| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million 17:07 - Jun 10 with 5116 views | 1ASIN12 |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo
Interesting to see how this pans out and what the Everton fan on here makes of it. |  |
| |  |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 17:23 - Jun 10 with 5059 views | Ron11 |
More fu ckers taking the piss out of the sport of football | | | |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 17:45 - Jun 10 with 4984 views | PatfromPoole |
Mmm, interesting case.
Will give Burnley a few more quid to spend for next season, which won't help us. |  |
| |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 18:19 - Jun 10 with 4921 views | HytheFerrytales |
This is now as funny as it is tragic.
Correct me if I am wrong but Everton were given -10 reduced to -6 on appeal for the 21/22 season but it was only applied to the 23/24 season...presumably Everton accepted the breach and the amended -6 deduction at the time.
Burnley then said hold on, if that had been done in 21/22 we probably would have stayed up....not entirely obvious to me how they can prove that...but hey ho.
Burnley get Leeds to settle on the same issue and think OK let's lawyer up on Everton...seems reasonable i suppose.
Cue the really stupid bit....some spotty herbert runs an AI Bot and calculates Burnley's likely points dropped over the season due to actual results caused by the breach...he somehow gets a number plus or minus 3 points to 2 phuqing decimal places...The FA buys that and pulls £35m out of it's arse as what is owed to Burnley. Looks a bit double jeopardy mate.
Meanwhile the Citeh's and Chelsea' of the world do this shit on an industrial scale and get shirt button or no fines and no points.
:Looks like football will actually have to be frozen in time while the Clubs all sue each other in a round robin over a multi year period based on numbers that some oik made up on his iPad.
Executive Summary is
Winners....Lawyers
W*nkers.....FA
Losers...Football.....and us fans. Absolute hairy blx...Awful. | | | |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 18:23 - Jun 10 with 4888 views | HytheFerrytales |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 18:19 - Jun 10 by HytheFerrytales |
This is now as funny as it is tragic.
Correct me if I am wrong but Everton were given -10 reduced to -6 on appeal for the 21/22 season but it was only applied to the 23/24 season...presumably Everton accepted the breach and the amended -6 deduction at the time.
Burnley then said hold on, if that had been done in 21/22 we probably would have stayed up....not entirely obvious to me how they can prove that...but hey ho.
Burnley get Leeds to settle on the same issue and think OK let's lawyer up on Everton...seems reasonable i suppose.
Cue the really stupid bit....some spotty herbert runs an AI Bot and calculates Burnley's likely points dropped over the season due to actual results caused by the breach...he somehow gets a number plus or minus 3 points to 2 phuqing decimal places...The FA buys that and pulls £35m out of it's arse as what is owed to Burnley. Looks a bit double jeopardy mate.
Meanwhile the Citeh's and Chelsea' of the world do this shit on an industrial scale and get shirt button or no fines and no points.
:Looks like football will actually have to be frozen in time while the Clubs all sue each other in a round robin over a multi year period based on numbers that some oik made up on his iPad.
Executive Summary is
Winners....Lawyers
W*nkers.....FA
Losers...Football.....and us fans. Absolute hairy blx...Awful. |
Pls sub PL for FA in W*nker column | | | |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 18:24 - Jun 10 with 4874 views | WestSussexSaint |
So Everton break established rules to gain a sporting advantage and actually gain from that breach by staying in the PL at Burnley’s expense. Their fine is £26m plus interest.
By comparison Saints break established rules to gain a sporting advantage, didn’t materially gain from the breach (didn’t win any of the 3 matches) and are in effect penalised TEN TIMES the fine Everton receive.
Can someone please explain to me how that is a consistent application of the rules!
