The Athletic told the PL sanction framework was only to be used for Everton. No such league-wide sanction policy is in the pipeline and such a change would need to be communicated to clubs formally.
Seems fair, I’m sure the City specific sanction framework will be as harsh
How is this even happening?
Well, I’m glad that’s put to bed. It is a rule for one and not for another. Good to know.
Nothing to see here. Everything is fine. £10m fine for Manchester City. Everybody please move on.
Everyone keeps talking about how harsh the punishment is but I think it couldn’t have come at a better time for Everton.
Take 10 points off their last two points totals and they’re down, with the points already deducted they’re not even bottom and two points behind 17th.
Seems like the rest of the bottom 4 are so much worse this year than others have been in the past and it seems like Dyche is getting them somewhat on track as well. Swallowing the 10 point deduction and likely staying up with a somewhat clean slate seems quite favourable to me.
seems like if you could have cherrypicked a time to take a punishment on the chin and have it likely make very little difference, now would be it.
Transfer ban pls. We’ll take 2 years.
What a clickbait by the OP by cutting some parts of the paragraph, I wonder if you have read the whole article or if you wanted karma farm.
**According to evidence supplied by its chief executive Richard Masters, the league proposed “a fixed starting point of a deduction of six points, with an increase from that starting point of one point for every £5million by which the club had exceeded the PSR threshold of £105m. Further adjustments could be made to reflect aggravating or mitigating features** ”.
**The commission said it rejected this framework.
“The commission is concerned that the adoption by it of a structured formula such as is advocated by the Premier League would be inconsistent with the unrestricted powers conferred by rules w50 and 51,” its report said**.
“ **We consider that it is not for a commission to introduce such a structured formula even on a case-by-case basis. We consider that we are required by the rules to hear and consider the mitigation, after which we have wide discretion to impose any of the sanctions listed in rule w51**.
“ **If the Premier League wishes to impose a mandatory structured formula on a commission dealing with PSR breaches, it can do so. In that event, the commission would be required to comply with those rules. But as things stand at present that has not been done: the commission has the wide discretion conferred by rules w50 and w51.”
In other words, the commissioners would be disregarding the league’s suggestion and applying their discretion**.
**Breaking down 41 pages of written arguments behind Everton’s points deduction
Crucially, they still reached the same conclusion as the league: a 10-point penalty for an overspend of £19.5million, with their adjudication summarised in the final two pages of the report. None of this is likely to have been lost on Everton’s lawyers.
The Athletic has since been told the aforementioned sanction framework was only meant to be used for Everton’s case. It is understood no such league-wide sanction policy is in the pipeline at the moment and that such a change would need to be communicated to clubs formally and via the handbook. Everton were unaware of the league’s recommendation both at the time of their referral and approaching the pre-trial review in early October**.
**It is possible that one potential avenue in the appeal would be for Everton to look at the lack of a formulaic basis for any sanction, with arguments of proportionality stemming from there.
Either way, the absence of any direct precedent for such a breach has already proven problematic in this case. It may well do again as all parties gear up for the appeal**.
To the surprise of absolutely nobody.
Time will tell how Everton’s punishment will be looked at when we see how other clubs are treated for similar or worse breaches. But “Only to be used for Everton” is horrific wording to use.
9 comments
Seems fair, I’m sure the City specific sanction framework will be as harsh
How is this even happening?
Well, I’m glad that’s put to bed. It is a rule for one and not for another. Good to know.
Nothing to see here. Everything is fine. £10m fine for Manchester City. Everybody please move on.
Everyone keeps talking about how harsh the punishment is but I think it couldn’t have come at a better time for Everton.
Take 10 points off their last two points totals and they’re down, with the points already deducted they’re not even bottom and two points behind 17th.
Seems like the rest of the bottom 4 are so much worse this year than others have been in the past and it seems like Dyche is getting them somewhat on track as well. Swallowing the 10 point deduction and likely staying up with a somewhat clean slate seems quite favourable to me.
seems like if you could have cherrypicked a time to take a punishment on the chin and have it likely make very little difference, now would be it.
Transfer ban pls. We’ll take 2 years.
What a clickbait by the OP by cutting some parts of the paragraph, I wonder if you have read the whole article or if you wanted karma farm.
**According to evidence supplied by its chief executive Richard Masters, the league proposed “a fixed starting point of a deduction of six points, with an increase from that starting point of one point for every £5million by which the club had exceeded the PSR threshold of £105m. Further adjustments could be made to reflect aggravating or mitigating features** ”.
**The commission said it rejected this framework.
“The commission is concerned that the adoption by it of a structured formula such as is advocated by the Premier League would be inconsistent with the unrestricted powers conferred by rules w50 and 51,” its report said**.
“ **We consider that it is not for a commission to introduce such a structured formula even on a case-by-case basis. We consider that we are required by the rules to hear and consider the mitigation, after which we have wide discretion to impose any of the sanctions listed in rule w51**.
“ **If the Premier League wishes to impose a mandatory structured formula on a commission dealing with PSR breaches, it can do so. In that event, the commission would be required to comply with those rules. But as things stand at present that has not been done: the commission has the wide discretion conferred by rules w50 and w51.”
In other words, the commissioners would be disregarding the league’s suggestion and applying their discretion**.
**Breaking down 41 pages of written arguments behind Everton’s points deduction
Crucially, they still reached the same conclusion as the league: a 10-point penalty for an overspend of £19.5million, with their adjudication summarised in the final two pages of the report. None of this is likely to have been lost on Everton’s lawyers.
The Athletic has since been told the aforementioned sanction framework was only meant to be used for Everton’s case. It is understood no such league-wide sanction policy is in the pipeline at the moment and that such a change would need to be communicated to clubs formally and via the handbook. Everton were unaware of the league’s recommendation both at the time of their referral and approaching the pre-trial review in early October**.
**It is possible that one potential avenue in the appeal would be for Everton to look at the lack of a formulaic basis for any sanction, with arguments of proportionality stemming from there.
Either way, the absence of any direct precedent for such a breach has already proven problematic in this case. It may well do again as all parties gear up for the appeal**.
To the surprise of absolutely nobody.
Time will tell how Everton’s punishment will be looked at when we see how other clubs are treated for similar or worse breaches. But “Only to be used for Everton” is horrific wording to use.