Times article, Burnley/Leeds threaten to sue Everton

[WestStandLower]

They've asked for an independent commission not a PL commission though. Maybe this is because there is an awareness that we are subject to cost controls under E.

When a commission is appointed once a complaint has been lodged it has to be formed as follows

As soon as reasonably practicable following receipt of a complaint, the Chair of the Judicial Panel shall appoint a Commission to hear the complaint, confirm the identities of the Commission members to the Board and the Respondent(s) and require each appointed individual to complete a statement of impartiality in such form as the Chair of the Judicial Panel shall prescribe. Where a party objects to one or more of the appointments made to the Commission, it must raise such objection within two Working Days of the relevant appointment(s), which shall be resolved by the Chair of the Judicial Panel in such manner as he/she thinks fit.

 

[catcherintherye]

The commission would by the contract be constituted as below. The idea is that by being so constituted they would be independent. I think the term "independent" commission is a term of art being used by Leeds/Burnley

The Judicial Panel shall include:
W.15.1. authorised insolvency practitioners eligible under Rule E.36 to sit as a member of an appeal tribunal appointed thereunder;
W.15.2. legally qualified persons eligible:
W.15.2.1. under Rule E.36 or Rule F.16 to sit as chairmen of appeal tribunals appointed thereunder;
W.15.2.2. under Rule Y.7 to sit as chairmen of Managers’ Arbitration Tribunals;
W.15.2.3. under Rule W.16 to sit as chairmen of Commissions; and/or
W.15.3. Persons who have held judicial office eligible under Rule
W.57 to sit as chairmen of Appeals Boards; and
W.15.4. Persons who hold nationally recognised qualifications as accountants or auditors, who shall be eligible to be members of Commissions appointed to determine suspected or alleged breaches of Rules E.45 to E.51

They have asked for an independent commission. That is in contradiction to the rules, which makes no mention of it to be "independent".

You seem to be listing a "judicial panel" there, which is different to an "independent commision". That also looks to be set up (optionally) if a side is found to have breached the rules. That has not happened so again has no relevance.

It's not what Leeds and Burnley have asked for.

 

[catcherintherye]

When a commission is appointed once a complaint has been lodged it has to be formed as follows

As soon as reasonably practicable following receipt of a complaint, the Chair of the Judicial Panel shall appoint a Commission to hear the complaint, confirm the identities of the Commission members to the Board and the Respondent(s) and require each appointed individual to complete a statement of impartiality in such form as the Chair of the Judicial Panel shall prescribe. Where a party objects to one or more of the appointments made to the Commission, it must raise such objection within two Working Days of the relevant appointment(s), which shall be resolved by the Chair of the Judicial Panel in such manner as he/she thinks fit.

That is the PL commission they are advised of forming.

Leeds and Burnley have not asked for that. They have asked for an independent commission. Not the PL one in the rules.

It's worth noting it cannot form a "judicial panel" as this is one option they have, where guilt had been established. That has not happened.

It would be like having a trial, before you had any evidence to charge.

 

[everton fan number one]

They have asked for an independent commission. That is in contradiction to the rules, which makes no mention of it to be "independent".

You seem to be listing a "judicial panel" there, which is different to an "independent commision". That also looks to be set up (optionally) if a side is found to have breached the rules. That has not happened so again has no relevance.

It's not what Leeds and Burnley have asked form

Please read section W Catcher, including this bit;


Appointing a Commission W.16. Subject to Rule W.78, a Commission shall be appointed by the Chair of the Judicial Panel and shall comprise three members of the Disciplinary Panel of whom one, who shall be legally qualified, shall sit as chairman of the Commission. W.17. Subject to Rule W.78, a Commission appointed to deal with a suspected or alleged breach of Rules E.45 to E.51 shall include at least one member of the Disciplinary Panel qualified as set out in Rule W.15.4 (but who shall not sit as the chairman of the Commission, who shall be legally qualified as set out in Rule W.16). W.18. Subject to Rule W.78, and notwithstanding Rule W.16, where both parties are in agreement that the proceedings should be determined by a single member (rather than three members) of the Disciplinary Panel, the Chair of the Judicial Panel shall appoint a one-person Commission for that purpose. In such circumstances, this Section of the Rules shall be interpreted on the basis that the Commission comprises a single individual, who shall undertake the duties of chairman of the Commission.

 

[everton fan number one]

When a commission is appointed once a complaint has been lodged it has to be formed as follows

As soon as reasonably practicable following receipt of a complaint, the Chair of the Judicial Panel shall appoint a Commission to hear the complaint, confirm the identities of the Commission members to the Board and the Respondent(s) and require each appointed individual to complete a statement of impartiality in such form as the Chair of the Judicial Panel shall prescribe. Where a party objects to one or more of the appointments made to the Commission, it must raise such objection within two Working Days of the relevant appointment(s), which shall be resolved by the Chair of the Judicial Panel in such manner as he/she thinks fit.