One thing to consider is that Saints are also impacted by Everton’s breach so maybe the club should be seeking similar redress….. | | | |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 18:25 - Jun 10 with 4866 views | kingslandstand1 |
Man City must be cacking themselves .............. probably not cos of who they are |  |
| |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 19:26 - Jun 10 with 4741 views | solent_toffee |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 18:24 - Jun 10 by WestSussexSaint |
So Everton break established rules to gain a sporting advantage and actually gain from that breach by staying in the PL at Burnley’s expense. Their fine is £26m plus interest.
By comparison Saints break established rules to gain a sporting advantage, didn’t materially gain from the breach (didn’t win any of the 3 matches) and are in effect penalised TEN TIMES the fine Everton receive.
Can someone please explain to me how that is a consistent application of the rules!
One thing to consider is that Saints are also impacted by Everton’s breach so maybe the club should be seeking similar redress….. |
Everton’s subsequent appeal found that they didn’t gain any sporting advantage. The PSR was largely down to the stadium costs and Everton’s inability of not having two separate accounts as Tottenham had when they built their stadium. During the years involved, before and after the charges, Everton barely made a signing, had to sell young players in the Summer just to meet the PSR.
Will see what the appeal brings. | | | |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 19:30 - Jun 10 with 4731 views | solent_toffee |
It doesn’t surprise me, Everton seem to be the test case for the Premier League whilst they ponder what to do with Man City (which will be nothing).
I’m not sure how Burnley being hopeless, every other year, should be down to any club having an unfair advantage, they are just rubbish. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 19:30 - Jun 10 with 4728 views | solent_toffee |
It doesn’t surprise me, Everton seem to be the test case for the Premier League whilst they ponder what to do with Man City (which will be nothing).
I’m not sure how Burnley being hopeless, every other year, should be down to any club having an unfair advantage, they are just bobbins. | | | |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 19:30 - Jun 10 with 4730 views | solent_toffee |
It doesn’t surprise me, Everton seem to be the test case for the Premier League whilst they ponder what to do with Man City (which will be nothing).
I’m not sure how Burnley being hopeless, every other year, should be down to any club having an unfair advantage, they are just not good enough. | | | |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 20:59 - Jun 10 with 4615 views | Wints76 |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 19:30 - Jun 10 by solent_toffee |
It doesn’t surprise me, Everton seem to be the test case for the Premier League whilst they ponder what to do with Man City (which will be nothing).
I’m not sure how Burnley being hopeless, every other year, should be down to any club having an unfair advantage, they are just not good enough. |
You accidentally posted that 3 times. I am sure it was down to connectivity issues or similar, but I am afraid it will result in a points deduction for Everton. And a fine some time in the future. |  | | |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 21:23 - Jun 10 with 4570 views | dirk_doone |
I don't like clubs suing other clubs. It's becoming more about who has the better legal team than who has the better football team. I hope Burnley fail because if they succeed every club will be doing it.
That's the problem when the football authorities use lawyers to make decisions for them. [Post edited 11 Jun 0:06]
|  |
| |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 21:44 - Jun 10 with 4531 views | solent_toffee |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 20:59 - Jun 10 by Wints76 |
You accidentally posted that 3 times. I am sure it was down to connectivity issues or similar, but I am afraid it will result in a points deduction for Everton. And a fine some time in the future. |
Haha, I think Nick has me on a filter! Have a look, I swore on the first post, so changed the word to rubbish, then bobbins, then the old diplomatic ‘not good enough’.
Three tier TUI gone mad. | | | |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 09:30 - Jun 11 with 4244 views | kingslandstand1 |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 19:30 - Jun 10 by solent_toffee |
It doesn’t surprise me, Everton seem to be the test case for the Premier League whilst they ponder what to do with Man City (which will be nothing).
I’m not sure how Burnley being hopeless, every other year, should be down to any club having an unfair advantage, they are just not good enough. |
And headline this morning is that City are offering over £100m for a pretty decent player, but it just smacks right in the mouth the way other clubs are treated
Fkng disgraceful | |
| |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 09:48 - Jun 11 with 4224 views | Berber |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 18:24 - Jun 10 by WestSussexSaint |
So Everton break established rules to gain a sporting advantage and actually gain from that breach by staying in the PL at Burnley’s expense. Their fine is £26m plus interest.
