Why do people keep saying Case 2 will be dependent on Case 1?

[UltraVires]

I have been watching a lot of Everton media over the last few days because well misery loves company!

On each one I’ve watched, it has been said “don’t panic yet because if we do well with our appeal on charge one, charge two could disappear”.

Now I don’t see how that really matters and was hoping someone a bit more clued up can explain why?

To my mind, we accepted in case one that we breached the PSR. Our appeal solely relates to the 10 points deduction and it being excessive.

However, even if the appeal commission decide 10 points was excessive, how does that change the financial figures which we admitted we breached?

 

[Tony’s Carp]

From our statement the other day we are still disputing the final PSR calculation for 21/22 at the appeal:

"the Club is in a position where it has had no option but to submit a PSR calculation which remains subject to change, pending the outcome of the appeal."

If the PSR calculation for 21/22 is changed on appeal it feeds into our three year total up to 22/23, and, depending on the numbers, could see us under for case 2. Even if we remain in breach for 21/22 the adjustment could make a difference to our numbers for 22/23.

I assume our methodology around interest could be accepted by the appeal having been rejected by the first commission. If we used the same methodology in 22/23 that could also alter the figures for case 2.

 

[Ivo]

The appeal might be twofold, firstly about calculations (including mitigating factors), and secondly about severity of punishment (also including mitigating factors).

 

[The binman chronicles]

Yep all of the above. If a judge says one of the mitigating factors is valid then that could change how much we are over by and if that happens to be the middle year (I.e. the one that hasn't dropped off from the rolling three year period) then it would change the values that are used to calculate how much we have spent in regard to that second charge.

 

[UltraVires]

Fair enough but when I read the judgement it stated that we accepted that that we had gone over the £105m and the mitigating factors we presented were nothing to do with the calculation. The mitigating factors were our plea to the commission to keep the punishment down.

I don’t think any appeal is going to say we didn’t go over the £105m and it seems like Everton aren’t even arguing that point anymore because if they were, why would we accept we were in breach just before the first hearing?

 

[Joey66]

Fair enough but when I read the judgement it stated that we accepted that that we had gone over the £105m and the mitigating factors we presented were nothing to do with the calculation. The mitigating factors were our plea to the commission to keep the punishment down.

I don’t think any appeal is going to say we didn’t go over the £105m and it seems like Everton aren’t even arguing that point anymore because if they were, why would we accept we were in breach just before the first hearing?

We have been punished twice for the same 3 year period rule the premiership have?
Confusing ? 10 points was s ridiculous punishment in the first case hence our appeal - so the prem are now being peavish imo -& our legal team must be crap - which reminds me watching Runpole of the old Bailey on TTP tonight based on a real lifestyle barrister - that's the style of barrister we need or a George Carman style Barrister he never lost a case!

 

[dublinbluenose]

If the calculations are changed mid process then it applies to both charges. So if the appeals body accepts this then both charges should be vacated.

 

[Goat]

If the calculations are changed mid process then it applies to both charges. So if the appeals body accepts this then both charges should be vacated.

The calculations were not changed mid process. Read the commission report, section 37.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Fair enough but when I read the judgement it stated that we accepted that that we had gone over the £105m and the mitigating factors we presented were nothing to do with the calculation. The mitigating factors were our plea to the commission to keep the punishment down.

I don’t think any appeal is going to say we didn’t go over the £105m and it seems like Everton aren’t even arguing that point anymore because if they were, why would we accept we were in breach just before the first hearing?

I believe we accepted we were over but disputed the amount we were over why so we may still be looking for an adjustment. That could have an effect on case 2.

I gave the example in the main thread that maybe they accept an adjustment of 10m back to compensate for the unfortunate Gylfi situation. That would still put us in breach by 9.5m for 21/22, but maybe that 10m brings us under for 22/23.

Given the knock on effect I imagine we'll be scrapping for every penny.

 

[dublinbluenose]

The calculations were not changed mid process. Read the commission report, section 37.

I'm talking about assumptions the club had made based on other clubs and were subsequently told wouldn't be allowed.

They were only told a year ago the deductions werent allowed anymore, almost 5 years since BMD was announced.

 

[Goat]

I'm talking about assumptions the club had made based on other clubs and were subsequently told wouldn't be allowed.

They were only told a year ago the deductions werent allowed anymore, almost 5 years since BMD was announced.

The club made lots of assumptions yes, all of which were proven to be wrong.

They were never told the deductions were allowed.

Its all in the commission report, people need to read that and stop reading rubbish from The Daily Mail.

 

[UltraVires]

I believe we accepted we were over but disputed the amount we were over why so we may still be looking for an adjustment. That could have an effect on case 2.

I gave the example in the main thread that maybe they accept an adjustment of 10m back to compensate for the unfortunate Gylfi situation. That would still put us in breach by 9.5m for 21/22, but maybe that 10m brings us under for 22/23.

Given the knock on effect I imagine we'll be scrapping for every penny.

That would be plausible mate. I just don’t think some of the people commenting saying the two are directly linked are very clear. If we get it reduced to 6 points or 8, that doesn’t necessarily have any impact on the PSR we submitted on 31 Dec unless the appeals body rules that the figures were calculated incorrectly last time. The issue I have is that I didn’t think Everton were appealing on the basis that they weren’t in breach, they have admitted it as far I can tell. Instead the appeal relates to the disproportionate punishment for said breach.

The mitigating factors don’t impact on the bottom line number to bring it down just like the PL’s aggravating factors don’t bring the number up

 

[Kurt.]

Just incase

 

[riddick]

The club made lots of assumptions yes, all of which were proven to be wrong.

They were never told the deductions were allowed.

Its all in the commission report, people need to read that and stop reading rubbish from The Daily Mail.

If that's true then what's the logic behind even appealing? Especially with this whole "the 2nd will be proven wrong when the appeal for the 1st is won".

Honestly doesn't make any logical sense.

 

[ForeverEverton]

I have been watching a lot of Everton media over the last few days because well misery loves company!

On each one I’ve watched, it has been said “don’t panic yet because if we do well with our appeal on charge one, charge two could disappear”.

Now I don’t see how that really matters and was hoping someone a bit more clued up can explain why?

To my mind, we accepted in case one that we breached the PSR. Our appeal solely relates to the 10 points deduction and it being excessive.

However, even if the appeal commission decide 10 points was excessive, how does that change the financial figures which we admitted we breached?

I suspect the 2nd charge is a result of one or more of the following, and it is a guess on what is in the public domain but I think the Everton statement does say quite a lot.

1 - We are arguing the stadium pre planning costs/interest should not be included in PSR, there is evidence this rule changed mid way through a period after Spurs had benefitted from the "old" rule. If it is successfully argued the 1st breach will be considerably less which will affect PSR in the whole of that period and may also drop costs out of the latest year submitted or making us compliant.

2 - We have asterisked the PSR calculation due to the ongoing appeal, potentially over by the amount from the 1st breach which is being appealed, the PL didn`t like this and called a second breach, but how can the club finalise accounts which could potentially move at the appeal. If we can appeal the amount down it could make the latest year compliant.

3 - Premier League rules do not allow for a breach in a different period for the same year, I suspect they want to sanction us a second time for the same offence they have already sanctioned us for. If that is the case that is a massive legal no no, this is termed double jeopardy and outlines the amateurs running this league.

The chair of the DCMS got it right, Little Dickie Masters has no idea what is going on, he has kicked up a hornets nest and all he has left is to double down.

Any legal Lawyer worth his salt would take the PL to the cleaners, big time.