Snap

 

[nikom court]

If we had finished mid table would this even be an issue?

 

[catcherintherye]

Please read section W Catcher, including this bit;


Appointing a Commission W.16. Subject to Rule W.78, a Commission shall be appointed by the Chair of the Judicial Panel and shall comprise three members of the Disciplinary Panel of whom one, who shall be legally qualified, shall sit as chairman of the Commission. W.17. Subject to Rule W.78, a Commission appointed to deal with a suspected or alleged breach of Rules E.45 to E.51 shall include at least one member of the Disciplinary Panel qualified as set out in Rule W.15.4 (but who shall not sit as the chairman of the Commission, who shall be legally qualified as set out in Rule W.16). W.18. Subject to Rule W.78, and notwithstanding Rule W.16, where both parties are in agreement that the proceedings should be determined by a single member (rather than three members) of the Disciplinary Panel, the Chair of the Judicial Panel shall appoint a one-person Commission for that purpose. In such circumstances, this Section of the Rules shall be interpreted on the basis that the Commission comprises a single individual, who shall undertake the duties of chairman of the Commission.

But this is a PL commission, an option they have, if someone is found to have breached the rules.

1) Everton have not breached the rules.
2) Burnley and Leeds have not asked for this. They have asked for an "independent" commission. The rules that the above pertain to makes no mention of "independent".

For those 2 reasons, it has no relevance.

 

[everton fan number one]

But this is a PL commission, an option they have, if someone is found to have breached the rules.

1) Everton have not breached the rules.
2) Burnley and Leeds have not asked for this. They have asked for an "independent" commission. The rules that the above pertain to makes no mention of "independent".

For those 2 reasons, it has no relevance.

They can ask to flights to Barbados if they want, what they'll get is what's in the handbook which is the Commission as described therein

 

[Marius57]

Will they sue Southampton when we finish above them?

 

[catcherintherye]

They can ask to flights to Barbados if they want, what they'll get is what's in the handbook which is the Commission as described therein

The key bit though is that do not want what is being described, at least from what they have put out. They seem to want an independent commission, presumably to evaluate why the PL have accepted independently audited accounts are accurate.

The commission gets called on occasions where guilt has been found. There is no guilt that has been established. Everton are within FFP rules, so it has no relevance.

 

[WestStandLower]

But this is a PL commission, an option they have, if someone is found to have breached the rules.

1) Everton have not breached the rules.
2) Burnley and Leeds have not asked for this. They have asked for an "independent" commission. The rules that the above pertain to makes no mention of "independent".

For those 2 reasons, it has no relevance.

Burnley and Leeds it seems believe Everton have breached the rules so there is provision in the Pl rules for a a complaint to be made and that I suspect is where things are in that they have jointly registered one. They are perfectly entitled to do so


Now read again what the rule book says when a complaint is sent and in particular the requirement for a statement of impartiality to be signed. That surely infers independence

The Chair of the Judicial Panel shall appoint a Commission to hear the complaint, confirm the identities of the Commission members to the Board and the Respondent(s) and require each appointed individual to complete a statement of impartiality in such form as the Chair of the Judicial Panel shall prescribe. Where a party objects to one or more of the appointments made to the Commission, it must raise such objection within two Working Days of the relevant appointment(s), which shall be resolved by the Chair of the Judicial Panel in such manner as he/she thinks fit.

 

[MACCA75]

They are clutching at straws but it’s doing us no favours having this as a high profile issue going into a transfer window.

 

[gonetomorrow]

The media really cant handle that we stayed up.

Because we're an old school people's club and not elitist snotters run by saudis and americans.

 

[everton fan number one]

The key bit though is that do not want what is being described, at least from what they have put out. They seem to want an independent commission, presumably to evaluate why the PL have accepted independently audited accounts are accurate.

The commission gets called on occasions where guilt has been found. There is no guilt that has been established. Everton are within FFP rules, so it has no relevance.

Well, taking the definition constitution of the commission, it would be made up of accountants and lawyers. They would not be premier league employees and are bound by professional conduct rules. I think there's a bit in there about witness evidence as well ( or that could have been arbitration). In any event by virtue of this they would be independent of the prem.

 

[Taifi gorm]

Will they sue Southampton when we finish above them?

Would love a bit of snide if that happened. Wee cheeky tweet banter about finances between ourselves and Southampton.