By comparison Saints break established rules to gain a sporting advantage, didn’t materially gain from the breach (didn’t win any of the 3 matches) and are in effect penalised TEN TIMES the fine Everton receive.
Can someone please explain to me how that is a consistent application of the rules!
One thing to consider is that Saints are also impacted by Everton’s breach so maybe the club should be seeking similar redress….. |
How are we punished 10x the Everton fine? We were stopped from playing in the Playoff Final before it took place. How can anyone calculate the loss from a one off game that we didn’t participate in, and might have lost in any event? Especially given how close the games with Middlesbrough were, and they lost in the final,
Southampton were caught breaking the rules, with the intention of gaining an advantage by doing so. That is cheating by any definition. It’s time our fans stopped moaning about it. If there is any anger, it should be towards the perpetrators. If we are OK with Tonda Eckert remaining in post, then it is time to shut up. |  |
| |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 10:21 - Jun 11 with 4183 views | SaintNick |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 21:44 - Jun 10 by solent_toffee |
Haha, I think Nick has me on a filter! Have a look, I swore on the first post, so changed the word to rubbish, then bobbins, then the old diplomatic ‘not good enough’.
Three tier TUI gone mad. |
I’ve been away in a spying mission for the last week now I’m back I’ll take a look at the posts and consider whether you had obtained an advantage over other posters, there is a rule on swearing though which you have admitted to so let’s settle on a £87 million fine which I’ll reduce on appeal to getting me a beer which I’ll suspend for two years
There is also a 3 post deduction |  |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 11:19 - Jun 11 with 4099 views | solent_toffee |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 10:21 - Jun 11 by SaintNick |
I’ve been away in a spying mission for the last week now I’m back I’ll take a look at the posts and consider whether you had obtained an advantage over other posters, there is a rule on swearing though which you have admitted to so let’s settle on a £87 million fine which I’ll reduce on appeal to getting me a beer which I’ll suspend for two years
There is also a 3 post deduction |
I will buy you a beer when Saints play at the Hill Dicko, | | | |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 13:53 - Jun 11 with 3983 views | Bridders2 |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 09:48 - Jun 11 by Berber |
How are we punished 10x the Everton fine? We were stopped from playing in the Playoff Final before it took place. How can anyone calculate the loss from a one off game that we didn’t participate in, and might have lost in any event? Especially given how close the games with Middlesbrough were, and they lost in the final,
Southampton were caught breaking the rules, with the intention of gaining an advantage by doing so. That is cheating by any definition. It’s time our fans stopped moaning about it. If there is any anger, it should be towards the perpetrators. If we are OK with Tonda Eckert remaining in post, then it is time to shut up. |
We're not questioning the fact we were cheating, we're questioning the disproportionate size of the punishment. | |
| |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 14:07 - Jun 11 with 3965 views | kingslandstand1 |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 11:19 - Jun 11 by solent_toffee |
I will buy you a beer when Saints play at the Hill Dicko, |
Touche! | |
| |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 15:09 - Jun 11 with 3892 views | SaintNick |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 11:19 - Jun 11 by solent_toffee |
I will buy you a beer when Saints play at the Hill Dicko, |
It will probably be cheaper to buy it now and send it over in a taxi than get it when we get to play up there after 10 years inflation lol | |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 18:27 - Jun 11 with 3789 views | HytheFerrytales |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 09:48 - Jun 11 by Berber |
How are we punished 10x the Everton fine? We were stopped from playing in the Playoff Final before it took place. How can anyone calculate the loss from a one off game that we didn’t participate in, and might have lost in any event? Especially given how close the games with Middlesbrough were, and they lost in the final,
Southampton were caught breaking the rules, with the intention of gaining an advantage by doing so. That is cheating by any definition. It’s time our fans stopped moaning about it. If there is any anger, it should be towards the perpetrators. If we are OK with Tonda Eckert remaining in post, then it is time to shut up. |
I hear you clearly .
