Interestingly enough, there is a precedent for this.
After Sheffield United were relegated below West Ham in the 06/07 season, they sued The Hammers since West Ham’s “signing” of Javier Mascherano and more importantly Carlos Tevez was in clear breach of third party ownership rules in the Premier League. West Ham finished 3 points above Sheffield United with an inferior goal difference. Tevez literally scored the winning goal in a 1-0 victory on the final day of the season to keep West Ham up.
Sheffield United originally sued to try and have West Ham relegated instead of them, but failed. So instead they sued West Ham for monies lost by no longer being in the Premier League, and West Ham settled out of court for £20m. One can only surmise that the reason they settled out of court was because they expected they would probably lose if it went to court.
Thus, Burnley, Leeds and Leicester have a reason to think they might be able to financially benefit from suing Everton. However, realistically only 1 club could have avoided relegation had Everton had their points deduction sooner, and Burnley were relegated a season before Leeds and Leicester. Last season Leicester finished above Leeds, so really only Leicester should be the one suing Everton. As for Burnley, if they want to claim that Everton should have faced their points deduction in the 21/22 season then that’ll be interesting.
Happened with Middlesbrough and Wycombe suing Derby county also. The terms of the settlement were never revealed there. Middlesbrough suing was especially egregious as they sued because Derby made the play offs instead of them, they weren’t even guaranteed to go up if Derby hadn’t finished above them. They didn’t sue Villa either who also broke the rules but because they were promoted were then out of the EFLs reach.
Steve Gibson decided to take the easy route and sue a club on the brink of liquidation who didn’t have the funds to fight back.
The more clear-cut thing with the West Ham case is that it was to do with specific players who played in games and influenced outcomes. When Everton have been charged due to things like incorrectly attributing interest payments on a loan to build their stadium, it’s not such a strong case for them having gained a sporting advantage which influenced results to the point that teams were relegated unfairly.
The problem is they have to argue that Evertons’s league position improved as a result of their breach. Considering how badly the club has been mismanaged it’s a difficult task. For West Ham it can clearly be shown that their signing of Tevez in particular resulted in them staying up.
Burnley’s claim would be laughed out of court. The reality is, that most teams spend money they don’t have. It only becomes worrisome when the estimated revenue ends up being far higher then the revenue they actually get.
But its not, because thats a different set of rules. League rules have changed since then, and this is related to P&S Rules, and its clearly defined in the rules that clubs have no ability to sue other clubs for things like this. Only the independent commission can award damages.
They didn’t sue, they threatened/litigated and settled. That’s slightly different. Chances are that £20M was cost effective for West Ham and avoided further reputations damage. The point here is that no legal precedent has been set.
Charlton threatened Sheff United, but nothing came of it. I suspect because…
All the clubs agree to the sanction process and you can’t sue for it. No court is going to decide that it’s unfair based on timing. Also, keep in mind a breach could be unintentional. You’re effectively asking a court to decide the timing of a third party process that all members agreed to is unfair if it’s quick but not slow or vice versa.
It’s the daily fail. Probably based on some hot air from said clubs looking to see if they can get a settlement. Really, it won’t see an application.
Interestingly enough, there is a precedent for this.
After Sheffield United were relegated below West Ham in the 06/07 season, they sued The Hammers since West Ham’s “signing” of Javier Mascherano and more importantly Carlos Tevez was in clear breach of third party ownership rules in the Premier League. West Ham finished 3 points above Sheffield United with an inferior goal difference. Tevez literally scored the winning goal in a 1-0 victory on the final day of the season to keep West Ham up.
Sheffield United originally sued to try and have West Ham relegated instead of them, but failed. So instead they sued West Ham for monies lost by no longer being in the Premier League, and West Ham settled out of court for £20m. One can only surmise that the reason they settled out of court was because they expected they would probably lose if it went to court.
Thus, Burnley, Leeds and Leicester have a reason to think they might be able to financially benefit from suing Everton. However, realistically only 1 club could have avoided relegation had Everton had their points deduction sooner, and Burnley were relegated a season before Leeds and Leicester. Last season Leicester finished above Leeds, so really only Leicester should be the one suing Everton. As for Burnley, if they want to claim that Everton should have faced their points deduction in the 21/22 season then that’ll be interesting.
Happened with Middlesbrough and Wycombe suing Derby county also. The terms of the settlement were never revealed there. Middlesbrough suing was especially egregious as they sued because Derby made the play offs instead of them, they weren’t even guaranteed to go up if Derby hadn’t finished above them. They didn’t sue Villa either who also broke the rules but because they were promoted were then out of the EFLs reach.
Steve Gibson decided to take the easy route and sue a club on the brink of liquidation who didn’t have the funds to fight back.
This is correct. Although Tevez scoring on the final day was irrelevant to WHU staying up, as a draw was sufficient for them. But they did settle.
The more clear-cut thing with the West Ham case is that it was to do with specific players who played in games and influenced outcomes. When Everton have been charged due to things like incorrectly attributing interest payments on a loan to build their stadium, it’s not such a strong case for them having gained a sporting advantage which influenced results to the point that teams were relegated unfairly.
if it was settled out of court, is there legal precedent? seriously, i dont know how this works.
The problem is they have to argue that Evertons’s league position improved as a result of their breach. Considering how badly the club has been mismanaged it’s a difficult task. For West Ham it can clearly be shown that their signing of Tevez in particular resulted in them staying up.
Burnley’s claim would be laughed out of court. The reality is, that most teams spend money they don’t have. It only becomes worrisome when the estimated revenue ends up being far higher then the revenue they actually get.
But its not, because thats a different set of rules. League rules have changed since then, and this is related to P&S Rules, and its clearly defined in the rules that clubs have no ability to sue other clubs for things like this. Only the independent commission can award damages.
They didn’t sue, they threatened/litigated and settled. That’s slightly different. Chances are that £20M was cost effective for West Ham and avoided further reputations damage. The point here is that no legal precedent has been set.
Charlton threatened Sheff United, but nothing came of it. I suspect because…
All the clubs agree to the sanction process and you can’t sue for it. No court is going to decide that it’s unfair based on timing. Also, keep in mind a breach could be unintentional. You’re effectively asking a court to decide the timing of a third party process that all members agreed to is unfair if it’s quick but not slow or vice versa.
It’s the daily fail. Probably based on some hot air from said clubs looking to see if they can get a settlement. Really, it won’t see an application.