1) Absolutely hilarious. I am amazed City and PSG didn't just get Etihad and Qatar to sue UEFA when City and PSG were sanctioned.
2) Make your mind up one minute you are saying Usmanov is the richest man in Russia the next you are saying he is worth 15 bn. As for deeper pockets how much is this litigation going to cost. Rich people sue poor people because poor people do not have the money to defend themselves. Trump is a perfect example of that. Billionaires do not sue fellow billionaires hoping they won't have the money to defend themselves.
3) Again you show a lack of knowledge you don't get a warning they just disregard part of the deal. that means you do not know if you will pass FFP or not.
Well maybe Manchester City and Etihad felt the judgement from the PL was fair and reasonable? My own take, is that it would be preposterous for the PL to team a payment made for securing an option on naming rights doesn't match the market test, when there is literally no market in existence for that. What market is it not matching with? They will not sanction Everton, but if they did it would get very messy legally, as I don't see any defence in a court of law.
There is a broader point here as well. It is namely that the rules that govern most sporting competitions very often don't make an awful lot of sense once they are outside of that bubble. We as fans are conditioned to accepting them, mainly through the inherent bias of the media in this country. However when you go into the legal aspects of such judgements, where a lot of that is stripped away the arguments don't stand up.
The clearest example of this in recent times was of course the bosman ruling. I imagine 25 years ago, a similar discussion was probably being had, where people spat feathers about legal action, about how 1 little player didn't have the expertise to take on the entire might of the sport and that he'd have to sign certain agreements that precluded legal action so it was completely fanciful he'd bring action, never mind win. The rules we exist by are extremely problematic, and the PL will not want them being tested legally, particularly in such a black and white case as the 30 million payment.
The general perception seems to be they are having a look at it and in all likelihood it will go through. There may be a private comment to the club, perhaps stating they need to be a bit more cautious.
Re - Usmanov I had read he's the wealthiest man in Russia. Do you not believe this to be the case? Have you got evidence that he's not worth (cautiously) 15 bn as has been suggested? It seems a splitting hairs argument to me. He has substantial wealth which can clearly help Everton on a long term basis the likes of which few other clubs have.
As a point of order, it is quite rare for rich people to sue poor people, as poor people don't have the wealth to meet their costs never mind make any further payments. Rich people tend to sue institutions or individuals who have wealth to pay them. If the PL act rashly, legal action is a possibility. If you'd have read the initial post, my view was it will not lead to legal action as the PL will not act rashly.
In the final point, you seem to take quite a literal view. Of course organisations often give people informal warnings, prior to launching a charge. Generally organisations want to avoid conflict as it gets very difficult. In the first instance, if they have a concern it's likely to be a private warning. Yes if the club are deemed to have broken a rule, there may be a charge, and in the first instance this too is likely to be a formal, public warning.
All information out of the club seems to be we are a long way from the first stage and that there will be a cursory look, as protocol dictates and it will get passed through (as it ought too). There is even some talk the PL have even given them the all clear before it's been announced, though I wouldn't speculate beyond that.
Ultimately private business are allowed to sponsor other private businesses, and it's not within the remit or knowledge base of the Premier League to start dictating how much certain sponsorships are worth or how much certain clubs are allowed to sell their products for. I know we are leaving the EU, but the EU court (which may still remain our highest regulatory court) would take a very dim view of this. The practical consequence is that Everton have to avoid being seen to take too many liberties.
None of the agreements thus far get even close to that territory. We are the 4th most successful club in England, and it could be argued have a historical continuity in the history in the game nobody else could match yet the sponsorships being signed are substantially below the top 4 level. Only if we start breaching this (IE having deals that are substantially above the 4th biggest side) will there be any need for any serious investigation to take place. Until then, they are agreements that are consistent with our standing in the game.
None of the above means that there are not other aspects of the business Everton can and should improve. I have written in detail about this in other threads.It can be summarised to requiring a higher level CEO and Chairman, focussed centrally on driving revenues. This should be done as a priority.
www.google.co.uk