However it is the the basic human response to shout "We wuz stiffed"...It'll pass.
As for Eckert, it is not just the majority of fans who wish him to stay, it's the Chairman as well....that's good enough for me.
Pulling together my posts and others from yesterday and repeating them:
If he isn't banned but gets other sanctions. then tickety-boo, he is in post.
If he is banned, say 12 months, then it's trickier all round. He can't work...we can't fire him (Employment Law ) but we probably don't need to pay him much if anything ( will be in his contract).
Options for him seem to be 1. he resigns...possible but will then be off to Europe where all the top tier spies reside anyway 2. Solak says you are still my man and I will look after you somehow.
Little discussed fact is that I believe Eckert's contract only runs to end 26/27 season anyway.
Now send me an Uber to get out of this mad house masquerading as a hospital I' in. | | | |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 20:41 - Jun 11 with 3711 views | PatfromPoole |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 18:27 - Jun 11 by HytheFerrytales |
I hear you clearly .
However it is the the basic human response to shout "We wuz stiffed"...It'll pass.
As for Eckert, it is not just the majority of fans who wish him to stay, it's the Chairman as well....that's good enough for me.
Pulling together my posts and others from yesterday and repeating them:
If he isn't banned but gets other sanctions. then tickety-boo, he is in post.
If he is banned, say 12 months, then it's trickier all round. He can't work...we can't fire him (Employment Law ) but we probably don't need to pay him much if anything ( will be in his contract).
Options for him seem to be 1. he resigns...possible but will then be off to Europe where all the top tier spies reside anyway 2. Solak says you are still my man and I will look after you somehow.
Little discussed fact is that I believe Eckert's contract only runs to end 26/27 season anyway.
Now send me an Uber to get out of this mad house masquerading as a hospital I' in. |
Wouldn’t be massively surprised if we were to extend his contract but for it to be confidential. | |
| |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 22:03 - Jun 11 with 3631 views | HytheFerrytales |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 20:41 - Jun 11 by PatfromPoole |
Wouldn’t be massively surprised if we were to extend his contract but for it to be confidential. |
Apart from the really big boys, not many owners are into complex financial hokey cokey. My guess is that Solak knows those angles.
Even under ban he could keep Eckert whole by e.g.granting him shadow equity or options in one of his offshore vehicles ( non football). I would be astounded if the FA ban has jurisdiction over anything other than football activity..Hey he could even hollow out the tree our lad was hiding behind and hide wads of notes in it for Eckert.
Unfortunately the option to just let him go off to another part of the earth to conduct pure football employment and return in a year is not feasible. The FA ban would almost certainly be upheld by FIFA as well.
Looks like the opening game in Mexico could end 7 vs 6...players, not goals. | | | |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 09:42 - Jun 12 with 3452 views | jopreston |
So, does this mean, in the cases with Man City, if proven they did the same thing, will Arsenal, Liverpool and others be able to sue them for missing out on winning the EPL and the extra money lost in being second or even third? Surely it does and if it does indeed, that would bankrupt Man City. |  | | |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 12:22 - Jun 12 with 3360 views | HytheFerrytales |
| Everton told to pay Burnley £35 million on 09:42 - Jun 12 by jopreston |
So, does this mean, in the cases with Man City, if proven they did the same thing, will Arsenal, Liverpool and others be able to sue them for missing out on winning the EPL and the extra money lost in being second or even third? Surely it does and if it does indeed, that would bankrupt Man City. |
In principle you are probably dead on. Practically the Lawyers can keep this going many years and Citeh are owned by the VP of the UAE who's worth a bob or two.
My guess that a round robin litigation festival involving clubs that are all as guilt as hell will eventually have to be solved by a so called Equalisation of Misery truce. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.