life for its very survival.

Every word, dot, comma, apostrophe of this process should be watched and examined and the very best legal team that we can afford should be engaged.
 
everton fan number one said:
For context numerous countries worldwide have signed up to treaties agreeing not to dispute arbitral awards and to uphold foreign arbitral awards. There is a massive onus on upholding them to avoid wasting court time with full trials. Courts will not see it as their role to scrutinise each and every award. So it’s not a case of “yeah natural justice”, we can challenge it if we don’t like the outcome. We could try, but we’d be doomed to fail.
Click to expand...
It is not about liking the outcome. This is not a row over conditions of employment or a minor torts dispute.

Legal remedies are available if there is error in the conduct of this procedure.

I have not speculated on the merits of EFC's actual defence of its FFP conduct. That is a different issue snd, tbh, one that does not inspire me with any confidence.

As per post above.
 
See you in Strasbourg....
Alan-Partridge.webp
 

gwladysnight said:
No, because football clubs don't follow the traditional financial year.

Football clubs have a financial year that ends in May or June.
Click to expand...
Or occasionally July. See Sheffield Wednesday, Sunderland, Swansea and perhaps Burnley- I remember them shifting it one year but dunno whether they shifted back.

Irrespective, League need prior year actual accounts and existing year Projections by no later than 1st March of any given season.
 
I'm in line with that Athletic piece from Saturday - bemused about how on earth Everton have been referred by the PL based on the 2021/22 season accounts.

That PL fat cat Masters' appearance at the Commons Select Committee a few days after the referral seems the likley reason IMO. A stunt to make sure he wasn't leaving himself open to an awkward question from that committee.

I just dont see this as representing any threat to the club this season or next season.

The only damage it could do is on the pitch this season by undermining our resolve. Hopefully Dyche and the players can extinguish that doubt tonight.

Stay up to stay up. That's about the strength of it.
 
That the PL previously approved our submissions and rebuffed complaints must stand in our favour.

That needs to be emphasised over and over at the commission, until they are sick of hearing it.

That, and a record of full cooperation and improvement in our position since the initial monitoring began.

Whilst taking nothing for granted, I'm more hopeful than I was of avoiding significant punishment.

We have ace cards to play here and retrospective action calls into question the entire process.

If this requires re-visiting, on what precise basis is this so? What implications does it have for other clubs? What signal would it send to clubs in future that may be engaged in a process of co-operation with the PL?
 

brieverton said:
That the PL previously approved our submissions and rebuffed complaints must stand in our favour.

That needs to be emphasised over and over at the commission, until they are sick of hearing it.

That, and a record of full cooperation and improvement in our position since the initial monitoring began.

Whilst taking nothing for granted, I'm more hopeful than I was of avoiding significant punishment.

We have ace cards to play here and retrospective action calls into question the entire process.

If this requires re-visiting, on what precise basis is this so? What implications does it have for other clubs? What signal would it send to clubs in future that may be engaged in a process of co-operation with the PL?
Click to expand...
It depends on what you define as approval and btw Estoppel of varied kinds may cover these arguments, as unless the League gave a true and binding final sign off for all time and issues then it does not amount to a final determination.

I'd they did then more fool them as the P&S rules such as they are allow the returns to be assessed on at least 3 occasions.

Full cooperation can help but again that is the required standard as per past cases. Failure to cooperate can lead to supplemental charges or accusations of aggravating the original breach.
 
Bluerover said:
Yes Gwladys.

I am simply pointing out that the process could be challenged through the legal system if it fails to follow the requirements of natural justice. There seems to have been some confusion on this issue from posters.

Arbitration does not mean that a party must roll over and put its figurative paws in the air, regardless of the conduct of the process, and meekly accept whatever decision made.

There are legal remedies available in the event that the panel/appeals body fails to comply with NJ etc.

The potential damages to the legal person that is EFC from the decision of this arbitration panel are massive. Having splurged hundreds of millions on dross the Club is now facing the fight of its life for its very survival.

Every word, dot, comma, apostrophe of this process should be watched and examined and the very best legal team that we can afford should be engaged.
Click to expand...
The principles of Natural Justice are quite loose and minor defects in procedure are unlikely to be challengeable.

The case is largely one of matters of fact (the figures involved) and matters of opinion (what are reasonably allowable deductions).

Makes it difficult to Appeal as Courts don't like interfering with the view of judges/panels on the evidence (as opposed to points of law) presented unless they are plainly wrong. The Arbitration Act sets out how awards can be appealed and again it is narrow.

An appeal to the Supreme Court would be very unlikely indeed. It is in essence a contractual dispute and not of wider public importance.

The one issue that is probably of greater interest is the punishment in the event of the panel finding in breach.

There's absolutely no guidance and so they may look at the EFL approach - the rest of the PL may not be keen on that.

What is interesting is that the rules specify that if you exceed the limits they have to refer to a commission - there doesn't appear to be any discretion. Makes you suspect that when they were looking closely at Man City's position that they felt that they had to get their house in order.

If we are subject to punishment by the PL it sort of sets the bar for any punishment in respect of City should they also be found in breach.

Given that they are facing a numerical and different range of breaches if we are punished this may make any punishment they receive less capable of challenge.

Of course nobody knows the nature of the allegations against either club.

Hopefully if we are in breach we can mitigate by showing it was a genuine mistake and that we have fully cooperated throughout.
 
Llyrap said:
The principles of Natural Justice are quite loose and minor defects in procedure are unlikely to be challengeable.

The case is largely one of matters of fact (the figures involved) and matters of opinion (what are reasonably allowable deductions).

Makes it difficult to Appeal as Courts don't like interfering with the view of judges/panels on the evidence (as opposed to points of law) presented unless they are plainly wrong. The Arbitration Act sets out how awards can be appealed and again it is narrow.

An appeal to the Supreme Court would be very unlikely indeed. It is in essence a contractual dispute and not of wider public importance.

The one issue that is probably of greater interest is the punishment in the event of the panel finding in breach.

There's absolutely no guidance and so they may look at the EFL approach - the rest of the PL may not be keen on that.

What is interesting is that the rules specify that if you exceed the limits they have to refer to a commission - there doesn't appear to be any discretion. Makes you suspect that when they were looking closely at Man City's position that they felt that they had to get their house in order.

If we are subject to punishment by the PL it sort of sets the bar for any punishment in respect of City should they also be found in breach.

Given that they are facing a numerical and different range of breaches if we are punished this may make any punishment they receive less capable of challenge.

Of course nobody knows the nature of the allegations against either club.

Hopefully if we are in breach we can mitigate by showing it was a genuine mistake and that we have fully cooperated throughout.
Click to expand...
Mitigation was worth 1 point for Birmingham, maybe a higher standard of cooperation would be worth a bit more.

interesting that you should refer to EFL case law. The rules are largely harmonised (at the PL's behest no less).

They in turn as a test case referred to a UEFA case in the Birmingham case of 2019, the argument that Birmingham had gained no sporting advantage so should not be punished with points was dealt with this way.
 
Mr Popodopolous said:
It depends on what you define as approval and btw Estoppel of varied kinds may cover these arguments, as unless the League gave a true and binding final sign off for all time and issues then it does not amount to a final determination.

I'd they did then more fool them as the P&S rules such as they are allow the returns to be assessed on at least 3 occasions.

Full cooperation can help but again that is the required standard as per past cases. Failure to cooperate can lead to supplemental charges or accusations of aggravating the original breach.
Click to expand...
I don't understimate the potential troubles ahead.

We have plenty for a Kings Counsel to get their teeth into though.

Burnley and Leeds were both threatening legal action last year and an abrupt stop was put to it. If there was a need to re-examine the details the club had provided to the PL, the time to do it was then and not now. I assume a commission could have been convened.

We can legitimately ask why now and as a result of what process? And why after a period of consolidation of our position?

I think this will be settled by legal argument and not the minutiae of the accounts.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top